I cannot clearly remember a time in my life in which I was not a student in the public-school system.  Nearly every single one of us were raised and taught within the context of, if not a public school, some type of institutionalized school system. For this reason, we naturally do not feel much of an urge to question the life goals that they have laid out before us throughout our development. Now that I am at least removed from public high school (if not institutionalized schooling completely), it was really interesting to take a step back from what I had learned the goals of schooling should be growing up and take a more objective look at what we encourage in our students and how we do this. In this final post, I am going to take a look back at the topics I have covered along the way and draw personal conclusions and thoughts about the goals of K-12 public education.

The first facet of public schooling I explored was the Common Core.  This was a very interesting topic for me to look into, because at first, I truly did not have much knowledge about it except for what I had heard from parents and teachers. I knew that I had heard teachers complain about it, but I didn’t want to form my opinion based off of what I had heard my teachers disliked.  Through my research, I found that the Common Core has what I believe to be a noble goal – to ensure that students across the country graduate school with certain skill sets, no matter socioeconomic status. However, my research also indicated that statistically the Common Core has not been accomplishing its goal. My conclusion is that I do believe standards should be set and tested for to make sure students countrywide are acquiring life skills: this is an undeniable goal of public education. Nevertheless, the Common Core standards need to be re-vamped to make them easier for teachers to implement in an effective manner and more transferable to testing.

In my next post, I discussed what in-class testing does for students and my BiSci 3 class’s no-testing policy.  The motto of my professor is that “the purpose of education is not so much to accumulate knowledge, but to expand awareness.” The class seeks to redefine traditional educational goals. As a future teacher, I will be testing my students. I believe that testing is essential to ascertaining that students acquiring class skills that can aid them in their future careers and in their daily life. This addresses the preparatory goal of education that I feel cannot be ousted from the classroom. However, I also like a lot of my BiSci professor’s ideas about education being about students discovering more about themselves and the world around them. Along with testing, I believe teachers should also implement activities that strive to address this goal of aiding student discovery and curiosity.

Next, I addressed the SATs. I feel like my opinions about the SAT are similar to my thoughts on the Common Core. Do I believe that a standardized test is necessary to attempt to assess student success in colleges? Yes. Do I believe the SAT does that effectively…not really. I think that, similar to the Common Core, the SAT struggles to measure acquired skills rather than memorized knowledge.  The question that arises – that I cannot answer – is that of whether there is an effective way to test for skill acquisition. The new SAT is attempting to adapt to better accomplish that, so we’ll have to see if it can deliver.

Regarding block scheduling, my next post topic, I have a very strong opinion in favor of schools making the transition. Though I concede that it takes effort and planning to endure the transition process, block scheduling is much more conducive to addressing the goals of public education than a traditional schedule.  Block scheduling better prepares students for college, also for better skill development, critical thinking, and cooperative learning, and reduced student stress. I believe block scheduling best furthers the goals of public education.

My next topic was AP classes. I tried my best to come into this research unbiased, but I was a high school student who loved my AP classes for their challenge, teachers, and rigor. Though I think that there are ways in which AP classes can lead to inequality and damage student health, I think that they are necessary and can be really beneficial to the majority of students. It would be ideal if there was a way that the College Board could somehow provide resources to schools that are not able to support many AP classes so that they are accessible to more students. If students are counseled well by parents and advisors, AP classes can be very positive experiences that further the goals of challenging students and prepping them for college rigor.

Finally, I addressed GPA: weighted vs. unweighted. This is tied rather intimately with AP classes and my take on GPA is similar to what I just expressed about APs. Weighted GPA certainly has the potential to negatively affect student health and bring too much stress into their education. However, it provides a reward for students who work hard and challenge themselves, which is part of what the goals of public education encourage. Students and their guardians need to make sure they can handle their workload, but weighted GPAs have more positive effects than negative.

It has been really interesting examining the goals of K-12 public education from a distance and the structures in place that encourage students to meet those goals. It will be really interesting when I actually become an educator to see how much my opinions here are upheld and how they may shift or even radically change.

Four point oh. The number 4.0 holds a lot of weight among many different populations: high schoolers, college students, even among adults who have long since graduated from any form of formal educational institution. There are special awards for students at this level at high school graduations and at many colleges, and those who achieve this magical number are often lauded as exceedingly intelligent.

From personal experience and that of observing the behaviors of my friends and classmates, I can tell you without a doubt that receiving a 4.0 rarely signifies that an individual possesses superior intelligence, rather that they are committed and hard working. Of course, some natural smarts help students manage the workload and that 4.0 bar is not a feasible or realistic goal for every type of student. However, I certainly know 3.5 GPA students that are innately more intelligent than 4.0 students, the difference being that the 4.0 student was much more assiduous and diligent when it came to studying and schoolwork.

