This paper was written about the experiences that I had with online deliberation on the website, The National Review. This website posts articles that have a bit of a republican bias to them and I am a democrat, so I felt this would be a good choice, seeing as I had the potential to have great deliberation with some people who disagreed with me. I hope you enjoy.

Online Deliberation

                I chose to comment on an article on the topic of Paul Ryan’s new budget that he has proposed. It talks about the reception that both the liberals and the conservatives gave to this and goes a little into the details of the proposed budget. I found this article to be a good choice to comment on because of the fact that it was written on a proposal made by a republican and posted on a republican news site, The National Review. I thought this would be a good choice due to my predominantly democratic views. I figured that this would bring about quality deliberation between both democrats and republicans who had read my comment.

                Much to my dismay, I was unable to stir up any deliberation at all. I read some of the other comments that had been written about the article and learned some things that I could have done in writing my comment that would have caused deliberation. First, I realized that I simply stated an opinion with no factual backings. I didn’t use any sort of source or quote to back up my statements and, therefore, people most likely felt as though I either didn’t know what I was talking about or was just making a small interjection that didn’t possess any substance that could be debated.

                Second, I discovered that I didn’t give the readers much to deliberate on. I merely presented my opinion and nothing else which leaves the potential commenter with the options of agree or disagree and nothing in between. If I had provided some facts or written a little bit more about my opinion that delved into some specifics regarding the Ryan budget, then commenters may have been more inclined to respond to my comment.

                Finally, I realized that the language I was using wasn’t sensational enough. Some of the other quotes used language that could easily stir people up and cause them to comment and either fervently agree or disagree. The language that I am referring to uses phrases such as “worst ever” or “the greatest in history”. These comments made for quality deliberation, in which the participants were having a long and productive conversation regarding the details of a specific section or two of the Ryan budget. If I had sensationalized my language, enough emotion may have been stirred in order to generate a good amount of commenters and ultimately begin a fruitful deliberation.

This statement is one that I wrote after I participated in a group deliberation activity in class. At one point in the deliberation, I was a moderator and wrote this paper about my specific style of moderating and how successful or unsuccessful it may have been. I talk about some strategies that did work and some that didn't. I hope you enjoy.



Moderator Philosophy Statement

                During my experience as the moderator for my group’s deliberation, I learned many things about how I moderate. I discovered that I seek to encourage a more furious type of deliberation, in the sense that everybody would get time to talk and make a point, but the point would have to be made quickly so as to keep the deliberation going and to allow others who would like to make their points and express their views, do exactly that. To achieve this goal, I incorporated a speaking time of sorts. My partner and I allotted forty-five seconds for each individual who wanted to speak. This was not strictly enforced, however. It was used as a tool to cut down on points that were maybe redundant or to force people who were rambling to quickly wrap up their statements so that others may comment. I felt this tool was fairly effective when it came to encouraging more deliberation, however, it is a tool much better suited for much larger groups, such as a general assembly meeting within the United Nations.

                While I was the moderator, one of the individuals made a comment relating to how the government had become “too big” and how that person was tired of “the government running [their] life”. Even though this comment was technically on the topic of government involvement in the issue of sustainability, I still felt that it would quickly encourage the group to take the deliberation in a much different direction than I would have liked it to go in. So I acted against it by declaring that area of discussion as off-topic and, therefore, not of our immediate concern. This showed me that, even though I personally love to discuss politics in any given situation, as the moderator, I try to avoid having others unnecessarily discussing it when they could be directing the conversation in more fruitful directions.

                Overall, what I have discovered about my moderating style is that I seek to lead an orderly discussion which address the large points of the issue first, and then delves into the smaller issues that correspond with the bigger issues. I seek to allow everyone to express their ideas and try and keep the conversation from being dominated by only a select few people. I feel that this is the best way to run a deliberation seeing as it is composed of many people and not just three or four who are the loudest of the group. Through the method I have described, a fruitful deliberation can be had on any topic that is worth discussing, because everyone, big or small, young or old, educated or not, has the ability to put forth their ideas to the community in an attempt to serve a greater good. This I believe. 

This paper is one that is meant to persuade the reader to agree with the writer. I chose to write this in such a manner that it would inform the readers about the issues, and wouldn't necessarily call them to any sort of action, other than to appose the issue that I argue against. I hope you enjoy.

Support for the Arts

Audience: The intended audiences that this essay is attempting to reach are parents who have children that are still in school. It is also attempting to reach teachers, principals, and other school staff, as well as anyone else who has a stake in America’s education.

