HW 58-Parenting 102

Part 3:

Key points from Ms. Plaza:

• Lots of support is important
• Breast-feeding is important
• Parent-child relationships are dysfunctional, it's a one way relationship with the parent and the child's beck and call
• Father and mother figures are important even if they're not the biological parents
• Children inherit parents baggage
• It's perfect healthy if you don't have kids. It's better than forcing yourself to have them when you don't want them

Key points from Mr. Marks:

• Coaching approach of teaching is preferred (For him)
• Giving them a lot of structures and activities as a child gives kids a head start
• Strengthen your strengths when it comes to the child
• Unstructured play and natural learning is healthier but does not guarantee mainstream success. This is more common amongst the working and middle class

Key points from my dad:

• Protecting your child and making sure they're safe
• Teaching a good sense of morals
• Being civil minded and helpful
• Making sure the child is happy and innocent so they see the good in life (Optimism)
• Structure is important so that kids have a foundation to build off of
• Rules, kids like to follow rules

Analysis:

Out of the parents interviewed, the general consensus was that children need to be given free reign over their life, however they do need to be pushed in the right direction every now and then. Early childhood is unanimously important for both the parents and the child, as this is when the mother is at her weakest and the child their most malleable, so a strong structure must be provided to ensure that both parties survive and thrive.

In childhood though, a parent has to make sure that their own flaws do not come out in their child, as children carry their parents baggage but instead they should take the opportunity to strengthen theirs own strengths in the child so that they will perform even better. In addition, structure is important here, to establish that they will have a civilized child who will be able to adhere to society well. These statements and beliefs in raising children lead to the conclusion that these will lead to a continuing society as it currently stands.

Part 4:

Will Smith once released a song called Parents Just Don't Understand. In it he said the following: "You know parents are the same, no matter time nor place they just don't understand that us kids are going to make some mistakes. So to all you other kids across the land, there's no need to argue. Parents just don't understand." On that note, parents don't see things through the eyes of a child and they shouldn't. Parents often do understand, sorry Will, but they overlook the wants of the child to give them what they need. On this note, it turns out that the Rolling Stones were right, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need. That's what parents are here for, to give kids what they need to succeed and be happy.

HW 57-Parenting 101

*For the record, I would like to say, I may rant and/or run off topic during this assignment because parents are a big topic for me, going from how to parent to the ways that modern day parents are wrong.*

Parents are the mold for the future. They take the clay that is children and they shape it in whatever way they think is best in order to create what they hope is a work of art. However, in most cases a work of art is nowhere to be found and it is only after the clay break that something of value can be found. In short, parents are doing their job wrong.

Now, let me go on the record as saying I love kids. I had a great childhood and I always wanted a little sibling one day and to eventually get married and have kids of my own. As a result, I don't think that all parents are horrible. It just seems to me that parents these days forgot what it was like to be kids and treat their children too much like an investment or an ice sculpture.

Many parents in my experience interning at my former elementary school were widely unaware of their children's life outside of their care. It was almost as if they only remembered they even had kids when they could see them. For instance, parents were unaware of what class or afterschool program their kids were in nine out of ten times. Even upon seeing theire kids at the end of the day and picking them up, they rarely said "Hi sweety, how was your day?" but you always hear "Come on, we're going home. Get going". While this doesn't mean or suggest that the parents don't ask it later, it does display the need parents seem to have to be in control of the situation and try and live through their kids instead of with their kids as friends.

Another thing that parents seem to forget is that kids have energy. Kids like to run, to play. They enjoy running around. Instead, since their children are investments to them, they don't want it to leave their sight, they have to constantly observe every action and make sure that their is no risk. However, with all good investments, you turn the best profit when there is the greatest risk. By hovering over your kids to make sure they don't do so much as scrape their knee, the investment, aka the child, becomes unable to sustain itself. This type of parenting is called helicopter parenting, and it's despicable and leads to weaker and more insecure children who know of nothing without their parents.

Now this may sound biased, but I truly feel that in most cases my parents were ideal. They were always there for me when I needed them, but they knew when I was capable of watching myself and would even just let me run around in the neighborhood alone with my friends as long as I checked in every now and then. I feel like this balance of independence and guidance was crucial in stabilizing my core and making me self-sufficient. In addition to this, there was a relatively consistent routine in my household, however there was always room for change, making it somewhat flexible, giving me a sense of control and never allowing me to feel caged in. While I did afterschool and spent a lot of time away from home and "mommy and daddy's watch", my parents would come on school trips as chaperones to balance it out. Every element of my childhood that I feel was successful was created through a sense of balance, having a lenient and a strict parent, having independence but knowing limits and having a guide.

Maybe if parents could take their noses out of the latest parenting book and spend time with their kids they would acquire such a sense of balance, but until then they will complain about the very things they buy their own children when they could just say no.

Sorry for rambling, but parents need to get their act together.

HW 56- Interviews and Survey Question

Part 1:

Q1: How did you meet your best friend?

Q2: How long have you known your best friend?

Q3: Have you lost touch with any close friends?

Q4: How did you meet that friend?

Q5: How long were you friends?

Part 2:

Interview 1: Mr Z

Q1: High school chemistry class.

Q2: 10 years roughly.

Q3: Yes, totally.

Q4: High school as well, same class even.

Q5: 8 years.

Interview 2: My friend (17 year old boy)

Q1: From school.

Q2: 4 years.

Q3:Yes.

Q4: School as well, middle school though.

Q5: Three years roughly.

Interview 3: My friend (18 year old boy)

Q1: After school program at my elementary school. We both did something like dance or music, I can't really remember. We hated each other but then eventually we became best friends over the years.

Q2: Well, going with that same friend, almost 13 years now.

Q3: Yea, but not too many.

Q4: Sleepaway camp.

Q5: About a month, we lost touch pretty quick.

Part 3:

In most cases, people seem to group well with those that they went through a developmental period with. For example, with Mr. Z, his closest friends came from high school, a period of time in which most people are formulating their identity and becoming who they will be for the rest of their life. As a result, they may form very much into the same or similar people, and therefore get along better because it's more like talking to a slightly different version of themselves. For my friend who is 18, the bond formed from elementary school based after-school programs, a branch of the institution of school. Therefore, these interviews show that people forced into institutions at a developmental period form closer, long-lasting bonds.

Part 4:

Do institutions create closer bonds?

HW 55-

Part 1:

What separates friends and acquaintances and what makes them become the other?

