Response to Jessica Russo: Core Requirements to Graduate HS

Question: Should there be a core requirement to graduate high school? Why or why not? If so, what classes would it be made up of?

I view myself as having a moderate standpoint on this issue. On the one hand, I do believe that requiring a student to participate in a variety of classes is food for them; it might get them involved in something they would not normally pick for themselves—something that they truly enjoy once they give it a chance and might even pursue as a major in college. Furthermore, I believe that a diverse curriculum is more mentally engaging and that it is better if students are using multiple areas of their brains. If a student were allowed to pick all of the classes they wanted, the majority of them would probably choose curriculums for themselves that are either mostly creative arts or mostly concrete subjects such as math and science. This is because we tend to enjoy what we are good at, and most people are better either with the creative side of their brain or the side that processes logic.

On the other hand, I think that the outlined curriculum in public schools is much too rigid. Most high schools have a set science program that requires a student to take biology, chemistry and physics as their science courses. I think there should be more choices for students, such as environmental classes.

Of course, there are some classes that really are a requisite for succeeding in college. For instance, if students were not required to take standard English classes, they would not know how to write papers effectively (among other things).

Question in response: Who should get to decide what classes are offered in a school?

Recess/Extended Lunch

When we’re kids we receive a period in the school day both for lunch and for recess. Once you move on from elementary school, however, recess is taken away. Furthermore, the lunch periods in many middle and high schools are shorter than those in elementary school. The norm seems to be that high school students get between 30 and 40 minutes for lunch. In my middle school, we only received 20 minutes. In my high school in Texas (where I spent freshman and sophomore year), we received a full hour. At the high school I attended in Vermont for my junior and senior years, we received half an hour. I remember thinking in middle school that 20 minutes was barely enough time to go through the lunch line and sit down. I felt similarly when I had the half hour lunch period in Vermont. When I had an hour for lunch in Texas, there was plenty of time to go through the lines, eat, and then spend some time catching up on homework or sitting outside in the sun. I preferred this partly because I could eat at a less agitated pace and partly because it gave me time in the middle of the day to relax—like recess used to be a time for that in elementary school. I feel as though having that time during a 7 or 8 hour day of classes is just as important to learning as attending those classes. It made it easier to concentrate for the rest of the day and gave me time to shake off the stress and tiredness of the classes beforehand. I often find myself wondering why recess is something restricted to young children, and why middle and elementary schools are so reluctant to offer a more extended lunch period.

Question: Do you think having extended lunch periods or some form of recess in middle and high schools would be beneficial or harmful to the education system?

Student/Teacher Ratio

Every school has a different ratio of students to teachers. There are a few factors that influence this. For instance, different regions have different ratios. My public school in Austin, Texas had roughly 30 students in each class because it was in a more populated area, whereas my public school in Vermont had no more than 20 due to the fact that it was in a less populated area. Whether a school is public or private also influences the student/teacher ratio; the private school in my town in Vermont had between 8 and 10 students in each class. On the other hand, many colleges have classes of up to 200 students. Many people think that learning is more effective in schools where the student to teacher ratio is lower—that is to say, when there are fewer students assigned to a teacher, those students will do better than if there were more kids in the class.

I understand that a teacher can focus more closely on his students’ needs if he has less students to focus on. However, I always felt smothered in schools where I was in a smaller class. I wanted to be able to work more independently than my teachers allowed and also felt as though my teachers were too involved in my personal life. I preferred to be in classes where there was more separation between myself and my teachers.

My question is this: Do you feel like you would benefit more from a class that has a smaller number of students? Why or why not?

Response to Becky Shwetz: Beautiful Mystery

If a piece of music is more beautiful the second or third time it is heard, then is improvisation less beautiful? I think that when you hear a piece of music for the first time, there are many things you might miss in it—certain nuances that aren’t as obvious as other parts of the song. For instance, you might not hear the baseline because the guitar riff is more prominent. You might not catch a certain line of lyrics the first time around. The more you listen to the song, the more you hear because you can focus on different things each time.