                The arts are an integral part of our society. We watch actors and actresses perform on television as well as the stage, we listen to all different kinds of music created by all different styles of artists, we even see pieces of art every day. Our politics is even sometimes referred to as “political theater”. So, if the arts are such an important part of our society, why are arts programs being cut from public schools? In a culture that focuses heavily on individuality and personal expression, cutting arts programs and deeming them “unnecessary” doesn’t seem to make much sense. These cuts are the results of recent budget cutbacks in the public education budget. Pennsylvania governor, Tom Corbett, has consistently proposed increasing cuts to the public education budget. This has resulted in schools cutting back on the number of services that they are financially able to provide for their students. These cuts are ultimately going to hurt the students far more than anyone could anticipate. It is for this reason that there should be far more support for increased funding for public education than there currently is in Pennsylvania.

                The budget cuts that have been implemented by Governor Corbett don’t make as much sense as he claims that they do. He claimed that he was providing the schools with “level funding” (Burg). However, Governor Corbett’s idea of level funding appears to be cutting a well-funded budget down to a level that threatens, not only how successful the department is at its job, but also the futures of all of the children that go to school in Pennsylvania. Corbett’s cuts caused “seventy percent of schools in the state have increased class sizes” (Burg). This places a tremendous amount of stress on teachers, who now need to handle much larger class sizes. This also means that students will not receive the amount of attention that will help them to learn and excel. Also, “44 percent [of schools] have reduced course offerings, and more than 14,000 positions were cut or left vacant” (Burg). A lack of diversity in the courses offered means that students will be unable to explore their interests. Also, the cutting of positions in schools means that the school will be far less effective than it could be if it was funded properly.  

                These cuts could have been avoided had Governor Corbett not blocked “a reasonable severance tax on Marcellus Shale…The result: Pennsylvania lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue” (Burg). This demonstrates how low education is in the eyes of politicians. There was a chance to increase revenue flow dramatically, but Governor Corbett decided that cutting existing spending would be better. If he had simply introduced smaller across the board cuts while bringing in new sources of revenue, the public education system wouldn’t be forced to suffer the extreme cuts that it has endured over the past three years.

                There have been several studies done as to why the arts are receiving so little support in recent years. One of these studies was conducted by a man named Robert W. Parsons. He conducted his study by interviewing five arts educators at four different universities. He found that “thirty-six percent (9 of 25) of the participants believed that high-stakes testing and accountability to district, state, and federal education standards” (Parsons) were reasons why administrative support for the arts was declining. These participants argue that, the shift in focus towards core academics to improve scores on high-stakes testing has caused a reduced emphasis on the arts in many school districts. In many ways, this is true. The No Child Left Behind act passed by President Bush contributed highly to this development. The act determines how much funding the individual school will receive based on how well it has scored on a few standardized tests. Frankly, this is ridiculous. The notion that, in order to increase test scores, one must dangle money, that the school should be funded anyway, in front of its face. This causes teachers to teach to the test so that they may keep their jobs. In theory, this may seem good; the teachers teach the important stuff and the students learn it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When students go to take the tests, they simply regurgitate the information that they have “learned” and don’t retain a thing. The kind of focus on the core subjects that is being used now is no longer effective. A new system must be put into place. Yes, the core subjects are called the core subjects for a reason. However, a balanced education would be much more beneficial for a student. An education that contained reading, writing, arithmetic, and art would allow the student to learn important subjects while being able to express themselves and relieve the stress that their other subjects are causing them.

                Another theme that Parsons noticed in the interviews was that art classes are not perceived as beneficial by stakeholders. Parsons reports that seven of the participants involved stated this in their interview as a cause of declining emphasis on the arts. He says that one of the participants’ reasons was that “a lack of understanding of the benefits of arts education to students and educational organizations exists among administrators and legislatures” (Parsons). This means that a solution for changing how arts programs are viewed in schools is to present “administrators and legislatures” with evidence, of which there is an abundance, of just how much arts programs positively influence, not only the moods of the students, but also their grades.

                Parsons discovered yet another theme among his interviews; several participants discussed how “the arts seem not only less important [to school officials] than core classes, they seem expendable” (Parsons). A reason he gives for this is that arts classes are categorized, not as art classes, but as electives, which are viewed by schools as non-essential classes that students may choose to take if they are available. If art classes were indeed referred to as art classes, the view of them would be more favorable than it currently is. This is because they would now be on the same level as other classes such as geometry or English. This would force school officials to look elsewhere when they are cutting activities and classes that the school can cut to save money, instead of simply defaulting to the art programs.