Part 2:

Maggie- I think that while your question is good, you should make it slightly more narrow, possibly by focusing on either social or emotional instead of both. This would cut your work down in half. In addition, you can make the target range smaller, focusing on particular groups of people we see every day like co-workers, fellow students, etc.

Rachel- Rachel, I feel like you have a great jumping off point for a question, but you can make it much more specific, or at least focus on certain aspects of it. You could focus on personality tests, compatibility tests, and even shared interests and then focus on these shared aspects in relationships that have started online and offline, and see how important these were in the long term.

Part 3:

1. Zelinski, Ernie J.. "What Makes a Good Friend?". The Friendship Cafe. 5-13-2010 .

2. Manohar, Uttara. "What Makes a Good Friend?". Buzzle.com. 5-13-2010 .

HW 54-

Part 1:

I find the results of this test to be relatively useless on their own. Granted, it's a nice insight into ones being, but without a written analysis of one self or more in depth response, the results just kind of sit there, momentarily making you think before you forget them to go check your facebook.

That being said, after reviewing a more thorough analysis of what these traits say about ourselves in class, I think that a level of self analysis can be accomplished in which one looks inward and understands their actions better. However, since this is based on our answers about what we think , the legitimacy of the answers can be questioned, but then we can also learn to see ourselves more accurately if compared with a test that reveals or actual actions and thoughts on these courses of events.

Part 2:

The test seems to be pretty reliable in most cases. While some people in class did disagree with their results, most people in the class would then agree with the results, showing that they are in fact quite valid. With my own results, upon reviewing what they said about me in detail, I would agree that this test is mostly accurate. The thing is, it is largely debatable because people might say that they would act one way and then act another. Also, a person might not find their results reliable because they don't like to look at themselves that way. These are simple problems that may arise very easily, however through these problems may also arise a better understanding of ones actual place in the world and how one acts. Overall, it is like a significantly more accurate horoscope, it could turn out to be total baloney but at the same time it can actually be relevant and lead to a certain path.

HW 53- Survey Analysis

Part 1:

Done

Part 2:

Taking the survey made me feel very good about myself and my home life. For a lot of the early questions I was able to answer in the more positive columns, which made me realize that even with various aspects of my life at difficult points, I still had developed healthy enough relationships with my parents and had grown to accept them well enough that I could be completely open with them and them with me and still feel comfortable. This held true with my friends as well, since I've had the same close friends for the majority of my life and they are the people I trust the most in my life. However with certain categories, such as the partnering questions, I took a second to stop and think not about the questions and my answers, but rather what this meant about me. Was I behind the curve? Ahead of it? It put me in a position where I stopped and thought about what these answers meant about me and if those answers made me happy. This was section made me question myself more than others because of what it reflected, but I was still happy and pleased that I was able to honestly provide the answers that I did because it showed that I had done right by my standards of living.

Part 3:

In terms of patterns, I noticed that for the last section, self, people tended to pick the "safe answers". By this I mean that on questions that were supposed to be deep and explore the inner sections of the minds, people went with the answer that society most commonly dictates. For instance, 45 out of 52 people said that they do not make others feel bad to make themselves feel good, when in fact I know this to be untrue, because I have witnessed it myself as people are unnecessarily rude and disrespectful of others for no reason and then they smile and/or look happy about themselves. While not necessarily a conscious decision at all times, it is something that people do sometimes without realizing it. However, since the safe answer is no, they say no, because they don't think about the times they have done so. This is societal pressure at it's strongest, where they don't answer truly honestly but don't even realize it, because society has conditioned them to think as society has told them, which is that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's woes.

Part 4:

Using the first article as a comparison, our school is perfectly in line with the city average for having sex in high school, with 50% of our grade answering in the more affirmative categories on sexual encounters. However, in contrast to this, under 50% use protection of some sort, and 19 people requested not to answer at all. While this could be in reference to not having sexual experiences, even if every single on of those votes went to the 14 kids who said they had no sexual encounters, there would still be leftover vote that said they didn't wish to answer, which could mean they don't use protection and are too ashamed to admit so. Using the second article as a comparison, our school also fell mostly in line with the averages. However, our school seemed to be below the curve in eating disorders. This can most likely be attributed to New York, while not perfect, being one of the healthier and more active cities in America. The way this study was conducted differentiated from ours though, as people had to write their answers out on paper, and it was scanned. This may have caused certain differences to arise based on subconscious concerns over somebody recognizing their hand-writing or something similar.

HW 52- Initial Theories of Human Relationships

Initial Theories on:

Love: People fall in love for many reasons, or so they say. However, in reality this can largely break down to one reason that spreads to encompass many different types of relations. Nobody wants to be alone. The younger a person is, the more subconscious this reason is, however it is still present. Starting in middle school, crushes evolve from spending time with a person and seeing that you get along with them and enjoy being in their company. For the crushes people have on people they don't really know, they are often caused from seeing a person often with others and in a good or happy mood. While there are exceptions, these exceptions, such as having a crush on the quite kid, always stem from a sense of affinity for a person, which then relates back to belonging. From here, they evolve to high school "relationships" where people test the waters and try and see how well they can get along with an individual. However, standards in high school are often incredibly high to the point where the likelihood of success decreases significantly. Then comes college, where people either choose to dismiss the pursuit of permanent partners for the easier conquest of the temporary. The likelihood of those actually pursuing a permanent partner increase here, as people begin to grasp a better understanding of themselves and reasonable standards. After college, people grow and the rate of people falling in love increases as people get older for the rest of their lives, since there are less and less people to choose from as alternatives. However, as time passes standards lower and acceptance rates climb, to the point where people will fall in love with somebody as long as they get along.

This however is just a theory, and I'm not wholly sure of it myself, but it does make a large bit of sense to me. There is a lot of evidence to people choosing out of necessity for belonging rather than affinity (Although that does make the ability

to belong much stronger). Take for instance, The Walking Dead.

As this image shows, given a smaller selection, people may (Not definite, as it's impossible to truly prove this) just settle for anything, even if they don't truly know one another or connect. As time goes on, these two characters do fall in love, but does this love come from affinity or desperation for companionship? Are they the same?