So, does the GPA system fairly represent the work, commitment, and intelligence of students to colleges and encourage readiness for work in real life? I would certainly say yes, though I do think students stress way too much over getting the perfect 4.0 figure when a 3.8 or 3.9 would likely be judged just as good of a GPA for a candidate in the views most colleges or employers.

However, I also know a student that graduated top of my class in high school with a 5.0, and that changes the whole game.

My school district had a weighted GPA system instituted in which honors and AP classes could earn a student a sort of “extra credit” towards their GPA. Taking an honors class, assuming you got all As, could bump your GPA up a fraction over 4.0, and AP classes were weighted as even more important and therefore earned students even more added to their GPA, assuming they did well.

As I discussed in my last post, I took a large amount of AP classes. Though I was proud of how far above a 4.0 my GPA was, I did not let the want for a higher GPA eclipse my interests and take over my life. A fact about me: I really dislike math. I’m decently good at it, and I was recommended for AP Calculus my senior year – I could have even taken AP Statistics or something – but I knew that I didn’t want to waste my time and energy on a class I would loathe. I took the AP classes I knew I would find interesting and fulfilling, and I loved every single one.

This is not the case for many high-achieving students who aspire to be admitted into Ivy League schools. Many try to take as great an advantage out of the weighted GPA system as possible, cramming their schedule full of as many AP classes as possible, even if they have to take extremely hard classes in subjects they despise. This can cause an undue amount of stress and self-induced anxiety and sleep deprivation.

It used to bother me a lot. One of my friends would be complaining about how they “absolutely hate AP chemistry” and that they were struggling in the class. So, I would ask “why did you take it then,” and they would reply defensively that they needed to. When I really made them think about their reasoning, they would either claim they wanted the college credit or the boost to their GPA, not the actual enrichment or enjoyment of the class.

So, what are the pros of weighted GPA systems? Some say it mirrors the hierarchy of salaries in real life: if you take on more work/work a more stressful job, you are rewarded with higher pay.  Allowing students to be rewarded encourage them to excel, challenge themselves, and work diligently to increase their class rank and GPA.

Those who don’t believe in weighted grading systems will argue that GPA does not play that large of a factor in the college admissions process anyway, and that administrators can just look at a course list to see that students are challenging themselves. Therefore, they argue, the incentive for challenging classes is still there. Another negative is the stress I mentioned earlier, and the fact that some unqualified students may push themselves to take advanced classes they are not ready for to boost their GPA.

Though I see the drawbacks and pressure that weighted GPAs can cost, I ultimately agree that they should be in place. AP classes are in truth very challenging and present a large workload. Even if there are incentives outside of GPA to challenge yourself, it is nice to be rewarded with a boost in your GPA. It feels concrete, like a goal to strive towards. I think the way to mitigate the negative aspects of weighted GPA systems would be parents and teachers ensuring they attempt to counsel their students as to how many advanced courses they can healthily, feasibly handle.

My little brother is currently a high school junior trying to decide what AP classes he wants to take his senior year.  Whereas I piled on the AP classes which I both thrived in and enjoyed immensely, my brother regards them in a more skeptical light.  He’s a smart kid, but he isn’t as willing to commit to the hours of studying through the late hours of night and large amount of writing that AP classes generally require as I was.  It’s his senior year, and he’s not sure how much some of these AP classes he was recommended for are worth it.  Then there’s the question I have always heard a lot of people ask: is it better to get an A in a normal class, or a B in an AP class?

In this post, I’ll be discussing the merits of and sacrifices required for Advanced Placement classes.  Here are some of the sources I’ve used to write this post:

• https://news.stanford.edu/2013/04/22/advanced-placement-courses-032213/
• https://www.theodysseyonline.com/ap-classes-good-bad-ugly
• https://www.kaptest.com/study/sat/what-looks-better-an-a-in-regular-college-prep-classes-or-a-lower-grade-in-honorsap-course-2/

Personally, as a very academically curious student, I really enjoyed all of the AP classes that I took in high school.  A few different factors contributed to my good experience with AP classes and exams: my high school tended to assign its most talented staff members to teach these high-level classes, I only took ones that I was intellectually interested in, and I am willing to do more work if I am fascinated by the subject. So, you could say that providing advanced material and activities to challenge interested students are one way AP classes can have a positive impact. I would also say from my own experience, that I met a lot of friends and like-minded individuals through my AP class choices.

