Running Away from the Economy

In a lot of ways, the current economic issues in the US haven't significantly changed my life in any way, and because of that, it's hard for me to understand and relate to other teens that are struggling. However, after reading a New York Times article titled "Running in the Shadows: Recession Drives Surge in Youth Runaways," I became aware of just how greatly many American teenagers are being affected by the economy.

Since the economy has taken a turn for the worse, the number of children leaving their homes for life on the street has increased drastically. For some parents, the inability to provide for their families financially has put increasing pressure on their children, creating an unstable living environment. "Foreclosures, layoffs, rising food and fuel prices and inadequate supplies of low-cost housing have stretched families to the extreme, and those pressures have trickled down to teenagers and preteens." For many of the Medford, Oregon teenagers interviewed in this article, these pressures create a burden that they are unable to carry. For them, this means that living on the streets is easier than living at home. On the streets, these kids aren't affected by the ups-and-downs of the economy the same way and they don't have to rely on others (like their parents) to create a stable living environment. They can create stability for themselves.

Fourteen-year old Betty Snyder is now living in a local park with other runaways. Here, she has the support of others who understand her situation, support that was lacking before she left home. As to why she ran away, she says "I'm just tired of it all, and I don't want to be in my house anymore. One month, there is money, and the next month there is none. One day, [my mom] is taking it out on me and hitting me, and the next day she is ignoring me. It's more stable out here." For moms like Betty's, providing for their children has become increasingly difficult as the economy worsens, driving kids like Betty to run away from their homes and fend for themselves.

Yes, we are all suffering from the economy, but clearly some people are impacted more than others. I think it's sad they had to resort to this option, but given the circumstances, these kids have worked so hard to remove themselves from their families and create lives for themselves regardless of the limitations the economy put on them. Although many of these runaway kids, including Betty, seem content with life on the street, they often have to resort to illegal activity (like selling drugs) to earn money. This being said, there's a good chance they could get caught, and it's only a matter of time before their newfound freedom from economic struggle is compromised. In trying to protect their freedom, what can we do for these kids? How can we help them? Can we help?

Politics in the Classroom

Today I attended a session of All School Forum, which is a group of New Trier students, faculty, and parents that get together once a month to discuss various topics relating to school. The topic of this afternoons discussion was "Politics in the Classroom." Following this discussion, I was able to conclude that people feel very differently about this issue. Some people feel very strongly that teachers remain unbiased towards their political stances in the classroom, while others feel that teachers should express their political opinions as a means of discussion.

Going in to this discussion, I had not previously given it a lot of thought. Personally, I think that it's okay for teachers to share their political views with the class as long as they do not impose their values on their students. But at the same time, knowing that your teacher doesn't support a certain political stance gives more students the confidence to talk about their own political views without feeling that they are being judged by someone superior to them-- their teacher. In my modern world history class last year, my teacher was very adamant about not sharing her political views with the class. However, her apparent lack of an outward political stance helped propel political discussions in class. As a group of students, we were able to share our own political views with one another and have debates that revolved around politics. Since our teacher didn't support either side of the arguments, she was able to be an objective voice of reason, asking questions that pertained to both sides of the discussion. This helped to guide discussions in a way that I think is more helpful and educational than if she had supported one side of the discussion over another.

Do your teachers often express their political views in class? Do you think that it's appropriate for teachers to share their political views with their students? How does doing so (or not doing so) effect what we learn as students? If you're interested, read Mr. Bolos' blog post about this issue.

Experience is Education

I recently read a New York Times article titled A Moo-Moo Here and Better Test Scores Later. This article talked about Harlem Success Academy, an urban New York school that is trying to better educate kindergardeners about rural life. According to this article, these efforts are being made to help students score higher on New York State's english and math standardized tests, which students begin taking in third grade. Apparently, there are many questions on these tests that relate to or are asked in the context of farming, which is something that many urban students are unfamiliar with. By taking fieldtrips to farms and familiarizing them with typical farm life and activities, the students are able to make better connections, ultimately increasing their test scores when they take the tests in third grade and beyond.