Family: In many ways, family is just love taken to the next degree. If love is "I don't want to be alone", then family in many ways is "If you die and I'm alone, I have back-ups that are similar to us". This is a continuation of love obviously, but it also expands to not wanting to be forgotten, to having contributed to the world. You want people to see your family, specifically somebody you were instrumental in developing, and go "Hey, _____ raised you and made you who you are today". That is something that outlasts you and everything they do will be because of you. As this is extended, grandparents get credit for the actions of their grandkids, aunts and uncles to nephews and nieces, and so on. However, the further the connection, the less the credit, hence the urge for people to have a family of their own. "Their own", as in they own it and it's representative of them. In addition, family can help you feel better about yourself. If somebody gets fired from work or has a rough day, at the end of it all they can just say "Well, I have a wife and a kid, that's something." Family becomes a possession to them and an award of sorts, to show off. Plus, family is there to make you feel better, so after that long day that person's kid can show them the A they got on a test and their spouse can give them a home-cooked meal and console them. Does this mean that they are being selfish in having a family? Wouldn't it be selfless since they have to give to their family in order to make them happy? Are hermit's and single people with no relatives selfless then even though they give more to themselves directly?

Friends: Friendships form from many of the same origins as love and family relationships. Friends are essentially a more quantitative and often less qualitative form of love relationships. People make friends based on the affinity between them in most cases. That's why people take roommate surveys when getting ready for college, so that they may be placed with people that they are more likely to be friends with and so they have a common starting point to jump off of. However, in many situations, friends represent who, what, and where a person may want to be. If somebody knows that somebody is an actor for instance, they may be envious and try to use them as a jumping off point to their own success. Not every instance is like such, but the better the knowledge you gain from somebody before bonding with them the more likely that the relationship has some form of somebody using another for their own gain.

Roles: People form roles in relationships to try and capture a greater sense of belonging. These roles serve the purpose of artificial affinity in many ways. For instance, if somebody decides to take on the role of the "jock" amongst their friends, since there is already a "nerd" or a "player". These roles typically fall in line with a person's individual personality, however often times people will throw away their personality and identity when they have a severe need for belonging. This is when people are being "fake", another role one can fulfill, however being "fake" is a role nobody wants to fill. These roles form a connection within a group as every role serves an individual purpose and accomplishes different feats. That is why a group with all geek is not very well formed, as they will not have a jock to defend them of to keep them socially relevant. These roles are not always open for the taking, and even if so, not everybody can fit every role. Personality ties in as well, and this is when people develop feelings of inadequacy, as they do not belong because they naturally fill out the wrong roles within their groups.

Genders: People take on gender roles or fight gender roles largely for one reason; to make life easier. If one is to simply accept the gender role of say, a woman, then their life is simple, they only have to worry about maintaining that role, and to do so simply means staying on the path you have set yourself on. Cooking, cleaning, doing what your man says, it's simple. To fight a role is also simple, because you just don't do what the role entails. If you're a man and you don't want to follow your gender role than you don't drink beer, you don't play football, and so on. Making life simple can then make life easier and make you more likely to achieve other goals in life, by having set aside others by accepting the role.

However, the reasons that others force these roles upon others stems from many different origins. While some may do it to make things simpler, you can expect people to fulfill their role and that role is so imbedded in you by society that you don't have to worry about keeping track of things. Another reason people form gender expectations and force them upon others is because of their upbringing. If somebody grew up in an environment where the men brought home the money and the women cooked the food, they expect the same from others, since to them it's normal. They can then force these upon others without even realizing it, causing friction and stereotypes to evolve.

Races: Racism is people trying to group people together in larger collective instead of getting to know them on a personal level. These groupings are formed most frequently by race because it's a very superficial quality that is easily determined and then from there conclusions can be formed. Based on somebody of light skin criticizing one with darker skin, conclusions such as them being dirty or poor or un-pure are often the first to be made. These however also serve to cover up ones own insecurities and curiosities of race, as they show their limited knowledge and serve as an invitation for correction and learning. As a result, racism serves in many ways as a child pleading for help but afraid to say the word. They want to know more and they want help, but they are afraid that they will look weak if they ask for such.

Criminals:

Extra Credit Opportunity- The Class

Insert Here

HW 49-

Savior/Teacher Film Analysis

In our group project, I had the job of back-up director. During the first few days of filming that essentially meant that I did nothing, as I would only work when our director was unavailable. On the 16th though, our director no longer wished to direct so I stepped-in as director. We did one day of filming under my direction and then eventually did not finish the film, as certain key actors were unavailable when needed. Therefore, the rest of this post will be in reference to the film made by class 1.

In class 1's film, the teacher, played by Will C., is sitting at his desk drinking (What I assume to be alcohol) after a long day of teaching. From here the film flashes back to a past class, where Will is attempting to teach the class about literary techniques used by famous writers. However, the class is not really responding particularly well to his lesson and is largely brushing him off, while being disruptive. Despite this, Will seemed to be enjoying himself overall and was functioning as a happy, if ineffective teacher. The next day, he has had enough and no longer has the drive to teach the class, although he has it in him to personally critique nearly everybody in the class, analyzing them and pointing out their flaws, after which he leaves. Upon his departure, the classroom antics return to normal and everybody proves to be as unaffected by his teachings as always.

The message of this film seems to be that students need to be more well-rounded and open to new ideas. This is supported by the ending of the film, in which Will points out to Devin that all he knows is school and nothing else and calls this pathetic, implying that focusing too much on school is a bad thing. He further supports this with his next interaction, with the so-called "Gossip Girls", who are talking about social things, and he then says that this is all they will ever know, and that's it for them, implying that they are not well-rounded either, just in the other direction. The tone of the film completed this nicely, as it was portrayed as very subdued, which highlighted the students reaction to Wills teachings (They being ineffective). This subdued tone stayed constant throughout the film and showed how his efforts meant nothing in the long run.

This film had a lot in common with many of the savior/teacher films that we have watched in the past months. First among the similarities are the supporting characters, the class. The most notable among them would be the rebellious youth/leader of the class. Next would be the straight-A student and also the group of chatty girls unaware of everything going on. All of these students can be found in other films, including but not limited to Freedom Writers, Stand and Deliver, and Hamlet 2. In addition, the teachers in many of these films tells the kids that they need to fix something about themselves to become a better person (Not directly, but implied), and Will as teacher does the same thing. However, it is the way that this is done that allows this film to differentiate itself from the others we have seen before. In the films we saw in class, the teachers would make revelatory statements that define a student and the student becomes a better person as a result. This was normally through a course of self discovery though, when the bad habits they need to change have caught up with them and they decide to try something new instead. In the film by class 1, the students bad habits have not caught up with them yet and as a result when Will tells them what their problem is, they don't fully accept it because they haven't experienced first hand what the consequences of continuing their course or action will be. The film by class 1 is also different in that he outright fails the class. Despite his best efforts, the class brushes him off and acts as if nothing had happened, where all of the other films at least had the students change their ways in one form or another. This film had the teacher fail, not the students.