AP classes also allow students to explore topics they may be interested in majoring in before they go to college – this could help them avoid paying for extra semesters at a university if they feel the need to change their major. In a similar vein, AP classes could help students graduate early or get a jump start on their credits if they do well on the exam, also possibly saving them some money or time.

Many students also take AP classes to boost their GPA. This can be seen as both a pro and a con. Feeling pressure to pile on the APs even when a student is not genuinely interested in them can lead to a lot of stress and possibly a bad grade in the class or on the exam, making their efforts fruitless.  However, many competitive colleges look specifically for very high GPAs and AP courses, so if a student wants to be admitted into these types of school they sort of have to put the work into nonessential AP courses.

This leads us to the question I posed at the beginning of the post: Is it better to get an A in a normal class or a B in an AP class? From what I would gather online, colleges would mostly rather see a B in an AP class than an A in an average level class. College like to see that a student is “challenging” themselves and taking academic risks.  They would rather see that you tried the harder classes and learned the material to a proficient level rather than took the simpler classes for the easy As.

While the point of AP classes is to replicate a college course, there is debate surrounding whether they fulfill this objective well.  Some argue that although AP courses technically cover all the material a similar college course would, it is in double the time and therefore the pace is not indicative of an actual college level course. I personally have found that my high school’s AP courses were very similar to the coursework and rigor I experience in my college classes now, but this leads us to another issue with AP courses…

Not all AP programs are equal.  I went to a very competitive and privileged high school that had a well-established, extensive, and effective AP program. However, other schools may have programs that lack in quality or in the number of courses available to students. This can put students in struggling or poorer school districts at a disadvantage in the college admissions process.  There is also the fact that the AP exams themselves cost around $95 each, which can hinder underprivileged students as well.

Then there’s the fact that the tests are a one-time, high-stakes and high-reward type of deal. They can be very stressful, and they have a varying usefulness depending on where a student goes to college and what they are majoring in. Some AP credits don’t transfer to certain colleges, and some colleges require that you take their courses if you plan on majoring in that subject.

In all, I think AP tests are useful to students who schedule them wisely. The bureaucracy and payments surrounding them are annoying, but if they are available, there are many benefits to taking the ones that you can handle, will enjoy, and may transfer credits to your college. It is all about choosing wisely.

Block scheduling. It’s the norm in nearly every university in the United States, but not necessarily at the high school level. My own high school operated on a version of the traditional “period” scheduling in which students have 6-8 shorter periods in a single school day. Block scheduling pares down the number of classes, but expands the amount of time in a single class period. Therefore, a student attending a high school with block scheduling would have only four classes a day, but each one would be significantly longer than the classes in a 6-8 class period schedule.

Increasingly, the popularity and interest around block-scheduling is taking hold of policymakers in high schools. In the United States, more than 50 percent of high schools have adopted or are strongly considering adopting block scheduling. In this post, I will consider the origins of the traditional high school schedule and pros and cons of block scheduling. These are the primary sources I used:

• http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin029.shtml
• https://owlcation.com/academia/What-Is-a-Block-Schedule-Facts-About-Block-Scheduling
• http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14852
• http://www.nea.org/tools/16816.htm
• http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/26/nyregion/longer-classroom-periods-test-tradition.html

The traditional 6-8 period style schedule of most American public schools was developed during the industrial era of factories. The purpose of public education then was to prepare children for a future job, and at that time many of those kids were going to be working in factories. At factories, workers are given a certain task, then when a bell rings, they move on to another task, then when a bell rings, they move on to yet another. Sounds similar to the average school schedule, bells and all.

That is why many argue that as the goals of education are changing, so should the structure of the school day.  The assembly-line preparation of the quickly-moving class periods should change to reflect the deep analysis and in-depth processing that is expected of students in college. Rather than the factory, students are headed to the university. Proponents of block scheduling believe that it is the best way to prepare students for college.

Firstly, colleges use block scheduling, so it makes sense for students to be familiar with that type of school day before they move away from home and try to go at it on their own. In middle school, attention spans may not be long enough to endure the length of block-scheduled class periods, but high school would be the perfect transition period to introduce that sort of format.

Additionally, block scheduling provides extended time to engage with the material being learned and for teachers to interact with their students in more in-depth ways. Individualized instruction time is more plausible as a teacher with see fewer students in a single day, and longer cooperative learning activities are better able to be worked into lesson plans.

