Learning Revolution

As I considered the conclusion of Bad Teacher and the implications of Kumashiro's idealistic model for the education system, I recalled a TED Talk that a friend once showed me. This talk is by Sir Ken Robinson, a British public intellectual who has been influential in the development of education worldwide. In his talk, he makes an argument somewhat parallel to what Kumashiro is suggesting: that schools must be personalized rather than standardized, that students should be given an environment which allows for the development of creativity rather than conformity.

If you have fifteen minutes to spare, I recommend watching the talk here.

Essentially, Robinson is advocating a decrease in the importance put on reforms - which rework the same linear model of schooling - in favor of a "transformation" to a more "personalized" and "organic" model. This sounds a lot like what Kumashiro is describing when he says we should have schools that "are also centered on rich, broad, interdisciplinary curriculums that are developed by the teachers and grounded in research, as well as complex assessments that support teachers in tailoring their instruction to their students' needs"

I agree that it is time for education to take a turn towards this type of school model. Like Kumashiro and Robinson, I believe that the current school system is too standardized; just look at our main form of assessment: high stakes standardized tests. Each child's future - as well as the school's for that matter - is dependent on if he or she can take a test well. I am not saying that testing isn't necessary because it is, but the current model for assessment in education is far too narrow.

Of course it's easy to say that it would be better to have schools like the ones described by Kumashiro nationwide; the tough question is how would we fund them? I am not going to pretend like I have a solution for that problem that would be both effective and productive for the economy. Perhaps, if the money the government and donors are currently putting into experimental school reforms was reallocated, we could work towards the "transformation" Robinson talks about; however, that probably would not be sufficient.

Anyone else have ideas on how such schools could be funded?

Homeland

The media's depiction of any group of people can have great influence over common public thought about the group. Reading Islamaphobia got me thinking about how Muslims - as well as other groups/entities - are portrayed in popular entertainment today. One show that came to mind is Homeland, which my roommates and I got into last year (the show is currently airing its second season on Showtime). I am not implying that the show is a great contributor to Islamaphobia, but I do think that it presents some interesting themes. Watch the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-KYAWPKzY

This trailer for the first season centers around Nicolas Brody, an American who was a prisoner of war in Iraq, and Carrie Mathison, the CIA agent who is investigating him. After an informant told Mathison that a POW had been "turned", she made it a priority to find out if it was in fact Brody, who is being hailed as a war hero in the states.

The show touches on some interesting themes. For example, a large amount of screen time is devoted to  the CIA investigation of Brody and how many agents are conflicted as to how it should be done, considering his status as a war hero. Islam plays a role in the show as well, seeing as the people who held Brody captive were Muslim members of Al-Qaeda. The first season, in its entirety, is really interesting, and it gets the viewer thinking about his or her own feelings towards Brody, since they do not know for sure if he has been "turned" or not. 

Has anyone seen the show? What do you think?

TV Personalities "Rumble"

I have seen - on some of your MLS 590 blogs - talk about the Stewart/O'Reilley debate that happened over the weekend. I personally did not watch the debate, but in a couple articles I read that underneath the humor involved, the two ideologically opposite personalities touched on some real issues. Apparently the two men have maintained fairly consistent communication for several years, appearing on each other's shows a number of times to discuss current events and politics. Did anyone watch the debate? What did you think? Is the type of relationship these two men have one that exemplifies how people with different ideas should interact? 

I'm genuinely curious to see what people thought about the "Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium". Do you think they were doing it to convey their ideas to the nation, or just for entertainment? Was it good or bad for viewers to see?

Dogs at the Keyboard

I'm on a roll with the cartoon theme so I thought I'd post another. This one is by Peter Steiner and was published in 1993, but gained great publicity with the rise of internet communications:

How true this is. Web anonymity (depending on how you look at it), can be freeing, or it can be deceiving.  The idea that you can create an identity for yourself online is no joke; one can actually forge a new "self". This can lead to a more bold and aggressive voice in matters of opinion, even to the point of harassment. Anonymity gives internet communicators courage that they might not have otherwise because they can - if they choose - hide behind a different name or identity. Do you think this benefits us because people will now share their true opinions more boldly? Or does it lead mostly to extremism and harassment?

