Blog Post: Rank their suggestions (1 - 5) in order of importance, and explain your ranking

1. bell hooks
2. Jerry Large
3. Keith Gilyard
4. Deb Anderson
5. Barry Boyce

Reasoning: The article from bell hooks (why isn't this name capitalized?) is largely about the value of critical thinking skills and how our education system needs to promote critical thinking, not obstruct it. I have for some time felt the same way - that one of the biggest and most overlapping problems in society is a general lack of critical thinking and ability to consider a subject from the perspective of others. This article was unquestionably my first choice. Jerry Large discusses the idea that in order to be successful as a student, one must have character. More importantly, that character - which I agree is vital to success in education - is something which can be taught. Large's writing is interesting to me and is it something I had not thought much about previously, so I ranked it second behind hooks. Third is Keith Gilyard, who is simply arguing for the importance of humanities and arts in education. While I disagree the extent to which these subjects are essential to one's education, arts programs are often being dropped completely, which is a problem. The biggest problem I have with Gilyard's writing is he hardly supports his argument at all. Fourth is Deb Anderson, who is saying that teachers need to become politically engaged and involved setting education policy. While education policy may need changes, simply saying that polititions can't make decisions on education because they're not teachers is useless argument. To say that someone's opinion isn't valid because they're not qualified to speak about something is completely unproductive. The focus of Anderson's suggestion is based not on the problem that needs solving, but rather, who is solving it. I had a hard time taking Boyce's suggestions such as having parents teach yoga to their children seriously, and ranked it last.

Small group blog post

Small group blog post: choose one scene from chalk and use it to show one of the concerns that each of the writers (Freire, Gatto, Rose, and Black) have about education.




Freire talks about how our education system uses teachers just as a machine to relay information to students who temporarily memorize it for a test. In Chalk, there's a scene where Mr. Lowrey is having all of his students simply repeating what he says; no thinking, no learning, just memorization.


Black talks a lot about unqualified people working at and teaching at schools. Mr. Lowrey is a perfect example of this, as he is completely new to teaching, and he's teaching History as a former Engineer. He goes to the Library and looks to check out a book about simply controlling his class, because he's completely new to teaching and doesn't know how to maintain control in his classroom.


Gatto talks about how students are isolated and separated by titles and how teachers treat them, saying "Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes." The student in Chalk who is kicked out of class by Mr. Lowrey is an example of this idea; he is kicked out of class not just because of his cell phone, but because there's a "mutual disrespect" between them. Mr. Lowrey labels him both as a distraction and as disrespectful.


Rose says that one of the main goal in reforming out education should be "To have more young people get an engaging and challenging education." In Chalk, Mr. Stroope talks to some of his students after class, and tells them to stop using such big words and stop being smarter at history than him during class. To these kids, their education is not at all engaging or challenging.

The problem with American high schools is there isn't any specific purpose in any of it. Any argument for why a high school student is required to take a specific class is easily and effortlessly countered by an example of someone who doesn't need the class at all. This isn't just the writing of some kid who hates their English class, this is just a fact: An overwhelming majority of people who are required to take geometry won't remember or need to remember it at any point in their life. Most people who spend a month analyzing Hamlet in their tenth grade English class won't remember anything at all about it by the time they are in eleventh grade English. Some people say that the purpose in taking geometry isn't to know how to find the area of a sphere, but rather, it teaches skills such as analytical reasoning, but by the time most students graduate high school, they wouldn't be capable of proving a mathematical concept to save their life. And perhaps the reason tenth grade English students read Hamlet is to improve there vocabulary, grammar, and competence with the English language? Well, most high school seniors wouldn't even realize that "there" is incorrect in the previous sentence.

