Junior Theme: A Look Back

So now that I'm essentially done with Junior Theme, I thought I'd write a blog post documenting some of the things I took away from the experience. For simplicity purposes, I'll arrange them in a list so each point can be clearly distinguishable.

1. The real challenge behind the Junior Theme isn't what most people would think it is. It has to do with the way research is incorporated, or synthesized into the paper. For me, the research process went along great - with databases like JSTOR and proquest, and a library entirely full of books, I was able to find all the information I needed to satisfy the four arguments that compose my thesis. The real challenge was incorporating them all simultaneously. With so many sources, as soon as I read one, I forgot one of the old ones. And not only that, but I had to find the exact parts from each source that worked with one another and find a way to fluidly insert them into my paper. Once I did that, the writing/editing process was significantly easier.

2. The interview is very important. What happened with me was that after I had gathered all of my sources together, I still had a few areas that were unclear to me. Sometimes, it was just a discrepancy in the information, but other times I couldn't think of the missing link that connected one point to another. This is where the interview comes in. With the interview, I was able to formulate the questions myself, meaning I was able to ask questions that would fill in the dots where I needed it. Especially if the person you are interviewing is knowledgeable, he/she can be an enormous help in giving you the missing link or just suggestions for where to go with your paper. After my interview, I began to approach my paper completely differently, because he placed more emphasis and credibility on some areas than others, which steered me in the right direction.

3. And finally, I learned that getting my ideas on paper and formulating a rough draft is incredibly important. Usually when I write essays, I take forever to write the rough draft, and then I hardly make any changes for the final draft. This is what I started out doing in my paper, and for the first 3 and a half paragraphs I must have spent 6-7 hours. Fortunately, with the rough draft deadline approaching so quickly, I was forced to sit down and finish my paper in a relatively short amount of time. Instead of focusing on the details, I focused on the big picture ideas, my arguments, and how they related back to my thesis. As I was looking over it the next day, I realized how glad I was that I had finished the hard part. In my mind, editing is easier than writing from scratch, so it was a huge relief to get to the final stages of my paper.

What do you think? Did you come across any of the same ideas that I did while writing your paper?

The Real Problem Behind Education

Thanks to Mr. O'Connor's suggestion, I was finally able to interview Peter Smagorinsky, a professor from the University of Georgia, after school today. First of all, I'd like to mention how incredibly knowledgeable he is, and although I know he really wanted to share his personal opinion on education with me, he was very kind in answering my questions head on. But in addition to praising his expertise, I realized something new today during our interview.

See, the main question I was getting at was this: why do politicians constantly express support for more federal involvement in the education system? Prior to the interview, I had considered two possible answers to this question. Here they are:

1) Politicians just go along with the party platform. As both the republicans and democrats have demonstrated, neither of them want to reduce federal influence in education. Instead of thinking for themselves, they just blindly follow the likes of John Boehner, Obama, and Harry Reid. 

2) It is politically expedient to do so. A politician could give a speech to a giant crowd and assure them that he or she would make education a federal priority to a standing ovation. "It's for your children! A vote for the other guy means a vote for crumbling schools!" 

After talking to Professor Smagorinsky however, he let me in on a little secret - the most obvious answer is usually the right one. He suggested that it's likely that politicians are just clueless. Sure, they might have good intentions, but in the end, they try to make a difference, and they just don't realize what they're doing.

This also reflects the nature of government. Isn't it interesting how people just assume that our fellow public servants in Washington know what they're doing? And what if they don't? Many of the congressman and women haven't been in a school for twenty years! What makes the American people think that they understand the problems facing schools today? What makes the people think that they understand any of the problems facing Americans today? These people are just like you and me. And we're supposed to believe that they understand the root cause of declining test scores?

Once again, I'd like to thank Mr. Smagorinsky for the comprehensive interview. And I'll let you in on a little secret - he wants to get rid of the Department of Education altogether!

Government Growth and Fear

As I was doing research for my Junior Theme, I came across some information that I found to be pretty interesting. The simple fact of the matter is, the federal government set the precedent for its involvement in education by creating a narrative based on fear. I can't say that I'm really surprised, as this is the way it's been going for decades now, but not only does it give me a good chance to discuss the history behind my topic, it provides the perfect bridge into a land I like to call, White Noise!

So after the Soviets launched Sputnik I in 1957, the American government became concerned with falling behind in science, math, and technology. Congress then passed the National Defense Education Act, which authorized the National Science Foundation to grant $500 million dollars to curriculum and teacher professional development over the next twenty years. Not only did schools receive money, but the NSA began playing a part in dictating the curriculum. Note that this was completely unprecedented - never before had the federal government made such a prolonged commitment to schools. And also note that this development occurred as soon as the fear propaganda began rolling. Boom! As soon as Americans experienced their first dose of fear, they coalesced and stood behind the consequential actions of the government.


Now, the reason I find this interesting (as I always do) is because there's is an incredibly close correlation between fear and government growth. Take the PATRIOT Act for example. Or the stimulus package. Or even the United Nations for crying out loud. They were all created out of fear, and that's the truth. It's a very clear pattern here, and there's no use denying it. Even many of the things people like today were originally started because of fear.


As I was thinking about all this I began to realize the profound role that fear played in this novel called White Noise. On page 117, shortly after the airborne toxic event had struck, the reader is told that the siren was saying four words over and over again: "toxic event, chemical cloud". If you look closely at the exact language that was used, you'll notice it was intentionally chosen to instill fear in the public. Anybody who hears the word "toxic" or "chemical" gets scared immediately. And this is a perfect example of how government operates. Granted, the situation in White Noise might be more appropriate in the midst of a disaster, but the point remains true - government uses fear to progress its agenda. The more frightening the words the better. If you ever wonder why you hear so much fear mongering coming out of Washington, this is why.


What do you think? Is it appropriate for the government to use fear to get legislation passed or take some sort of unprecedented action?

Education: The Truth Behind The Numbers

In my research of the American educational system and federal involvement in it over the years, I came across a number that I found to be striking. In the midst of all the fuss about federal involvement in education, the truth is that federal spending only accounts for a mere 10% of all spending related to education.

Now, the reason I find this so interesting is because although every election cycle Americans are subjected to the same debate concerning education, the actual involvement is almost minuscule. Of course, this doesn't mean that the federal government doesn't play a role in other ways - obviously, schools are forced to comply with certain laws and standards mandated from up top. But at the same time,  the constant cry that the feds are taking over education is way overblown. Although federal involvement has increased dramatically, state and local involvement has increased as well, causing the percentage to rise but not very fast.

Although I could spill out information on a host a different issues regarding federal involvement in education, I thought I'd keep this post short and to the point. To sum it up:

Federal involvement in education has grown significantly since the 1960s, but it's still only at 10%. Why do you think so many people try to paint the picture as if the feds are taking some sort of enormous unprecedented role in education?