The cognitive load – or amount of information having to be processed by a learner – is reduced through block scheduling. Whereas with traditional scheduling students have to quickly shift mindsets from one subject to another, block scheduling allows for more quality time processing information from a fewer number of subjects, and thus better long-term retention.

Finally, block scheduling has the potential to reduce student stress levels. In a traditional schedule school, homework is often assigned in every class due the next day. With after-school jobs, sports, and extra-curricular activities preventing students from having a large amount of work time every night, this can be extremely stressful for students, damaging their mental health and physical health through insufficient sleep. In a block-scheduled school, class do not meet on back-to-back days. Therefore, students would have at least two days to complete assignments before having to turn them in. If one day is particularly hellish, they will have another day to work on the assignment, therefore reducing stress.

On the other hand, block scheduling also comes with some drawbacks:

Some argue that because teachers only get to see students three or four days a week, they lack a certain continuity that hinder the learning process. Students might not feel as comfortable with a teacher they see only some days versus a teacher they see every single day.

Others point out that if a student misses a day of school, they are missing much more information on block-scheduled day versus period-scheduled. The information and activities in a block-scheduled day also are more interactive and longer making them more difficult to make-up for absent students.

The larger issues that is cited with block scheduling is that AP or Advanced Placement courses are difficult to teach via a block schedule. AP courses often require a lot of material to be covered, and teachers find it difficult to fit all of that into a fewer number of class periods.

As the debate over block scheduling continues, it will be interesting to see what the ultimate verdict of American’s school systems will be concerning its legitimacy.

Any high school student interested in going on to a college or university in the United States has taken it or a test equivalent to it: the SAT.

For some these three letters alone bring with them flashbacks to dense, phonebook-sized tomes of practice problems or long lists of lengthy vocabulary words.  They may recall long nights at SAT classes being drilled on the types of questions that would invariably show up on the exam. For most there was some level of jittery fingers or pressure-induced anxiety circulating around the testing room come that fateful day.

My little brother, an eleventh grader, just recently took his first SAT.  Testing is not necessarily his forte; he is really smart, but gets test anxiety that can cause him to make mistakes he normally would not.  Therefore, my parents thought it best for him to take SAT classes so that he would be familiar with the types of questions he would see.  Many of my friend from high school also took these classes and studied extensively in order to achieve a score that may qualify them for acceptance into an Ivy League school.

I always feel guilty that I didn’t even study a single question for the SAT.  It’s really not like me – I am the type of student who always puts forth their best effort. But I took my first SAT in tenth grade as a gauge for how well I could do without studying, and ended up doing rather well.

As I looked into colleges, I knew I would not enjoy going to school at an Ivy League University for many different financial, social, and personal reasons, so my score was certainly sufficient to get me into any of the schools I was applying for. So why study and toil over getting a higher score when it wasn’t necessary?

And for those who do get that perfect SAT score – what does that really say about them and their preparedness for college?  That they have practical, applicable skills that they will be able to employ successfully at the collegiate level, or that they memorized the test question formats to the point where they were able to in a sense “game the system”?

Though my score was possibly lower than that of someone who studied the test format rigorously, could I still be more prepared for college than them because I was able to apply skills I had learned in my studies to a situation that was new to me?

I found that the college board website claims the SAT measures:

• What you learn in high school
• What you need to succeed in college

I was very interested to find that the SAT suggests these as the best was to prepare for the SAT:

• Take challenging courses
• Do your homework
• Prepare for tests and quizzes
• Ask and answer lots of questions

They say to “in short, take charge of your education and learn as much as you can.” After this, however, they say to “know what to expect,” and they link all of the prep materials.

So, yes, a combination of being a good student and studying your ass off is necessary to secure that Ivy League-worthy score.  Opinions vary regarding whether the “studying your ass off” part is showing a commitment to working really hard or if it shows a fault in the test itself that route memorization can so greatly increase a score.

What I feel proves that the SAT seems to have acknowledged some sort of flaw regarding the formulaic nature of their questions is the new version of the SAT which launched in March 2016. Here you can take a look at what changed:

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the-test/compare-old-new-specifications

For an example of how the test was changed, while the old SAT focused on “vocabulary, often in limited contexts,” the new instead targets “knowledge, skills, and understandings identified as most important for college and career readiness and success” and uses vocab in “extended contexts.”

To me, this seems an attempt to limit how far route memorization can get you on this new test.  It tries to focus in on skills rather than memorized facts or definitions. Some may claim these changes only came about due to competition from the ACT, another standardized college-readiness test that has a reputation among students for requiring less studying for success if you are a good student to start with.

