Voices from the New American Schoolhouse

Sometimes I take procrastination and forgetfulness to new heights. (In case you didn’t get it, this is one of those times.)

In June 2007, I wrote a post called Thinking differently about schooling, which was actually a post about a movie called Voices from the New American Schoolhouse. Somehow, the person who made the film, a very nice man named Danny Mydlack, read my blog and offered to send me a DVD of the movie. Really.

And he did send the DVD, which I received in March 2008. (Long story.) I watched the DVD a couple of weeks later and I intended to blog about it. Clearly, in my case, intention does not translate to action quickly.

Moving on to the documentary, it was an eye-opener. For those that didn’t read the earlier post, the movie’s about Fairhaven, a school in Maryland. (You can read about Fairhaven’s philosophy on their website.)

What’s unusual about this school is that it’s student-driven and it’s democratic. The students decide which classes they want to take, they vote on various school decisions, they are on a “judicial committee” to settle disputes, etc. The school doesn’t restrict students from classes based on their ages, so you can have a youngish student taking “advanced” maths classes. The students essentially can learn what they want to learn.

What makes the DVD endearing is that the narration is done by the students of the school and it’s really interesting to hear the students, of varying ages, speak about their school. You can sense the passion that they have for their school.

A couple of the students stood out for me. One was a teenager who spoke about how, every morning, he read The Guardian for left-leaning news and Fox News for news with a right-wing perspective to get a balanced perspective on the news. Seriously, teenager. The other was a young girl who spoke about her passion for maths (algebra and polynomials if you must know) and how she was taking classes with older students.

One thing that I hadn’t realised was that the documentary was created over a two-year period, which is a lot of effort. It’s worth it because the end-product is terrific — informative and more importantly, inspiring. It really shows how children can be educated differently and how they can thrive in a democratic educational environment. It really makes you think about how we are educating children and whether the route that everyone takes is the right one for children.

If you have any interest in education, teaching, or schooling, this really is a DVD you should not miss. Who knows, it could even inspire you to do something along similar lines. A big thank you to Danny Mydlack, the filmmaker, for his generosity in sending me the DVD and for creating an exceptional documentary.

P.S. 1: When I read about Fairhaven and saw the documentary, I remembered that Ricardo Semler is trying to do similar stuff with his school Lumiar. Semler’s company, Semco, is run like a democracy and it seems that schools like Fairhaven are “doing democracy” in their schools.

P.S. 2: I found out later that Fairhaven is a Sudbury school. Apparently, there are a few schools like Fairhaven in the US.

If I hear the nature/natural argument one more time

I’ve been meaning to write about this topic and the Delhi High Court’s judgement decriminalizing homosexuality provides the perfect backdrop. (This is a huge ruling for the LGBT community in India and hopefully a first step that will lead to them being treated on par with everyone else.)

But this post is not about that bit of news. It’s about the argument that you tend to hear from people who have objections to alternate sexuality. That argument is: It is against nature. Alternatively, people say, It is unnatural, it is not natural…blah, blah.

My question to them would be this: Where in nature would you find any of the following?

• Blood transfusions (I am Draculya, I vant your blood.)
• Organ transplants (Dr. Frankenstein I presume.)
• Caesarean births
• Vaccines
• X-rays, MRIs, and other diagnostic tests

The stuff that I’ve listed is restricted only to the field of medicine. There are numerous examples of things that we do that are not found in nature or not “natural”. Let’s look at the meaning of natural for a second (via the Free Dictionary (first 3 entries)):

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

So, for the “nature lovers”, here’s something I quoted (emphasis mine) in a post I wrote about a book called The Human Story.

The Japanese field workers who undertook the first studies of wild bonobos in the Congo Basin in the 1970s were astonished and bemused to find that sex seemed to be the sole preoccupation of these unusual apes. They were, quite literally, at it all the time, and in all possible combinations– males with females, females with females, even occasionally males with males.

Them wild bonobos must not be familiar with nature then or the “nature peoples” may not be familiar with these apes. And why just the apes? Here’s a recent Wired article about animal homosexuality (emphasis mine).

Sure, it’s widely recognized that the animal kingdom is full of male-on-male and female-on-female action, from fruit flies on up to bottlenose dolphins and, of course, Homo sapiens.

…

(A few particularly arresting examples: male dung flies are believed to mate with other males simply to occupy their time, thus denying them a chance to reproduce; small male Goodeid fishes camouflage themselves as female, and mate with females while males pursue them. And young fruit flies seem to do better at heterosexual mating once they’ve had some same-sex practice.)

Such explanations are sometimes useful, but only to a point. In the Laysan albatross, for example, where monogamy is common but females outnumber males, nearly one-third of all couples are female-female pairs. They’re better at rearing chicks than single females, and their coupling reduces the likelihood of single females luring married men from the nest.

But, enough of that already, we’re much more evolved than apes, the “nature peoples” might say.

