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.