I have mixed feelings about this book. I think the intent behind the book is good--it's teaching the reader to think in different/creative ways. Steven Levitt combines two seemingly unrelated things in most chapters and tries to make sense of it through statistics and numbers. The arguments are coherent and logical and fairly grabbing at first. It seems that Steven has unearthed some amazing connections, but despite what he says, numbers can lie. True, numbers are numbers--they are objective. However, they can be manipulated. Statistics can be made to show anything, really. Steven also claims that we cannot trust experts, but he is an expert himself. How do we know that he doesn't have some selfish intention behind writing the book or making connections, such as these? After all, he does seem to enjoy the glory--he has quotes about his "god" status at the beginning of every section. I'm not completely against the book--I feel that if people read it in the right way, and question Levitt, just as he questions other's judgments and thoughts, a person can get a lot from the book. However, if a person reads it and just takes Levitt's words as complete truth, there's a problem. I certainly appreciate the book--I enjoyed reading it for the sheer fact that I like being critical and asking questions and I see Steven Levitt as a person doing this exact same thing in writing the book. I just hope that's its popularity is for similar reasons, and not because people believe exactly what Levitt says.
The one thing I hear from just about every first-year, every second-year, and every staff member is "are you going to do the program?" In the beginning, it was an easy answer: "I'm not sure yet, that's why I'm interning here. Ask me again at the end." Of course, they've held me to that response. After about a month of being here, the question resurfaces, "so do you think you are going to do the program now?" My first response is always: "I'm definitely going to apply. Am I going to do it? I'm not sure yet. A lot can change in 2 years." If they pry further, which most do, I explain my one major concern--the distance. Now, I'm not talking just about the physical distance. I would happily move to LA or France. It's more than that. I just feel like my experiences would be so different from my friends. I understand that change is not necessarily a bad thing--it's sometimes best to branch out. It's just that, I'm afraid I won't be able to relate to anyone from home anymore. Some things here are just so different, it's hard for me to even explain them, let alone understand. See, for me, my escape (other than hour long runs when I'm frustrated) is my friends and family. They know exactly what to do and say to take my mind off things. In a job like this, I know that I'm going to come home almost everyday needing to escape; needing someone outside of this place to calm me down. Sure, the teachers have each other, but talking to someone who is dealing with the same issues is not the biggest help. Molly mentioned that she sometimes has a drink with the workers at the hardware store underneath her apartment :0) That's better, but still....they aren't family. They aren't close friends. They aren't outside of this place. I've been carefully considering my answer to that golden question and dwelling on this thought for awhile, but the other day I realized something. I'm not really as "far" from home as I initially perceived myself to be. There are always images, landscapes, people, and moments that can take you back. Let me show you what I mean:
Right: Sunset, Lake Sardis, Mississippi
Right: X-Country Track at OleMiss (by Whirlpool Factory), Mississippi
Right: The Grove, OleMiss
Right: Rocky Coast, Lake Sardis, Mississippi
Two Photos on the Right: Basile vs. Anna, Jeffs vs. Ephs (Track and Field)
marian barksdale: One thing Mrs. Barksdale discussed really hit home for me. At the end of her talk about the School Board she mentioned "B" (for the sake of privacy), her "tutee", as she calls him. It seems that she has formed a very special relationship with this boy, traveling to the 7 different places he has moved to in the short 5 years she has known him in order to continue mentoring. This might seem crazy to some people, but when you have a bond with someone and care deeply about him/her, you want to help in any way possible. Traveling a little extra distance to do something you already committed to is not a huge chip off the shoulder. Mrs. Barksdale also mentioned that she has, in the past, paid the family's electric bill, and on the very day of her talk would be paying the family's motel bill. She stated that she worried about making these payments a little, but only 2 requests in 5 years really isn't that bad. I agree. If you can afford it and it's not consistent, I say go for it.
But then Marian mentioned that B needed to attend summer school for 9th grade English. She had given him a number to call for financial aid and then she left town. Upon arrival back home she learned that B had not enrolled in summer school due to a lack of funds. She defined this as a personal failure. She plain and simply "wasn't there"--but she was there. She was there to guide him in the direction of summer school, to help him find a way to get funds. She just wasn't physically there. It wasn't her fault that her trip happened to coincide with summer school registration. It wasn't her fault that the number she gave him had already given out all of its money by the time B called. Everything was out of her power, but yet, in her mind, she failed.
