A School Without Teachers or Classes?

After our conversation in class today about the grading system at New Trier and how it is apparently contrary to the mission statement, i was intrigued to find out if there were any schools that had a drastically different approach to education which does help the students become intrinsically motivated to learn. After a quick search, i found an article about New Country School in Henderson, Minnesota that has no classes, no walls, and no teachers. The basic idea of the school is that the students work on projects that are designed to fulfill state requirements for education, but other than a deadline, there is almost no input from teachers. The students will work how they want, some on their own, some in groups, but all with the freedom to do as they will. If they get tired of working on one project, they can switch to math, or reading whenever they want. These projects will eventually be presented to the rest of the school and staff when they are due. According to the article, the students enjoy the relaxed environment, and even though they don't have teachers breathing down their necks to make sure they work, the school performs well above the state average on standardized tests, and 90% of the students go on to college when they are done.
This system would hardly work for New Trier, seeing as New Country has 124 students, and New Trier is closer to 5,000, but it is an interesting approach to education. This way, all the students get to study what they are interested in and want to study, while still meeting state requirements. While New Trier couldn't do this to the same scale, i think that we could definately look at this school and take some of their ideas.

Presidential Race: Idealism vs. Pragmatism

Because we are learning about the history of American government and its relation to idealism and pragmatism, i wanted to see how the two candidates in the presidential race fit into the two mindsets and how the American people reacted to it. I wonder, do the American people want to see a display of idealism, or do they want a specific (pragmatic) approach to the future? While politicians are famous for displaying their lofty ideas to the public, dictating appealing solutions without really backing them up, i think that the public has become wary of this tactic and is looking more closely into the politicians plans. This election has recorded the highest public interest rate in history, and those following it have been wary of the various political techniques. The biggest example that i can think of showing idealism vs. pragmatism is when the candidates were asked what they thought they would have to cancel from their plans as president because of the recent economic downturn. Immediately, Obama began listing things that he may not be able to do, but McCain simply said he would find a way to do everything. With McCain's notably idealist approach to his campaign, and Obama's hint towards pragmatism, it is interesting that Obama has been considered to have won all three of the presidential debates, and McCain has been struggling in the polls. Maybe the time has come when the public will no longer fall victim to idealist claims and promises, looking instead for realistic plans.

What happens when what you fear is the only option?

In the process of learning about the origins of the Constitution of the United States, I looked back at the governments bailout of the banking system and realized how contrary it was to everything that the founding fathers worked for. The constitution that they wrote had the primary objective of outlining a government that would be ruled by the people, for the people, not interfering with their privacy, property, or the economy. With a profound fear of oppressive governments, this document was supposed to be a solution. Despite relatively few amendments, the country has followed the constitution word for word for hundreds of years, taking pride in upholding the sense of individuality that it protects. This bailout is different. By implementing hundreds of billions of dollars into the banks, the government has effectively bought their way into the economy, regulating it to try and save it from this downturn. The very thing that the founding fathers worked to remove from their government has come back. So what happens when perilous times force that which you fear to be the only perceivable solution? Maybe it's when idealism steps aside to allow pragmatism to take over. The American people fear changes in the constitution, they fear socialism, they fear government power, but when it comes down to it, the constitution was written in a different time, and the ideals of founding fathers may not be enough to keep the country in order. Whether a change in the Constitution is needed or not, i don't know, but the current situation in America definitely leads one to ask.

Will The Bailout Work?

In light of studying the Great Depression of the 1920's, i was looking for more articles on the current economic situation that we are in. The primary issue at the moment is that the credit system around the country is frozen, because too many people have taken out loans that they cannot afford. To this point, much of what is going on seems to parallel America of the 1920's except that now the government is attempting to do something about the problem. With the now passed $700 million bailout plan, the government is planning on buying up all the banks bad loans and debts, and as a result, freeing the credit industry once again. This all sounds very nice, but it seems to me that it can't be that easy, that more is going to have to happen in order for the economy to right it's ways. Thinking of this, i found an article on CNN in which they explore why the bailout won't work. The author says that the bailout is just a temporary fix, and that people's confidence in the market wont increase, and nobody is going to buy more after it is enacted. The author also says that the banks won't want to give out any loans still because they don't believe that the bailout will be effective. As far as he's concerned, the bailout is just $700 million gone to slow down the decline of the U.S. economy.
To me this makes sense. The way i see it is that it must be the system itself that is flawed. If Americans before took out loans that they couldn't pay for, whats going to stop them from doing now, or later on. I don't see how the bailout will stop the problem from happening again because it is just putting money into a system that is failing. While i am not presenting a better solution, i just can't see how this is going to help, not to mention the fact that my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for all of this. I guess there is nothing to do but wait at this point and see what happens to the market. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/04/news/economy/will_it_work/index.htm?postversion=2008100408