In schools faced with significant budget cuts, the first things to be cut from the school are usually the arts and music program. For some reason, these programs are viewed as unnecessary and superfluous. However, it is these very programs that provide children with the outlet they need to express themselves. They also give the students the self-confidence that they need to do better in school. In fact, students who participate in the arts are “4 times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement” (National Arts Education). This shows that children who are involved in the arts are more likely to do well in school, than children who are not. Children who participate in the arts are also “3 times more likely to be elected to a class office within their schools” (Burg) and “4 times more likely to participate in a math or science fair” (Burg). This demonstrates how students involved with the arts are more willing to enter competition and engage in activities that they would not normally partake in, had they not begun to participate in the art programs that their schools provide for them. With benefits such as these, the cutting of arts programs no longer seems to hold any sort of merit. Choosing to deny students these benefits is the choice that is made when art programs are cut, and this is a choice that is completely unacceptable by any standards. Denying students, the future of this great nation, the benefits of an art program is an act that may seem like it will save money in the short run, but will ultimately have an adverse effect on future students who are denied an art program. These students would lack adequate outlets with which they are able to express themselves in a safe and supporting environment. A lack of such an environment could lead to students seeking other, less safe or supporting atmospheres within which they could express themselves.

Art, in most every form, has helped to define our society up until this very day. We use art terms to sometimes describe important functions of society, art entertains us every day, and art pieces help to decorate our homes. With such a large presence of art in our modern society, it is a wonder why our schools are being forced to cut their art programs as a result of ridiculous budget cuts. It has been proven that involvement in art programs improves academic performance. So then why do school administrators and officials fail to see how important these programs really are? Until school officials understand exactly how important and beneficial arts programs are to students, things will not reach the levels that will make the education of American students exponentially more successful than it is in its current state.

               

Works Cited

Burg, Erica. Corbett cuts school districts to the core. The Patriot News. 4/3/2013. Web. 3/30/2013.

National Arts Education Public Awareness Campaign. Americans for the Arts. 8/22/2012. Web. 3/30/2013

Parsons, R. W. (2009). Arts educators' perceptions regarding decreased administrative support for public school arts education: A phenomenological study. University of Phoenix). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 164-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305126491?accountid=13158. (305126491).

For this class, we had to create an entry to the "This I Believe" segment on NPR. This is my entry about a moment in my life when I witnessed something that helped to make me the person that I am today. I have also included the link to the audio if you are so inclined to listen to it.

http://sites.psu.edu/alexjanicksblog/files/2013/01/My-Song.m4a 


My parents have always believed that the only way you can coexist with others, is to always treat them with respect. Many refer to this as the golden rule; I refer to it as the teachings of my childhood. The basic beliefs that were bestowed upon me as a child all centered around the theme that being kind to others is the only way to be.

Growing up, I found it shocking that not a lot of people had been exposed to this basic kindness as I thought. It was hard for me to maintain my belief that everyone should be treated equally when I wasn’t being extended that same respect by the majority of children my age. However, I held my ground and stood tall in my beliefs. But there was one event that tested me more than any other could have. My family was on a trip and we had stopped at a Dunkin Donuts for breakfast. The Dunkin Donuts was staffed with Indians who spoke broken English and therefore had trouble understanding some of the orders. Both of my parents, whom I had thought to be pillars of caring and respect, became impatient with one of the Indian men behind the counter after he had tried a few times to understand the order and hadn’t been able to get it all. This may seem a small event and a part of everyday life, but I was in Middle School and thought that as long as I know that my parents are able to stay strong in their respect for everyone, then I can too.

Out of this event, I came to realize that my parents were only human and that I too, was prone to these moments of impatience, even though I don’t like to admit it. After this event, I have continued to treat others with the respect I believe they deserve as human beings, regardless of who they are. And even though I am human and therefore prone to moments of impatience and weakness, all things still deserve respect. And this, I believe.

This is the final post in my series about public education. My high school experience incorporated a lot of arts education. I was in the choir and the theater and tried to do everything I could with that. Even now, in college, I still continue to participate in those things. It is for that reason that this topic is so important to me. I hope you enjoy reading this.

CI #6 – Arts in Public Schools Posted on April 17, 2013 by ahj5042
As many of you know, the arts are very important to me. This is because I was highly involved in the theater and choir programs at my high school and have continued to be involved in these things in college. They are very important to me and I know they’re important to many other people who were involved in their school’s arts programs as well. In this article, I will attempt to outline the benefits of an arts education in public schools. Enjoy!

“Art does not solve problems, but makes us aware of their existence,” sculptor Magdalena Abakanowicz has said. Arts education, on the other hand, does solve problems. Years of research show that it’s closely linked to almost everything that we as a nation say we want for our children and demand from our schools: academic achievement, social and emotional development, civic engagement, and equitable opportunity.

