Is Immaturity a factor?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26317942/?GT1=43001

Dude, check this out.

Using Technology in Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/technology/17essay.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

In the words of the mighty Floyd, "Hello. Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me."

Seriously, this is an interesting article.

Why Young Americans Are The Dumbest Generation

In his provocative new book The Dumbest Generation, Mark Bauerlein argues that "the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future" by turning out hyper-networked kids who can track each other's every move with ease but are largely ignorant of history, economics, culture, and other subjects he believes are prerequisites for meaningful civic participation.

Check out Bauerlein's comments during an interview for Reason.tv.

R U Reading?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?th&emc=th

I know it's been a while, good people. This was a fascinating article both in the light of this blog and in the light of our summer book group.

Take the Third World Challenge Exam

Evidently when Bob Compton screened his "Two Million Minutes" to the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the response was negative. One faculty member remarked, "We have nothing to learn from education systems in Third World countries, much less a Third World country that lacks freedom of speech."

So, Compton decided to make the India profeciancy test available to the public. According to Compton, "[The test] is a shortened and greatly simplified version of the multi-day proficiency test that 10th graders in India must pass to go on to the 11th grade."

Take one of the exams by going here, and tell me what you think.

New Report on NCLB

According to a new report by the Center on Education Policy, more students have improved their reading and math exam scores, and the performance gap between lower-income and more affluent students has narroed since NCLB was enacted six years ago.

Here's a link to the story in WaPo.

High Achieving Students in the Age of Accountability

There has been a great deal of discussion lately about the impact of educational accountability programs on high-achieving students. Since the focus of these programs is directed toward low performing students, educators are concerned about the negative effects accountability programs may have on students who show exceptional academic promise.

Chester Finn wrote an interesting piece on this topic in National Review.

AEI published a provocative article by Charles Murray related to this issue entitled "Educational Romanticism."

"Two Million Minutes" and the LA Times

The Times ran a story this week on "Two Million Million Minutes." Let me know what you think.

Check out this debate between Bob Compton and Jay Mathews. Mathews is an influential education reporter for WaPo. Compton, of course, produced "Two Million Minutes."

Top 100 High Schools

Well, here's the official list of the top 100 high schools. Despite the fact the US News list is probably not very accurate in terms of identifying the top high schools, I wonder if there is something these schools have in common?

I did notice many of the schools included on the list are considered "alternative schools" (i.e., charter schools, etc.).

I also found an interesting article on school rankings in WaPo. The analysis, unbiased of course, found NY schools to be the best in the U.S., followed closely by Massachusetts and Maryland, while D.C ranks as the country's worst. The assessment is based on a report from Ed Week.

The Dropout Nation

Time has an interesting story on "the dropout nation." According to the article, as many as thirty percent of public school students won't complete high school!

Few States Set World-Class Standards

Here’s an interesting article by Hess on state proficiency standards. Considering the potential problems posed by each of the fifty states having different academic achievement standards, I thought this might be relevant to our discussion about preparing students for a globally competitive marketplace.

Impact of Sports on Academic Performance

Scott Ganz (American Enterprise Institute) published an interesting article analyzing what effect, if any, youth sports may have on shaping the economic, academic, and social prospects of Americans.

Considering our current discussion on how we might help students develop the skills necessary to become competitive participants in today's global economy, I thought this article might put a twist on things!

New and Improved Senior Project

I know that this is near and dear to the hearts of both Shawn and Dick. I believe that the Senior Project will change--the question to debate in this thread is HOW it should change.

Ideas?

The House System

To keep this blog streamlined, let's flesh out our "house system" in this discussion thread.

Creativity Part III

Here are the last of my six ideas about creativity.

4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.

I think that one of the most important and practical things we can do to get our students to think more creatively and to be more creative in general is to practice it ourselves, and to value that practice. It is very difficult to convince other people that something is important for them to do if we don't think it's important enough for us to do.

I'm not really sure what form this would take. Working together on cross-curricular projects would be one possibility; and increasing our creative work in our classes is only a positive. But I'm also thinking that maybe we should have more opportunities for teachers to be involved creatively in other endeavors, too. Again, I think it's important, if we want kids to take the idea of creativity seriously, that we take it seriously. Maybe we could develop teacher music ensembles; poetry groups; art classes; active participation in the upcoming alumni/staff theater production; active participation in other creative groups/clubs/activities on campus...the main thing is to be involved in some creative enterprise. I know we're all busy, and it's hard to find time to do the things we already need to do. But if we think that this is important (which I do), then we should make it happen.