I understand her sense of guilt. Believe me, I've felt it a thousand times, but that's exactly what worries me. At Amherst, I tutor for an organization called ABC (A Better Chance). The program moves talented, minority boys from inner-cities into places like Amherst with good school systems. In Amherst, there are 7 high school boys who all live together in a house. I tutor one junior in particular, Randy. He's just about the only boy who will flat-out admit he needs help. He always works the entire time (with occasional breaks to talk) and for some reason he took a liking to me from the beginning. He'd teach me Spanish, so I could in turn teach him Spanish (although I think he knew more than he led on and just enjoyed hearing my French accent struggle over vocabulary). He'd work diligently on Math problems, but at the same time milk his broken arm so he didn't have to write out 100 flashcards. Now, don't get me wrong, Randy would continually test me--ask me why I did this, how much I was getting paid, etc. I think deep down he knew though, I do it because I enjoy it, because I always walk away with a smile, because every single day I gain something new (like the Spanish phrase yo te quiero dedicar une elephante--sp?) Randy would always only take it so far, but then quickly back down and focus if he noticed I was even the least bit frustrated. It was almost as though he was slightly afraid I would hand in the towel and give up on him. I wouldn't. We had a great relationship. I even took him to get his haircut at one point so he wouldn't have to wait around for an untimely bus. On the way home he criticized my style, saying I needed to invest in a pair of sweet sneakers (He owns over 50 pairs). He suggested Pumas.
Then one day he mentioned that he could get extra credit in Spanish for attending a play the next day at a nearby college, but he didn't have a ride. I was free, so I offered to bring him. I explained that he would need to get directions and call me with the details. The play ended up being rescheduled (he didn't give me the new date), but then a few days later called and told me the play was on that night. I really wanted to bring him, but it was such short notice and I had a study session for an exam. Still, I felt obligated to Randy. I didn't want to let him down, but I just couldn't miss this review session. I searched frantically for a solution for about an hour and luckily one of my friends offered to take him. It was a relief, a huge relief. Still, I felt guilty for not being able to do it and obligated to find another way for him. I felt the same guilt when a lecture or exam would come up and I couldn't make tutoring. It was extremely stressful for me and would weigh down on my conscience. The sad part is, at least five other people are supposed to tutor on the same night as me. I had only seen two ever-->both showed up at the first, and maybe second, session.
This guilt, this "failure" attitude Marian mentioned, is the worst. Especially when you know things are out of your control and there are a ton of people out there who just don't care. I often worry that it would be too emotionally draining to see all of these students, with so many needs, and know that I can't help them all. As hard as I could try, it would never be enough. I can't win and I might lose, over and over again. That fact just kills me. But the truth of it all is, I can at least play a damn good game.
Truthfully, I don't like the idea of this post. We're supposed to write about something someone (an MTCer, Dave, etc) said that we disagree with. So, if I was a teacher, and this was an assignment, what objective would I want the student to get from it?
TSW form a persuasive argument critiquing something someone said
So, what student would I expect to write the best response? I would expect it to come from the student who wrote on a subject they were truly passionate about. The problem with our assignment? We only have a few days to figure that something out. What if no one has said anything truly controversial yet? I think it would be much better to have this blog topic, but with no assigned date. Or, think up a list of blog assignments from the very beginning, send them out, and have people choose when they want to do each (as long as they do everyone by the end).