It will be very interesting once enough data is collected on this new version of the test to see how test scores correlate to freshman year in college GPA in comparison to the old version of the dreaded SAT.

This semester I am taking one of Penn State’s most infamous classes: BiSci 3.  BiSci’s notoriety stems mostly from the peculiarities of the course: a “hippie” professor, no true content material, a lot of journaling about your feelings towards nature, and – most notably – no tests.  All the points in the class come from your grades journal entry reflections throughout the year and there is not a single in-class assessment that may be considered an exam.

This concept has been interesting for me to trace through the class, and it fits well into my civic issues topic about the goals of education: what are BiSci’s goals and do they fall into the category of what the public considers an “education?” Is BiSci on the right track, or is it too hippie for its own good?

Here is the link to a piece that Christopher Uhl, the founder of the unusual BiSci 3 method, wrote explaining why he redesigned the class to be the way it is:

http://personal.psu.edu/cfu1/is%20bisci%20for%20you.pdf

Something really interesting that I noticed on the BiSci homepage is a definition of what education means to the course: “The purpose of education is not so much to accumulate knowledge, but to expand awareness.”

I do really like this thought, “to expand awareness.” The future English teacher part of me feels that goal very strongly, having written my This I Believe podcast about the potential of English/lit classes and a liberal arts education to broaden minds and prevent extremism. I do believe this is a goal of education, but is cutting out the testing what is helping to achieve this goal?

Let me tell you a bit about what a typical BiSci week is like. Every week starts out with a “Reflection Action Assignment” in which we start off by reading about nature, the universe, and our place in it.  We then write down our initial reactions to this information, staying away from just writing about facts or generalities. We’re supposed to write our feelings, and then later come back to finish the assignment by reflecting on why we reacted the way we did. After our Monday and Wednesday lectures we also receive a prompt that we have to react and reflect on. Our first prompt was “What is water?” Friday we have a smaller “lab” group run by a TA in which we share deep reflections, feelings, and meditate.

Yes, BiSci is a hippie course. Yes, I believe that the fact there are no tests makes it a bit ineffective. But at the same time, I understand where Professor Uhl was coming from when he chose to redesign this course.

I feel like a lot of the personal growth that is considered a goal of a good education can get glossed over in school, especially in classes that allow for less personal interpretation or self-examination like the more empirical sciences. In that sense, I can see why getting student to step back from the grind of homework, exam prep, and grades in order to reflect on what they truly value and believe can be a great thing.

However, I also know that testing, though it can be harrowing and annoying and seemingly unfair at times, is still really important. Without some sort of standard or check to ensure that students are keeping up with course material and skills, there is no way to help those who may be falling behind or to help challenge those who could use the extra push.

In conclusion then, I do enjoy BiSci class if I’m being honest. It has helped me to consider questions about myself that I have always pushed to the back of my head, and it has helped me better appreciate nature and the interconnectedness of the world. That being said, most classes cannot afford to be like BiSci. Although it’s no fun, there is a certain practicality to testing that ensures that criteria and skill thresholds are being met so that students are prepared for more advanced courses, and eventually the workplace.

But I think that some classes should pick up a little bit of the BiSci spirit. Tests are important, but it is equally important that as students and developing adults, we examine more closely the world around us, what we value in it, and how we plan to live as a part of it.

In light of recent events in the United States regarding voting, it feels as though American citizens are much more inclined to question the security of their voting system as well as its ability to accurately reflect the will of the American people.

But in order to distill an action from the goal of “reflecting the will of the American people,” there needs to be a discussion that unearths multiple approaches that may draw the voting system closer to this desired end state.

Some may stress some sort of change in the area of the security of elections, which could involve different perspectives on issues such as voter fraud, non-citizen voting, and voter intimidation.

Others could focus on the accessibility of elections, with emphasis on topics such as if Election Day should be designated a federal holiday, voter ID laws, and felon disenfranchisement.

Lastly, some may see personal and/or governmental accountability as the issue at hand, citing voter education, political efficacy, and gerrymandering as matters to be considered.

In a deliberation, all of these approaches would be considered and discussed in a group setting, and then the group would piece together an action plan that draws from conversation in all of these areas.

