Paper #5: The U.S. Education System is Messed Up!

Just as the title states I believe that the U.S. Education System is messed up.  I base this opinion on what I learned by reading, “Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital”, an article from MonthlyReview.org.  This article was authored by John Bellemy Foster.  After reading this article my eyes were opened the inner workings of reformation concerning the American Education System.  I never really noticed before how our schools, grades K-12, were run as though they were a factory.  Another thing I didn’t realize is that the people in charge of running the reform of the education system are not made up of anyone that knows anything about the students or how to teach.  The people in charge of the reform are actually large corporation business types.  This article also pointed out to me how the No Child Left Behind act actually works as well as how standardized testing is actually used.

Foster points out a statement made by Eli Broad, “We don’t know anything about how to teach or reading curriculum or any of that. But what we do know about is management and governance.”  Eli Broad is in charge of the Broad Foundation.  The Broad Foundation is one of four large foundations that are in charge of running the education system reform.  That statement alone prompts me to question why the hell they are in charge.  The other three foundations are made up of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation.  Notice anything?  All of these foundations are made up of large corporations such as Bill Gates and Microsoft, the Walton Family and Wal-Mart, and the computer company Dell.  I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t feel comfortable with these large corporation types deciding how our education system is going to be run.

When I think of the No Child Left Behind act I think of schools and teachers going all out to ensure that not even a single student fails.  I think of teachers trying different ways to help students that have trouble learning the material, schools making learning more fun and interesting in order to keep the students attention so they enjoy learning and in turn learn more.  This is what I think when I hear the phrase No Child Left Behind.  As it turns out that just prompts the schools to implement more standardized testing.  Apparently standardized testing is used to; essentially, grade the teachers on how well they are teaching their students.  Depending on how well the students test on a yearly basis that depicts whether the teachers will stay or go.  In order to remain in their position, the teachers need the test scores to improve each year.  Now I think this is a good idea.  Of course I don’t like testing anymore than anyone else but this helps to improve our teachers’ skills and in turn improve on how students learn.  The drawback I see to this is what happens when schools don’t improve each year.  If a school does not improve after five years then they are to comply with one of five methods of restructure.  These five methods were to change to a charter school, layoff all staff and replace them, hand over the school to private management, give all control over to the state, or “any other major restructuring of the school’s governance.”

Before reading any further I agreed with the restructure methods.  Although laying off all the staff of a school seems harsh, if they are not doing their job then they shouldn’t be there.  This is my opinion, but then I did read further and it turns out that charter schools, which are made to help improve test scores, in some cases, actually turn out worse test scores or just marginally better scores.  One would think that if a school goes under reconstruction and new management in order to improve that the school would actually improve.  Doesn’t that seem a little messed up?

From what I have learned about this issue by reading Foster’s article I have constructed my own opinion.  My opinion is this: If a school fails to improve its test scores each year then I think the staff should have a wakeup call and start thinking about how to get the students to do better.  I don’t think the teachers should have to worry about keeping their job, I think they should worry about how to keep the students interested in learning.  If the students are interested and enjoy learning then I think they would do better on the test scores.  Aside from the issues with test scores I think having foundations made of non-teaching degree businessmen is just stupid.  I think that in order to run a nation-wide education system you need actual teachers alongside these businessmen in order to create an education system worth bragging about, because what we have now is a joke.

Works Cited

Foster, J. B. (2011, August 22). Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine: http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/education-and-the-structural-crisis-of-capital

Paper #4: Didn't do it. Sorry. My bad.

I was supposed to write a fourth 500 word response to an article, but I got caught up with other assignments in my other classes.  Thus, I did not have time to complete, let alone start, the fourth paper.  Instead I have decided it is going to cost me too much time to go back and write this article, therefore I will not, but instead leave this truthful explanation as to why I don't have this assignment.  I owe you that much in the least.

Apologies,
Randy

Paper #3: America, Don't Let the Name Fool You!

After reading the introduction and foreword for the book “Someplace like America: Tales from the New Great Depression” I have come to my own conclusions about the shape my country.  What the author, Dale Maharidge, was trying to express to his audience, in my opinion, was how our country is falling apart.  After reading about many stories that Maharidge points out, I have opened my eyes and taken notice of many similar events.  Though not exact or as big or noticeable, I have come to the conclusion that America is not the same country that it was starting out.

Maharidge mentions the 1930’s a lot and all I have to go on is that I know that the great depression took place at that time.  I didn’t live it and I don’t know anyone that did.  I am sure many people didn’t think that they would make it during such hard times.  It must have been real scary to know that that country that you believed in and trusted just threw its people away like trash.  Ok, that might be slightly exaggerated.

The title of Maharidge’s book mentions “The New Great Depression”.  This is referring to the condition of the current economy, which pretty much sucks…a lot.  In some eyes it truly is another great depression, but for others such as myself I personally have not been affected.  I understand that the country is in debt but I have only heard about it, not experienced it.  The truth is we shouldn’t be in debt at all.  If a country is run properly then nearly everything should run smoothly.  This can’t always be the case because there are always going to be outside factors like other countries and the occasional crooked politician.