Mr. Escalante compared to Mr. Keating

Mr. Escalante's teaching where very student oriented, he made the classroom fun and interactive. Mr. Keating taught in a similar manner, he made the students look "outside of the box" and taught them to believe in themselves and to express themselves as an individual. Both of these teacher clearly car for their students, Mr. Keating pushed his students to write their own poetry, even if they didn't feel comfortable with speaking publicly.
But, both of these teachers are also very different because they teach in completely different environments. Mr. Escalant taught students who didn't believe they could ever excel in an academic environment, Mr. Escalante pushed his students from algebra to calculus. Mr. Keating took a different approach, because the students where so used to being pushed around by their teachers and parents to excel academically, he decided to bring things down to a human level and teach them about themselves. Instead of pushing the students i think he was trying to pull them back and let them reflect on themselves, instead of teaching them to excel academically he was teaching them how to excel in life.

Notes on Chalk



Guy introduction comes from a long line of teachers and talks about how his teachers in high school shaped who he is today

50% of teachers quit within the first 3 years of teaching

Starts off with a teacher asking his class a question about history, they all stare blankly, he waits and responds with "Okay, well that's why we're here"

Mr. Stroope starts off with a corny joke, he's a third year history teacher. Confiscates photos from some students on the first day of school

Coach Webb is a second year gym teacher, her students are already bored

Mrs. Reddell is uncertain how to deal with a student telling her to "kiss his white ass"

Mr. Stroope takes some photos from summer vacation from his students

Mr. Lowrey teacher requires his students to show up and have paper every day, and begins asking his students to repeat what he says. He's a former computer engineer and is completely new to teaching.

Mr. Stroope is working on his sarcasm and being prepared for his class. Doesn't always have his lesson plans done in time.

Mrs. Reddell breaks up a fight in a courtyard, yells at bystanders

Coach Webb has problems with students and teachers assuming she is gay

Mr. Lowrey is incapable of controlling his class

Mr. Stroope can't tell the difference between a student/teacher relationship and friendship

Mr. Lowrey continues to struggle at controlling his class

Mrs. Reddell makes a video before she goes to sleep, says her husband is asleep and she hasn't had sex in three weeks

Mr. Stroope is asking an elderly teacher for advice in the teaching lounge, says "that's a load of crap"

Coach Webb wants Mr. Lowrey to do yoga, and Mr. Lowrey had his yogurt stolen

Mrs. Reddell is continuing to get advice from the principle

Coach Webb interrupts a math class to say that the teacher isn't following the tardiness system because she witnessed someone running in the hall to get to class

Coach Webb is starting a teacher's morning walks club, has no members

Student's stole Mr. Lowrey's chalk, he's frustrated, walks out of class and says "when I come back, I want to see which one of you is going to finish teaching this lesson"

Coach Webb thinks students will want to exercise if she wants them to exercise

Mr. Lowrey wants to get a book from the library but they don't have it, also asks if the library has any books on classroom management

Mrs. Webb pressures Mrs. Reddell to attend thursday happy hour, which she can't go to, gets mad

Mr Stroope talks to students after class about using big words which he can't understand and not acting smarter than him

Mrs. Reddell is trying to chases someone down who apparently escaped through the ceiling tiles

Coach Webb is teaching a small group of her students yoga

Mr. Lowrey is still struggling to control his students, trying to incorporate humor in the classroom

Janitor dropped someone's piano

Mr. Stroope has been told to ask the other teachers some questions about incorrectly writing off expenses

Coach Webb is worried about being "pushy"

Mr Stroope tries to call a kid's parents

Mr Lowrey has a dream about dancing in the halls with Coach Webb, Mrs Reddell wakes him up

Mrs Reddell asks Mr. Lowrey if he is single, he's been divorced and single for almost two years

Mr Stroope goes out into the woods and shoots some with a handgun, compares his inaccuracy with teaching

Mr. Lowrey doesn't understand the need for a cell phone, kicks a student out of class for having his cell phone

The teachers are at thursday happy hour

Mr. Stroope is one of the two teachers who is potentially teacher of the year, talks to his class about it

Mr. Lowrey is talking to the mother of the student he kicked out of class for having a cell phone, she offers him a glass of wine, has the student bring it to them