However, in my blog post today, I will be focusing in on the more specific topic of making Election Day a federal holiday.  I decided to find two articles that offered two different perspectives on this issue:

Pro:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2016-10-25/make-election-day-a-federal-holiday

Con: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/an_election_day_holiday_might_not_increase_turnout_studies_demonstrate.html

I have condensed the “Pro” article’s argument into these points:

– Work combined with the long lines, short hours, and few polling locations makes it difficult and/or impossible for some to vote

– The holiday would close schools and businesses offering more spaces for polling locations, therefore making voting easier and more likely to occur

– Making Election Day a federal holiday will reflect its importance and make citizens value their civic duty to vote more

– It is morally and logically incorrect to assume that some citizens are not intelligent, engaged, or motivated enough to vote, therefore any arguments tending to support that idea are invalid

– It will draw attention to midterm and off-year elections, reminding Americans that the presidential election is not the only time their vote puts someone in power

– Provides an opportunity to focus on civic education

The “Con” argument is likewise condensed:

– A federal holiday would burden many retail and service employees in workplaces that don’t shut down for federal holidays

– Small businesses would be hurt by the loss of revenue

– Child care would not be available for those who still have to work on the holiday

– Based on Census Bureau data: more high-income nonvoters cite business as the reason they didn’t vote, but most low-income nonvoters cite illness, disability, etc. and,            therefore, an Election Day would help the higher class not the poorer

– Don’t believe that having the day off work would significantly affect voter turnout due to statistics in other countries’ elections

– Suggests that research indicates that automatic and Election Day registration could have a positive impact on voter turnout instead

Though I had an opinion on this subject before reading these articles, I have to acknowledge that both of them make valid points and bring up issues of significance.  I do believe that Election Day should be a federal holiday, so many of the points from the first article seemed logical to me. Work is indeed an impediment to voting, as the first article places as a point in favor of creating a federal holiday. Interestingly, the second article also acknowledges this to some extent, though they attempt to indicate that more higher-income voters will be aided by this then lower-income voters. This brought up an interesting aspect of perspective that I think would make an interesting deliberation question to ask:

Should the goal of making elections more accessible be tailored to aid those who are lower-income, or just to make it more possible for anyone to vote regardless of economic status?

The other aspect of these two articles that was interesting to me was the balance of how much a federal holiday would increase voter turnout and how the federal holiday would harm the economy. The second article claims that the federal holiday would hurt some workers a lot, but they don’t prove this. They do try pull in stats about other countries who vote on weekends, but they were not sufficient to convince me that a federal holiday would be ineffective at increasing voter turnout. The deliberation question arises:

What are the harms of making Election Day a federal holiday and do they outweigh the possible benefits of creating this holiday?

I feel that more research needs to be done and presented in order to allow a deliberation audience to consider this last question thoroughly.

When deciding where on the vast web of internet commentary and opinions I wanted to look for a thread to analyze, I decided to go with one of the most hotly contested issues of our time: Was Star Wars: The Last Jedi a good movie?

When the movie first appeared in theaters, there was a particularly stark divide between professional movie critics and hardcore Star Wars fans as opposed to the previous film in the current trilogy, The Force Awakens. TFA received decent – even excellent – reviews on the whole; TLJ, on the other hand, was extremely polarizing. Star Wars fans in general despised the movie and an online petition was even started to remove the film from the Star Wars cannon. However, the movie held up decently well, even exceptionally well to critical reviews.

I found this particularly impassioned comment thread responding to an article written by a movie critic who believes that TLJ is critically and objectively a “home run” and that fans came into the movie with too many expectations and viewed it in too subjective a manner. Here is the article where, if you scroll down, you will notice the long ream of lengthy comments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-last-jedi-backlash-provides-a-useful-primer-in-how-not-to-watch-a-movie/2018/01/04/6fa9a72c-f142-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.52a119ce1adc

Now, when I about to try and determine what factors of this discourse may even remotely count as deliberation among impassioned completely biased Star Wars fans, I was skeptical that any of the points from the Gastil reading may match up with this thread of comments. I was surprised to find, however, that though this could in no way be considered a deliberation of the type that we are talking about in class, there were aspects of some of the comments could be considered deliberative in nature.

Using Figure 2.1 from the Gastil reading as my criteria for what deliberative discussion entails, I tried to find these characteristics in the thread

1. Discuss personal and emotional experiences, as well as known facts

Some of the comments technically addressed this point. One commenter acknowledged that he “[has] been a fan since day one in 1977,” conceding that he does have an emotional stake in the franchise. Another also writes that he has “been a fan since 77.” However, from what I understand of deliberation, these personal biases are divulged in order to be tabled during the discussion. The commenters – mostly self-identified Star Wars lover – do not seem to be trying to see from the critic’s or any other perspective at all. They acknowledge their bias and vehemently defend and revel in it.

