Homework 45 - More Big Thoughts on Schools

Both E.D. Hirsch & Ted Sizer have different views on education and how schools should be run. Sizer argues that students should be able to develop their minds in school, and further expand their thinking habits. On the other hand, Hirsch argued that school should teach students the fundamental building blocks of our society. He claimed schools should schools should teach students the knowledge that would help them in their future. While Sizer focused on how schools can influence a student at their current period of time, Hirsch focused on how school can develop a student into becoming someone successful in life.

Hirsch and Sizer’s theories contradict each other. Hirsch chooses to focus on the future while Sizer chooses to focus on the present. Having an education at one of the schools Sizer funded and started, I realized that I did indeed learn how to use my mind well. Using the habits of mind, I can be intellectually alert and be able to think about important aspects learned and school and compare and connect it to my life and the society I live in. I believe that Sizer’s theory is more resonant in my own personal experience because he shows that a student’s opinion is valued just as much as a person of higher status. In the New York Times article Theodore R. Sizer, Leading Education-Reform Advocate, Dies at 77 , Fox states “The principles hold, among other things, that a school is an egalitarian community and that the student is a valued worker in that community, with the teacher in the role of mentor or coach.” To Sizer, a student is not just somebody who a teacher can reprimand and look down upon. They are someone that is “a valued worker in that community”, the community being the school system they are in. The teacher serves the role of the “mentor or coach”, someone who can help the student figure out how to connect social aspects to their life. The teacher doesn’t teach and expect the student to understand, the teacher helps the student learn how to connect what they learn and further develop their thinking. The article also states “Do not make trouble for me, the teacher’s side of the compact went, and I will demand little of you in return.” This is saying that teachers do not want to start drama with a student, they don’t want to cause trouble. If the students listen and don’t act up, the teacher will treat the student as a valued part of the community. I believe that some teachers do this in School of the Future. I believe that there are some teachers who are passionate about what they teach and what students to understand how it connects to their daily lives. They don’t want to just teach something out of the textbook where the student can not connect to, they want to teach something out of a textbook and then relate it to a student’s life.

Hirsch believes in a theory that is not used in School of the Future, for obvious reasons. He believes that schools should teach students the basic knowledge in each core subject, so they can comprehend anything that is thrown at them. In the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hirsch,_Jr, it states “He concluded that schools should not be neutral about what is taught but should teach a highly specific curriculum that would allow children to understand things writers take for granted.” Hirsch believes that schools should teach students a “highly specific curriculum”, this way students can have basic knowledge in every subject, and not be dumbfounded later in life. I don’t believe that this theory works too well because of that fact that Hirsch does not think about how the school curriculum affects a student’s life. Why would a student want to learn about history when that doesn’t affect them right now, or what makes a student want to learn calculus when they only need basic math skills to go shopping? Hirsch does not make a curriculum interesting to students, meaning less students will want to learn. They will not want to pay attention in school because they don’t see how it connects to their lives. With Sizer, teachers connect what is learned in the classroom to the outside world, helping students understand how what they learn in class affects how they actively participate in society. Hirsch is just teaching students to memorize a couple of facts. I believe that Sizer has the better theory because he understands what students need, and understands how teachers accomplish this goal.

Homework 44 -Big Expectations for School

For all of our lives, since we were born until the day we graduate college, we are told that attending school will prepare us for our futures, and help us find fulfilling and well playing jobs. We are constantly told that the only way we can have a successful career is to attend school. However, according to Thomas L. Friedman, most corporations will hire international employees because Americans don’t have the education required to do what others in other countries know how to do. Friedman states “These local incentives matter because smart, skilled labor is everywhere now. Intel can thrive today — not just survive, but thrive — and never hire another American.” Although this seems rather harsh, especially the “never hire another American” part, it makes me question whether institutions are actually preparing us for our futures as much as they same they do. If other people in other countries are just as skilled as we are, and they probably work for less, what makes us so special? Instead of just competing with other Americans for a job, we are competing internationally for the same job. Also in the article, the quote ““As a citizen, I hate it. As a global employer, I have the luxury of hiring the best engineers anywhere on earth. If I can’t get them out of M.I.T., I’ll get them out of Tsing Hua” — Beijing’s M.I.T.” appears. Even though Americans don’t want to hire international employees, they will because these other employees are way better than Americans these days. Friedman explains that international employees are more common to become hired because of their intelligence levels. In America, where our schools lack the proper education and many students are just sliding by with teachers who will pass any student, we have nothing to show for ourselves. Once being one of the smartest countries, we are now part of a dumb generation where American corporations won’t even hire their own kind.