The bottom line is that I think we have to prove to students that creativity is important by engaging in it ourselves. And hopefully we'll mean it--and benefit from it ourselves, too!


5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.

This one's pretty simple. If we want students to think more creatively and be more creative, then we need to give them more options and opportunities to do so. And not just in our classes, but in other classes, and outside of class, as well.

Therefore, I think we need to look into expanding our offerings for creatively oriented courses. Shawn and I have talked about possibilities like having a jazz band, music composition courses, film production courses, etc. We could also expand extracurricular creatively oriented offerings, or simply encourage more participation in those that already exist. I don't know how or what it might look like, but perhaps there should even be some sort of requirement that every student is involved in some sort of creatively oriented extracurricular activity. No slight is intended toward athletics, but I think that perhaps, in the context of a global job market, giving kids more creative opportunities is more important than giving them more athletic opportunities.

This means that we as a staff, busy as we are, would have to commit to developing these course offerings or extracurricular activities. But I look at this as potentially a real positive, and I think in the long run, as much work as it will be, the reward for both us and our students would be worth it.


6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.

One of the biggest problems we've had at Charter through the years (and we're fortunate that this is one of the biggest problems!) is the fact that we have a certain culture and certain expectations, and a number of our incoming students (mostly freshmen) first of all don't understand it, and second of all try to resist it. You all know the students I'm talking about. Now some of them start to come around by the end of their freshman year; a few more as sophomores; and a lot of them by the time they're juniors. But even so, there are always a handful who, even as seniors, have not "bought in" to what we're all about.

The real problem is not that this phenomenon exists, but that it has been increasing the last few years, first with the move to the new more "normal" campus, and then with the development of more "normal" things like the increased presence of sports on campus. (Because I've mentioned it a few times already, I should clarify that though I have no personal interest in sports, I have nothing against the concept of sports per se; but I do absolutely believe that American schools put way too much emphasis on them--especially considering the looming global job market. How relevant are sports to that?)

For the last few years, I've been doing what I can to combat this trend. The students in my classes all know why I'm here and why they're in my class. And for the rest of the school, in addition to pumping up Saxon Day as big as I can, I've started doing the occasional "bizarre lunchtime performance" with my AP Calculus class. As random as they may seem, these are not random in purpose. They are intended to be a statement of that ineffable "Only At Charter" quirkiness that (I hope) we all hold dear.

But while these have had some effect, and there continue (as always) to be converts to the Charter way of thinking, I have still noticed the increased influx and persistence of antithetical attitudes in certain segments of the student body. These kids who continue to think that being "cool" is more important than anything else--certainly, than caring about school--seem, to me, to be growing in number, and in their continued resistance to the Charter way.

I think what I am beginning to witness is a polarization of our campus, with some students who get it while others more stubbornly hold out and refuse, and the kids in the middle are pulled one way or another. For the moment, I think we end up pulling most of them over to "our" side. But I don't like this increased polarization that I think I'm beginning to see. This separation of "us" and "them." This breakdown into "cool" vs. "Charterian."

Now I know I've talked about this before, and you might rightly ask what this has to do with fostering creativity. Well, it's pretty simple, actually.

The "cool" attitude (which is anything but) is that basically, everything is stupid. "Studying is stupid. School is stupid. Saxon Day is stupid. Those kids who do those things at lunch are stupid." Tell me you haven't heard this sort of attitude more prominently the last few years. And the moment we try to implement more of these creatively oriented ideas, can't you just hear these "cool" kids? "I don't want to do this stuff. It's stupid."

So therefore, my final suggestion is to find ways to encourage student buy-in to the whole Charter deal as early as possible. Because if they buy in to what we're all about, then they'll buy in to whatever we want to do next.

How do we do this? There could be a lot of things we could do. But I do have an idea.

Well, actually, it's just a germ of an idea that actually came from JP, but he and I have talked about it, and also talked about it with a few other teachers, and as crazy as the idea sounds...I think there just might be something to it.

The basic idea is to implement some sort of a "House" type system, like that in some British schools, as portrayed in the Harry Potter books. I know--it sounds a little crazy--but I think something like this could potentially provide a big source of positive peer pressure; as well as provide built-in structure for other things we've talked about--like the senior "adopt-a-freshman" idea that came up at the meeting. I think it could definitely encourage freshmen to buy in to the whole Charter concept if they have a senior who is sort of a buddy with a vested interest, because they are in the same "House" (or whatever), who takes them under their wing and explains, "these are the things that will help us, these are the things that will hurt us."