2. Reflect on your own values, as well as those of other present

If the commenters sort of met the first criterion, they fail miserably here. One comment read only that “this woman is the definition of stupid.” Very few comments defend the writer of the article or even consider her point of view, though one that reprimanded the “Star Wars nerds” for attacking an author for having a “non-biases, reasoned opinion.” This comment was immediately attacked with one fan telling him/her to “go carry more water for the corporate fanboi slave/sjw crowd.” So, I would say that other perspectives were not reflected upon as they should be in a deliberation, rather every commenter had a      specific agenda they defended close-mindedly.

3. Brainstorm a wide variety of ways to address the problem

I would say that on the whole this was not accomplished in this thread, though I think some comments proposed courses of action. One fan called for everyone to sign the       petition to have the movie removed from SW cannon. The actual article was a call to action, urging fans to try to watch the movie with more objectivity. Some fans even suggested a boycott of the final movie. I think the issue with this point is that this issue    does not really call for much action. So, maybe that is why this thread only half fits this criterion.

4. Recognize the limitation of you own preferred solution and the advantages of others

I can very simply state that this idea was completely ignored in this comment thread. Comments were for the most part uninterested in the other perspective. They chose a side          and ignored all the shortcomings of their side and all the positives of their opposition. This is much more of a debate than a deliberation.

5. Update your own opinion in light of what you have learned. No joint decision need be reached.

I searched long and hard in this long thread for someone who changed their mind after reading the article or another’s argument. I could not find a single one.

6. Take turns in conversation or take other action to ensure a balanced discussion.

As this was an online comment thread, there was no room for giving equal time: if you had an opinion you commented it. The comments were by far dominated by Star Wars   fans…this is not indicative of deliberation.

7. Speak plainly to each other and for clarification when confused.

I would say that this is the one point most met by this comment thread. There was no lack   of brutal honestly or intense questioning about the opinions or statements of others.         Though I think it was in a harsher vein than the good-hearted and generally well-intentioned format it takes on in a deliberation, it was certainly present.

8. Listen carefully to what other say, especially when you disagree

From what I have already covered up to this point, I am sure you realize that this point was not satisfactorily met.

9. Presume that other participants are honest and well intentioned. Acknowledge their unique life experiences and perspectives.

Again, though you may hold onto the idea that whining that “you’re not a real fan then” or “you wouldn’t understand if you’re not a fan” is acknowledging unique perspective, this comment thread fails to meet this criterion for a deliberation.

–

So, though some of the bits of the criteria may be stretched to fit this thread, this collection of Star Wars moviegoers is certainly participating in a heated, emotional debate/defense rather than a deliberation.

For this blog post, I have decided to take a closer look at Common Core: its implementation, effectiveness, and the opinions surrounding it.

The two articles that I read in regard to this topic can be found at these links:

Pro: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/12/04/common-core-tests-are-working

Con: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201604/why-isnt-common-core-working

Prior to doing research, I did not know much about Common Core.  I did get the vague impression from teachers at my high school and other adults that it was generally ineffective and negative.  My opinion regarding Common Core is flexible, and I didn’t have a specific predisposition going into the research for this blog post.

The Common Core is “a set of educational standards for teaching and testing English and mathematics between kindergarten and 12th grade.”

An example of a Common Core standard for High School algebra follows:

HSA.SSE.A.1Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.
a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.
b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpret P(1+r)^n as the product of P and a factor not depending on P.

An example of a Common Core standard for Literature and Language for grades 9-10 is as follows:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.1
Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

This is the Common Core: a series of standards that are meant to ensure that students meet the basic skills set by the government as necessary to learn in public schools.  The Common Core was intentionally created to be more skills-based than knowledge-based and to “ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live” (http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/)

People who support the Common Core argue that having a universal standard will make it more likely that students, no matter their background or high school, will go to college close to equally prepared with the life-skills that will help them to succeed. They claim that standardized testing is the key to encouraging equal student growth across the board.

Those who oppose the Common Core claim that the tests and standards have not been a success. They hold the view that the Core standards are too abstract to be accurately followed on a large scale. They also sometimes content the standards are overly politically correct and cookie-cutter.  They disprove of “teaching for the test.”

As I was researching this topic, I came to realize that this is an often-politicized issue. Democrat in general seem to support the Common Core and Republicans tend to oppose it. As with many political issues, I seem to fall into a moderate/compromise zone.

It is my opinion that an effort to establish a standard to which all students should be brought up to is admirable, and that testing – though it should not be the sole goal of education – is necessary to ensure preparedness and a uniform expectation for students from all walks of life. On the other hand, statistically the Common Core has not been accomplishing its goals:

“After seven years of implementation in 40 states [of the Common Core], Associated Press now summarizes the National Report Card that reveals that two-thirds of graduating seniors are not ready for college. Seventy-five percent failed the math test and sixty-three percent failed the reading test.” 

