Teacher Bias

On Friday during class, we discussed whether teachers should let their students know their political views. Many teachers debate whether they should be upfront with their beliefs, or they should keep them to themselves in order to be unbiased. I think in many classes, it is simply unnecessary for teachers to let their students know their political views. I cannot think of any benefits of a math teacher or a foreign language teacher to share their views. I think them sharing their views could potentially sway a student to believe what they believe because kids are very impressionable.

However, when it comes to Social Studies teachers especially, it becomes unclear if it is best to share political views. Because many of the topics in class will cover politics, I think students should know the teachers biases beforehand so that they understand what they are learning may come with a slight bias. Even if the teacher tries to remain neutral, it is very difficult to not have a bias when discussing politics. 

It is hard to determine the difference of enforcing views on students and just letting them know what they believe. Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of law at New York University, said here, "The line we seek to draw is that individuals who are public employees retain the rights of full citizenship in society and do not lose them as a result of being state employees. On the other hand, they can’t use their state employment to accentuate the power of their political views. That’s the tension."

So in what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for a teacher to let their students know their political views?

Blank Stares from our Favorite Celebrities

Last week I had the chance to visit the Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College with our American Studies class. As I looked at the exhibits, one struck out at me as especially interesting. Harry Shearer's exhibition called "The Silent Echo Chamber" featured videos of celebrities before a taping. These recordings were never broadcasted, but Shearer managed to pick up the signals of unaired television but he chose not to reveal exactly how he came upon these videos.

Televisions are hung on the wall on the top of the staircase for viewing. On each television, one celebrity is shown siting in silence. Some nervously tick, some practice their smiles, but most give a completely blank stare. In this PBS article about his exhibition, Shearer claims that he wants to leave his art up to be interpretated by the viewers. He says, "I'm trying to give people as little surrounding content as possible, as little interpretation as possible." He wants everybody to "make up their own story."

To me this exhibition shows that nothing that we see on TV is completely real. As much as we think we may know our favorite celebrity inside in out, in reality what we see is only what they choose to show us. They create their own carefully manufactured personality in order to achieve the goal they want to show. We're lead to believe that these people are the smiling faces we see on camera all the time, but most of the time they are no different than any of us.

As the artist leaves this exhibition up for interpretation, there are definitely many different ways to view this exhibition. How would you interpret this exhibition?

Teacher Evaluations in Chicago

I have been constantly reading in the news and hearing about the Chicago teacher strike over the last two weeks. The strike has goals to have higher teacher raises for the extended school hours but the main focus of the strike has been about teacher evaluations. The Mayer of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, wants to implement a rigorous evaluation system of the teachers partly based on student test scores. Many of the teachers believe this is an unfair way of being evaluated because student performance is linked to conditions in a students home and neighborhood so it would be unfair to punish the teachers for this. In this New York Times editorial, the author argues that test scores are an important part in evaluating teachers because most teacher evaluations are based on principals visiting classrooms who "declare nearly every teacher good, or at least competent, even in failing schools where very few if any children meet basic educational standards."

While I agree that the evaluation system definitely needs to be revamped, I don't agree that test scores should be everything. An objective evaluator should be sent to each classroom to really judge the teachers and how they interact with their students. It is impossible to measure on a standardized test how a teacher can inspire their students to enjoy learning, and in my opinion that should be the single most important job of any teacher. A teacher might do this by starting with subjects that interest the students in order to engage them, and that material might not be taught on a standardized test. On the contrary, a teacher who strictly teaches to a test may produce better student test scores, but the students may learn to resent learning which does not bode well for their future.

The teachers who argue that test scores are not fair because the conditions of where the students live is linked to their performance are probably in one of two groups. They are either teachers that fail to teach their students well, or teachers that inspire their students to enjoy learning, but weren't yet able to make a drastic difference in their test scores. Testing based evaluations, even if they take into account the students conditions, are not even able to separate the greatest teachers from the worst teachers. I really believe that a much stricter evaluation system should be implemented, however only a very small percentage of the teacher evaluation should be based on student test scores. Somehow, we have to create more classroom sit ins by unbiased officials. This way they can get a feel of the classroom environment and only keep the best teachers.

How do you think is the best way to evaluate our teachers?

The Impact of First Ladies

I along with many other Americans, was very moved by Michelle Obama's speech. She managed to inspire the country while still sounding like just another mom. This led me to reflect upon the importance of the First Lady. Many Americans value the First Lady and the rest of the President's family. They shin a light on the President's personality and show who he really is outside of his political speeches in front of thousands of people. It is good to know that the President is loved by those closest to them and the person you are voting for really is a good person at heart. Also, many American's really like the idea of a "family man" who loves his wife and children first and foremost because many americans can easily relate to this. Seeing the President as a family man allows them to see themselves in the President, which really can influence a vote, because people are drawn to people that are similar to them.

The First Lady can also have great impacts of their own. During Obama's last four years as President, Michelle Obama has advocation on the behalf of military veterans, planted an organic garden at the white house, and most notably started an initiative called "Let's Move" to try to solve childhood obesity within the next generation. You can read more about that at the Let's Move website here. It's goals are to give "parents helpful information" and foster "environments that support healthy choices." She has done a lot of work for this initiative, even having Beyonce write a song called Move your Body to help get kids moving. Other First Ladies have had major impacts during their husbands' terms and even after. Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacqueline Kennedy, Betty Ford, and Hillary Clinton all majorly impacted America as First Ladies.

Thinking about the impact of the First Ladies, led me to wonder if it would be possible for a single man or woman to become president in this day and age. The only president who has never been married in American History is James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861. Do you think it would be possible to elect an unmarried President?

Personalization or Censorship?

Earlier this week in class, Mr. Bolos talked a little bit about how Google and Facebook are tailored to each individual and how they try to show only what someone "wants" to see. I was really intrigued by this because I had never really thought much about my google search results. I had always accepted them as an unbiased collection of information; I assumed everybody got the same results. When I got home, I decided to do a little bit of research on Google's 57 signals. I found this really interesting video of Eli Pariser talking about the danger of "filter bubbles." If you watch the video from 2:06 to 3:21, you can hear him talk about how Google is tailored to different people.

Initially after watching this part of the video, I still wasn't too concerned about the search result tailoring. I have been using Google forever, and I have always found it convenient that I find what I am looking for usually on the very first page of my search results. But then as I continued watching the video, Pariser mentions a few other internet sites like Yahoo news and the Huffington Post, and even the NY Times. They all personalize the information they show you. This is where I started to realize the danger of this technology. Many people, like I did initially, don't have any complaints about the personalization of these websites, because they don't know what information they are missing. Many people probably don't even know that they are being held back from information at all, because every site they visit is tailored to what they "want" to see. Americans are trapped in a bubble that only a few know how to get out of. At what point does the tailoring of these websites become censorship?