A few days ago, I decided to attend a Paterno Fellowes panel on the ethics of THON.  One of the panelists lives on my floor, so I went to check it out with a few of my friends.  The goal of the panel was to start a discussion about whether THON was ethical and about why some people do not participate in THON.  I personally did not do THON and I had my own reasons for not doing so. I wanted to hear about other people’s experiences and I was hoping to get something out of this panel.  However, I was very disappointed in the way the event was handled and did not learn anything I did not already know.

The event started off with the panelists each introducing themselves.  Then each of them gave s five to seven-minute speech on their experiences with THON and their reasons for participating or not participating. The first person was a student named Jack Shean and he came up with the topic for the panel.  He is one of the people who lives on my floor, so I am very familiar with his opinions on THON.  He talked about how he felt people who participate in THON sometimes use it as an excuse to go party and post pictures with the caption “For the Kids.” He felt a lot of people tend to hide behind the “FTK” slogan and use it as an excuse to go get drunk before or after THON events.  He also pointed out only 20% of the money raised by THON actually goes to children with pediatric cancer.  The rest of the money goes to cancer research.  Jack explained it is sort of misleading to say THON is “For the Kids” when in reality most of the money does not go to children with cancer. I would have to agree. I do not think there’s anything wrong with money going to research, but I wish the people in charge of THON would be more transparent about where the money goes.

The other panelists were not as interesting.  Emily Purnell discussed her role as communications director for THON, but the only point she really made is THON is a really amazing organization and she made so many friends from doing it.  Panini Pardiya also made a very similar argument.  An assistant professor of psychology gave a short presentation on extrinsic v. intrinsic motivation when participating in service, but I could tell he was really trying to be neutral on the subject.  An economics professor explained how THON is not actually economically efficient unless we eliminate fundraising for other student-run philanthropy organizations at Penn State.

I thought the question portion of the panel might do a better job of opening up a discussion, but I was sadly mistaken.  None of the panelists seemed to be able to answer a lot of the questions, or if they gave an answer it did not have anything to do with what was asked. Mostly they deflected and tried to steer the question towards another subject.  For example, one person asked, “For the people who participated in THON, how do you respond to some of the negative backlash it sometimes gets?” and they asked for the question to be repeated twice.  All they responded was “THON is a great cause and it really brings people together,” which didn’t answer the question at all.  I left the panel feeling disappointed, but I was able to have a good conversation about THON with the people I attended the event with. All in all it was a nice experience, but I felt the event could have been better.

 

 

A few weeks ago, I was able to attend the Beto O’Rourke meet and greet at the HUB.  He had only just announced he was running for president about two or three weeks beforehand.  I knew there was a possibility presidential candidates would have events at Penn State, but I did not think anyone would come this soon. However, I was eager to attend this event and have this experience.  This upcoming election is very important to me because it is the first presidential election where I can vote, so seeing someone who is running is very exciting.

I went to this event with James from class and some of my other friends who happen to be political science majors.  We arrived at ten o’clock, but by the time we got there, Heritage Hall was full. Instead we were ushered into the meeting rooms off to the side of one of the upstairs lounges.  We knew he wouldn’t be arriving there first.  A bunch of us started to watch the Facebook Livestream he had going because he was running a little late and we wanted to know what direction he was coming from.  He had just finished giving a talk in one of the other buildings and started his walk towards the HUB.  He was coming from the side where the Boucke Building and a few science labs are.

A few people had gathered by the doors to the meeting room so they could see him walking in. The livestream was slightly delayed, so we heard people cheering for him when he came in before we saw it on the video.  At that point we turned the stream off so we could see him walk in, but we didn’t know what door he would be coming through.  He stopped by the room we were in before heading to Heritage Hall. Somehow he got to the middle of the room and stood up on some sort of stool or platform.  He gave a very brief speech that lasted about three minutes or so. He didn’t stay for very long because he had other places he needed to go to, but I did catch a few glimpses of him and got a few good pictures.  I felt his speech started out very generic.  He talked about us needing to come together as Americans and how he would fight for each and every one of us as Americans (not that I’m complaining or anything; I just thought it was like what most politicians say).  He did briefly mention how he supports universal healthcare and how he wants to create a way for undocumented immigrants to become citizens.  He also talked about climate change for a little bit and how we need to start addressing the issue before it continues to grow.  He didn’t really go too in depth into any of his plans since he was only in the room for a few minutes, but it was nice to hear what issues he considered to be the most important.

The crowd in general had a lot of energy, but you could tell some people were there just to criticize him. They didn’t say anything to his face, but I heard a bit of muttering and some people just walked out of the room. However, I’m glad I had this experience and I hope I can have another one like this again as more candidates begin traveling.

 

Intro

-outline overall statistics of children with special education needs nationwide

-introduce the problem of “Least Restrictive Environment” and how it relates to taking special needs children out of the general education classroom

-possibly explain the danger of mainstreaming by keeping special ed children in general education classroom without provision for their needs

Overview

“Co-teaching is defined as two teachers (teacher candidate and cooperating teacher) working together with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery, and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space,” (Bacharach and Washut Heck).

-explain how co-teaching works

-explain current implementation in the public school systems

-explore negative affects of taking special needs children outside of the classroom

Methods

Currently, there are seven co-teaching methods in practice.  These include:

(explain each method and their benefits and drawbacks)

 

• One Teacher Teaches and the Other Observes

• One Teacher Teaches and the Other Drifts

• Station Teaching

• Parallel Teaching

• Supplemental Teaching

• Alternative Teaching

• Team Teaching

 

Benefits in the Classroom

If the co-teaching plan is implemented correctly, students who require special education have the benefit of staying in the general education classroom for an extended period of time.

-other benefits towards teacher-student relationships and peer-to-peer relationships

-statistics of successful implementation of co-teaching

-improved engagement in classroom learning (for children with special needs)

-explain how co-teaching does not negatively impact the general education students in the classroom

Effects on policy

Conclusion