Moving forward I believe the weaknesses in Common Core standards need to be addressed and a re-vamping of the program needs to yield positive improvements. Though its goals are noble, the current state of the Common Core is insufficient to meet the needs of students looking for a quality public school education and educators who want to provide the best for their pupils.

Having spent more than twelve years in the public education system, you would think that I would have been more conscious of why I was there.

Of course, most people would scoff, to learn.  But what exactly does that learning entail?  What exactly should I have learned?  Are good test scores the goal of learning?  How about overall improvement? And what of fostering the widening of students’ worldviews, diversity, citizenship, making them think about who they are as a person?  How do school districts and teachers deal with toeing the line between wanting to develop a well-rounded, thoughtful citizen and measuring success in the “real world” through testing?

These are things I never considered from the desk of a student, but have come to be very curious about as an education major.

There is so many threads and intricacies tied up in these questions that are debated, examined, and politicized. What I want to break down in this blog is how and why these decisions are made and what may be their repercussions.

In this exploration of the goals of the public education system, I first decided to start with more broad questions, distil more specific topics from these, and then explore issues and contradictions that particularly interest me in greater detail. I used this website’s “The Three Goals of Public Education” as my guide for my investigation: http://www.buildingbetterschools.com/the-three-goals-of-public-education

Goal #1: Job Preparation

This is the most surface-level and practical goal for K-12 public school education: to get students into the job market or into a good college then into the job market. The article that I read claims that the United States “has much work to do” to stay internationally competitive and provide jobs for graduates. From my own experience, I have heard on TV or from various other media sources that the United States is falling behind in test scores compared to other nations.

It seems to me that the goal of job preparation and standardized testing are very closely intertwined. There are so many ways that I want to explore the effectiveness of standardized tests in predicting performance in college or the job market in following posts more closely. All of us took state-wide tests like the PSSAs growing up and almost every high school student stressed over the SATs, but are they truly a reliable measure of success?

Another sub-topic under the job preparation umbrella especially is the Common Core State Standards. I know quite a bit about the Common Core from my Educational Psychology class that I took last semester, but as such a divisive topic among both parents and educators I am excited to explore its benefits and pitfalls more closely. Are they too restrictive or not structured enough? And do they truly have educators to make sure they are providing life skills to our students?

Goal #2: Active Civic Participation

This goal particularly reminded me of the goal of RCL: Rhetoric and Civic Life. The author of the article certainly seemed to think that civic-minded education was in decline in the United States. He/she seemed very passionate that students should be taught to respect democracy and therefore be encouraged to participate civically in ways like voting.

The article laid out some ways this could be encouraged in schools: classroom instruction that teaches about civics, government, history, economics, etc.; discussion of current events and controversial issues; service-learning; extracurricular activities; school governance; and simulation of democratic processes.

Many of these points raised questions for me. Should students be taught to revere democracy in schools? I’m sure it would lead to a more stable nation, but the tone of the author that “democracy is the best and so we need to make sure our students agree” sounded wrong to me. Some of the implementations put forward though seem very important to me such as “discussion of current events and controversial issues. It will be interesting to delve farther into this concept and what it means in our current political situation.

Goal #3: Leading a Full Life

This is the goal that I believe everyone supports but no one agrees on how to go about it. Here are the points that the article says lead to students leading a “full life:”

1. Transmission of our culture since cultural ideas, literature, stories, and our core values are potent tools to help our children live a richer, more rewarding life, build character, and assist them in becoming what used to be called “a good person”
2. Self-actualization or helping each student reach his or her potential and develop unique talents and interests
3. Understanding how the world works and how the people in it interact, especially in the area of developing perspective
4. Engagement with the world, which includes the type of democratic participation discussed earlier, and encouragement of both individual and collective participation; and
5. The skills of learning including self-monitoring, working in groups, being able to judge the quality and reliability of information, and understanding how different disciplines view the world

This particular goal leads me to so many questions: Why does the first point say transmission of OUR culture? (That bother me.) How do you help a student achieve “self-actualization?” How do you promote “engagement with the world?” How can you foster qualities that seem so internal, so abstract, so personal?

In my future blog posts I am looking forward to picking some of the specific questions that have arisen during this initial discovery period and digging deeper into the policy behind some of these ideas, varying opinions, and their implications. Also, as I research further, I will ask whether there are other goals I believe this particular article missed.