Near the end of the article, it talked briefly about how some people feel that these field trips come at the cost of other learning opportunities, and that they are unnecessary. Having talked a lot about opportunity cost in class this year, I thought this was a relevant argument. When I was a freshman, my english class talked a lot about the phrase "experience is education," which I believe to be true. Abagail Johnson, a teacher at Harlem Success Academy, shares this view point. "'[Children] are good at reciting and remembering things,' she said, 'but they can’t make the connection unless you show it to them.'" If this is the case, and experience is education, then experiencing farm life is essential for children to understand it. And if they understand it, they will do better on New York State's standardized testing in the future, which is the goal of the fieldtrips. This may come at the cost of other learning opportunities, but so do all educational fieldtrips. It doesn't sound unnecessary to me.

Do you think that the efforts taken to familiarize these children with farm living is unnecessary? What is the opportunity cost of this experience? Do you agree with the statement "experience is education"?

Selective Reduction

Any expecting mother wants to do what’s best for their child while at the same time knowing their own limits. That’s what I learned from reading Grievous Choice on Risky Path to Parenthood, a New York Times article that is part of a series about twenty-first century fertility treatments in America.

This series opened my eyes to the lengths women go to get pregnant, as well as the risks associated with the options they choose. The particular article I read was about two women, Amanda Stansel and Kiera Sorrells, who chose to become pregnant through intrauterine insemination, which consists of multiple injections into the uterus. Following the treatment, both women found out that they were carrying not one, but multiple babies. Amanda Stansel was carrying six and Kiera Sorells was carrying five.

But with the initial shock that they were carrying more than one baby came some more tough information to digest: doctors support and suggest a process known as selective reduction, where some of the fetuses are eliminated early in the pregnancy giving “others the best chance for survival.” With this information, both families were forced to make a decision that would affect the rest of their lives. By keeping all of the babies, there is a great chance that some- if not all- could die, and those that do survive could have severe disabilities. By eliminating some of the fetuses through selective reduction, it gives the remaining babies a chance for better lives, but there is no guarantee that these babies will be fully healthy, either.

Faced with this decision, the two families opted for different solutions. The Stansels decided to carry all six babies while the Sorrells decided to eliminate two of their five fetuses using selective reduction. Unfortunately, neither Mrs. Stansel nor Mrs. Sorrell gave birth to all healthy children. The Sorells lost four of their six babies, one of which died last night after battling Phenomena for the past month. The Stansels lost one of their three baby girls fourteen months after she was born.

Regardless of their painful losses, both families feel that what they did was right. I fully support both of their decisions and I respect how difficult it must have been for them. I'm not saying that either family was wrong. They both did what they thought was best for their children, which is all they can do as parents. When faced with this heartbreaking dilemma, how do you know what the right thing to do is? Do you do what the Stansels did and carry all your babies hoping that you will defy statistics and all your children will be healthy? Or do you do what the Sorrells did and go through the process of selective reduction with the hope that the remaining babies will be born healthy and live longer lives? Is there a universal right, or just what's personally right for you?

I found the stories of these two families deeply touching. If this story resonates with you and you want more information, the Stansels keep a blog documenting their decision as well as their lives since giving birth. The Sorellses have created the Zoe Rose Memorial Foundation (in honor of their daughter that passed away) to help parents giving birth to premature children.

Racial Biases

In class this week, we have been talking a lot about the issue of race and how it was constructed. This reminded me of a story I heard a few weeks ago about a fight that took place at Fenger High School, which is a predominantly African-American school on the South Side of Chicago. This fight was between two large black gangs in the area. Unfortunately, Derrion Albert got caught in the middle and lost his life.

Today, I saw a New York Times article that followed up on the death of 16 year-old Derrion Albert. Although it addressed the fight that took his life, it more generally addressed what Chicago Public Schools can do to make the South Side of Chicago a safer place for the young students that live there.

When I heard the story about Derrion Albert, I instinctually created my own opinion about the people living in his community, as well as the crimes they commit. Whether knowingly or not, we all create biases when we hear stories about perpetrators and victims. It's only natural to want to choose a side. I know that there are areas in the South Side that are more unsafe than others, and I also know that these areas tend to be predominantly African-American. By association, I assume that the African-American people living in these areas contribute to their unsafe environments. Those at risk of getting hurt as well as those who commit the crimes are black; Both the victims and the perpetrators are African-American.

But my question is this: do the biases we create about the people in this situation extend to generalize our biases about the entire race? Do stories like this one fuel our racial biases? How do they influence the way we perceive certain races?