And that is precisely why we should respect scientific evidence and tell the “natural peoples” to shove their arguments where the sun don’t shine. (And, yes, the irony of that last statement is not lost on me.)

Michael Jackson R.I.P.

I think the last time I really paid attention to the music that Michael Jackson had created was when he released the Dangerous album. I wasn’t as impressed by that album like I was by his earlier music.

When I was in school, I remember really being into Jackson Five (greatest hits is the album I had I think), listening to Thriller and Bad but the interest in his music somewhat died down after that. At that period in my life, he was unquestionably my favourite musician / singer.

It’s sad to realize that he was at his peak so many years ago and that the celebrity aspect of his life dominated over the music aspect. But, whatever his legacy later on in his life, the early years were simply brilliant. He was a magnificient singer and dancer and essentially one of the great pop stars.

When I think about the Michael Jackson who gave us songs like Beat It, Thriller, Man in the Mirror, Billy Jean, to name a few, I feel sad that he’s gone.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

When I think about Vicky Cristina Barcelona, the first thing that comes to mind is the character Maria Elena and the way she speaks and acts — and it makes me smile. Maria Elena, played by Penelope Cruz, stays with you long after the movie’s over. Though we meet her close to the movie’s half-way mark, she still manages to make an impact. Cruz is excellent as the super-talented, yet extremely fragile Maria Elena and I’m guessing that’s why they gave her an Oscar.

VCB is about two friends, Vicky and Cristina, who make a summer trip to Barcelona. Vicky is the woman who knows what she wants — she’s engaged, she’s in graduate school — and seems the more conventional of the two. Cristina is a dilettante and sort of a free spirit. They meet a painter, Juan Antonio, who then takes them on a trip. When Juan Antonio’s ex-wife, Maria Elena, things get really complicated and even more interesting.

When you recall the movie later, you realize that VCB is about challenging the assumptions that we have about love and romantic relationships and about how we think that it should be this way or that. VCB is funny but it’s also insightful and quirky, which is I guess a hallmark of Woody Allen movies. (I’ve watched only a couple, so I don’t know if I am qualified to make such a judgement.)

However you analyze the movie, the main thing is that it’s funny and enjoyable to watch. Those are good enough reasons to watch any movie.

Bloggers anonymous?

The Hoot has an excellent editorial on whether bloggers are entitled to anonymity. The piece quotes the story of a recent case in the UK where a newspaper “outed” a police officer who was an anonymous blogger. The whole piece (link again) is worth reading but the crux is this:

Bloggers are nothing if not vociferous about their rights and freedoms. In deciding where anonymity should be an entitlement for all bloggers the Hoot’s view is that the relevant question to ask, is are all blogs in the public interest? Perhaps there should be different rules for those that are and those that are simply platforms for opinions and views, often sweeping and abusive ones.

Zigackly!

Ominous rules for the IT amendment act

Giving in to prior restraint is Sevanti Ninan’s article on the sweeping powers the government wants to arm itself with in the name of, what else, national security.

Is civil society mounting enough of a fight against the extraordinary powers Mr Raja’s ministry is arming itself with? The rules being framed for the IT (Amendment Act) 2008 are ominous.

Here are some of the things that the government wants to do.

• Intercept email, under section 69 of the Act.
• Block websites and web content, under section 69A.
• Monitor and collect traffic data relating to a website, in the name of ensuring cyber security, and foiling cyber security incidents. Under section 69B.

Pass this on. We shouldn’t let lawmakers give themselves sweeping powers in the name of national security.

Milk

I don’t know if Milk was released in Bangalore, but if it wasn’t then that’s a shame because it is a terrific movie. Milk is about Harvey Milk, the first openly-gay politician in California, but it is also, in a larger sense, about the gay rights movement in the US. (IMDB has a nice review of the movie.)

Milk won two Oscars for best actor and best screenplay, both deservedly so. Sean Penn is superb as Harvey Milk and the script never misses a beat, telling the story without sounding preachy and yet delivering a powerful message. (Interesting tidbit: The acceptance speech of the screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, was censored in parts of Asia during the “live” Oscar telecast.)

Gus Van Sant, the director, deserves a lot of credit as well There are scenes of men kissing and some suggested sexual encounters which will have made many people in India (and possibly elsewhere) uncomfortable. But, everything’s handled well and without a fuss, so props to Van Sant.

The issue of gay rights is especially relevant in India because our laws are slightly behind the times. (Add heavy dose of sarcasm here.) When you watch a movie like Milk, you wonder about people with alternate sexuality (LGBT) and about the kinds of problems that they face.

Put yourself in their shoes if you will. Firstly, it’s a question of accepting who you are because everyone else seems different. Then, there’s the issue of dealing with your family and friends, and in the larger sense, with society. Mix in the laws we have and think about the kind of problems you’d have to face. This is precisely why I feel that more people should watch Milk, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. It is a movie that will provoke debate and that debate will eventually (hopefully) lead to something good for the LGBT community in India.