The reason that everybody sees salvation in the movies and never in the real world is really very simple. Everybody wants to be in the position to save somebody, nobody wants to have to be saved. Granted, this is an overall encompassing statement and there will be exceptions, but overall, nobody wants to be the damsel in distress. When you require a savior though, you place yourself in the place of the damsel in distress. Since this is the case, whenever people ARE put into a situation where they need to be saved, they are too stubborn to admit it and deny the help of the savior. This is shown by class 1's film, where everybody finds out something very important about their character and yet they complete ignore it because they are too stubborn to accept help. Those who are able to suck in their pride and accept they need to be saved are the students who change their lives dramatically, however this is rare and much more complicated than that. However I feel that in order for schooling and education to be truly revolutionized, it's the people and not the system that need to change.

HW 51- Topic of Interest Paper

School as Salvation Paper

HW 50

Gatto- Gatto's "teachings" are broken down into 6 lessons. These six lessons are taught by teachers around the world and he feels that in actuality, these six lessons are hypocritical and develop what he calls the "permanent underclass". These six lessons in execution do not allow students to learn, but instead they train obedience and roles in society, essentially causing a "good student" to lose their individuality and conform to the structure that has been laid out for them. These students cannot possibly learn anything except how to fit their role in consumerist society.

Gatto seems to think that the solution to this is homeschooling, to which I disagree. The problem with homeschooling in line with Gatto's beliefs is that it is simply progressing the same lessons under a more personalized and potentially more (Or less) restricting institution. If somebody home-schools their children, odds are pretty good that they went to an institutionalized school. Therefore they will teach based on how they were taught and progress the institutionalized teaching under a different, more trusting banner. Even if the person teaching from home was a product of homeschooling themselves, they will base their teaching on how they were taught (Which could be traced back to institutionalized teaching at a certain point) or on how they "think" they should teach, which would be partially based on books written by people who are a product of the institution. As a result, I feel like homeschooling is in fact worse than institutionalized schooling because it lies to the student to get them to hope they will be learning "freely". Freedom when learning is a lie.

Freire- Freire proposes that teachers are depositing knowledge into students, forming the banking approach. This approach implies that with the more knowledge a student accepts into their mind, the less they will critically think about the information. This makes the students more subdued and accepting on the world around them and more likely to become followers, discouraging independence and leadership. They become people who are more likely top want to work for the world around them then try to change things and work their way up, becoming employees instead of employers.

I disagree with this model of teaching quite heavily. The ability to thoroughly analyze a certain material and gain deeper knowledge from it is something I find very important, because it avoids exactly what is being taught here, and that is the spoon-fed approach. People taught this method of learning will learn nothing but how to fulfill a role somebody else laid out for them, effectively trapping themselves in a single role for eternity. Not only that, but this contradicts everything that human nature has indicated, and that is the urge to evolve and demand more than what is offered. Looking back on history, were people to merely accept the knowledge and roles handed down to them by those in higher position, the United States would still be a British colony, Australia would be a jail, and black people would still be slaves (And that's just concerning modern history). Freire's approach to teaching is both unnatural and immoral.

Delpit- Delpits teachings seem to focus on the difference between cultures and how this affects the way they are taught. For instance, black students statistically perform lower than white students. This is often due to the economic situation of the family in question. For instance, a poor black family having students with lower success rates than rich white students. However, all students, black and white, need to be assisted to truly understand the system of power. For the poor students and/or black students though, this must be done with the assistance of parents and teachers in order to choose what type of instructor would be the best for the student.

I largely agree with most of Delpit proposes and suggests. For one, I agree that students should be taught by somebody in the same situation as them. This goes back to being able to trust, like, and relate to a person. Typically, people identify with people who have similar connections with them, such as a shared event or a similar background. Therefore, if somebody is poor and black, have the teacher be black and formerly poor, to show where they can get. I don't think that this necessarily has to affect how they are taught, but I can understand why it does in some ways. The quality of the education should never be in question though, it should simply be the techniques and the route taken to gather such knowledge.

Mr. Fanning- Fannings teachings focus mainly on giving back to the students after a life of taking. As a result, he wants to genuinely give the students an education. Ideally, students will learn to learn for life under his guidance and will all go off to college, as he feels it is a crucial step in education, for scholarly and social reasons. In order to accomplish this set of goals, Fanning is a "ball buster" and will in fact stop students from making the same mistakes he made in his youth. He feels like New York City students grow up too fast, that they need to take a step back and learn to be a kid. In regards to his model of school, he feels that they need to progress from the old factory model of making clones to making individuals. To do this, he plans on focusing on creative learning and away from textbook and lecture-based study.

Fanning seems to believe that schooling comes not from a book, but rather a series of books in a way. Learning should be constant and interactive, and with this I agree. If everybody stopped learning after school ended the world wouldn't evolve, it would simply stay in the same state. So on this front I agree with Mr. Fanning in that people need to learn how to learn for life, if for nothing else but the evolution of ones identity and society. In fact, I agree with everything Mr. Fanning said, but for different reasons. For one, being a "ball buster" keeps kids in line (Hopefully) and if nothing else shows what a better path would be, allowing students to see more choices. In addition to this, people don't always know or do what is in their best interest, so you need a "ball buster" to keep an eye out for trouble and lead them to a better life.

HW 48- Treatment for Savior/Teacher Movie

My Savior/Teacher Movie Short Film Treatments

*Note: There are two different directions I would like to take this in, and I am unsure which I prefer so the scenes will differ and be indicated as either version A or version B when necessary*

1. Low, steady shot of students feet, lots of commotion and talking, erratic but not violent. Mid-shot of students walking around, lots of people coming and going. Follow a student over their shoulder, show them saying hi to people, show everybody's faces and the school through their eyes. Continue this shot until they walk into the classroom and see the student, at which point camera comes off the student and circles around to show the classroom and the history teacher closing the door. Switch camera to the hallway with everybody closing their doors and class beginning.

