Race to Nowhere

Tonight, I had the opportunity to see the film "Race to Nowhere" (directed by Vicki Abeles).  After hearing about it in class earlier this year as well as watching the trailer before, I was excited to finally get to see it.

Without giving away the documentary, the basic premise is that it shows the pressures many American students and teachers face in this culture that is so obsessed with "achievement", and thus very competitive.  The film features stories of young people across the nation who have been pushed to their limits, teachers who worried that the students aren't developing the "proper" skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what they think is best.

Some of my thoughts after watching the film were the following:

What exactly is achievement?  And how can that really be measured?  What does it mean to be successful in this country?  Is it making a lot of money?  Or shouldn't it really be about a person's overall happiness?

I was curious to see how "success" was defined in the Oxford English Dictionary.  The definition was:

The prosperous achievement of something attempted; the attainment of an object according to one's desire: now often with particular reference to the attainment of wealth or position

Even in the dictionary "wealth" is put under the definition of success.  The film mentioned how our "system" seems to stress the importance of money as a baseline for achievement.  Not only this, but grades and test scores in the current education system seem to be the main factors measuring "smartness".  And these tests and education system as a whole are measuring more what a student can cram in and remember, as opposed to encouraging students to really think, and gain the passion for learning that comes with that.

The viewpoint of the "Race to Nowhere" documentary is that there needs to be a change in our education system.  The film "points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace, students have become disengaged, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired."  Do you agree or disagree with the main points of the video regarding the education system in America?  

The Price of Awareness

The other day when I opened my Internet, on my Yahoo! Homepage, this article caught my eye.  I clicked on it to find out what it was all about.  After reading through it and watching this video, I discovered that a Mississippi high school football player, Coy Sheppard, was kicked off his team for wearing pink cleats.  The 17-year-old-kicker from Mendenhall High School wore these pink cleats in honor of October’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  In so doing, he followed in the footsteps of many NFL and college players who wore pink wristbands, hats, and cleats all month.  So Sheppard and his teammates decided they would all wear pink to the game.  However, at halftime, Coach Chris Peterson told the athletes to take off the pink.  They all obeyed.  However, the following Monday, Sheppard showed up to practice in the pink cleats, and was then kicked off the team for being “defiant”.  Sheppard has gone through six cleats in his past two years as a quicker, with a variety of colors, and has never had this issue before.  It seems this arbitrary “rule” came into play only because of the color pink.

 

At issue are his civil liberties.  Doesn’t Sheppard have a right to wear pink?  If the coach allowed more than one color of cleats, he should not discriminate against one particular color.  If the uniform required all athletes to wear black cleats, so to say, then the coach’s actions would be justifiable.

This Mississippi boy who only wanted to spread Breast Cancer Awareness, has not only missed finishing up his senior football season, but also might not even graduate on time because his high school gives academic credit for sports.  In the light these dire consequences, it is easy to see how absurdly the coach acted, and that he did violate Coy Sheppard’s civil rights.

An Education

Last week, a New Trier graduate and current teacher (through Teach For America ), visited our class.  He described the main differences between the high school where teaches (rural Arkansas) and New Trier.  The biggest difference is the socioeconomic background of these students; they live in a very poor area.  They have completely different life styles and values, not in a sense of better or worse, but just different.  These students are limited by their money; they do not have the money for computers at home, and the school itself has hardly any computers.  It is hard to even imagine not being able to access the Internet at home, or type a paper for school.  And this isn’t just a problem in this one town in Arkansas.  It’s a nationwide problem, and it’s even in parts of Chicago.

Then this teacher said something that really shocked me.  He said that his ninth grade students are reading at a third grade level.  This made me sad because I know how important reading and education are for rising out of poverty.  Reading is part of our everyday lives, and if we cannot comprehend what is before us, then we will really face challenges down the road.  Reading has applications in so many settings; from ordering at a restaurant to applying for a job, it is essential.

While these students may have some of the basics down, unless they improve their reading, college and further education would be difficult, if not impossible.   We need to take steps to address this problem so that they have a brighter future.

With Liberty and Justice for all?

Yesterday in class we discussed rights that every US citizen is protected by, and others that we are limited by.  We contributed different opinions per issue, then found out rather it was actually a right we are protected or limited by, and then discussed why that is. For example, one of the protected rights that every student has is to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  That is, de jure, every citizen is protected to refuse the recital of the pledge, but occasionally de facto, that is not always the case.

 

Mr. Bolos told a specific story about his daughter not standing up to say the pledge.  De jure, she had a right not to, but de facto, everyone else in the class was reciting it, and the school tried desperately to convince her to.  When really she has the freedom to not do so.

This made me think of Will Phillips, a 10-year-old from Arkansas who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because he did not agree with it.  He claimed that he would not say it until there really is “liberty and justice for all”, which he believes, will not be the case until gays and lesbians have equal rights.

“Gays and lesbians can’t marry.  There’s still a lot of racism and sexism in the world”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT9I-36aim8

According to the 1943 ruling that gives students the right to refuse the Pledge, and his first amendment right, Will is protected by law.  But when he didn’t stand up and refused to recite it for four days, he was sent to the principal’s office.

I’m not saying that I agree with his motives, or that I myself refuse to say the Pledge.  The point is, is that by law, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, and Will should be allowed to refuse to say it, as long as he isn’t disrupting others.