As it is, this is one minority community that our media and our society doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge. And that’s sad.

On movie villains who gloat

I’ve lost count of the number of movies where the villain, instead of eliminating the protagonist, wastes time gloating and ends up having to eat crow or various other things.

Is this a form of deux ex machina that we are so used to as viewers that we don’t even blink? Or is it one of those predictable things that must happen in movies? Or maybe it’s got something to do with psychology — a person may feel the need to explain why he or she is doing something.

Whatever the reason, in some movies this is a plot element that is grating. It does work in some movies but it does seem like an overused element. The flip side is that if villains didn’t gloat you’d never have series like James Bond that span decades.

I’m reminded though of a scene from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, where Eli Wallach’s character (Tuco, aka Ugly) is in a bathtub and someone comes in and points a gun at him but doesn’t shoot. Here’s the dialogue from Wikiquote:

One Armed Man: I’ve been looking for you for 8 months. Whenever I should have had a gun in my right hand, I thought of you. Now I find you in exactly the position that suits me. I had lots of time to learn to shoot with my left.

[Tuco kills him with a hidden gun]
Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.

If movie villains heeded Tuco’s advice, my feeling is that doing this would tighten a story / script where the gloating was used as a plot device to help the writer resolve a situation.

Tighter movie = better experience for viewer.

The wife is always right

Today’s Deccan Herald brings news from the highest court in the land in Bow down to your wives’ diktat: SC.

If you want to buy matrimonial peace just do whatever your wife says. This is not a piece of advice from a marriage counsellor, rather it is from the Supreme Court.

A vacation bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Deepak Verma observed: “Bibi joh boltee hai woh sunno (listen to whatever your wife says), otherwise it could land you in trouble. Because if you do not listen to her, you will suffer the consequences. “Hum sab bhogi hai (we are all sufferers),” the bench said in a lighter vein.

As anyone who’s been married will tell you, listening to one spouse, wife or husband, is not a key to matrimonial peace. Ice-cream and chocolate is — just kidding. But, back to our judges who manage to drop an even bigger bombshell:

The bench further said a husband has to accept the suggestion of a wife irrespective of the fact whether it is sensible or not.

“Today, you eat off the floor,” she says.

“Ohh fantastic,” he says, “Eating rasam will be such fun.”

“I think a tie will go well with your T-shirt,” she says.

“You are so forward-thinking,” he says, brimming with pride.

The scary part of this nugget of wisdom is that it comes from the Supreme Court, the big daddy of courts in India. For judges from there to offer such advice is not good news for any of us.

In other unrelated news, marriage bureaus went out of business by this afternoon. People are now opting for live-in relationships and calling themselves partners.

Sorry to cut this short but I think the partner is calling.

The deja vu over the monsoon

City not yet ready for monsoon says the Deccan Herald. Well, duh!
Can you remember when the rains have not screwed with Bangalore’s roads and traffic? I can’t. (Yesterday I was near the Inner Ring Road (Koramangala) – Indiranagar flyover and the waterlogging had slowed the traffic to a crawl. )

The Bangalore Water Sewerage and Supply Board (BWSSB) has held the residents responsible for the waterlogging in many areas. “The underground drainages are not meant to be used as storm water drains. Storm water drains should be used from draining out the rain water,” said Prahallad, the Public Relation Officer of the BWSSB.

And, he’s partially right. Citizens are partly to blame because people insist on throwing garbage, construction debris, and whatever else into storm water drains and its inevitable that they’ll fill up. So, if you’ve thrown garbage on the street, it’s your fault.

Now comes the killer.

He [Prahallad] said the problem may not emerge this time because the BWSSB has cleaned at least 15,000 to 20,000 manholes out of 1.30 lakh manholes in the City, before Monsoon. These manholes, which were cleaned this year, are mainly in the low-lying areas, said Prahallad.

I wrote a snarky paragraph about this, but edited it because when you consider the magnitude of the effort, 15,000 to 20,000 manholes is no joke. Still, that represents just 15% of the manholes that would have been cleaned just in time for the monsoon. Let me do the math for you: 85% not cleaned. Of course, not all of the 85% need cleaning but you have to wonder if the 15% is enough. The smart money is on “not”.

I’ve written about Bangalore’s inability to handle the rains before, as have many others, but it’s the same story every year. It doesn’t matter which party is running the government, we seem to have the same problems. We hear about the development agenda and about big infrastructure spending but the ground reality isn’t matching up.

As much as this is the fault of the government and the civic bodies, this is partly our fault too. If we continue to accept these kinds of hardships and don’t do anything, we must accept a share of the blame. If people held a rally to protest the problems we face during the monsoon, the government would be forced to act. We need to ask and expect more from our civic bodies and our government.

Our responsibility doesn’t just end with voting in elections: that’s just a small part of the role we need to play.