Recess... with rules and a teacher

According to an article I read, in an elementary school in Newark, recess is no longer a break for the students - instead they spend the 30 minutes under the control of a recess coach, who, with a whistle around her neck, makes all of the kids participate in organized activities. No sitting, no relaxing, no "just talking with friends". Under this new program, implemented at Broadway Elementary School, injuries, bullying, and disciplinary referals are occurring less, as the children are no longer left alone to be excessively wild, hog equiptment, or fight. Supporters of the program advocate that it is helping children stay healthy and be social. Yet when I read this article, I didn't really think about these positive aspects of giving up recess for a more gym-like class. Instead, I feel like the definition of recess goes against the structure provided by the school's new program. Kids have to sit still all day, learn, and demonstrate appropriate behavior. They need time to relax without having to continue to participate under rules, in a structured recess period. What do you think? Do the benefits of this new program out way the negatives?

I thought about this idea of structure and how it applies to New Trier. I know that there are students here who go without lunch periods, take early bird classes and then fill their schedules to the brim with classes. New Trier even permits students to skip lunch (although they do not recommend it). I think that our school and our culture value structure, because it seems to equate with productivity. And not that its a bad thing - we absolutely need structure in our lives in order to function and thrive. But I also believe that people can be productive during brief unstructured periods, or breaks. Do you think this is true as it applies to our school and culture?

Picture: http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Recess:_School%27s_Out/recess_school%27s_out_013.jpg

Everyone's doing it

It seems like teen pregnancy is becoming more and more apparent in the media - with the Secret Life of the American Teenager, The Pregnancy Pact, MTV's 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, the once taboo subject of teenage pregnancy is now making itself comfortable in our American culture. Celebrities too, such as Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin, are also taking teen pregnancy public. For the most part, shows such as the Secret Life and 16 and Pregnant show the heart break and struggles with such challenges at a young age. These shows claim to work to educate other adolescent girls so they can make smarter, more informed decisions, and not limit themselves. Yet, by focusing so much on the issue, are we making something rare and inconvenient seem commonplace and normal? Or are these TV shows sending the message that 'yep, I can survive with a baby in highschool and If Ican do it, so can you'? I personally think it's good that we have gotten the issue out in the open, so it is easier for parents to have conversations with their daughters about the realities of sex and babies in highschool. And the fact that these series' show the messier and heartbreaking sides to the story is beneficial. But what I wonder if other people get the same message that I do.

Picture: http://posting.mtv.co.nz/gsp/Music_Entertainment/Shows/16-and-pregnant-logo-281x211.jpg

Town Deals with Past Discrimination

An article I saw recently from the New York Times, "Michigan Town Makes Amends for Discrimination", reminded me of many things that we have been recently discussing in class. In Hamtramck, Michigan in the 1950s and 60s, "black areas" in the town were obliterated through urban renewal projects and hundreds of African American families were displaced from their homes - just for being on the wrong side of the color line. While a federal judge found the town guilty of this racial discrimination in 1971 and ordered Hamtramck to build new houses for the families, the town did not follow through. Many of the families had to live with relatives and friends, and the effects on some children such as now 60 year old Sallie Sanders were so devastating that Sallie "has trouble recounting the ordeal without breaking into tears". Imagine having to leave your house or the place you've grown up in as a young child without knowing why, or knowing that because of the color of you and your family, you can't live in a certain area.

However, brought on by the recent economic down turn, reparations are now being made to the people discriminated against, in the form of providing new, affordable housing (paid for by local and state money) to families previously displaced, or their remaining living family. Ms. Sanders was able to move into a new home, and not only that, the town of Hamtramck has been experiencing many positive changes. The once segregated town is now home to many immigrants from countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen, Albania, and Lebanon.

This article brings to light some of the discussions we had in class regarding when reparations are necessary and also about the "invisible" aspects of how certain towns are constructed. Mr. Bolos's example in class was of the man whose occupation was sometime of repair work and who couldn't live in his neighborhood because laws prevented him from having his large "repairman" truck sit outside without getting fined everyday. In reality, these laws allowed for people with only certain jobs or possibly of a certain social class to live in the neighborhood. In the case mentioned above, the town went about constructing a white, homogenous neighborhood by heading it under the category of urban renewal projects, or land redevelopment programs. Their actions were clearly racist and clearly wrong, and while they are redeeming themselves now, is the town's actions enough? What other ways do you see towns and villages constructing certain types of societies by enforcing laws and both directly and indirectly discriminating against certain groups of people?

Picture: http://www.dotcomgiftshop.com/files/imagecache/product/21524_0.jpg

Santa who?

As soon as november rolls around, Christmas decorations are up in stores and malls - a friendly reminder to the world that the holidays are not far away, time to start buying. By the time that December comes, Santa Claus is visiting stores and children are happily sitting on his lap - a Christmas tradition. This year, people will be reminided that spring is coming with the appearance of the Easter Bunny in many stores. According to a Chicago Tribune Article, the "Easter Bunny is slowly and skillfully creating a comfortable throne for himself in America's shopping mall atriums". Becoming sort of an icon for spring, the bunny is used to attract customers, especially when Easter candy sales and clothing sales are down, as they are this year. To me, it seems like the Easter bunny has gone from being a part of an important religious holiday to a more universally accepted marketing ploy/icon. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, I guess. According to the article I read, Respect the rabbit: Easter Bunny creeping up on Santa’s mall turf, cultural anthropologist Pamela Frese thinks that "the Easter Bunny's popularity demonstrates how Americans have increasingly turned to malls as community centers, where people of all religious backgrounds can celebrate so-called civil-religious holidays together". So the Easter bunny, while getting people to spend more money and feel happy about spring, is unifying for communities. What do you think?

Another thing that I found that was interesting from the article was that it described the ways in which the Easter Bunny's look has changed throughout the years. During the Great Depression, the Easter bunny was illustrated as a factory worker, and during the Civil Rights era, the Bunny had brown fur. Given the struggles that our nation is facing today, what should the Easter bunny wear, or be physically depicted as?

Picture from:http://www.costumzee.com/view/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/easter-bunny.gif

Asylum Granted to German Home Schoolers

Homeschooling is pretty rare in the US, but in Germany, it's against the law. I read an interesting article from the New York Times, Judge Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers, about a German refugee family living in Tennessee. The Romeikes family chose to home school their children because they felt that other students' bad behavior was unhelpful to their children's learning and because they believed that the stories in German readers - where "devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heros" were not good examples for children to be reading. The Romeikes worked with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school. However, it was not recognized by the German government, which enforces that all students must attend school, whether that be public or private. The law maintains that going to school allows for "social integration" and is necessary to "ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call 'parallel societies.'" The Romeikes eventually faced fines up to $11,000 and almost lost custody of their children, so their lawyers petitioned for asylum (Protection and immunity from extradition granted by a government to a political refugee from another country), and it was granted because the Romeikes would have faced persecution had they returned to Germany.

Should parents be allowed to home school their children? Ultimately, I believe that parents should be able to choose whether or not they do, regardless of the circumstances - as long as they follow a set curriculum. Parents have the right to raise their children the way they think is best, and in a way that does not compromise their beliefs. However, I do see truth in the reasons for which Germany prohibits this schooling method - I believe social integration is important for children to develop into aware and tolerant individuals. In the case mentioned above, Mr. Romeikes said, "I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.” What do you think?