2. Scene begins with the class being introduced to the history teacher, who immediately proposes that he will change all of their lives and they will never see the world the same way again. Multiple close-up shots follow, focusing on the various students in the class reacting to the news, very brief, under a second a piece. The history teacher continues to tell the class about how what they see if a facade and they have already been sorted into their own categories and placed in boxes, trapping them and setting them on a path they think they chose but didn't. Have one of the students, alpha-dog or nerd, question why if they are being placed in boxes, why they are being taught in another box. History teacher responds, who said I'm going to teach you anything? I'm here to learn.

3.a Class ends, with an indication of time passing, ring a bell, mid-shot of the hall again, with commotion and mayhem, everybody running to class but going upstairs, class begins. Follow the same group of students to another class, indicating that the focus is on them. Begin class with new teacher, unsure of how to begin and fumbling about. The science teacher introduces themselves and that they have a lot of learning to do and that it'll be as fun as they make it. One of the students, the same one who had questioned the history teacher, asks the science teacher if they are there to learn, to which the science teacher tells the class they are done learning and are here to teach now. The student replies with a sarcastic remark, indicating that they got stuck in a lame box. Science teacher looks confused.

3.b Class ends, with an indication of time passing, ring a bell, mid-shot of the hall again, with commotion and mayhem, everybody running to class again, doors slamming, class begins. A new group of students is now in the room, completely different than the prior group. The history teacher gives the same speech about boxes, but realizes that this class isn't responding very well to it and is uninterested, so the history teacher asks them why they chose to be there and what they expect. Answers vary from being forced to to being genuinely interested in changing the way they see things, but not the way the history teacher has described it so far. History teacher tells them that they have to ask the right question first, so a student asks why. The history teacher says that is the right question.

4.a Class ends, with an indication of time passing, ring a bell, mid-shot of the hall again, this time following the students through a longer hall back downstairs. Class begins and half of the students from the previous classes are there. The english teacher introduces themselves and acts in a very droll, monotonous manner. The students slowly start to drip to sleep and drift away, attention waning. The teacher asks why everybody is so tired, it's the first day they should have been there ready to learn. The same student as before questions the teacher, who says we're here to learn?

4.b Class ends, with an indication of time passing, ring a bell, mid-shot of the hall again. A new class walks in and the history teacher begins yet another class, introducing themselves and giving the same speech as the first class. The students here all have there notebooks out and are observing everything the teacher does, taking notes studiously. The history teacher points out how nice it is to have such competence on the first day of school and notes how they all have the potential to break free of this habit. One of the students questions the history teacher on this, asking what they mean. The teacher tells them that they have been programmed to act like this, and they all happened to have good programmers, which has led them to where they are. One of the students follows this, asking why this is a bad thing, to which the history teacher replies, because it's depriving you of independence.

HW 47- Class Film Preparation 1

1. The teacher is wrong. -The teacher in all of the movies we have seen in class is always right, their way of teaching is the way it should be. Well, what if it wasn't? What if the teacher was wrong? What if both the teacher and the system were wrong?

2. Forced "F"'s. -We have talked about this in class, but none of the movies have shown this. So what happens when a teacher is forced to flunk certain students to fill a quota or keep their job?

3. The system does work. -Why is it always that every student is failing under the school system and then they miraculously pass with the new teaching system? What about the students that work best under a system like "the system"? I think it would be interesting to show how the system has it's place or how certain students need that in order to succeed.

4. How much of their situation is actually the kids fault? -For this, I imagine that it would be like somebody who gets impacted greatly by something completely outside of their control and suffers academically because of it. Like, what if somebody's dad got hit by a car? Then they might have to work or they couldn't afford the hospital bills, which would affect their academics. How would that play out?

5. The teacher learns a lesson from the kids. -What would happen if Michelle Pfeiffer had entered the classroom expected a bunch of ghetto black kids and started talking to them like such but they ended up being much smarter than she expected? How about if she expected them to succeed but realized her methods weren't working so she instead has to learn what the kids have gone through and doesn't teach them as much?

6. Where in the world are all of these anyways? -I know we can't do this due to budgetary constraints, but what if the school were in Nebraska? How would that compare to the same story in Chicago? How much does the environment affect the story and learning for the students?

7. More than one class. -Seriously, the fact that in each one of these films there is only one class makes sense. I understand, there would simply be too much to focus on otherwise. But then it's like they don't teach anybody else and the students don't learn from anybody else. Every school obviously has more going on than this so why not show it? Show four classes and then just focus on a smaller cast of students per class. If this is a problem, decrease class size so it seems like a more specialized school.

8. Follow the students home. -Every one of the movies we watched in class were about the teacher. Fair enough, writers forgot what it's like to be kids I guess. But with ours, it's written by kids. So why not follow the kids home, or if not home, show more of them outside of the school than the teacher outside of school. Make the students the focus, not the teacher.

9. Parents do care. -Not every child with bad grades comes from a broken home. Yet Hollywood clearly thinks so, because that's the only way that their minds can comprehend people doing poorly, blame the parents. Well, what if the parents are great, the school is great, but the friends cause the downfall? Where would that lay in terms of importance on a students academic performance?

10. Where do they go? -With the revelations the teacher lays down for the students, where do they go in life? Can we get a like "Ten years later..." and show a reunion with everybody in a new place in life, to show where these brilliant teachings take the students? I think this is a make or break for the entire premise of these movies, which is why they largely fail.