That leads me to another problem that Maharidge points out.  He takes notice of how most senators and other politicians ignore the people who are not of the same class as them.  For example Maharidge talks about the homeless people of Santa Barbara, California and how they were mistreated and had threats made against them by police officers and other higher class citizens.  These ‘homeless people’ have done no harm to any of the people threatening them.  The only thing that they are trying to do is survive and all the other people can think about is how they don’t like them sleeping underneath a big tree in the park.  To me, that is ridiculous.  All I can think about in that situation is why these higher class folks aren’t helping these homeless people.  For Pete’s sake they don’t have a home to go to!  Where would they go if they were pushed away from their tree?  Another tree?  This situation wouldn’t have happened if these so called politicians that represent the people actually stood up and represented the people and helped these homeless people find shelter and get back on their feet.  But all they can think of is how they can spend their money on something that benefits them instead.  These people make me sick.

Just as Maharidge describes, I too believe that this ‘great nation’ is essentially corrupt.  Maharidge may not have said so directly but I think it should be said.  Don’t get me wrong I love this country, but sometimes I think our officials run this country like a big, oversized game of monopoly and the higher class gets to be the car while everyone else is stuck being the old shoe because all the other pieces are missing.

Paper #2: Is Reality Real Or Is It Just A Frankenbite?

Recently I read a Q and A between Macleans.ca and Jennifer Pozner.  Pozner is the director of Women in Media & News as well as the author of Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV.  The Q and A is about Pozner’s take on the so called reality shows on TV and how real they actually are.  This Q and A is specifically talking about how ‘women’ are type cast and edited to make them fit the stereotype that the producers of such shows want them to be.  Well I think it goes both ways and that men are also type cast and edited to fit certain stereotypes.

The first question asked to Pozner is “Why do you say it’s “bulls—t” that viewer demand has created the deluge of reality TV?”  The basis behind this question is that viewer demand is what keeps crappy reality shows on TV.  The fact that people want to see women be objectified and watch men act like horny teenagers.  I know I don’t want to see crap like that but I’m not everybody so I can’t say that everybody else doesn’t want to watch it either.  What I can say is that I can ask almost everyone I know and they will agree with me that these reality shows are just a bunch of crap.  And I don’t hangout with a dumb crowd, so how many people could there be that actually want to watch these shows?  According to Pozner, viewer demand doesn’t actually decide whether a show stays or goes.  The deciding factor is money.  Pozner states that, and I quote, “It’s true that some reality shows—American Idol, The Bachelor—have gotten high ratings, but many others languish with paltry ratings and they get to stay [on air] because these shows are really cheap to produce.  It can cost about 50 per cent less—sometimes even 75 per cent less—to make a reality show than to make a quality scripted program.”  Now I don’t know this to be a fact but Pozner seems to think so and after reading her response I can agree with what she says.  I think it is just a bunch of bulls—t that the media says shows stay on because of popular demand.  If shows stayed on the air because of viewer demand then such shows like Firefly and Stargate: Universe would still be on the air.  These shows deserved to stay because they had a good story line, but a show like Jersey Shore with its drunken arguments, fake tans, and ridiculous music still gets to stay on air?  I can’t help but think it is because of the cost.

Another question asked by Macleans.ca was “You argue that we need to readjust our definition of “scripted”.”  In short, Pozner says that scripting doesn’t just include giving an actor/actress a piece of paper to memorize but is also involves casting.  Pozner mentions how producers try to find people who have actual problems just so they can exploit them for ‘better’ entertainment.  Even after the producers find someone they like they then still have to edit them into the perfect stereotype they want.  Pozner states, “After casting, they then edit people into stock characters: the dumb bimbo, the catty bitch, the weepy loser who says, “I’m going to die alone if the bachelor doesn’t choose me!””  Another thing that she points out is that “…for every 45 minutes of The Bachelor they [viewers] see, more than 100 hours of film have been shot.”  This is the same for every show I can think of.  It’s the same for movies also and that’s why some TV series have DVD releases that contain “extra footage” that is “never before seen”.  You can’t show everything in just one episode.  But what Pozner is getting at leads us into her response to the next question, “You write about “Frankenbites,” the industry term for splicing various conversations together to create a fraudulent new one.”  Pozner gives a prime example where, on Joe Millionaire, the producers spliced two different conversations from two different days to give the viewers this scene, “Viewers watched about five minutes of trees in the dark, nothingness. But what you heard were things like, “Do you think it would go better lying down?” And there were captions like “slurp” and “mmm.”“  This would give a certain impression to the viewers of something that didn’t even really happen.  I think if you’re going to be in the business of reality TV at least make it real.  If the conversation doesn’t fit then just leave it out or better yet leave it in and it makes things seem that much more real because it IS real.  Not like ‘frankenbite’ conversations.  The only examples of this happening that I know of are what Pozner describes and the worst case she mentioned was about a cast member from The Bachelor.  Without going into great detail, basically the producers used the woman’s family problem against her in order to make her cry when she got eliminated.  She had told the producers that she didn’t want to cry because she was glad to be going home and that she didn’t even like the guy.  She generally regretted agreeing to be on the show in the first place.  The producers proceeded to, after making her cry, use their conversation and splice her sentences to make it seem as though she was very sad she was leaving and she regretted not opening up to the bachelor.  The fact that people can do this and get away with it because of a contract sickens me.  These producers could care less about how these girls actually feel about leaving the show they just want them to make a scene so the viewers have something exciting to see.

