While reading Shakespeare’s history play, Henry IV, Part 1, students were to choose from a list of projects with which to enhance their reading.

Projects included character portraits, costume designs, theme collages, character diaries, and comic book scenes.

This is the overarching question that English 11 has been considering throughout our reading of Of Mice and Men. As we come to the end of the book, students are now using an excerpt from Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to discuss the broader implications of this question.

Check out the discussion at: http://mrsschroeder1.edublogs.org/wiki/of-mice-and-men-am-i-my-brothers-keeper/

As our study of Lord of the Flies came to an end, we looked at how masks are an important part of the changes that many of the boys undergo on the island, beginning when Jack is first able to kill a pig after painting his face.

The students made symbolic masks that either illustrated one of the themes of the book or one of the main characters. Every part of the mask–color, shape, placement, objects–was meant to convey something about the theme or character chosen.  In the written piece that accompanied the mask, the students also reflected on how and why we wear masks everyday.

Here are some examples of the masks the students created.

In Literature class, we recently finished reading the book Give a Boy a Gun by Todd Strasser. As a way to think more deeply about different aspects of the book, students created word collages, finding words and phrases in magazines that related to the characters, situations, and themes.

Here are some examples of their work:

Today we chose quotations from Lord of Flies, and, in an Idea Pass-Around activity, used them to deepen our understanding of the novel and build on one another’s thinking and ideas.

Click on the link below for a sampling of our work:

Idea Pass Around LOTF

The students of 4^th period English 12 would like to propose the idea of reinstating the policy which allowed students to go outside after lunch.  We feel that the policy is unjust and detracts from the overall lunch experience.  Being able to go outside was something that students looked forward to after being inside the building for seven hours each day.  Through our research we discovered the opinions and feelings of the teachers and students, statistics and facts supporting the benefits of fresh air, and the policies of other schools.  In order to acquire this information, we conducted teacher and student surveys, as well as Internet research, and interviewed students from other schools and Mr. Stought, our principal.  

            We believe that going outside is a very necessary privilege for high school students.  Providing fresh air helps stimulate a student’s brain, will help them focus more while they are in the classroom and could potentially improve not only behavior, but also academic grades.  According to an article in Prevention magazine, “interaction with nature reduces depression, promotes healing, sparks creativity, and even increases life expectancy” (Mahoney, 2007).  This article urges us to take a few minutes out of our student life to step outside and fill our lungs with fresh air.  The current policy denies this privilege and forces us to breathe stale air, which can contain “particles, fibers, pollen, dust, gases, and other pollutants,” as reported by the US government (Shaughnessy, 2008).  The article “Benefits of Fresh Air” maintains that “the amount of oxygen someone inhales can affect the amount of serotonin in the brain.”  The benefits of this are “lighten[ing]…mood” and “soothing nerves” (Smith, 2010).  We firmly believe that this could improve students’ grades and behavior because they will be relaxed and have better concentration.

            There are other reasons aside from fresh air that should be taken into consideration.  In a recent student poll, 99% of high school students present for the survey disagree with the current policy.  They feel that they need a break from school and that most students are mature enough to go outside.  One student used only one word to describe his opinion on going outside after lunch, and that one word was: “Freedom!”  Another student brings to attention that “if we really are young adults we should be given the responsibilities such as this.”  Our results display that almost every student in the high school is displeased with the policy.  Every day we demonstrate our maturity as young adults by multi-tasking with classes and extra-curricular activities, and even jobs, yet we aren’t permitted to go outside for a break.  To take a case in point, think of the use of office aides.  Office aides are trusted to answer the school phone, access computer programs and files, and interact with parents and visitors.  Students successfully perform these duties each day.  So, if students can be trusted in this way, couldn’t they be trusted to stand outside for a short time?

            We also conducted an anonymous teacher survey to discover what the teachers believe about the policy and their willingness to supervise.  Eighteen teachers responded and, while it’s true that most of them agree with the policy, almost half were willing to supervise during lunch.  The main reason teachers agree with the policy is because they feel there is not enough supervision.  Our findings appear to show that most teachers don’t want us to go outside, but, we have come to the conclusion that they really aren’t opposed to it because so many were willing to supervise.  In sum, we see that teachers do not oppose a change to the policy, but feel there is not enough supervision and would be willing to change that.

To summarize the point at hand, the students want change and the teachers are willing to make that change happen. So, the next step is to go forth with those changes, starting a process that will ultimately lead to lunchroom reform. Some teachers were concerned about students misbehaving in the past, but if a student is mature enough to accept the responsibilities of going outside they must also accept the consequences that apply.  As a result, misbehavior may lead to the loss of that privilege for the remainder of the quarter. Another concern was lack of teachers to supervise, which could be easily resolved by a teacher sign up calendar. Overall, the student body has spoken and would like the opportunity to prove that we are mature enough to handle this responsibility.