HW 46- Research and Writing

Democratic Social Education

Social Studies for Social Change

Democratic Social Education is a text that discusses the

HW 45- More Big Thoughts on School

HW 43- Journaling about School

My first memory of school comes from way back when I was in pre-school. I was in pre-school and it was nap time andeverybody was sleeping. I of course wasn't, but it was because I needed my blanket from my backpack. So I climbed over everybody sleeping and onto a table near the cubbies to get my bag and my blanket, and after I got it, I went to climb down but I fell and broke my arm. Everybody freaked out and I went to the hospital and got patched-up, and 5 weeks later I was all healed up. While not as scholarly relevant as other events, it has always stood out as one of my strongest and earliest memories.
My first memories of elementary school are pretty vague for the most part. I can imagine going around iin the circle and sharing and I can somewhat remember some of the first writing activities we had, but these can also be simply re-imaginings I can assume based on scenary and such. However, I do remember that I felt very alone for a lot of kindergarden. I wasn't very popular and a lot of the kids bugged me. In fact, in kindergarden I bit this one boy, Miles, and I had to be taken out of class and placed in another class for a short period of time (Under and hour I believe). I felt even more alone in this other room, but I knew to act better afterwards.
First and second grade had plenty of vivid memories, some of them beginning to include actual classwork instead of just playing like before. In first grade I remember being transfered from one class to another, from one that awas average to a "TAG" (Talented and Gifted) class. This new class was much better and I met one of my best friends in this class. However, this year was also one of my least favorite, because my teacher did not like me. I didn't liek her either, and every day I would go to the bathroom for long amounts of time whenever we had English class because I didn't like it very much. However in second grade, I really started to like school and I made more great friends that I still have today. In this class, I remember learning a lot through hands on activities and taking trips around the city to the many museums and landmarks that could be found. First grade did not feel as isolating as kindergarden, but I felt very upset about learning because the teacher didn't treat me as well as she did the others (Even the kid that would put boogers on everything got treated better than I did). Second grade was when I really started to like school though, but there is something to note. My teacher took special interest in me that my first grade teacher did not. She would bring in my parents from time to time if something happened and even kept contact outside of conferences to help my learning. Through this, I began taking a medication that helped to calm me down and allowed me to concentrate better than I had before. This eneded up being incredibly helpful for me up until 8th grade when I finally stopped taking the medication, as I had gained enough control over myself that I didn't need it anymore.
In third and forth grade I had the same teacher, as she took my class and continued for an extra year with us, which she called "leaping". In these two years I ended up with mostly the same class and I learned a lot in math and I began to take science. I also learned a lot about the world in these two years, thanks to what our teacher taught us and the events of 9-11. I learned a lot about mortality and the bad things people can do and how things aren't always fair. This made me feel a little afraid but I was hopeful that things would be okay since things seemed to be okay at the time to me. Overall these were important lessons that stuck with me for the rest of my developemental years and still do.

HW 42- Significance

Should high school curriculum be flexible? Should the students be able to adjust their classes to learn what they are interested instead of what the system says? Should teachers gear their classes towards their students interests?

Personally I feel this is crucial to every student but that is besides the point. I am interested in this specifically because I personally feel like much of what I am learning is not very important to what I want to do in life. Take for instance math, which is teaching things about polar coordinates and derivatives. Regardless of personal interest, neither of these are particularly relevant to what I want to do in life, which is to either be a writer or an artist (Painting or drawing). Now, while math might not be a class that be flexed to my interests, it should be replaceable with another course based on interest, and be a non-mandatory class. S.O.F. in particular is one of very few schools to require it, but schools in California only require two years of Math, while New York requires three. I feel it is largely irrelevant at this point and we shouldn't have to take it.

In terms of society, much of what we learn in high school is also irrelevant. A large percentage of jobs do not require knowledge of projectile motion or derivatives. So why do we learn it? I feel that making students learn these things is like trying to breed us towards a specific path, which makes me feel controlled and bottled up, unable to be myself. While this feeling is minor for myself, I know many people feel this same sensation on a larger scale so why does the school system force this? Do they really need everybody to be an automaton to their demands?

Will be finished as soon as possible, sorry for the delay, my computer broke and the home desktop does not work for editing existing posts or linking.

HW 41- Initial Internet Research on Schooling

This link provides you with the minimum requirements for high school completion in the state of California. The courses include 3 years English and Social Studies, 2 years of Math, Science, and Phys. Ed., and 1 year Foreign Language OR Arts (Visual or Performing). What I found interesting to take away from this is that is that there is so much room in the schedule to throw in additional courses like electives, and that there are so many more free periods. Like for example, they only take two years of math and science, so for two years they have free time or elective. This is a good thing depending on how it's done, because if it's taught well that means that the students can learn what the system tells them too and still have time to learn what they are interested in, but if done poorly it could rob the students of a full education.

"State Minimum Course Requirements". California Department of Education. February 22, 2010 .

This link provides information on the North Carolina Language Arts program in Grades 9-12. Essentially the North Carolina school system acts much as the New York system in Language Arts, however it appears to have a greater emphasis on grammar, at least in comparison with School of the Future. Where School of the Future has little to no teachings in this area North Carolina (supposedly) has teachings on how to use the many forms of language grammatically for effect.

Applebee, Arthur. "Standard Course Study Grades 9-12". NCPublicSchools.org. February 22, 2010 .

This link discusses course changes that North Carolina wishes to make soon, specifically in the subject of History. The school system wishes to eliminate World History form the curriculum so that it may replace it with Global Studies. The main concerns with these changes is if the students taking AP courses will have to take twice as many courses if the state changes the standards, which I find odd because if that were the case they could simple adjust the AP curriculum along with the normal in order for everything to line up properly.

Streich, Michael. "North Carolina Changes in HS History Standards ". Suite101.org. February 22, 2010 .

Will be finished as soon as possible, sorry for the delay, my computer broke and the home desktop does not work for editing existing posts or linking.

HW 40- School Interviews x5 & Synthesis

Part A

Interview 1- Marco

How do you think school would be affected if you could choose your own curriculum from anything you wanted to learn?

Some people would be responsible and choose things that would help them later in life and others would choose to learn things that may not be as important. It all depends on the student.

Would it be beneficial in the long run?

Yes and no. The responsible people will spend more time on what they actually want to learn and will have higher quality learning. The less responsible people won't have the knowledge they need to have a good career.

If you were a teacher, how do you think you would incorporate the interests of the students into the structure of the class and the curriculum?

I would connect whatever those students were interested in to the subject I was teaching to the best of my abilities.

Would you teach something new that the students wanted to learn or stop teaching one of the things you were teaching if they were uninterested?

It all depends because if they aren't interested in something they need to understand to learn something else you can't skip it or they won't learn those other things correctly, which could include what they initially wanted to learn.

Would you teach something they wanted to learn but you felt wasn't as necessary as something else you had already planned that they wouldn't be as interested in?

They should learn the fundamentals first and then use that knowledge to fully understand anything else they want to learn.

How do you feel success in school is reflected in later success in adulthood?

They are proportional in most cases, success in school is equal to success in life. However in cases where somebody is an athlete or an artist of some form they don't have the same relationship. While we see these cases more often than we see businessmen thanks to the media, there are in fact more business men and lawyers and such, all of which succeed based on their performance in school.

Would you say that school is worth all the time and effort required to succeed in it?

Yes.

Interview 2- Sylvia

How do you think school would be affected if you could choose your own curriculum from anything you wanted to learn?

