Child Testing

Recently, I have been preparing for the December 11th ACT. This Sunday I took a practice test that took three hours. Three hours for a practice test that has no meaning. Time that I could have spent doing something else, anything else. I have never agreed with the reliance on testing to get into college. There are many elements that decide how well a student will do at any given college, and multiple choice questions hardly determine a student's potential to be a successful college student. Students may get good grades because they try hard, but are not good on standardized tests. Students who gets good grades because they try hard will likely try hard in college and do well there. But, because they don't know when to use who, or whom, it might prevent them from getting into the college they want.

In rich suburbs like the north shore, more people can afford private tutors that can boost an ACT score by as much as five points - a huge difference. Not every student who is wealthy enough to afford tutors is smarter than other college applicants. Also, in suburbs like the north shore, parents can afford to have their students tested to see if they have a processing disorder, or some other problem that might make them impaired taking tests. Unfortunately, many kids in less affluent areas are not able to be tested to determine that they have a learning problem that could get them extra time taking tests. The fact that colleges put so much weight on these tests shows that the American school system rewards those with access to special services, rather than measuring everybody's abilities equally.

Adults have given me mixed messages about the ACT's. I heard from my parents that I will take it as many times as possible, because this may get me a slightly higher score. I have also heard from my neighbor that these tests are overvalued and that I shouldn't worry about them. Maybe if I don't do that well I won't get into all the schools I would want to get into, but whatever school you can get into can give you a good education. At the same time, my parents have "blackmailed" me by saying if I do not try hard while preparing to take the ACT, I may not be admitted to a decent college. Then they won't want to pay my tuition for a poor school, which is hard to argue with.

While reading The Crucible I found that the judges Hawthorne and Danforth  similarly blackmail Proctor by asking him if he will "confess",  to which Proctor indirectly answers "I will have my life"(126). Here, Proctor confesses that he was with the devil just because he wanted to live, and had he not confessed he would have been killed. The judges blackmail him so that they could get what they want, which is confirmation that there are witches. Parents blackmail their kids so that they can get into the colleges the parents want them to get into.

The Judge and The Teacher

I came downstairs this week to see my parents watching a French movie. My mom described the movie as a documentary type movie - but with acting. A documentary in French with English sub-titles did not at first appeal to me. I sat down planning to watch five minutes, but ended up watching the movie for over an hour.   The movie, The Class, is based on an auto-biographical novel written by a teacher. The teacher who wrote the novel is cast in the movie as the teacher in a French class (like our English class). The movie was filmed with a group of students aged about 15, who improvised and acted, but in such a way that it seems like a documentary. The school was located in a poor, multi-ethnic neighborhood in Paris. Although there were some similarities in the way the students behaved, there were many contrasts between this poor Parisian school and New Trier, and it kept my attention.  For a more complete description of the movie click <a href=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090204/REVIEWS/902049991/1023> Here </a>. 

A central theme in this movie was the power struggle within the classroom between the students and the teachers. The teacher would talk, followed by students talking out and challenging what he said, often showing disrespect. Often, arguments would erupt between the teacher and the class. The students talked out because they did not fear the punishment, unlike New Trier students. In a less competitive school, the kids cared about their grades significantly less than New Trier students care about their grades. Therefore, the teacher threatening to take points off their grades for speaking out is a less successful form of punishment. Many students would swear in class and disrespect their teacher, regardless of what effect it has on their grade. When a student's behavior became extremely disruptive he could be sent to a disciplinary committee to see if he should be expelled from the school. 

The way the students stood up to their teachers, and did not fear consequences, made me think about how different this was from our school. At New Trier, for the most part, students fear punishment and do not swear to their teachers or classmates, or show disrespect for their teachers in general. At New Trier, we can be punished for significantly more minor incidents. For example, just openly disagreeing with the teacher can easily get a student sent to the hallway or adviser chair. The teachers also control the students' grades. Since the teachers control the students' grades, students will suck up to their teachers in order to have a better grade. Students will do extra credit assignments, and tell their teachers that they are good students and do their homework and try hard, so they can get a better grade. Performing for grades is directly connected to our ultimate goal of being accepted at the best college possible. In the French school, students didn't seem to have that motivation.

In The Crucible, the judges' power over the townspeople is very similar. In Salem not many people speak out against the court in fear of retribution. Since the judges hold so much power, and can condemn someone to death for behaving like a witch, people want to be on the good side of the judge. One will claim that they are a good religious person, and have gone to church in the past, just so the judges can see them as a good person who could not be considered a witch. 

Both the teacher and the judge hold so much power over their class, or townspeople, that they receive respect. The class and the town want to be on the good side of the person in power, so they suck up to their judge or teacher in order to save themselves. But is this really respect?