I don't really expect you to take the idea too seriously...at least, not at first. The first time JP brought it up to me, I laughed it off as a joke. But the more I've thought about it, the more I think there could be some serious potential. So after you're done laughing, really think about some of the possibilities. Because as serious as it might seem I couldn't possibly be...I am. (If anyone wants to engage in more discussion, or if you don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to talk to me in person, or to post on here.)

In any case, whether we ever do anything like that or not, the bottom line is that I firmly believe we do need to find ways to increase student buy-in as early as possible. If we get them to buy in as freshmen, think of how many battles will be won without even being fought; and think of how much more creative we will be free to be if students are mentally here for the same reason they are officially here; and we don't have to waste as much time dealing with counterproductive attitudes.

Whatever we do, it should be with the intent of improving ourselves as teachers, improving Charter as a school, and of course, improving pupil learning. But I think in many ways we're approaching the limit of improvement in terms of refining what already exists. The next logical step in improvement, then, is to look into new things that will make us better. So let's be creative, and take some productive risks.

Creativity Part II

Here are the first three of my six ideas about fostering creativity.

1. Foster a culture that encourages people to be themselves.

I don't have any clinical evidence to back this up, just observation and a little common sense--but I think one of the most difficult and limiting things a person can experience is the pressure to be something he or she is not. This sort of pressure stifles everything--personality, thought, expression, and creativity. Therefore, in my opinion, the first thing we need to do is to foster a culture that encourages students--and teachers, for that matter--to be themselves. I am convinced that a whole lot of creativity is suppressed (all over the world, not just here) because people are too afraid to be who they really are...or could be.

If I'm afraid to be me--to say what I might be thinking or imagining, because of what other people might think; and if the people around me are also afraid to be themselves; then think of how we might be limiting ourselves. Think about the possibilities that can never be, simply because we are all too timid to reach out and say, "Hey, what about this?"

In order for creativity to flourish, we have to have a culture that embraces the uniqueness of individuals, because that, to me, is really the wellspring of creativity. To me, in essence, creativity is an expression of individuality; even a sort of non-conformity; a sort of willingness to think, "Well everyone else does that...but what about this?" Which is not to say that all creative people are non-conformists, nor that all non-conformists are creative; nor do I mean to imply that all conformity is negative, which is obviously not true. Conforming with rules and laws is obviously desirable (and the right thing to do). But certainly, those creative geniuses of our world are definitely not the people who did things the way everyone else had done them before; and this is what I mean by non-conformity. Mozart, Picasso, and Einstein (yes, he was a creative genius) weren't afraid to stand up and be themselves, and do things the way they thought they should.



2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.

We as a school--as teachers, as administrators, and as students--should be willing to stick our necks out and take some risks; because creativity requires risks. It requires being willing to try something, and to fail, and to pick up and try again.

My high school Honors English Lit teacher once gave us an assignment to write an interpretation of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and he told us to be creative, and to write it as anything but an essay. Those were the extent of his instructions: write an interpretation, be creative, no essays. I don't remember the details of what I wrote, but I remember that as I re-read the poem, the metaphors and imagery began feeding my imagination, and that I essentially wrote a new poem using the same themes but with completely different imagery and metaphors, which stood as my interpretation of what the poem was about. I remember being really quite pleased with what I had done, and excited by the opportunity to write something other than an essay (not that essays aren't important).

So I was looking forward to the day when the teacher handed the papers back, curious to see what he thought of what I had done. The day came...and he told the class that he had simply thrown all the papers in the trash, because that was where they had belonged. I was mad--not that he hadn't liked it, because it was one of those papers that I had liked so much that, although I was curious about it, I didn't care what he thought. I was mad that he threw it out because I'd written it by hand and I didn't have another copy.

Fortunately for me, that teacher's decidedly ill-conceived actions had no chance of stifling my creativity, because I am driven to express it if not one way, then in others. But how many of my peers may have decided then and there that they would never stick their necks out again, I don't know. Perhaps most of them were simply so unaccustomed to thinking creatively that they had felt utterly lost with the assignment to begin with; and this experience only confirmed their negative feelings toward creativity.

Now, I know that nobody at this school would do something like that teacher did, but I do think that it is experiences like this that teach people to be afraid to be creative; or give them justification to think that they are not creative. Creativity entails risk; and risk is often uncomfortable. Knowing that, we should do whatever we can to make it easier for our students and ourselves to feel comfortable taking those risks. They, and we, need to know that even if something doesn't work the way we hoped, that it will be OK, and we can pick up and move on.

That being said, taking risks just for the sake of taking risks, or being "edgy," is not what creativity is about. If we're going to take a risk, it should be for the sake of potentially gaining a legitimate reward. Risk-taking for any other reason is not productive.