Well I guess the school would have to restructure its budget in order to accommodate the many different classes that different students would want, not to mention that many teachers would have to be trained in those many different fields and more teachers would possibly have to be hired.

How about from a students standpoint?

I think it depends on the student. I'm sure that many people would be able to choose the classes they were truly interested in and therefore would pay more attention and do better in that class because they wouldn't be bored with it or annoyed. I do think that some people would choose classes that wouldn't really contribute to knowledge that would be needed later on in order to succeed and some might take easier classes just because they were lazy therefore lowering their chances of success later on.

If you were a teacher, how do you think you would incorporate the interests of the students into the structure of the class and it's curriculum?

I guess, because if you're not interested in learning something you are more likely to slack off, fool around, not pay attention, day dream, etc. Making it more fun might boost grades and participation.

Would you teach them something they wanted to learn if you felt it wasn't necessary?

If it was a short unit, sure, but if it would take away from time spent on something actually important, then no.

How do you feel success in school is reflected in later success in adulthood?

Well those who can support themselves and are able to do so whether they be freelancers, marketers, businesspeople, artists, or whatever they may be are often the ones that did well in school. However there are a few underdogs who can succeed later on despite the fact they did not do well in school.

Overall, would you say that all the effort people put into school is worth it to succeed?

Well it depends on what you're aiming for. Sometimes you just need talent to succeed instead of acquired knowledge. Artists rarely use english/math/science to create their works, others do very well in school but end up as cashiers where they don't need anything they learned. Others that wants to get into fields such as physics or teaching need to do well in order to ensure they can stand up to the requirements of their future jobs.

Interview 3- Hayley

How do you think school would be affected if you could choose your own curriculum from anything you wanted to learn?

I would not be in favor of having people replace educational institutions because that's what they're there for. The technique for education has been built up for hundreds of years. To make these education institutions better, we should perhaps revert to the Greek times when music and art were just as important as math, science, english, and social studies. Now music and art are not as important as a foreign language, which is something that should really be looked at critically.

What if the institution remained but instead of choosing from a set list of courses, the student body determined what the classes would be?

I would fervently disagree with this because I usually clash with the ideals, opinions, and values of fellow classmates and a large sector of my generation.

Do you think this would be beneficial for everybody involved?

It would be another popularity contest of what teens enjoy to learn, so it would probably be on the echelon of what people regard as interesting and "cool" and my stance on such things always differs greatly.

Would it be beneficial though? Would this ultimately be a good way for schools to operate and for students to learn?

No.

If you were a teacher, how do you think you would incorporate the interests of the students into the structure of the class and the curriculum?

Depending on who the students are I would try to incorporate more or less of their interests into the curriculum. The younger the children, the more ignorant. I would give more leeway to the older students.

Would you teach something that they had great interest in if you felt it was not fully necessary to learn?

Maybe, depending on if it would open doors for a subject I was trying to teach.

How do you feel success in school is reflected in later success in adulthood?

Some adults were never the scholarly types and transitioned into the workforce just fine. Some students are better suited for academics and others for more creative work. School doesn't define a person, but initiative one's life does.

So you would say that the two are not directly related?

Yes and no. School sets certain foundations for particular occupations, but in others not. A high school education is necessary for ignorance to not be abundant.

Would you say that all the effort put into school is worth the rewards it brings?

For some people, yes, and some people no. Overall, I view a certain level, as I said to High School level to be necessary for future life. However, the social abuse and learning disabilities that some children have to deal with on a regular basis makes school more depressing but it's still beneficial. It is rewarding to do well in classes and have an academic future and high school sets the grounds for collegiate life. For some persons, effort is not entirely met with rewards though.

Interview 4- Dad

How do you think school would be affected if you could choose your own curriculum from anything you wanted to learn?

If kids got to pick whatever classes they wanted, who would be the professors? I mean, how do you get professors for that, there would be a million professors. If kids were allowed to pick whatever they wanted somebody would have to group them up and see if they were viable subjects, everybody can't just pick whatever they want because it wouldn't be economically feasible. That would be the main thing. I wouldn't be so worried about kids not picking the right things because some kids would be smart about it and would take the required classes because they know they need them. Then you have the kids that want take skateboard class. My basic concern is you wouldn't be able to do it economically.

Do you think the students the students would benefit from this?

Yes and no because they would be more interested but they also might not get the required knowledge they need in life. It's good though because it would teach them discipline, but ultimately somebody needs to be in charge otherwise nobody will benefit and it will be chaotic. So even if they can do that somebody needs to coordinate it all and be in charge.

If you were a teacher, how do you think you would incorporate the interests of the students into the structure of the class and the curriculum?

I would ask kids what they want to learn depending on what I'm teaching. I would ask for input at the beginning of the semester and I would try to get a general knowledge of what my class is like and see what my students like and don't like so I could teach them better.

Would you teach something they liked that they wouldn't really need?

I would teach them anything they were interested in because if they are interested then they will want to learn it. If they want to learn it, it would be like them taking initiative towards something, and it would be my responsibility to teach them these things, because how could you not teach somebody who wants to learn?

How do you feel success in school is reflected in later success in adulthood?

You can't really relate one to the other. Success in school does help, because it teaches you discipline and how to act in a group environment with other people but it doesn't really relate to your adult life unless you are going to a specialty school where you get to pick the things you want to do. Then if you are successful at them they will help you later on. A lot of people who did really good in school didn't do well in life, they needed to find their way later. All it does is help you get to the next level in life but it doesn't translate over to success unless you are a by the book person and go into a field that is approached much like school.

Do you think school is worth all the effort?

Definitely. If it wasn't for school people would be lost.

Interview 5- Constanza

How do you think school would be affected if you could choose your own curriculum from anything you wanted to learn?

Much more interesting and much less stressful because I wouldn't have to take subjects that I am not, and never will be good at. Subjects I will never be interested in pursuing after graduation.

Do you think that this would be ultimately beneficial?

Yes, but I don't think it would be beneficial starting from freshman year. In the U.K. system kids in the equivalent of eleventh grade can choose their own subjects and focus in on those for final exams. This leads to greater focus in university instead of having to take a lot of pointless entry level classes in every subject, like we do here. So yeah, in terms of motivating kids to learn what they want to learn after a certain point, it would be beneficial.

If you were a teacher, how do you think you would incorporate the interests of the students into the structure of the class and the curriculum?

I would try and listen to suggestions from the students as to what type of projects they enjoy, and then try and make lessons more interesting and less sterile, if the school gave me the leeway to do so.