Involvement in the arts is associated with gains in math, reading, cognitive ability, critical thinking, and verbal skill. Arts learning can also improve motivation, concentration, confidence, and teamwork. A 2005 report by the Rand Corporation about the visual artsargues that the intrinsic pleasures and stimulation of the art experience do more than sweeten an individual’s life — according to the report, they “can connect people more deeply to the world and open them to new ways of seeing,” creating the foundation to forge social bonds and community cohesion. And strong arts programming in schools helps close a gap that has left many a child behind: From Mozart for babies to tutus for toddlers to family trips to the museum, the children of affluent, aspiring parents generally get exposed to the arts whether or not public schools provide them. Low-income children, often, do not. “Arts education enables those children from a financially challenged background to have a more level playing field with children who have had those enrichment experiences,” says Eric Cooper, president and founder of the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education.

It has become a mantra in education that No Child Left Behind, with its pressure to raise test scores, has reduced classroom time devoted to the arts (and science, social studies, and everything else besides reading and math). Evidence supports this contention — we’ll get to the statistics in a minute — but the reality is more complex. Arts education has been slipping for more than three decades, the result of tight budgets, an ever-growing list of state mandates that have crammed the classroom curriculum, and a public sense that the arts are lovely but not essential.

Source:

http://www.edutopia.org/arts-music-curriculum-child-development

This post was the first of six posts that I did about the public education. This should show how passionate I am about public education and, seeing as I came from a public school, I feel this passion adds to the post by making it a little more meaningful. I hope you enjoy.

CI #1 – The Politics Behind Public School BudgetsPosted on February 4, 2013 by ahj5042
This is a topic that has certainly puzzled me for a long time and I’m sure it has stumped many of you out there. Politicians seem to see the public school budget as an ideal place to cut funds. Whether it is because they see it as a lesser public service or can’t do math very well and see the budget as bloated and over funded I don’t know. However, I aim to find out.

The above chart is a breakdown of the funding for my high school’s district. As you can see, there was a major cut around $2,000,000 after the 2010-2011 school year. This massive cut affects four high schools, four middle schools, and ten, count them, ten elementary schools. Eight of these schools have sports programs and arts programs. These extra curricular activities would quickly disappear or suffer major cut backs in the range of activities they can offer. As a student who was heavily involved in his school’s arts programs, I can say first-hand that these are some of the most important things a school can offer. I’ll go deeper into extra-curricular programs in another blog, though.

Why did this massive cut occur? Well, Governor Corbett believed that the public education budget was over funded and decided that it needed to be trimmed a bit. His idea of trimming the budget was to “eliminate nearly $550 million in basic education funding”. He also asked for a “one-year salary freeze for all public school employees.” Governor Corbett also cut $650 million in education costs for universities. He also slashed funding for “state and state-related schools…in half.” These cuts took place in 2011. He also called for a $100 million cut in addition to the other cuts but the legislature voted this cut down.

Governor Corbett claimed that these cuts were “unavoidable due to the tough economy and the decline in state tax revenues.” However, Corbett’s 2011 budget included up to $1 billion dollars worth of tax cuts for major corporations. He also shunned the excess profits of large energy corporations and lost out on hundreds if millions of dollars. The Governor missed several opportunities to raise revenue instead of placing severe cuts on Public Education. However, in his latest budget proposal, he intends to call for more funding to be given to the public school budget. This could be due to two possibilities, the first of which being that he realized what he was doing to the education system of Pennsylvania or he felt the massive political pressure that stemmed from the gigantic amount of angry Pennsylvanians who saw his cuts as highly unreasonable and unacceptable.

Here are the sources that I used in this blog post. Feel free to read them and develop your own ideas regarding these cuts.

http://www.psea.org/apps/budget/budgetimpact.aspx

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/04/corbett_cuts_school_districts.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/08/tom-corbett-budget-5-painful-cuts-in-pennsylvania/

http://www.educationvoterspa.org/index.php/site/issues/governor-corbetts-budget-cuts-over-11-billion-in-education/

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/02/what_we_know_about_gov_tom_cor.html

In CAS 138T, I learned much about how to better myself as both a public speaker and a writer. I also learned how to more effectively utilize rhetoric. I also learned how to deliberate much better than I had been doing. This was done through a deliberation exercise that the class participated in. This not only helped me to understand how to better utilize rhetoric as well as how decisions are made on a large scale when many people have different opinions that they wish to express. Finally, I learned how to more effectively advocate for a cause. This was done through the creation of a website that could advocate for anything we chose it too. This helped me to understand how to better advocate for a cause that was important to me. Overall, this class has made me a better writer, speaker, and more professional when it come to decision making. I hope you enjoy the pieces.