On a different note, I will answer the assignment, because I can make reference to something. On Wednesday, Tish, Christine, Ben and I went out to lunch at Maries. Toward the end of our meals we started talking about how to find the best applicants--the ones who will stick it out at least both years, if not continue to teach afterward. Ben mentioned that when he does a phone interview, unless someone gives an outlandish answer, the tone, confidence, etc. in the voice is the most important thing, the answer doesn't even really matter. I completely understand this rationale. As a teacher, one must be poised and assertive, especially in a classroom filled with rowdy students. However, I don't know if this is the best method for the kind of program MTC is. This week, I've been conducting interviews with last year's principals in order to survey the 2nd year teacher's abilities, skills, and overall performance. While every principal has something different to say (some are extremely pleased, others see some work that needs to be done), there was one reoccurring comment. Every principal mentioned the dedication the teachers show toward their crafts. Every teacher truly wants to be there, wants to make a difference. It doesn't matter that they may not have incredible class management skills because they come back every single day. Some even stay after when they don't need to. Every teacher perseveres. I think this comes from one common tie--every teacher that makes it wants to teach, is passionate about teaching, desires to dedicate his/her life to teaching. While this may come across in the tone and confidence of the speaker on the other line of that phone during the 15 minute interview, it will without a doubt come across in his/her answers. One's voice may quiver, s/he might speak softly, but I'm positive if that person truly wants to be a part of the program, you will hear it in the answer. If they want it, they will tell you that they are in it for the kids, that they want to impact change, that they are determined to make a difference. So my suggestion is listen to what the candidates actually say because confidence can be broken, but passion cannot.
background: As everyone pretty much knows at this point, I'm doing my final project on the Mississippi Innocence Project. I first heard about the Innocence Project (the New England one) as a freshman in college. I was immediately drawn to it. Anyone who has heard a story about the Innocence Project would probably feel the same. It is extremely powerful. There are Innocence Projects all over the nation (although they are not connected--like all the alternate route teaching programs around the nation. Keep this point in mind, it will come back later). Every group attempts to exonerate wrongfully convicted people. Most of the projects use DNA evidence to free people who were unjustly served. Many cases were decided 20 or so years ago, before DNA testing was a sure science. Mississippi, on the other hand, does not have laws about the preservation of evidence. This gives makes the MIP's job a heck of a lot harder. In a lot of cases, they must use old-fashioned methods to help free those who were wrongfully served (i.e. go back to the scene of the crime, watch videos, measure distances, etc.) However, the project has proven successful with two exonerated last year.
how the innocence project works: Prisoners write to the Innocence Project in their area requesting help for their case. The staff then sends the prisoner an application. The applications then get screened (which undoubtedly takes a very long time, especially with small staffs) and if the case can potentially be worked on, they begin investigation. This is no walk in the park though--I saw the drawers upon drawers of applications waiting to be screened at the Law School at OleMiss. However, I was not surprised. There were only three other ladies working alongside Tucker while I was there, and at least 1 was a student taking classes at the same time.
This brings me to my project. The need for funds immediately made me think about the need for money in education. Schools need money, teachers and administrators need to get paid more, etc. Money truly does make a difference. I think Tucker would vouch for this--he joked that out of all the thank-you cards we sent after his talk, not one made a donation :) Money is also a common thread when discussing the demographic of the two programs (Teacher Corps and the Innocence Project). It's no secret that many of the kids that are in the tough schools and that can't read come from households living in poverty. They don't have resources and many of their parents are uneducated. The same holds true for many of the prisoners. Lastly, there is education--the children who can't read at a 4th grade level in high school have a slim chance of making it. An suspect who can't read his rights has a very slim chance of winning in court. It's just how the systems work. It's a vicious cycle. The two programs serve similar kinds of people and have similar needs. However, in my mind, there is one glaring difference. Hearing about convictions of the innocent or the innocent of death row is A LOT more powerful than hearing about the inequalities in education. However, the injustice done to these young children, who just happen to be born into a certain lifestyle and in a certain region are just as strong. That's why I would like to create an ad campaign comparing the two programs in an attempt to highlight the importance or both. Most of my information will be statistical, coming mainly from websites. However, I will also use Tucker and the other interns I worked with at the Innocence Project to get more details and stories in order to make the ad more compelling. As always, I have Ben, the staff, and the second years to help me with the MTC portion. It's kind of hard to explain, but I promise I have a vision.
"90% of first years and interns play volleyball below grade level.
mississippi volley corps: working to reduce this achievement gap."
-robert bland, my friends.
you have 30 students in your classroom. 8 of which read above grade level, 15 of which read at just about grade level, and 7 of which read below grade level (3 read significantly below grade level). which group do you tailor your lesson to?