Coach Webb talks to Mrs Reddell about the tardiness policy and recycling, Coach Webb gets angry about not treating tardiness as a black and white issue

Mr. Stroope debates Mrs Townsend for teacher of the year

Mrs Townsend wins teacher of the year, Mr Stroope is devastated

A student tells Mr. Stroope that "second place isn't last place" to comfort him and he gets angry

Mrs Reddel and Coach Webb argue

Mrs Reddell misses being a teacher, doesn't like being assistance principal

Mr Lowrey comes up with a "spelling hornet" for teachers to spell out words that students use

Mr Lowrey wins the spelling hornet contest after preparing with his students and writing down words on his nametag

Mr Lowrey attempts to rap with his students

Mr Lowrey isn't sure he'll teach again next year, doesn't know if he likes teaching much

the end

Most uninteresting and pointless documentary I've ever has the misfortune of watching

Paper #2: Comparison on What Makes a Good Teacher

Paper #2: Comparison on What Makes a Good Teacher

Having finally completed my kindergarten through twelfth grade education and starting on to college, I've taken many different classes from all kinds of different teachers. As a result, I have experience with great teachers, terrible teachers, and everything in between. The good teachers - the ones whose classes I enjoyed being a part of but also taught me a lot - left a lasting impact on me as a person and on my educational life. The bad ones were generally an unpleasant learning experience, where I usually learned less about the subject, and more about the qualities which make a bad educator. As a result of all of my years as a student, I have come to learn that these three qualities are crucial to being a good teacher: dedication, the ability to engage students, and an adept knowledge of the subject being taught. To demonstrate the importance of these qualities, I will use two of my previous teachers as examples: Mr. Carnegie, a Spanish teacher with whom I took three years of Spanish classes, and Mr. Nelson, who was my instructor for Geometry, Pre-Calculus, and AP Calculus. One of these teachers unquestionably possessed all three of the above characteristics which make a good teacher, while the other was lacking in one area, but his ability to excel at the other two still made him what I consider to be a good teacher.

Dedication is vitally important to being successful in any profession. Teaching is no exception to this rule, in fact, it is quite the opposite; dedication is perhaps the most important aspect of being a teacher, and a teacher who isn't dedicated to their job simply cannot be successful. Additionally, a teacher who is dedicated can make up for lacking in other aspects, enough to at least make the class a positive experience for both the instructor and the students. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Carnegie were both very dedicated as teachers. Each of them made it very clear that they cared about the success of all of their students, and much of their time, both inside and outside the classroom, was spent on their work. As the time to take the AP test was approaching, Mr. Nelson really showed that he was dedicated by scheduling times to refresh on concepts and study outside of school - time for which he received no pay, and could have spent it doing anything else he wanted to. Mr. Carnegie showed his dedication to teaching when he made sure to try speaking to his students in Spanish in the halls, or at lunch, or at any other time he saw them outside of the classroom. Without the dedication and enthusiasm each of them showed for teaching every day, they could not have been successful as teachers.

Being able to engage one's students is another essential quality of a great teacher. Many teachers can struggle in this regard, and as a result, students will be bored in class, unfocused, and unwilling to work. An instructor who cannot get his or her students involved in the class results in a bad educational experience for everyone, no matter how intelligent the teacher may be, or how dedicated he or she is. From my high school experience, this is easily the characteristic which most bad teachers lack, and no matter how hard they work and how much they know about their subjects, the students are bored and uninterested. Both of the two teachers I've used as examples here are extremely proficient in this matter. My Spanish teacher was known by most students, even those who never had a class with him, to very light-hearted and fun teacher. If taken out of context, Mr. Carnegie was sometimes closer to being a comedian than a teacher. Mr. Nelson on the other hand was always focused on the math, but his invariably upbeat and relaxed mood made his classes enjoyable to everyone. Also, he taught to all types of students - from a "Math Support" class for students who struggled to grasp basic math concepts and algebra, to AP Calculus, in my case. And in all of those different environments, and with students who ranged from completely novice in mathematics to taking college-level Calculus, Mr. Nelson was able to get all of his students to participate and be involved in the class.