Polarization

After reading "The Daily We", I was browsing articles on polarization and I came across this cartoon:

While this cartoon is obviously a joke, playing on the word "polarization", it touches on a serious topic, the very same topic that concerns Sunstein: the polarization of our public sphere. I agree with Sunstein; the fact that social groups' ideologies are becoming more extreme through the individualization of media is disturbing. One thing I wish he would have delved into more deeply is the responsibility that falls on our shoulders as the consumers of media. 

Does the current format of news media encourage group polarization? Yes. Does the internet allow for certain groups to become more extreme through deliberation? Absolutely. However, just because technology simplifies the process of polarization does not mean we have to use it for that purpose. The internet makes it extremely easy to communicate only with like minded people and view like minded content, to stay in one's own comfort zone. But we must think about the opportunity we have in that the internet also makes it easy to view opposing views and discuss with opposite minded people (a key component of democracy. Technology has made it increasingly easy for us to engage in democratic debate on a wide variety of topics; all it takes is people challenging themselves to widen their perspectives. 

I do believe that media which blatantly encourages polarization should be held accountable. This accountability, however, should not be the government's duty. Rather, the public should be the ones to make their voice on this topic heard. 

Each generation has had its own challenges in gathering and analyzing media; ours is the challenge of discernment and opposition to polarization. The same technology that encourages polarization also gives us a way to reverse it with easy access to different views. The public has a choice: to remain in its own polarized comfort zone, or to challenge itself, break out, and engage in valuable, democratic discussion. 

Poll Reliability

It's that time of the campaign season when we (as consumers of news media) are inundated with political polling results. What is interesting to me, is the variation in some polls shown on different news channels; what is even more interesting is that each source seemed to have its own purpose and agenda for showing such results. Given, the variations were not very large, but enough to be noticeable. It made me wonder if/how certain programs select which polls to show and the analysis they provide.

I know that there are some reliable polls out there, and I do not think that there is any active conspiracy going on with them; however, I do believe that news programs with particular biases can choose which polls to show and change how they show them in order to push one agenda or another. How much can we actually rely on the polls shown on commentary shows? Even if they are accurate, the hosts and guests analyze them in ways that will push their point. I think that the public should educate themselves about the polling process, or receive some type of objective help in poll analysis, so that we can look at them and make our own decisions about what they mean. We should not rely completely on television personalities to analyze polls for us without some level of personal discernment.

Novelists in the Public Sphere

When asked to consider modern public intellectuals that I find particularly interesting or influential, the ones that immediately come to mind are ones whose work I enjoy following. My area of interest is literature and writers, so I thought of authors whose novels served as perceptive, poignant, and sometimes satirical social commentaries. Fairly recent examples of such authors, in my opinion, are Kurt Vonnegut and David Foster Wallace. Although these men are no longer with us, their works conveyed thought-provoking commentary through intriguing plots, relatable characters, and satirical scenes. The reason I think these men - these types of authors - can be influential is that they are distributing their keen social and political observations in a form that is enjoyable to the average citizen; the individuals who read these novels are analyzing heavy topics and loving every minute of it. Not only this, but the scenes and characters portrayed in novels are easily understandable examples of social commentary to anyone who might be bored with (or have difficulty understanding) more academic articles and speeches.

Not only are novels effective in shaping the society that they are written in and for, but also in future societies. English classes throughout the country still study and analyze novels from decades and even centuries ago, encouraging students to apply their themes to modern society. Enduring novels have the potential to produce change within individuals and societies for years, which gives authors the ability to be fairly influential intellectuals.

One slightly lesser known intellectual I would like to point out is Chris Ware, a cartoonist turned graphic novelist whose graphic novel Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth became the first of its kind to win The Guardian's First Book Award. Ware, a talented artist, has a keen eye for family dynamics and shows it in the depiction of young Jimmy Corrigan and his father. Political cartoons have long been sources of social commentary, but Ware has taken the form to another level.

 Here is an example of his more recent work:

Graphic novels are growing in popularity, and I would place Ware on the same level as other socially observant intellectuals. I encourage everyone to take a look at his work.