Ben asked us this hypothetical yesterday. He told us that it was the dilemma that most all teacher corps teachers run into at some point in their careers. If you direct your lesson to the top half, you lose everyone else. If you direct it to the middle, the top get bored and the bottom get lost. If you direct it to the bottom, everyone else is bored. Now, I've never taught before, but I figure there has to be some way to tailor a lesson to everyone--no matter what level each student is at. Would it be possible to pair students up? Put the 8 top kids with 8 of the middle kids and have the more advanced students in some way help out the middle students. They would be learning by teaching and it would give them some power, which may keep the engaged. Also, the middle students would be learning in a different way, from a peer, someone who they may respect, trust, etc. Kids tend to be witty--They may be able to explain something in a unique way. The teacher would do the same with the 7 other "middle" students and the 7 lower students.
This is a completely random thought. I figure it's probably not plausible that kids would actually help each other out, rather than goof around, but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit. Students may also feel inferior and have problems with receiving help from fellow classmates. Especially because the lowest group does not get to experience the "teaching" aspect. They are simply taught. I also really haven't thought about how it would logically work. Would the students help teach each other the lesson? Or would they just work on activities together? The more advanced students might then just do the work and not concern themselves with the others. There are a lot of problems with this approach, but it was the first thing that came into my head. Basically, in my opinion, what it comes down to is there needs to be some sort of restructuring to the classroom in order to accomodate this dilemma. It could even mean that some schools/classes should teach by reading level, not by grade level. Who knows? I just wanted to put my thoughts down into writing.
tucker carrington: It all comes back to poverty. Sandra said it in her discussion of the media. Claiborne Barksdale said it in his discussion of literacy. We've heard it time and time again from Ben and Dr. Mullins. Tucker only reiterated this point during his talk on the Innocence Project. Money Matters. Money (or a lack thereof) is the reason many people don't follow news and distrust the media. Money is the reason many children don't have books or other learning tools in their homes. Money is the reason programs like the Mississippi Teaching Corps have to exist. Money is the reason people are wrongfully convicted. Now, money may not be the only reason, but it sure seems to be a root of all these causes; a very big root, at that. As Tucker pointed out, poverty leads to uneducated people. Uneducated people may not fully understand their rights. They also may not be able to afford decent attornies. They may be targetted (as Tucker points out, you don't see police with dogs checking airlines, but you do see them checking trailways) or, by nature, they may just fall easily into the criminal justice system. Either way, poverty is a key factor. Money also affects the other end--the lawyers, the judges--the system in general. "You get what you pay for", Tucker says, as he describes the shitty (excuse my language) job many defense attornies and judges do when dealing with the law. You ask someone if they want the easy way out, even someone dealing with a potentially innocent citizen, and at a salary of $40,000 or less, you would probably be surprised at the answer.
Criminal justice system sound like the United States educational system, anyone?
Exactly what my project will focus on. About a week ago I was really reading into the Innocence Project online and I noticed some striking similarities between MTC and the Innocence Project. First of all, the demographic of the wrongfully convicted: poverty, illiteracy--many of the same characteristics of the children struggling in school. Secondly, the program itself. There is a lack of funds, plus a shortage of good defense lawyers willing to work on these cases--like the lack of teachers and funds within our educational system. Ineffective policy is another key factor that resonates in both cases.
So no one wants to kill the innocent, right? Of course not--that's shocking, that's immoral, that's just plain wrong. That's also the reason the Innocence Project gets the recognition and publicity Tucker mentioned. Well, don't we in a way "kill" the innocent (the children) every day that we can't provide them the proper education: the proper resources to give them a chance at life? At least a life that's worth living. I know this analogy is a little strong, but I think it has to be that powerful. Everyone understands that convicting someone who is innocent, sending someone to death who didn't commit a crime, is wrong. However, not everyone understands the reality of the educational inequity that exists today. Not everyone understands the injustice being done to some kids.
My project is going to be an advertisment, somewhat like a PSA, that likens the Mississippi Teacher Corps to the Innocence Project. My hope is that it will make a powerful statement, as well as serve as an educational tool to teach other people what you all already know as teachers here in Mississippi. What you all are doing is an Innocence Project in and of itself.