3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."

As much as I am a creative person, I am also somewhat of a cynic. And therefore in the past, when I have heard "education people" talking about creativity or creative thinking, and bandying about psychology terms that I was fairly sure they were misapplying and talking about research that I was fairly sure was nothing of the sort, I would dismiss what they said without a second thought.

Because what it always came off as was, "School is too hard for some kids. They're just never going to learn what you want them to learn. But if you give them 'creative' projects that access their 'affective domain,' why then, 'research' shows that will help them learn all they are capable of, and plus make them feel warm and fuzzy." And that's what it always felt like: total fluff.

At Charter, we're not about fluff. We're the opposite of fluff. And creativity is not fluff. What we're talking about is what I think of as "rigorous creativity."

Here's how I define it.

"Rigorous creativity," first of all, has a definite purpose. You don't engage in it just to indulge creative feelings; you engage in it because it's the best approach to whatever you're doing.

Second, it is intellectual, not emotional. It's about thinking, not feeling. It's about solving problems, not reflecting on them.

Third, it is refinable. It is not, in other words, a talent you have to be born with; it is a skill you can learn and improve. Certainly, some people may be more naturally gifted than others, but anyone can get better at it, and everyone should.

Finally, since it is purpose-oriented, it has measurable outcomes which should be judged not on subjective merit, but on objective criteria based on the accomplishment of the purpose.

Now obviously, you could apply these ideas to a specific assignment (create a piece of artwork that depicts: the central themes of Moby Dick...the causes of the Civil War...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...). But when I say we should foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity," I really mean all the time. You don't have to give a whole bunch of (probably rather lame) assignments like my parenthetical examples above.

Because rigorous creativity is, in essence, a way of thinking. A calculus student who has learned how to think in a rigorously creative way (and understands derivatives) will immediately grasp why the velocity function is the derivative of the position function. Moreover, before being taught it, he or she will understand that acceleration is the derivative of velocity; and that the derivative will tell you about the rate of change of any related variables you might consider. Think of how much better off this student will be than one who is stuck at, "well, I know that to take a derivative, I bring this number down, then subtract one."

I admit that getting certain students to even try to do this will always be an uphill battle. But I think, as a start, that we can foster this rigorously creative culture in our classrooms by practicing it ourselves, and modeling it in our instruction.


More to come in Part III

Creativity Part I

In The World is Flat, many of the themes of which are also present in 2 Million Minutes, Thomas Friedman (in Chapter 7, for those of you who have the book) talks about Georgia Tech's music program, which has been expanded specifically in response to the challenges of globalization--because if Americans are to have any competitive edge, it may be in our ability to think and respond creatively, and to be able to think across disciplines. The quasi-mythical well-roundedness of Americans may need to become less mythical, in other words.

But this ties in with discussions I've had with Shawn, and that Dick has mentioned a few places in this blog, about what we can do to foster creativity and creative thinking in our classes and at our school. And I promised in an earlier post that I would share my thoughts on the issue.

So here they are. I will post them in a couple of segments, to keep individual posts from being too long.

No one who knows me will be surprised to hear me say that I think the #1 most important thing to focus on is our school culture. By and large, there are a lot of good things to say about our school culture. We take academics seriously--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps do not. We also know how to have fun--though we have a growing influx of students who perhaps think it is more important to be "cool." These attitudes are always going to be present to at least a degree as long as we are dealing with teenagers. But it was inevitable that they would increase when we moved here across the street to a more "normal" campus. It was even more inevitable that these attitudes typical of a more "normal" school would increase the moment we started increasing the presence of "normal" high school things like football and cheerleading.

But to paraphrase my own interview in the Saxon Day issue of the Charterian, "normal" is average, ordinary..."normal" means being the same as everyone else, and therefore when people say to us as individuals, or as a school, "You should be more normal," what they are really saying is, "You should be more like everyone else," or really, "You should be less yourself." I can scarcely imagine worse advice. We can, and must, combat these attitudes at every opportunity, with every tool at our disposal. Especially when one looks at what goes on in "normal" high schools!

In the next posts, I will describe in more detail six things that I think are necessary for the flourishing of creative thought on our campus. But I present them in brief form below.

1. Foster a culture that encourages people (students and teachers) to be themselves.
2. Foster a culture that encourages productive risk-taking.
3. Foster a classroom culture that actively promotes "rigorous creativity."
4. Expand/enhance teacher opportunities for creative thought and expression.
5. Expand existing, or create new creatively oriented curricular and extracurricular options.
6. Foster a culture that encourages student buy-in as early as possible.