The last aspect of a good teacher is something that many would think to be intuitive or perhaps just a given: knowledge of the subject. To be able to teach something, one would assume that a masterful knowledge of it would be necessary, but it's definitely the least important of these three characteristics. A decent understanding of the subject is required, certainly, but anything more than that can easily be made up for if a teacher is motivated and dedicated enough. That is why I would still consider Mr. Carnegie to be a good teacher. He really wasn't all that fluent in Spanish - I probably could have learned more from someone else, but all of the students in his class still learned a lot, and because of his proficiency in the previous two qualities, everyone enjoyed his class. His dedication and ability to get his students engaged in the subject were enough to overcome not being a native Spanish speaker, and because of his good teaching, I and many other students were encouraged to take a third year of Spanish, instead of just the required two. Mr. Nelson, on the other hand, excelled in this just as he did in the other two areas. He was really a genius when it came to math. This is demonstrated by the fact that he is very capable of teaching all levels of high school mathematics - many math teachers will only teach one part of it, such as only teaching algebra, or only geometry - in the same way a history teacher will only teach about a specific time period or geographical area. That wasn't the case with Mr. Nelson - as a mentioned, he was my teacher for both geometry and calculus, and was good enough in both to prepare me for high level math courses in college.

Throughout my kindergarten through twelfth grade education, I was fortunate enough to have some great and inspirational teachers such as Mr. Nelson and Mr. Carnegie, and I wouldn't be the person I am today without them. I unfortunately also had plenty of teachers who fell on the opposite end of that spectrum; terrible teachers who really could make me hate school at times. From analyzing both kinds of experiences, I determined that the three most important qualities for teachers to have are dedication, the capability to involve and engage students, and knowledge of their subject. Mr. Nelson, my math teacher for several years of high school, is a perfect example of a great teacher who has all of these qualities. Mr. Carnegie's Spanish classes, on the other hand, proved that he was able to be a good teacher despite lacking a bit in the third of those three characteristics. Both were great teachers and I was lucky to be placed in their classes.

Blog Post: How did your high school experience compare to Gatto's claims about high school? In what ways? Why?

One of the major themes of Gatto's writing is about the problem of how the school system is designed to leave both the students and teachers bored. My high school experience is certainly consistent with that statement; for an overwhelming majority of the classes that I took during my four years of high school, the best of times were boring and the rest were miserable. John Gatto frequently brings up the education system of Prussia that our education system is apparently built upon, and without any real background knowledge about the subject, I can't really make a comparison between the two. I can, however, say that John Gatto's essay and descriptions of that education system are very reminiscent of my own experience in kindergarten through twelfth grade education. Throughout high school, I constantly felt as though most classes offered were designed for even the most lazy and incompetent student to be able to pass. There were many classes for which receiving a passing grade was essentially just a matter of showing up for class most of the time - the academic equivalent of winning a game just by being at the field. I don't mean to say that people who aren't naturally gifted at a subject shouldn't pass, but passing should at the very least require effort. I also had the opportunity to take many Advanced Placement (AP) courses. These were much more challenging than standard courses - they actually required some effort to pass. It says a lot about the "standard education" one would receive from not taking any AP classes when the most distinguishing feature of the advanced classes is that they actually require effort.

Why do you think Gatto continued to teach for 31 years? What do you think he sees as his own role in public education?

Gatto acknowledges the problems of the education system and continued to teach in order to do his part to help mitigate the problem and to improve the lives of his students.  

His goals in continuing to be a part of the education system are clear in the second-to-last paragraph, where he advices the reader. Gatto says “Schools train children to be employees and consumers; teach them to be leaders and adventures. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach them to think critically and independently. Well –schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, and theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues.” All of these suggestions show the goals that Gatto strived to achieve in his 31 years as an educator.

