The "GOOD" School- Fact or Fiction?

What is a good school for me may not be a good school for any of my fellow classmates or friends. The characteristics that define a "good" school for me are different than those that define the "good" schools of others. So can any educational institution  be truly defined as being "good" or "bad"? I personally believe that every school has both positive and negative characteristics that define it, and an attempt to create a school based on the "Utopian model"  is not only impossible but completely unnecessary as well. In order to further support my opinion I would like to present certain characteristics from my high school and my university and by comparing and contrasting them show how: a) there is no one "good" school and there can never be b) schools are both different and the same in many different ways and c) the implementation of my ideas for what would be my "good" or "perfect" school is impossible. Some of my ideas may sound interesting and could even be possibly implemented, however some others I am certain would face opposition as they serve my personal wants and desires that are probably different than those of others. I feel that both my high school back in Greece and the university that I attend here in the United States are "good" ones (whatever that is supposed to mean!). My high school back home was private, had excellent facilities, I had excellent teachers, many of which,  shaped the person that I am and guided me towards the educational tract that I am following today. It was also backed up by a very strong and successful community that wanted to make sure that students and school remained in high standards. However, the curriculum was much too difficult, we covered a variety of classes throughout my years there, most of which were difficult to follow and do well in, there were teachers who I felt weren't teaching me appropriately and as effectively I would have liked and the athletics department was rather unorganized, something that personally upset me. The same goes with my university. I have excellent, engaging teachers, I am really enjoying the curriculum so far and all the classes I am taking are really fascinating and I believe I am doing well in them. People have embraced me as a person and the foreign culture I brought with me, I have many friends and I enjoy being here thoroughly. The facilities here at John Carroll University are exquisite as well and I like the fact that the religion aims and ideological background of this institution is a part of everyday life here in campus. But, just as my high school, John Carroll, has some things that I don't like or necessarily agree with. I am sure the same can be said about any single school on this planet. But, the things that I perceive as being negative, that I may personally think affect the lives of students here in a bad way and should be changed, someone else may not agree on. The ideas I have for example that I believe could turn John Carroll University into a "good" institution and separate it from the "bad" ones, could be the exact opposite for some other student studying here. Therefore I strongly disagree with labeling a school or institution as being "good" or "bad". They are both good and bad, effective and ineffective, serve certain of my needs and others they don't. The important question that should be asked is whether I feel contempt here as an individual student. If I am satisfied with the positives, and these positives outrun the negatives, then I can say that I am happy, satisfied as an individual, and the institution I belong to can assist me in achieving my future goals. So this notion of a "good" school for me is a fallacy and a misinterpretation. The place I go to be educated, to socialize and to become a mature adult ready to tackle the modern society should not be good or bad and cannot be good or bad, it is impossible as it incorporates a little bit of both. So the "GOOD" school that some people may believe to exist is, according to my argument above, an educational and societal inaccuracy. 

To Teach- William Ayers Chapter 4 'Building Bridges'

"THE BRIDGE FROM CHILDHOOD IS LONG AND COMPLEX, BUILT BLOCK BY BLOCK" 

This quote from Chapter 4 struck me because it cannot be true enough, and directly relates to every individual's life and his/her process of maturing and becoming an adult, a functional, independent and competent member of society. People say that children have brains like sponges, they absorb everything they see and hear from their surroundings and the people closest to them from infancy, and form their character accordingly. There is a process however through which this happens. An infant must get the appropriate examples from his parents in order to become a capable toddler, then be introduced to the stage of early childhood, adolescence, young adulthood etc. until he becomes an actual independent adult. The blocks that this quote talks about must be laid out accordingly in order for this to happen and ensure that the individual develops properly. It starts at home from the parents, who raise the child from day one, and provide it with the necessary "tools" in order for it to survive and grow and satisfy its everyday needs. So initially the close family environment plays a detrimental role in making sure this happens, there is no question about that. What baby can survive without immediate care, love and affection? However, the next step of familiarization with larger societal groups and establishment within a larger human environment would be schooling. From preschool  up until college, the schooling system and the individuals that make it up (teachers, students etc.), in combination with life at home provide each individual with the "building blocks" he needs in order to mature appropriately. If you think about it, teachers are like our second parents and our school has forever been like our second home. Almost half of our days from about age four are passed within the school walls. And there is a reason for that. Our teachers are there to help us use our "blocks" appropriately  so that when the time comes, the structure we've built with the blocks will a) not collapse and b) help us move forward in life. People sometimes tend to forget what an important role teachers have, and how careful they have to be to ensure that they help their students develop so that they can one day become successful members of the harsh society that they will have to enter. From the moment a preschool teacher tells a child not to pull on his friend's hair, to the moment a first grade teacher shows someone what it means to spell out a word and make a sentence by combining these words to the college professor who talks about finance, or biology or literature, every one of these lessons is there to serve the ultimate purpose. Of bridging the gap between childhood and adulthood. It is funny to think about it, but a teacher's job is very delicate. Instead of having one child or two children at home to give "building blocks" to, he must give the necessary "building blocks" to new children he must familiarize with every year. And that must be scary, because a teacher is who these children, who are trying to cross the long and complex bridge of life, always look up to and trust, for some things even more than their own parents. I know I have, and I am sure at some point in their lives everyone has to some greater or lesser extent. The teacher thus, must be careful, help the child build his bridge just like the parent does. They work together in a way. But, as I previously said (and as the quote says) the blocks have to be laid out very carefully and delicately, or else the bridge may collapse. 