More to come in Part II

Indian Entertainment

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/sports/othersports/07cricket.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

When I saw this article in the NY Times, I knew I had to post it.

How Much Color is Too Much?

My initial reaction to the documentary was probably just what the producers wanted – I was disturbed, shocked, and ready to mount a crusade against the American education system, or maybe even American pop-culture in general (that’s how edgy my Catholic side actually is which is also disturbing). Half an hour into the documentary I allowed the skeptical artist side of me to cock his eyebrow and tweak his jaw a bit…

One particular scene in the video stood out to me. The Chinese boy sits down and positions his books, thermos, and writing utensils on the desk in front of him, then winces and repositions them. He repositions them a second time and is almost frustrated that even after three different combinations of object-placement, he failed to achieve the optimum feng shui and places his head in his arms.

At this point in the documentary, I noted that the reaction of the audience was probably what the producers intended. There was a whispered sigh all around me suggesting “aw how cute” just as the director cut to the next scene. Now, part of me does agree that the Chinese boy’s struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder is indeed humorous (“Monk” is one of my favorite shows), but looking further into the scene I am just as disturbed by the Chinese boy as the future-sorority-pledge-American-girl.

After watching this part of the documentary, I really started to think about which society is more adequately balanced. The Americans had more color in their lives, and apparently get more exercise with all the sports-playing yet they studied less than the students in the other countries. And in the other countries they studied more, sure, but playing chess was looked at as a waste of time by the Indian boy’s dad, and the Chinese boy was pent up about his desk arrangement.

So what is the adequate balance? I don’t know enough about Chinese and Indian culture, so I can’t begin to criticize them fairly. But I do have my beliefs as to what a meaningful American life is like, and I think that while the documentary does throw very valid issues at our faces, we cannot look at our nation in the mirror and wish for the education genie to make us exactly like these other countries. The level of expectation for our students is inadequate as far as those high school exit exams suggest, but having a colorful life where we have time to smell the roses and appreciate the weather (and have time to practice for Saxon Day and put on plays and go to the movies with friends and geek out about “Lost”) is significantly important.

The Greek system? Yeah, I don’t agree with pretty much anything I’ve ever seen while visiting my cousin’s sorority (which is supposedly an academic-based sorority regardless of the fact that they forced their pledges to miss their midterms so they could go to some event where they poured dog food on frat boys – I’m being serious). But should we set the level of expectation for our students so high that our colorful American boiling pot becomes monotone? I don’t think so.

I pretty much agree with my French-teaching Asian counterpart that the documentary is biased and that we shouldn’t jump to a hasty crusade against all facets of American culture based on it. Of course, this is coming from the guy who hung a pirate flag in his classroom during his first semester as a teacher.

The Cognitive Age

Here's David Brooks on the "Cognitive Age."

2MM Links

I’d like to thank everyone for their insightful comments. In order to shed some light on Bob Compton’s (the executive producer) perspective, I thought I’d provide a few helpful links.

Compton's blog is really interesting.

Here's a list of news articles on the documentary.

Enjoy.

Thanks Shawn

I neglected to say that I thought that the in-service yesterday was the most useful session that I have attended since being at the school. Thank you Shawn!

Charter sophmore reactions to the documentary

I have shown the DVD to 3 of my 10th grade classes and the reaction was interesting. Although the documentary is fairly fast moving, most of the students were unable to pay attention for even the first 10 minutes of the DVD. This, in my opinion validates the overall theme of the DVD, most American learners are not concerned with other cultures and are not willing to apply themselves to studying and / or thinking beyond issues that are of interest to them. I stopped it after the main idea of the video had come across and opened it up to discussion. I was immediately met with a number of xenophobic and racist of comments from at least 6 students in my 5th period class. Comments such as "how could they eat with their hands" and "don't the Chinese eat dogs?" again validated the DVD's idea of the limited American high school student's world view / interest . Most the sophomores who watched the DVD seemed to think that the Chinese and Indian students were dreadfully hard done by by having to work so hard. Most seemed to totally miss the point of the documentary.

Human Nature

After having read the previous posts, I am afraid to admit that in comparison with the rest of you, I was a poor student. I have no trouble sympathizing with the two American students in the documentary and almost feel a kinship with them.

In the Simpsons, the jokes are always presented with a bit of truth behind them. There is a song in the Mary Poppins/Shary Bobbins episode where they sing (to the tune of "A Spoonful of Sugar"):

"If you cut every corner
It is really not so bad,
Everybody does it -
Even mom and dad
If nobody sees it,
Then nobody gets mad,
It's the American way"

If I was in the place of those two American students, I would be the same way. Why should I expend more effort if I already get good grades and can get into a good college? Why would I spend weekends studying when I could earn some money at a job and then earn a full ride scholarship for college? It seems like the fault is not on the heads of the students, but on the school system that allows them to coast through without challenging them.