Would you teach less relevant things that you knew they were more interested in?

Not if it interfered with the required curriculum

How do you feel success in school is reflected in later success in adulthood?

It's not (Laughs).

(Laughs). Elaborate please.

Look at the president of the United States. Elaborate more? (Laughs). Well, depending on your personal circumstances, it may or may not matter. If you drop out of school to be a rapper, you may or may not make it big. Also, what determines success? Success to one person might mean having a corporate job, a mansion, and a million dollars in the bank, and success to another might be doing work that they love for little pay or recognition. School could have everything to do with whether or not you get a job as a big shot lawyer, or nothing to do with pursuing a profession that you truly love to do. People have built businesses from the ground up with little education, What's stopping other people from trying? School is a safety net, something to fall back on. it's good to have degrees if you're going after something that basically requires one, or if you need other job options.

Would you say that school is ultimately worth all the effort that goes into it?

I don't know yet, because I'm not out of school. but for the sake of my sanity, I'm going to have to say yes, because I dont want to think that I'll have wasted my whole life in school.

Part B

What I found interesting in these interviews is that nobody outright believes that there is a direct connection between success in life and success in school. Those who succeed in school might not always succeed afterwards and might need something else to help them find their way, like my dad said, or they might do poorly in school and start their own business later regardless, as Constanza said. What this leaves me to wonder though is whether it is worth attending or not. It's here that it becomes more apparent that school seems to be more important on a basic level or as an introduction to greater things, instead of being the greater thing itself. If this is the case, could it be reformatted in a way that this became easier and more apparent for the masses. As Constanza mentioned, the U.K. has specialized classes at their 11th Grade equivalent, which can help students gain introductory knowledge that one would typically have to wait for college for in the U.S. Is it possible that school were completely abolished and people would succeed without it though? What does the school system provide that is so crucial and unique that it can say that it is the sole source of?

I also found it interesting that despite this, most people found that school was worth all the effort put into it. This leads me to question the worth of our efforts and the quality of them. Granted, nobody is truly breaking their back for school, but a significant investment of time and work is put into it, but the results are not guaranteed, almost like an investment. Is that what school is like then? An investment that we can fall back on to support us for a while if we lose our jobs? I think that what is also of note is that there is always an exception to the results of school, whether it be the underdog who finds a way to succeed without the help of an education, or those who are gifted and never needed to put forth the effort required for school because it was irrelevant for them. School seems weak by this standard, and the only way to truly see if it guarantees would be to survey the world and see how school affected them later on. Also of note is that this is only discussing American school systems and not the world, and maybe they are like the U.K. as Constanza said, and this could be more helpful in the long run.

HW 39- First School Assignment

Part A

Questions:

1. Why does a certain amount of students have to fail a class despite acts like No Child Left Behind that do the opposite?

2. What makes one class more important than another in regards to the budget?

3. Why is school seen as such a boring and torturous experience through the eyes of the student?

Ideas:

1. School breeds us to be interchangeable by eliminating creative programs from most schools in favor of keeping math and science.

2. School is like a study of humanity, you can see a select group and observe and get information from them.

3. School will never be perfect for everybody, even if they took all the courses they wanted because there will always be something they can nitpick at to ruin it and cast it in a negative light.

Experiences:

1. I had my internship at an elementary school and in all honesty, things are not always perfect. However this is in many ways not a reflection of the students but rather the parents, because kids will often come into class with problems that are pre-existing and teachers will be unable to solve them but instead have to wait them out and hope for the best.

2. The problem with school is often not the subject but actually the people in the class. Like for instance, last year I would say that history was my favorite class and I thought that there was a great dynamic with everybody in the room and things went swimmingly. This year though the class has not been as enjoyable and this is in no part because of the curriculum, because if anything it has been more interesting and relevant in many ways. The problem is that the people in the class prevent productivity and prevent the rest of the class from living up to its full potential.

3. I took art classes over the summer at the Art Institute of Chicago in their college prep class. This was the first time I had taken an art class with kids my age since 10th grade. This was the first time I had taken an art class with people who actually cared since I was born. Why is this? Well, the schools I went to had art, but it was mandatory, formulaic, slow, and nobody took it seriously. This wasn't all the teachers fault, but rather it was the school boards fault because they made it mandatory and therefore half of the class wasn't interested. I remember this class fondly though, but not for the great pieces I made. No, I remember it for all of the free time I had because the class would take 3 weeks to work on a single drawing I finished already. This level of commitment from my classmates made it boring and uninteresting unless you had something else to do, and that's the way school art is.

Part B

A good student sits down for class, back straight, eyes to the board, notebook out. The teacher has notes already up and the good student takes them down. Scribble scribble scribble, a new batch of knowledge being absorbed. Teacher has down their job well. Except there is a problem. The good student took the notes and learned a lot. But next to the good student is the texter. Next to the texter is the talker. Next to the talker is the sleeper. Next to the sleeper is the joker. In the chain of students that all have the good student as a role model of what to do, all of them will fail. All of them will yell at the teacher and say that the job wasn't done right since they failed. The teacher will grow frustrated and try again next year or worse yet, quit. The cycle will begin again.

This basically describes 75% of the classes I have taken in high school. Everybody complains and finds a million flaws in the way the teacher tries to get them to learn. Now, this is fine in some ways because different people learn in different ways and even the most studious student can't always get a good grade if the teacher is teaching in a way they don't understand. But if the student makes no effort and texts in class or sleeps or talks, then they can't learn. This is one of the most frustrating things that high school brings. Distractions. Students grow up and find things less and less relevant and get more things to distract them from phones to ipods to each other and then they can't learn.

I know there is the old saying, "There are no bad students, only bad teachers" and I used to agree with that and I still do. There is the potential in every teacher to be so captivating that everybody loves the class and passes. The thing is, the saying doesn't account for people that simply don't want to learn. I feel like this is the average high school student. I think this largely comes from people just finding things useless. I myself have found that most math has been useless for me since 11th grade. I don't even consider myself one of the students that finds school irrelevant. I like school and have my entire life. So if I am one of the students that likes school and even I cannot remain interested in school, what does this say for the majority of students? I mean, I know this is largely rambling and has little point, but I feel like that in itself provides further context to school. I just don't care the way I once did and this impacts my school performance. And this is the way the majority of high schoolers are. So they text and talk and joke and draw to distract themselves from school and boredom. That's the modern high school and it needs to be changed.