Finding Equality Through Education? "An impossibility" says Guare X. What say YOU?

My colleague (the one that's 65 years old, an ex-drug addict, and has a first name meaning "sir/madam/it" and a last name consisting of just one letter because he wants to remain nameless-- the letter is x if you were wondering-- aka his name is "sir nameless") is one hell of a character. If the background description of him didn't scream it, he, to put it quite mildly, probably has the least amount of trust for any institutional system that is in place out there (unless, that is, the system resembles a family, where each person supports the other through the fine balance between unconditional love and merciless discipline).

In being part of a very systematized workplace, he is a very prominent role model for me, a person who fights to secure unconditional love for all human beings to pursue their potential, and a fervent disbeliever in "quitting on a person in the name of a program's security." On the other hand, my desire to resolve conflicts through a dialogue is completely affronted by his tenacity to defend his viewpoint without mercy.

In a phrase, he truly is "sir nameless," in that, there is no name for him. It's quite a lesson really-- that all humans, regardless of their name, certainly have a name, though it is not the name's character that solely defines him.

Anyway, I'm going to stop playing in theoretical la la land. Here's what this post is really about. My colleague likes to post news articles on a bulletin board inside of the school that show examples of ignorance, oppression, and inequality within the institutional systems we seek to guarantee democracy and freedom. Here's the article he posted up today:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/06/19/2011-06-19_schools_will_never_fix_inequality.html?print=1&page=all

As he tacked it up, he commented that schools will never solve equality, as schools cannot hope to teach parents to be good parents when the kids are away from school. I was pretty adamant about responding to him that yes, equality can't completely be reached through a reworking of the school system, as I believe it is the combination and collaboration of humanitarian driven minds specializing in a variety of different arenas (i.e. psychology, econ, public health), but that you must not shut the school system out completely. In fact, to me the value of education lies in the potential to bring together many different doctrines into the school institution so as to achieve the common goal of providing the best education for our future leaders. Maybe if we started to see education as not just solely about teaching, but about creating the environment in which each student has the ability to thrive (aka, that teaching education is to ask where a student is psychologically, anthropologically, medically, economically, socially, etc., and create the environment around them that will cater to each individual's learning style, while also encouraging them to explore others as well) then perhaps we could stop blaming it on teachers, families, and students and start getting to the "how the hell do we fix this system." Education is a wee bit unpopular in the governmental budget (along with every other social service... see here for how many services got shut down in NYC because of the budget cuts: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=204719676368226438072.0004a01a5ddc0ff7e83ec&ll=40.720201%2C-73.946228&spn=0.364288%2C0.549316&z=10&source=embed), but it seems there must be some serious rethinking that needs to occur.

Speaking of rethinking, Mr. John C. Baier (Kev's dad) sent me a link that could explain exactly what we're missing here: the ability to see beyond the system we've created. Check it out-- this guy has the hot hand (and killer speech writers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U.

What do you think? Can we, the next generation, stop the looming trend in mal-education? If so, what's required right now to reform the education system? Is it the no-excuses charter ethic, the divergent thinking within school administration that RSA suggests? Mayhaps something else?

And--dare I say it--if this system is indeed unsalvagable, what should we do now?

A Definition of Success

When I’m hanging out with people on the West Coast and explaining about some of my experiences living in New England, I joke that there are two, daily habits that I’ve picked up as a result of being there: Sea Salt and Vinegar Chips and The New York Times. This joke apparently excludes ultimate frisbee, but I would argue that ultimate is more of a lifestyle choice.

One of my favorite columnists from the Times is named David Brooks, and I like him because he does a good job of presenting thoughtful, conservative viewpoints as well as topics covering the human condition. When the Tapping the Die Table was started, Brooks came out with an article entitled: “It’s Not About You” (http://tinyurl.com/3qcgclk)*. I wanted to write about it… but it didn’t seem like quite the time. An introductory post seemed sufficient. (I also wrote that post at about 10:12 P.M. in the middle of a) a conversation over gchat with Isaac b) figuring out Blogger’s formatting and c) trying to make it through finals week. So I was already being productive enough… no need to complicate things that night.) 

Anyways, the article brings up a few good discussion points. As the article discusses recent college graduates, I felt it was relevant for us to discuss.

• The article begins by saying how lucky we all are by being able to start life right now, as many adults would give a lot to start over at our age.
• It points out that we have been failed by our elders, specifically pointing to the excessive borrowing and the “ruinous federal debt” that we will “inherit.”
• Our generation has been supervised, monitored, and guided unlike any before us. Upon leaving college, all of that supervision is lifted, and we get to face the wild wide, open, and unrestrained real world.
• This idea is then linked to a typical graduation/commencement address—one that likely emphasizes that we follow our dreams/passions. However, “successful” adulthood doesn’t necessarily mesh with these dreams/passions. Brooks defines “successful” as having a house, finding a spouse, being a part of a community…
• And then Brooks notes that most people don’t find themselves and then start a life, but rather, find a problem a devote themselves to solving it.

The reason that I found this article so interesting is that I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with it at many points during the article. I definitely feel lucky to be living in Oregon, to be able to pursue the dream of working professionally to help children in school, to live in a solid apartment with great friends. I definitely agree that I was one of those children that was monitored, guided, and supervised to earn a degree from a tremendous college, and that the idea of stepping out into the “real world” definitely seemed like a challenge. (Personally, I wish I had been taught more officially how to fix shit and how to cook better… I guess those will be some lessons I will be learning from here on out). And I agree that the reason I am here, in Oregon and in life, is that I want to be able to help other children out to provide them with the most successful educational experience that they could possibly have—that is, I saw a problem and have decided to dedicate myself to it.

I guess what I’m most frustrated with is the idea of “success” in adulthood. It really seems like that idea is too standardized and rigid for my liking. We, as a generation in our early twenties, have experienced what the adults of the white-middle-to-upper-class-world define success as: getting a fancy college degree, finding some sort of employment directly out of college, eventually obtaining a high-paying job, etc. etc. However, if/when we face the struggles of the real world (which Brooks admits we likely have not been prepared adequately enough for) and do not “succeed,” immediately, it is our fault, and not some symptom of the larger society or the current economic times. For some friends (both inside and outside of Colby) it has been a struggle to find something (or anything for that matter). And if we find it necessary to move back home temporarily, that, too, is frowned upon. I guess I’m failing to see why not having those “successes” is a problem. While I am grateful for an opportunity to be in a tremendous grad program (thereby having what Brooks might define as a “successful” beginning to my post-college career), parts of me would a) join the Peace Corps b) be a Camp Counselor in Australia c) generally explore the world a little bit more or d) choose friends/family over traditional, successful employment. (I’m banking on having time to do some of those things once graduate school is over.) Had I done these things, would I have been considered “successful?” What if I felt personally fulfilled while not pursuing traditionally “successful” opportunities? Would finding a fulfillment in my daily life mean that I was “successful,” even if it is non-traditional? I’m not convinced that the definition of success, as the overbearing/overwhelming majority states, is flexible enough to include personal fulfillment—only when that fulfillment leads to tangible/observable/material rewards does our society finally designate it as success. And that, to me, is too limiting.

*I am not a big fan of the NYTimes’ 20 article limit. I really dislike that one of the sources that I’ve become dependent on for (reliable?) news limits me from viewing them. Is it really a sustainable business strategy? I’ll check their front page once in a while, but I’m no longer immersing myself with the Times when I’m online…