While I agree that this attitude is not the most admirable, it seems to be human nature to try to do the least work possible to get by. Even the Chinese boy admits that he spends a chunk of his time at home playing computer games, and that he doesn't have to work as hard as his classmates to understand the concepts.

The Indian and Chinese students are presented as working hard with eventual monetary reward as motivation. Though the American girl may not become a doctor, I fully expect her to be successful in the future and earn a good living. Our economy seems to (at least for now) be structured in such a way that you don't have to excel in math and science in high school to enter a well-paid and highly respected profession.

The university system seems to do a decent job at weeding out the students that do not possess the necessary work ethic. The naturally gifted students that coast through high school are usually challenged by the higher standards in college. But in high school it seems like it is still very easy to get by without being fully challenged. We will never be able to change the system at large, but as teachers hopefully we can force our students to work hard by raising our standards and increasing our expectations.

A (moderately) dissenting view

To preface my thoughts, I should say that I agree with the premise of the documentary - our academic standards are lacking in rigor and we are probably losing our edge in science and technology. Also, I am inclined to take a contradictory stance just because most people seem to feel strongly in favor of the film and my reactionary nature kicks in.

That said, I don't completely trust the way everything was presented in the documentary. Obviously, for practical purposes, the sample size was small. One cannot deny that the filmmakers have their own message which they want to present, and at times (especially regarding the American students) I felt the way in which they did so was a little unfair.

From the very beginning of the film the two students were presented in a negative light. Their very first comments introduced them as somewhat lazy, with a strong sense of entitlement. The Chinese girl, in contrast, was presented as a violin virtuoso.

The general tone was condescending toward the two Americans. The film had no problem showing the American students all hanging out at someone's house playing Gamecube, and then presenting some statistics about the sorry state of American education in a video game format. When the boy discussed college plans with his mom, they began with him mentioning how the college had Xbox 360s, which was irrelevant to their subsequent discussion of a potential career in computer graphics, except to suggest that he only wants to study computers because he likes to play video games. The Indian boy is portrayed as only playing chess on his computer, and the Chinese boy is never shown playing computer games, though he mentions that he does play them a lot.

Worst of all was how the American high school teacher was presented. Out of all the things they could have shown, the only time they showed a teacher interacting with students was when he was making a joking comment which was not representative of the test as a whole. Had I been that teacher, I would have been upset over the highly subjective nature of the editing. There are so many things that a film crew could show me saying during the course of a school day, that when taken out of context, would put our educational system in a bad light.

The Americans were used as an introduction to set the tone, and then the filmmakers withheld their fate until the very end to provoke outrage. As viewers, we are supposed to feel bad for the hardworking Chinese and Indian students that had to settle for their second choice, whereas the ignorant Americans yet again strutted off triumphantly into the sunset.

Obviously, expecting a documentary to maintain objectivity is senseless, but the filmmakers' bias is too strong (and too evident) for me to put complete faith in what they have presented.

Science vs. Humanities

Although, like Mel, I was bothered by the young lady in the film, in a way I was even more bothered by the young gentleman. As I said in my previous (long) post, I don't have a problem with people going into computer graphics per se; but given the situation that we are in as a nation, and the likelihood that it's going to get worse before it gets better, I sort of have this personal opinion that anyone who is capable of going into math, science, and engineering probably should. Call it patriotism or practicality, I don't care which. The plain fact is that America needs scientists and engineers, and the idea of someone with great potential in those areas going into computer graphics just seems like such a waste. It's like Melville wanting to write fortune cookies. Or perhaps more aptly, like Einstein wanting to do movie special effects. I'm not saying the kid in the film was an Einstein, but if our modern Einsteins all go into computer graphics, we're in trouble.

All that being said, as a scientist I hold an opinion that non-scientists might find perplexing, though they shouldn't. Even some scientists might find it perplexing, though they shouldn't. In my opinion, no society should ever be founded on science as its bedrock. Science is not designed to establish or comment on morals or societal codes of conduct; which is not to say that it should not be restricted by them. On the contrary; since science cannot quantify right and wrong, it has no place discussing them, and absolutely should be restricted by those external codes.