Orange High School-AP Euro Class

At Orange High School I was placed in Mr. Chordas' 10th grade AP Euro Class (Advanced Placement European History Class). Being a history major myself, with area of concentration being European history I think they placed me in the best possible class which i found to be very interesting and I must admit I got carried away. The topic of the class discussion for the day (which lasted almost two hours) was trench warfare in the European battlegrounds of World War I. When I entered the classroom the discussion had already started. There were two groups of students sitting at opposing sides of the classroom facing each other. Half the students on the one side and half the students on the other side (on the east and west sides of the classroom). The teacher's desk was close to the southern wall of the classroom and then there was one more desk in the opposite direction (northern side of the classroom) where the group discussion leader for the day sat and basically "taught" his class. So basically everyone could see everyone. Everyone was facing each other. The classroom was decorated with different historic artwork from the students and other students who took history there. Everything from pictures of the US presidents and small descriptions of them, a timeline of World War II battles and main events, quotes from Mahatma Ghandhi, pictures of Ancient Greek and Chinese historic sites and the terracotta soldiers in the forbidden city in Beijing. A true history classroom! 

The classroom had about sixteen students in total who paid close attention to their fellow classmate attempting to ask them questions concerning their previous day homework readings and their in class conversation on World War I. One of the opening questions made from the student who was the "lecturer" for the day was: " How do you define glory?" and then " To some, being within the trench was described as a living hell. What is your own personal "hell"?" I could tell that the questions were specifically given by the teacher to the students to prepare at home for two purposes: a) so they can obviously get familiar with the kind of life soldiers and civilians in Europe were facing during the First World War and b) to get them to relate to this historic past through their own personal experiences of every day life. For example one student replied that she is frightened of cramped spaces, because she is claustrophobic. She also said that she is afraid of the sight of blood. The teacher immediately told her that the French, British and German troops fighting in battles like Ypres and the Somme had to live in tiny, narrow trenches for months, were dead bodies would rot next to them for days and days, were sanitation was horrific and soldiers would get sick from infections. He also told her that it was impossible for the to leave that place, because the moment they stuck their head out of the trench a bullet was most likely to take it off. I thought it was fascinating how the questions proposed by the teacher concerning trench warfare in World War I were introduced in such as a way so as to help the students relate them too their own personal life and experiences. 

So, the student at the one desk facing the others would ask questions and he would choose his classmates who raised their hand to respond. Having a friend and classmate of their own age asking the question, I believe was motivation for the students, who ALL responded at some time during the class, and did not feel intimated or worried of making a mistake. The teacher, on the opposing side of the room, was kind of the moderator of the conversation that took part, would state his opinion on occasion and also would show some pictures of the war and of the battlegrounds on the classroom screen while the conversation continued and changed topic or area of historic interest. The teacher in a way was a student, and would even occasionally ask his student who was the lecturer for the day answer one of his questions, and he raised his hand as well! He became a part of the class, and I thought that was excellent, and motivated his students very much, making them feel like his equals in class rather than his "subordinates". And I could tell the students were learning the material from their enthusiasm in wanting to answer the questions. 

There were a couple of negatives that I would like to point out from my observation. The first was that the class was way too long (almost two hours!), to the point that it made it tiring even for me, and I could tell after the first hour the enthusiasm started to deteriorate and the students started talking to each other and lost interest. It is hard talking about trenches in World War I for two hours. The teacher should have either given them a small break, shown them a video or some fun pictures from the war, or just changed the subject. The conversation although very interesting, was just a bit unnecessarily long. the other thing I noticed was despite his excellent technique of making the actual students run the class discussion and it was successful to a good extent, he himself was a little too distant and quiet, which is part of the reason I believe he followed this technique. He would sit at his desk, stood up once the whole time to fix his computer, asked a couple of questions or gave a couple of instructions and that was it. I personally believe in the enthusiasm of the teacher. I feel it is more motivating when the teacher talks more, and makes jokes, and is an actual part of the lesson. I feel that the teacher can and to some extent should come down to the level of the students and not be intimidating to them, but it should also be evident that HE is the instructor as well. 

In general though it was a very interesting and unique experience for me to visit class (especially a history class!) in an American high school, and I could definitely in the future see myself having a class like that of my own. The students were very respectful, interested, and made excellent historic observations, and I myself enjoyed seeing them fascinated by some of the things I myself have been fascinated with for a very long time.