Composed by Brittany Crossan, Katrina Evans, Brooke Moore, Morgan Riley, Andrew Schneider, Tyler VanHorn, and Kayla Wolfgang

We, the senior class, are interested in discussing the school policy which inhibits the students from going outside at lunch.  We feel that the policy is unjust because students need a break from sitting down for seven hours each day.  We analyzed the reasons why we cannot go outside, the opinions of the staff and students, evidence that would suggest the benefits of going outside, and whether or not teachers were willing to supervise outside during lunch.  In order to obtain this information we interviewed Mr. Stought, created surveys to ask the teachers and students their opinions on the policy.  And finally, we researched newspaper and magazine articles online to find evidence of the benefits of being outdoors.

            We believe that going outside is very beneficial for the student body.  Our research substantiates that going outside improves student behavior and test scores, as well as a person’s general health.  According to the journal Pediatrics, “routinely providing students with time for recess can improve their behavior and academic performance in the classroom”(Barros, et. al, 2009).  The positive side to this is going outside is an easy fix to a big problem.  Letting students go outside costs nothing, but the cost of keeping them indoors is great because it dramatically diminishes the overall performance and mood of the student body.  Recent studies, as reported in Prevention magazine, demonstrate “children who spend more time outdoors have lower stress levels, more success in school and fewer ADHD symptoms” and it “even increases life expectancy; 15% over 5 years according to a Japanese study” (Mahoney, 2007).  Wouldn’t you want to live longer?

            There are many more reasons why students should go outside.  A poll was recently given to students in grades 9 through 12 to obtain their opinions about the policy.  Our results demonstrate that one percent of students surveyed (2) agree with the current policy, while 99% (160) oppose it.  The main reasons that the students oppose the policy are that they feel they need fresh air and a break.  One student sums this up best by saying, “I believe that we should be able to go outside because fresh air is very nice, clears my mind, makes me feel better in general.  I believe I do better in the later periods if I go outside.”  Our results indicate that the majority of students are unhappy.  If students are unhappy it can lead to bad behavior, decreased motivation, and an overall gloomy atmosphere.  One small change in policy could make students happier, which in turn could make the teachers’ jobs easier. 

            Our 12^th grade class also gave a survey to the teachers to research their opinions about the school policy and to find out if they would supervise the students.  Our results show that 72% of teachers agree with the policy and 22% disagree.  Although most teachers agree with the policy, almost half of the teachers who responded were willing to watch us at lunch.  This proves that even though the teachers agree with the policy, the most common reason is the lack of supervision.   As a result, we have come to the conclusion that the teachers care about the students’ well-being and want to see students do well in school.

            Ultimately, what is at stake here is the students’ happiness and freedom.  Therefore, to change the school policy for the better, students should be able to go outside.  Some teachers were concerned about past student behavior, so we recommend that if a student gets in trouble once then his or her privilege of going outside could be revoked.  Another concern was the lack of supervision.  We appreciate that some teachers were willing to supervise, and we feel that some type of system could be implemented to organize the teacher volunteers.  There could be a calendar in the teachers’ lounge where teachers could sign up for the days they were willing to volunteer.  If there were two teachers signed up for each lunch period, it would provide a back up system.  The students’ well being, liberty and justice are at stake here.  It is imperative that the school policy be changed for the greater good.  The fix is simple and can easily be implemented.  There is only one word that can sum up this whole argument: Freedom.

Composed by Gary Anderson, Tyler Ankeney, Bon Diley, Chaz Coakley, Ben McClincy, Corey Meadows and Chris Richardson

Students in my AP Literature class were asked to choose a poem and create a digital interpretation of it.  The students created visual art in response to a print text to explore their understanding of the text.  Although the technology didn’t always cooperate with us, in the end the students produced some great work.  Click on the links below to check out some of the digital responses:

Zach Maughmer:

“Invictus” by William Ernest Henley

Chris Fry:

“Beat! Beat! Drums!” by Walt Whitman

Tabby Horn:

“Pied Beauty” by Gerald Manly Hopkins

Sabrina Atwood:

“Garden” by H.D.

This year, I am excited to begin using a classroom blog as an extension of the work that we do in class.   Reading and Writing in Room 101 will be a place where we can share ideas and thoughts, showcase our work, and connect with students in other classes.

I hope that you will stop by often to join in the conversation!