As a scientist, I worry about the sorry state of science education in America, but I actually worry more about the overemphasis of science in our culture at large; about the way that the media, either through ignorance or as willing perpetrators of disingenuousness, treat science almost as a source of Ultimate Truth, and scientists as some sort of Delphic priests of that Truth. Anyone who practices science honestly knows that it is a method of inquiry in which absolute statements are intentionally and inherently limited to disproof. Any logical structure that limits itself to disproof cannot possibly be the ultimate authority on anything, since it can never prove anything. To paraphrase the great American physicist, Professor Richard Feynman, a scientist should always--especially when talking to scientific laypeople--bend over backwards to explain every way in which he could be wrong. Thus, the quasi-reverent attitude with which science is sometimes treated in our modern culture disturbs me.

I absolutely do believe that we need more scientists and engineers; and I absolutely do believe that we need to do everything we can to up the level of science and math in America... tremendously. At the same time, I worry about the pendulum swinging too far; because in my eyes, there are ways in which it already has swung too far. The humanities and the arts are essential to me because without them, with only science, we are left with no way to reasonably deal with societal necessities such as concepts of right and wrong; or with so many other things that are central to the human experience. Yes, we need more scientists and engineers, but they need to be well-rounded scientists and engineers. They need to be well-rounded human beings.

I would especially be interested in the thoughts of my colleagues in the humanities on this subject, so please feel free to post replies!

Self-Confidence

One telling graphic: the only measured quality in which American teens rule the world is self-confidence.

I'll pause while you recall all the other statistics and drink in the rich, hearty irony.

Now, let's muse: should we stop fostering self-confidence in our youth? Or should we try to get our other curricula to mirror our extremely successful self-esteem curriculum?

I haven't even read the chapter

Yes, I have more to say on the blonde.

We see her in the cafeteria with a couple of her chums stating (without fear?), "I haven't studied for that test. I haven't even read the chapter." We cut to the classroom and the teacher mocks his own test and his own grading procedures. (Obviously, this could be just to set the students at ease and lower the affective filter. Equally obviously, it could be that this particular teacher is telling the truth. )

I have a confession. I hear such statements as those uttered by our future brain surgeon as I wander this very campus. I am sure that, especially as we are in our infamous Moby Dick unit, many of my own dear students arrive with but a cursory reading at best. Only a few look fearful.

Have I made the class too easy? Do I cover too much in class and leave too little for my students themselves to ferret out? Should I eliminate study and reading guides? If so, how should I present the difficult literature I must present?

I NEVER showed up for a test unprepared. NEVER. I don't understand the mindset that would. I don't want to understand the mindset. I just want to eliminate it.

How can we?

Awesome Motivation!

All of the characters in our little documentary struck some chord with me. The blonde from Indianapolis struck a sour one. The fact that her favorite word seemed to be "awesome," annoying enough, proved to be just the start of it.

As she rattled on about what an awesome feeling it is to "help people," I couldn't help but recall the words of a friend of mine, a man who is an M.D. When he interviewed for med school, the professors asked him one question, "Why do you want to be a doctor?" He said, "I like to cut stuff open and figure out how things work." That was one of the two right answers. The other was, "I want to make a lot of money."

The professors saw a desire to "help people" as a rather flimsy motivation--but greed and curiosity can be counted on.

Greed is a human given. My question is, are we seeing curiosity in our students? How can we foster such a motivation?

(My question also dovetails nicely into the riddle we encountered with last summer's reading, namely, how do we teach/ foster creativity?)

Calisthenics

There are rare occasions, I must confess, when I drop my daughter off across the street at Heritage a few moments late and find the student body engaged in jumping jacks or some such calisthenic program. I had to smile to myself when I saw Shanghai High engaged in just such an activity near the beginning of our documentary.

I have long debated the merits and purpose of this kind of educational adjunct. I know that my day goes better if I am able to swim or run before work. It puts my mind in the right place (somehow, I don't know how). I think, of course, if all of our students got a good amount of exercise that this would improve our culture.

It's the regimented nature of the communal jumping jack which gives me pause. I wonder why it must be regimented. The radical anti-authoritarian inside of me chafes at this sort of quasi-militant display. My open-minded nature, however, wants to understand it and to try it if we think it will work.

Maybe fifteen minutes of tai chi would make us a better campus.

How do priorities in American culture affect education and the coming crisis?

After watching the 2 Million Minutes documentary, which mirrors the themes of The World is Flat (if you haven't read it, you should; as should every American), I was struck by several things. I will only address one of them here, because it resonated with something that has been bothering me for a while.

