IGSS at New Trier

After our discussion yesterday of the strategic plan and intrinsic vs. extrinsic learning opportunities at New Trier, I thought of the new initiative of the Integrated Global Studies School (IGSS) at New Trier. This proposed "school within a school" provides for a smaller learning environment for periods 5-8, and encompasses the disciplines of social studies, English, and science. In lieu of grades, an essay is written at the end of the year by your teachers discussing your progress and achievements as a student, with the option of requesting a letter grade designation. It is decided between the teacher and the student if they are taking the course for 4 or 9 level credit. It is an alternative learning environment to the typical New Trier structure because it allows the student to "direct the path of their own education" according to the IGSS website. Its mission, "driven by individuals whose open-mindedness inspires the spirit of inquiry, whose personal involvement is fueled by compassion, and whose convictions lead them to be responsibly active, both locally and globally, in the world outside the walls of New Trier," puts an intrinsic learning spin on the original mission statement from the strategic plan. Last year IGSS was unsuccessful in launching because there was insufficient enrollment among the class of 2011, so this year it has been expanded and restructured to also allow the class of 2010. This is an interesting attempt to stray from the typical extrinsically motivated learning style at New Trier, and try to instill intrinsic learning values in the students. It will be exciting to see where this goes in the next few years, if it is able to start up. How will colleges react? Will hurt or help a student get into a "good college" ? Will it be more beneficial to students/Will they learn more because they are choosing what they learn? Will it be more or less helpful in preparing them for the "real world"?

Is "Going Green" idealistic or pragmatic considering current economic times?

While reading an article from the Chicago Tribune entitled, Economic free fall may bog down efforts to control global warming gases, top environmental aim, it caused me to consider whether the environmentally-friendly movement is idealistic or pragmatic given the current condition of the economy. The article discusses the proposed idea of legislation, the cap-and-trade bill, that would cap the greenhouse gases that cause global warming through government regulated trading. This seemed feasible several months ago, but “the focus on stabilizing the economy probably will make it more difficult to pass a law to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” Passing the law is not at the top of the list of priorities for legislators because the “remedy for slowing global warming, a mechanism know as cap-and-trade, could put further stress on a teetering economy.” So is it better to take the idealistic stance to believe that someday our issues of global warming in the environment could be fixed or even solved? Or it better to side with the pragmatists: we have an economic crisis at our hands, consequently there are more important things to be worrying about than fixing the environment? The government seems to be taking the pragmatic approach currently, given that “even supporters of federal regulation of greenhouse gases acknowledge that something has to give given the state of the economy.” But this issue has not been forgotten entirely, just put on hold for the time being; “Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, and both presidential candidates, continue to rank tackling global warming as a chief goal next year.” Furthermore, other Democrats are taking a very idealistic approach, seeing the cap-and trade-bill as an “engine for economic growth” because “the government revenues it would generate from selling permits.” It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, and if and when the cap-and-trade bill gets passed.

Dreams and Realities: A Public High School for Gay Students in Chicago

During Advisory this morning in light of National Coming Out Day, we discussed an article that ran in the Chicago Tribune a few days ago, entitled City leaders to recommend approval of gay high school. The main topic covered is the "approval of the School for Social Justice Pride Campus, designed as the city's first school for gay, lesbian and transgender teenagers". After reading this article that attributed the cause of the idea for this high school to be rooted in "studies showing that gay high school students are at greater risk of dropping out because of stigma and fear of violence," I thought of our new unit, Dreams and Realities. The proposed "Social Justice High School at Pride Campus" is idealist in the sense that it would solve the everyday problems of harassment that the students face in their typical high schools. Although the school may have a safer environment among the students enrolled in the school, it may be come a target of violence from outside sources such as the students that were previously targeting these students in school before. The idea for the school is also pragmatic in the sense that something needs to be done for these students that are suffering violence in their typical schools to bring the shocking statistics down. The article also stated that "some gay rights advocates said the school would segregate these students and that the district should work to foster acceptance." The "dream" of this school for gay, lesbian and transgender teenagers in Chicago could become a "reality" for them on "Oct. 22 when the Board of Education votes".
Interview with proposed principle for the new high school

Guantánamo Bay in Recent Days: Parallels to the Perilous Times

With the introduction of the situation at Guantánamo Bay as a parallel to the other perilous times we have studied throughout this unit, I was prompted to check the news for current information on the status of Guantánamo Bay. I found this article from The New York Times that discusses the supreme court ruling that the right "to challenge their detention in federal court." There are currently 255 detainees at Guantánamo in Cuba. Although it has now been four months since this ruling, and lawyers of most of the detainees have filed habeas corpus lawsuits, most cases have been delayed. The main hold up is over an arguement in the Justice Departmant over whether Federal Judges or Milatary Officals should have the power to decide the fate of these wartime detentions. The article says the camp is unlikely to close during the Bush administration. The trials are a long and slow process, and will mostly likely not be resolved until the next presidency.

I came across a very interesting statement regarding the evidence used for the trials regarding the detainees at Guantánamo. It closely parallels the evidence we have seen to be used in trials during other perilous times; "The government is relying extensively on classified information. That is quite likely to raise defense questions about how detainees can defend themselves since they are not permitted to see much of the evidence against them — long a contentious issue in the military’s hearings at Guantánamo Bay." The evidence being used against those being held prisoner is top secret and is too classified to be released for the trial. This resembles the situation with the trials during the Cold War where the "top secret" information was unable to be released in the trial, but was still able to be used against the defendant. Another similar situation is the "spectral evidence" used against the accused during the Salem Witch Trials. A reoccurring theme in times of peril seems to be the abuse of authority in the nation's court system. Evidence that would not usually be legitimate are accepted and used to convict those accused. Analysis of this reoccurring theme leads me to question the court system in times of peril: is it corrupt? Or rather, is it necessary to take such actions since it is a a time of peril?
NPR's take on the issue