After reading Obama’s speech, my hopes were lifted. This speech was moving, powerful, and gave me a reason to attend school every day. After reading Friedman’s article, I wondered why even try when someone else in some other country will land the job I am dying for? However, Obama’s speech changed my mind. I was able to connect to him, to forget that he was the President of the United States; instead he was another human being that went to school. One thing that always provides contradictions between people are whether schools do another to prepare students for the future. Obama touched on this topic in his speech, when he said “But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.” This made so much sense to me. The schools we attend can have the best teachers in the world, the teachers that dedicated their lives to providing us with the education they feel we deserve. We can have the most supportive parents in the world, ones who are always there pushing us in order to make sure we succeed in everything we do, and even if we don’t we know that we tried. We can have all of this, but none of it matters if we don’t contribute to our education. What is a good teacher if there are not students who are willing to learn? What is a supportive parent if their child does not try in anything they do? Obama was correct when stating that we need to try in school in order to have a successful career. His speech really struck me, and made me understand the benefits of school.

After reading Robert Kiyosaki’s article “We need two school systems”, I beg to differ. Sure schools are preparing students to become future employees, but two types of schools? That’s just ridiculous. What if some people don’t know if they would prefer to be an employee or an entrepreneur? I like Kiyosaki’s idea of teaching students two tracks, the track to being an employee and the track to being an entrepreneur. But I would edit his plan in the way of combining these two tracks. Give students an option to take a couple of classes in entrepreneurship in high school, to show them what it takes to run a business. Maybe they aren’t sure what goes on to it, how can they just jump right away into a college that focuses on running your own business? I think he makes a valid point that schools are constantly preparing students to be future employees of America, but if students know of no other option, what do they do? Most schools don’t offer classes in entrepreneurship, but maybe if they did we’d have more future CEO’s in our society.

I believe that schools should prepare their students as well as they can to have a successful career. In our current school, it is very easy to pass a class, as long as you do the work and participate somewhat of the time in class. In order to fail a class, you have to never attend. The teachers will pass you no problem, but what is this saying for our generation? We barely try that hard in school, while kids in Stuyvesant have about five hours of homework a night. Sure we have exhibitions, but we have a whole year to work on them, and sure we have tests and quizzes, but how often is that? Now that I am complaining of course, but after reading the previous article, I feel stupid. If I’m in America, shouldn’t I have the benefits of receiving a good education to have a successful career? Not if somebody from another country ten times smarter than me will take that same job. This makes me question the institutions we call schools values and beliefs, are they really working to prepare us for our future, or are they beginning to give up on us as a whole?

Homework 42- More Research and More Thinking

The question I hope to answer my research is: “What is the difference between public high schools and private Catholic high schools in New York City, and how does religion play a role in the curriculum taught in private schools?”

In my neighborhood of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, I am faced with private schools all around me. Xaverian High School (an all boys school), Bishop Kearny High School (an all girls school), Fontbonne Hall Academy (also an all girls school), and Bay Ridge Preparatory School (a coed school) to name a few. Several of my friends attend these schools, and people from around my neighborhood are always surprised when I tell them I attend a public school in Manhattan. It’s unheard of, unless the school is some popular, big name school, such as LaGuardia or Stuyvesant. It never bothered me that I didn’t attend a private school, after all I am not Catholic, and these schools are Catholic schools. However, I did start to wonder what was so special about private schools. What can they possibly teach that is so wonderful, that they can stick a ridiculous ticket price on to the tuition? Sure they explore religion, and students are required to take a religion class, while public school students are not required to because religion does not play a role in a public school curriculum. But what else is so special about it?

In the terms of this matter affect the meaning of my life, it doesn’t affect me at my current age. I have attended public school all my life, and although I am attending a private university in the fall of 2010, that is different than attending a private high school. However, this matter will affect me at a later age, when I do have a family and have to decide where to send my children to college. Sure some of these pros and cons are subject to change (such as the tuition costs and curriculum), but by knowing the basics I can have some idea of where I want to send my future children. Although it is rather early to be deciding this at my age, I can also help my family members (such as my cousins who have toddlers) decide upon sending their child to a public or a private school.