There can be little question that there are problems with the American education system, to say the least. But what struck me while watching the film was the glaring deficiency not of the American education system per se; but of the culture of complacent entitlement that has infected the minds of young modern Americans. As broken as American education might be, it would be difficult for any educational system to deal with young people who believe they deserve whatever they want whenever they want it, and that they shouldn't have to do anything to get it. Obviously, not all American students have fully bought into such attitudes; and most of the students in my classes certainly haven't. But this is really the first whole generation of Americans who are going to have to seriously compete with peers from around the world who are better-educated, willing to work harder...and for smaller wages. What struck me as I watched the film was the difference in focus and priorities between the students from the US and the other countries. Albeit mere case studies and not full ones at that, the two American students in the video come off less than favorably (to be charitable) compared to their Indian and Chinese counterparts.

Our archetypal "best and brightest," as presented in the documentary, believe that going to college is about learning responsibility; and that responsibility means knowing "how to balance fun with studies and other activities." The young lady in the film is going pre-med; and one of her biggest priorities is to join a sorority. If and when she becomes a doctor one day, I hope she tells her patients that she will be very responsibly balancing her obligations to them with "fun." And then we have the young gentleman, who decides that computer graphics (to work on video games, I am guessing) is a better career choice than math, science, or engineering, even when he has obvious potential in those areas. I forget the young man's exact words; but the gist of it was that he wanted to do something that wasn't boring. (I think he was actually referring to a "desk job" as the boring thing there; but clearly he had not even considered science and math.)

Now, I'm not saying this to knock computer graphics as a career choice. I know that it takes bright, talented and creative people to do what some of those computer graphic artists and technicians can do. And I know next to nothing about it, so in addition to clarifying that my intent is not to denigrate those who choose that field, let me point out that I am speaking in near-total ignorance of what it actually takes to be successful in computer graphics. What I think this young man's choice does reflect, though, is what our modern American culture holds most dear: entertainment.

Think about the aspiring doctor who holds "fun" as such a high value that she has set actual responsibility alongside "fun" and redefined responsibility as a balancing act between the two. And the young gentleman's number one criterion for academic pursuit and future career choice? It isn't improving himself or the world around him; and it isn't even getting rich, necessarily. His lofty goal is to not be bored. I would argue that this is a result of growing up in a culture that is saturated with entertainment and places it on the highest of pedestals.

I will be happy to elaborate/expand/discuss/debate this claim in further posts; but for now I simply state my opinion: that the number one cultural priority of Americans today is to be entertained. Hence, our "best and brightest" believe that responsibility is balancing fun with other activities, since "fun" is such an obvious must; and designing video games is a better choice than...I don't know...anything of significance.

Now let me clarify that I have nothing against entertainment in and of itself. I have been known to play the occasional video game over the summer; and I am an admitted addict of LOST and The Office. As an avowed Trekker of the most refined taste, every summer (yes, this is really true) I watch the entire series Deep Space Nine. My performance as air band judge "Paul Abdul" no longer allows me to deny that I even watch that pillar of our modern culture, American Idol. (Ever notice that the "American Idol" is an entertainer?) For that matter, some of you may know that I do a little thing called Saxon Day every year, and that I run a little movie-making club on campus. Entertainment is a wonderful thing, in the right context; and I think that the human mind even needs some of it in order to remain healthy.

But when entertainment takes priority over anything, or everything, then said entertainment is in an inherently inappropriate context. I actually suspect that entertainment has been shoving things off center stage in America for a while now, though its usurpation of more important considerations has occasionally been slowed by such inconveniences as wars or civil unrest. But this current generation has not only grown up with entertainment as the number one priority; they have come to expect that they should always have lots of it, and it should always be as new and as immediate as possible. (A cell phone that only plays music? Where'd you get that...three years ago?) They feel entitled to be entertained; and that worse evils than boredom probably exist, but they are even less entertaining.

Is it any surprise that they view the ultimate career as designing video games? Or that they believe responsibility means balancing your personal fun with actual responsibility?

America is heading for a national crisis, and it seems that one of our biggest challenges as a nation is to open our eyes and realize that it is upon us. Our challenge as American educators has to be to figure out not only how to get the young Americans in our classrooms to understand the very anti-entertaining proposition that we are heading for a crisis, but how to prepare them to get themselves and the rest of our nation through this crisis.

I welcome your thoughts, opinions, discussion, and debate. This should be entertaining.

Greetings!

Fellow Teachers,

Our beloved program director has asked me to set up this blog as a repository of our thoughts regarding the film 2 Million Minutes. I shall post my reaction to this film and ask a few pointed questions. Feel free to respond to what I've said or contact me and I will add you to the blog as an author--and you can post your own "top tier" response and questions.

Electronically yours,

Mel