A major question that I find interesting is “Reality shows appear to exist in a bubble, completely disconnected from social reality.”  My response is similar in effect to what Pozner states.  I have noticed that there are a lot of reality type shows on TV that really don’t touch at all on how our economy is doing.  Granted they don’t have to stop and mention how the economy is doing but there are a lot of people that are affected by the current depression and Jersey Shore doesn’t seem to show anyone struggling at all.  All I have seen on these reality shows is stuck up snobby people having fun and blowing money like its toilet paper.  Pozner points out how people in shows like Flip That House and Million Dollar Listing are throwing cash around and essentially telling viewers how to get out and make money by doing the same thing when truthfully that would not be a wise decision people should follow.  I think reality shows are cut off from social reality.  Another major example is how producers are ignoring the fact that women are advancing in society and have been for many years now.  Shows like Wife Swap, according to Pozner, are continually putting women down.  An example of this is how the producers are always switching a stay-at-home mom with a mother who has an outside job or an outside career.  By doing this and creating frankenbites the producers lead the viewers to believe that stay-at-home moms are right in their place while more independent women won’t survive in the outside world and need to stay home and take care of the children.  I mentioned earlier how I believe men are victims to the media as well.  One example of this is that fathers are the money earners and if someone is a stay-at-home dad then he is seen as weak.  This follows suit with the same stereotype as women.  This is what reality shows are trying to depict and that is not the world we live in.  There are many families with stay-at-home dads and mothers who have long-term careers.  Society has advanced a lot since the 1950’s and women can do a lot more now than they could then, but reality shows keep pushing their crap down our throats.

The final question that asked to Pozner was, “Is reality programming the new reality?”  Pozner gives an example of what the future is going to look like if we don’t start criticizing these shows more.  She states, “Bridalplasty is about to debut: cosmetic surgery given to brides who compete to get procedures while they plan their wedding. We’ve had Extreme Makeover, The Swan, so what can they do to make it even more disgusting? Oh, let’s merge the wedding-industrial-complex shows with the cosmetic-surgery-is-liberating-for-women shows.”  I don’t usually watch any reality TV so this shouldn’t bother me but what does is that my mom watches a lot of reality TV so that scares the hell out of me.  I think reality TV is becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute and we need to put a stop to it or else we are going to start living in the 50’s again.  What people see on ‘real’-ity TV is what they tend to see in the real world and that is a bad thing because what produces throw out on TV is sometimes nowhere even close to actual reality.

My Politcal Compass on Where I Stand

Paper #1: 5 Questions!

For my English class I have to answer 5 questions about myself.  And here are the answers to those questions.

1) Where do you come from?

I come from a small town in Kentucky called Versailles.  Physically that is where I come from.  Financially I come from what I like to call a low-middle class home.  We don't have everything but we have what we need and that is just fine with me.

2) What is your experience with writing?

My experience with writing is not vast by no means.  I always tell people that I'm not good at writing and that's not true.  I can be really good at writing if I have something interesting to write about.  If I'm uninterested in the subject then my paper will be mediocre at best and probably not even that good.  Not like if I am interested the paper will be a beautiful masterpiece but it will be better.

3) What are your beliefs?

My beliefs are based on one simple concept and that is respect others as you expect to be respected by them.  I respect everyone until they disrespect me and that's how I live.  I believe if you are a good person then good things should happen to you in return and if you are a bad person then you shouldn't get the same treatment as a good person but you should be giving a chance(sometimes).

4) Why the hell are you in college?

I like computers and my major is in CIT and without college I wouldn't know as much about computers as I do now.  Another reason I am in college is because neither my Great Grandfather, Grandfather, or my Dad even completed High School and I would like to be the first in my line to go to college.  It's kind of a pride thing I guess.

5) What kind of culture do you consume?

As far as music is concerned I am big into metal/heavy metal/death metal/melodic death metal and various other genres related to metal.  This is mostly because I was previously in a band that played these genres.  I love this style of music and I think it is badly misrepresented in most cases.  Although these are my favorite genres I enjoy almost anything except rap.  I am also big into computers as well as martial arts.  I guess I'm what you would label a 'Nerdy metal-headed martial artist'.  I would accept that but I don't like the use of labels.  Who is to say who you are other than yourself?