(very) Rough Draft

Having finished my kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and having now started in college courses, I have had experience in taking classes with all sorts of teachers. Through many different subjects, and several different schools, I've had some amazing teachers, some truly incompetent and terrible teachers, and everything in between. With that experience, as well as more recent experience in analyzing the teachers from various essays and films such as Dead Poets Society and Stand and Deliver,  I've learned what qualities make for a good educator, and the differences between good and bad teachers. The two most important qualities for a teacher to have are the ability to engage and involve students, and once engaged, the ability to effectively teach his or her subject. To illustrate this point, I'll use two teachers I had in the past as examples - both of whom are examples of what I consider to be a bad teacher, and will remain nameless.

I took three years of high school Spanish - the first two because of the common requirement amongst colleges for two years of a foreign language, and the last because I enjoyed my Spanish classes a lot and wanted to take more. It was unquestionably one of my favorite classes in school. Every day, I could look forward to the class, and no matter what might have been happening in my other classes, I could always enjoy my time in Spanish. So, how could that instructor be a bad teacher then? After all, not only did I enjoy two years of the subject, but I was inspired to take a third year. It's simple - as mentioned, there are two basic qualities any teacher must have to be successful. While he was exceptional at engaging all of his students and making participation in the class an enjoyable experience, that Spanish teacher was dreadful at actually teaching Spanish. Every minute spent in that class was awesome, but at the end of three years, I was practically illiterate in the subject of Spanish compared to what I should have been. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much - a more strict professor probably could have covered in one year what we did in three. Looking back at it now, and analyzing what affect the class really had on my educational life, it's impossible to rationally justify taking it. Those three years of Spanish were very much a waste of time, and the instructor was a perfect example of teacher lacking in one of the two basic and crucial qualities of being a good teacher.

The previous example is really a rarity. It's uncommon, at least based on my experience, for a teacher to be good at holding the interest of his or her class, but bad at teaching the class. What's much more common is for a teacher to more than adequately knowledgeable in their subject, but completely impotent when it comes to capturing and holding the interests of his or her students. I'm certain that most students can relate to this kind of teacher. My particular example is a chemistry professor I had. He was an old man, and a retired chemist with a PhD in the subject - literally as knowledgeable about the subject of chemistry as you can get. He could probably answer just about any chemistry-related question any of the students in the class could think to ask, and with enough effort, the class was a great opportunity to learn. However, that's only half of what makes a good teacher, and without the other half, he was just adequate. A good teacher's class isn't just an opportunity to learn, if a student is willing to try hard enough. A good teacher makes the student learn, so to speak, engaging his or her students so that they want to participate in class. This chemistry instructor didn't make an effort to engage his students at all. Every day, the hour I spent in chemistry felt like the longest hour of my life. The class was painfully boring. I was personally motivated enough to a fair amount about chemistry in the class, but absolutely none of that motivation came from the professor. Both this chemistry teacher, and my Spanish instructor are similarly bad as teachers, but for opposite reasons. One lacks proficiency in actually teaching the subject, the other completely lacks the ability to engage his students. Both demonstrate that both of these qualities are vital to being a good teacher, and that one is meaningless without the other.

 There are many attributes which make for a good teacher - but above all, there are two very basic but essential qualities that all good teachers must have: the ability to get their students involved and interested, and proficiency at instructing the subject. My high school Spanish teacher and chemistry teacher are two excellent examples of teachers who have one of those traits, but not the other, and as a result make for a bad teacher. The Spanish teacher was extremely good at making his class enjoyable, entertaining and getting all of his students to participate - but failed completely when it came to how much his students actually learned. The chemistry instructor, to contrast, made no effort at all at engaging his students in the class, but was intelligent and anyone motivated enough could learn a lot from him. Both teachers had strengths, and both had flaws, and both were ultimately bad teachers because they lacked one of the two mandatory qualities that all good teachers must have.

<insert MLA works cited information here>