'Teachers! Leave them kids alone!'

The The War on Kids is a 2009 documentary taking a radical stand against education policies. After watching it, school spells out prison and control in my opinion. The first part of the documentary depicts the virulent “zero tolerance” policy for drugs and weapons which is basically divided in two sections in the documentary: one dedicated to weapons and one that obviously deals with usage of drugs in public schools. Driven by an almost irrational need to provide security, school authorities increase school clearance and cameras are monitoring every aspect of the student life, from classroom, hallway, recess areas, all in the name of increasing security for the student and the parents. But what it actually did and continues to do is to ruin any sense of normality to students who are slowly given the convict treatment. 

Photo retrieved @ theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com

After comparing the security policy in a couple of high school with the one offered in a prison, the differences were slim; which makes one wonder to what extent is a school any different from a prison and if this unhealthy environment prepares the next generation to function normally in a democratic society? And what kind of understanding of democracy will this generation have after experiencing a genuinely oppressive environment?  Children are practically devoid of real legal rights; given how school conflicts are delt with: the principal questions the trespassing student and takes notes on his testimony, the student thinking that the situation will be taken care of at a school level. The next step is the student’s testimony being handed over to the police, who in their turn hand it over to court of law and then a warrant is issued.

Take the “no weapon tolerance” policy, for instance: a nail file suddenly becomes an assault weapon and children are being prosecuted and charged with a felony record before they are even aware of what that legal situation entails. Then there’s the “no drug tolerance” policy that adds to the equation. Technically, it all makes sense, and keeping a drug-free school environment is a reasonable ideal; but not the measures that are taken in this sense.  The extreme security measures that schools choose to take away the individual freedom and the opportunity for a healthy mental development. A lot of schools choose to assume that there is drug activity and students are randomly checked through violent police raids. Teachers and school counselors support this anti-drug policy which is beneficial at its core. But on the flipside, the same staff makes sure that young children who challenge the authority of a teacher in the most minor ways ends up with a psychiatric diagnosis that eventually results in a medicated treatment. Is ADHD a real disorder or is it just a concept coined to benefit both the pharmaceutical companies and teachers and parents unwilling to educate children whose behavior is seemingly “unruly”? Can medicating them really make a significant change in their behavior? The documentary reports that 90% of the Adderall usage in the world is taken by the US, which makes one wonder indeed. The DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) mentions ADHD symptoms among which: the inability of a child to focus constantly, sit still, stay in his chair, play with other objects during class, etc. all pretty much normal drives a regular child has. So what does medication do? It floods the brain with dopamine, the neurotransmitter of pleasure, calming down the brown activity; and in doing so, the personality of the child vanishes away, neither happiness nor sadness is expressed – it literally transforms the child into a zombie. 

On the long run effects worsen and studies showed that children that were administered medication for their childhood disorders ended up having underdeveloped brains, hormonal dysfunctions and once medication stopped suicidal attempts or even murder attempts were recorded. Ironically, it all happened in the same environment that promoted “zero tolerance to drugs”. Hopefully the extreme state of things will call for more fortunate choices somewhere in the future when there will be enough people empowered to say “no” to abnormal unhealthy education environments.

On How I Became Stupid

Photo retrieved @  http://www.linternaute.com  

It’s the French novel I’ve just finished reading. Heard about it from a good friend of mine and postponed reading it until fate made it that I did. And I certainly had a grand time doing so. First of all, the book oozes with sarcasm through every paragraph. This isn't necessarily a book review, but it could be. Events are narrated from the perspective of Antoine, a middle class university professor whose mind wouldn’t apparently make a stop from thinking or macerating ideas. Things get so extreme that he loses his peace of mind and every aspect of the daily life becomes a painful remembrance of his overthinking; and in this case, overthinking means seeing too much of the big picture that the world offers which occasionally results in tragic events/or is the result of a “tragic” event, metaphysically speaking. In this view, Antoine refuses any advancement that technology, fashion, and non-organic industries offer, under the guard of tight moral values. His sense of duty to society but of all to his morals is heightened to such extent that he starts to feel enslaved. What to do next? In a clearly innocent intent to cure his “disease”, Antoine decides he needs to become… stupid, an idea that doesn’t appeal much to his friends or any normal person having a sparkle of sense left. He pursues his treatment with unflinching perseverance. He quits his job, cleans up his little studio of any objects reminding him of previous life or simply anything that’s thought-inducing. The empty space is quickly supplied with the latest technology gadgets and anything that a man his age would normally acquire, in order to attain that much desired normality. But in doing so you might he’s creating a monster, which he did compared to his original self, but in fact the character and the book criticize the commonness of conventional that modern times cast upon society. It’s the created need, and all the stereotypes that go well with the worldy ways. 

The metamorphosed character portrays a defaced man, whose appreciation for any kind of morality or beauty vanishes in the blatancy that society dictates.  The creating self, the loving self is slowly effaced to meet the requirements of a mold. Yes, a mold, that’s what most of us become when we allow society to completely engulf us. The centennial dream of individuality, that the western civilization proudly praises would therefore be nothing but a faint ghost of what man once used to be. But even in his self-induced transformation, Antoine doesn’t entirely discard his old self, there are moments when his hidden morals surge and that’s when substantial statement are made through the novel; for example, when he visits the matrimonial agency and the woman helping him asks him for nothing but physical aspects of the ideal woman he has a crushing revelation of the nullity of his endeavor. And this thin thread of substance is what eventually brings him back to his true self, as in a classic novel, despite its tremendous postmodern print.