Despite this, I do not think improvisation is any less beautiful than a piece you can listen to over and over. Improvisation is beautiful in its own way because it takes an amazing amount of skill and courage to just play with no notes or any other directions in front of you to refer to. Improvisation is beautiful because it is new every time, so it never gets boring or old.

My question in response is this: Why do you think so many people are afraid to put themselves out there and give improvisational performances?

Ebonics

The other day I was watching a television special on VH1 called “I Love the 80s.” I’m sure some of you have also seen this. For those of you who haven’t, it’s a program where all these celebrities sit and talk about all the things that were popular in the 80s or important events that happened then. One thing they discussed that I found extremely interesting was the fact that there were many schools in the 80s that had classes for what was called African American Vernacular English. This was more commonly referred to as “Black Vernacular English,” “Black English,” or “Ebonics.” Basically, students went to classes that taught English but as a black person was perceived to speak it.

Those in favor of Ebonics state that the language has distinctive vocabulary and verb tenses that separate it from “Standard English” (what is normally taught in schools), and that it has specific pronunciation features along definable patterns. These factors are thought to have been adapted from Creole languages as well as other West African tongues. In 1974, the Conference on College Composition and Communication argued that students had a right to their own language. In 1979 a federal judge ruled in favor of Ebonics, stating that when teaching black children to read and write, schools should be adjusting to the children’s dialect and that it is unfair to expect a child to adjust to the school instead. The same judge commented that by neglecting the black students’ language, schools were contributing to the failure of such students to read and use Standard English proficiently. This made sense to a lot of people, and many believed that the use of Ebonics classes would bring down the illiteracy rate among African Americans.

My question to you all is this, Do you agree with the judge’s viewpoint? Why or why not?

Response to Emily Burke: Improvisation in Music

Emily asked: Do you think the environment affects one's ability to improvise? I definitely think this is the case. Oftentimes, we feel more comfortable performing anything—improvisational or otherwise—in front of people we don’t know, rather than in front of our peers. People who are comfortable going on stage in front of a hundred strangers freeze up when they are asked to do the same in front of their classmates. This is because we would rather mess up in front of strangers who we will most likely not see again than people we see regularly. The less you know a person, the less you talk to them, the less they can express negative judgments to you about your performance.

I think this anxiety is especially prevalent when students are asked to perform something that they either developed themselves or are making up on the spot. Again, this is because we fear negative judgments. If one plays a part in a play, and his friend tells him after the performance that he didn’t like the play, one would take it more personally if it was a piece one wrote himself. On the other hand, if one is performing a piece that someone else wrote and his friend dislikes it, one can simply shrug it off saying, “Well I didn’t write it,” thus excusing him from any blame for the lackluster show. It takes more courage for a person to share his own work with others than it does to merely display someone else’s.

My question in response is this: Do you think your peers are likely to judge you more harshly than a stranger would?

Response to Jacob Wheeler: Organized Sound vs Organized Movement

Jacob asked, Is there a laudable quality to music that cannot be found to any degree in sports?

I think if someone were to answer this in the affirmative, they would try to say that the quality the arts possess that sports lack is the call for creativity. After all, both require teamwork to create a triumphant end product. In both one must master a set of specialized skills to perform well. In either one, the person in question can choose to either follow directions or strike out on their own. Both can be played for either competition or for fun in your spare time. Some people would argue, though, that sports do not use the creativity that is required in the arts. However, I think this is false. When playing sports, you have a game plan. There is a clear set of steps you must execute. But sometimes things go wrong and you have to think on your feet. Is this not the same as improvisation in theatre?

Question in response: Should kids be forced to participate in sports or gym in school? What are the benefits?

Red Pen Problem

Apparently in many schools across the nation teachers are being instructed to cease their usage of red pens for correcting purposes. It is believed that when kids see the red marks—whether they may be indicating something negative or positive—they immediately start feeling anxious and it is damaging to their psyches. The explanation behind this is that the color red is often associated with negative things such as anger, blood, etc.

The theory goes that if teachers use another color to make marks on papers and tests, children will not be as anxious upon receiving their corrected work and will therefore not be discouraged in their studies. My question is, Do you think this theory is sound? Do you support its implementation?