"family" map

This week we have been working on a project that focuses on civil liberties. While researching civil liberties I often came across the Patriot Act. This act is designed for America's national security, and to protect the country from terrorism. Among other activities, the Patriot Act allows for private phone conversations to be listened in on by the government.

Earlier today I received a test message message from AT&T FamilyMap reminding me that I can be located by my mom (the phone's location is available on an online map). Although my mom is the only person who is able to access the service that tracks the location of my cell phone, I am still uncomfortable with the knowledge that she can track me down whenever she doesn't know where I am. AT&T never asked my permission for this, and simply allowed it to happen because of my mother's request. I feel that this breaches my personal rights, and that this is basically 'big brother' watching me without my consent.

The Patriot act similarly watches over people for national security, but dismisses our personal rights. I feel very uncomfortable with my mom being able to track me down online without my consent, but even more uncomfortable that the government can just as easily listen to my conversations without my consent.

A Slaveholder's Diary

Earlier today my mom gave me an article from the New York Times that my older brother sent to her about a widowed plantation mistress' diary (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/a-slaveholders-diary/). The plantation owner, Mrs. Brevard, writes that her slaves are actually happy in their role as slaves, and that the northerner's outrage is the reason the slaves became "restless" in their role. She also describes how she is angry at female slaves for being "impudent".

This reminds me of "Sambo", the black boy who was not smart, but always happy, an idea many white people believed in. Also, describing female slaves as impudent women reminds me of how in "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass", Frederick Douglass describes how a housewife was jealous of the female slaves for their sexual relationships with her husband, even though the female slaves were likely forced to do so.

The most interesting part of this article is how the widower describes herself very fair, and that "no soul on this earth is more willing for justice" than she. I find this so interesting because she herself has over two-hundred slaves, and is upset with the election of Lincoln because she cannot think of a world where she lives side by side with blacks. Also, it is very interesting that she says that slaves are happy in their role, but also admits they hate her for being their slaveowner. In addition, she is angry at the female slaves for their sexual relations with the men, when in reality she must know that it is not their choice. She brushes off the fact that her logic is flawed, blaming the women for the men's infidelity, and admitting that slaves would prefer to be free.

manipulation

Young children are very susceptible to adult influence. Most kids have the same political beliefs as their parents and are fans of same sports teams. Kids whose teachers teach them a particular historical perspective are more likely to view those historical events with the same prejudices. 

Last week we talked about how the Puritans taught their children that behavior was an indicator of predestination status. Social control was highly valued in Puritan society. From a young age kids behaved very well, because Puritans believed that well-behaved children were more likely to be predestined to go to heaven.

Parents today exaggerate the importance of small problems, so their kids will learn and behave better in the future. Kids can get into trouble with their parents for things that are not even their fault. For example, kids often get into trouble about their grades, when it easily may not be their fault for receiving the grade they were given. Really, the kid may not be smart enough to get a better grade in a class. In addition, the teacher may have predetermined that the student is a "B student" or "C student" and the kid may really struggle against that to raise his grade. In reality it may not have to do with work ethic, laziness, or other factors within the student's control. 

Is it just as bad to scare kids by saying they won't go to heaven if they behave badly, as it is punishing kids for things that are out of their control? We looked at the Puritans as crazy for influencing their kids' behavior through religious ABC books, and threats about going to heaven, but we too are crazy for punishing kids because they do not reach parents' expectations. If a kid doesn't do as well in school as he would like isn't that enough punishment? Although parents may think punishment will help the child become more like themselves (as in politics and sports), sometimes the child does not have room for improvement, which creates even more anger in the parents when the child does not improve. Parents should not manipulate their children into becoming what they think they should be.

And I Support This Message

During this election season, political candidates seem willing to do anything to win, or more accurately, to beat the other candidate. In commercials, candidates on both sides typically say something positive about themselves, followed by something very negative about their opponent that may or may not contain some truth, but is often exaggerated. This morning on the radio I heard an advertisement for some minor political candidate, who said she was going to bring change to Washington, and that her opponent was untrustworthy. The advertisement was paid for by her friends. After the commercial I had no idea if the candidate was independent, republican, democratic, or in the tea party. The point is that these candidates, regardless of their party, say something that everyone agrees with, such as their intention to create more jobs, but keep it so general that there is nothing controversial in their message. Of course, they also fail to  explain how they will accomplish what they promise, and they blame their opponent for something everyone hates, like being untrustworthy.

Instead of proudly voicing their opinions, and saying why they believe they are better than their opponent, candidates do whatever it takes to put themselves into office. Now although I would like to blame the candidates for their black and white advertisements, our society is to blame. These commercials are created because this is what the audience responds to; brief sentences requiring little thought designed to bring out an emotional response in the listener. I believe there should be tougher restrictions on commercials requiring that they tell the truth, so the audience doesn't have to be exposed to so much false advertising.