Thursday, October 25, 2007
HP really sucks
Now I know why John the case manager at HP would not give his last name. All you have to do is google "HP" and "sucks" and you will get well over a million hits. John must be afraid that someone will harass him at 877-917-4380 ext. 79. I will never buy another HP product. This is my way of saying thank you HP for having the worst customer service.
HP Pavilion M8150n sucks
On August 24th 2007 I purchased HP Pavilion desktop computer model # M8150n. From that day until today I have had nothing but problems with this computer. The problems began as soon as I turned on the computer for the first time. After several failed attempts of simply starting the computer I called HP technical support. On that very first day of having the computer I was instructed by the HP tech support representative to perform a full recovery. I distinctly remember asking him if this is a standard procedure on a brand new computer. He assured me that this was normal and that “sometimes the software is not installed correctly” and that my computer is not defective. Although this representative was extremely helpful in getting my computer up and running his solution to fixing my computer problems only lasted until I restarted the computer the very next day. Once again I was unable to properly start my computer simply by depressing the power button. On only the second day of owning this computer I performed yet another full recovery with the assistance from HP technical support. This was just the beginning of what has turned into a computer nightmare.
During the two months of owning this computer I have logged more than 22 hours which is more than 1,320 cellular minutes on the phone with HP technical support. Each and every time I called for technical support I would spend between 30 minutes to an hour just recapping what was performed on the last phone calls. Below are just some of the problems I have had with this computer.
The entire computer would freeze for no apparent reason.
Opening windows media center would cause the computer to crash
The mouse and keypad receiver did not work and needed to be replaced.
The DVD-RW did not play standard DVDs without skipping
The HD-DVD drive did not work properly from the first day
The computer did not recognize the HD-DVD drive and therefore could not perform any diagnostics to repair it.
Looking back I realize now that I should have returned this computer the very next day. The only reason why I didn’t was that the HP technical support representatives continued to reassure me that the problems I was having were not because of a defective computer. Some of the representatives even gave me incorrect information stating that my computer could not be viewed on a flat panel TV and the HDMI cable was for the picture only and did not transfer sound.
Finally after an enormous amount of time wasted with HP technical support my file was given to a case manager who would only offer his first name (John). He informed me that the only two solutions he could offer me was either to send me a new HD-DVD drive (which I needed to install myself) or send the entire tower to HP repair. This case manager was completely unhelpful and was unwilling to find any alternative solution. I even offered to give my credit card number to have a new tower sent to me to replace my defected computer and once received by HP could issue a credit.
Today (10-24-07) I returned the computer to P. C. Richards where I purchased the computer. The manager informed me that P.C. Richards does not accept returns on computers and would only take the tower to be sent to HP for repair. I am also disputing the charge on my credit card.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
My Room
I wrote this when I was 18. Because my parents did not intend on me living with them in their new home I was given an unfinished storage room in the basement. My roommates were a loud furnace and an even louder sump-pump. I actually learned to like the spiders because they always caught the flies and mosquitoes. But the best part was that my room was the furthest distance from my parents except when my mother did her laundry in the adjacent room. She would think nothing of yelling to wake-up my father while she was folding clothes. It never seemed to cross her mind that this would also wake me up who was just on the other side of an unfinished wall.
My Room
It’s a place full of light
Most of the time it’s very bright
There’s cement on two walls
And some paper that always falls
There’s even a pump on one side
A place where spiders like to hide
Then there are the windows two in all
But they are so very small
My clothes hang on a pipe
They don’t mind and never gripe
For all I see is nails and wood
Something only a match would find good
I had a mirror that stood high
But my mother wanted to see it fly
It broke when Aunt Grace came
And of course I was to blame
Now it stands all bent and broke
Even the room seems to soak
The radio is the best part
It’s my escape if only a start
So I’ll just stay in my room
And imagine a day without gloom
It’s a place full of light
Most of the time it’s very bright
There’s cement on two walls
And some paper that always falls
There’s even a pump on one side
A place where spiders like to hide
Then there are the windows two in all
But they are so very small
My clothes hang on a pipe
They don’t mind and never gripe
For all I see is nails and wood
Something only a match would find good
I had a mirror that stood high
But my mother wanted to see it fly
It broke when Aunt Grace came
And of course I was to blame
Now it stands all bent and broke
Even the room seems to soak
The radio is the best part
It’s my escape if only a start
So I’ll just stay in my room
And imagine a day without gloom
Home
It might go without saying that I have always struggled with religion and spirituality. I wrote this during one of those struggling moments.
Home
It's late at night. Sleeping are most except myself deep in thought. A longing to speak to God so near yet his home is so far away. I know I get closer by walk or crawl but the distance so minute hardly a fraction could describe. If I am on the 5th floor I am positive that I am closer to Heaven than the person on the bottom floor. But when we both look up the distance is the same. I comprehend my task and my life endeavor. It’s simply to walk home; home where I began where life begins and ends. Yet I know not the address, the street, or even the neighborhood. I can only tell by some signs on the road and a homemade compass that I am going in the right direction. But will I know I’m there? Will I see it on the horizon or will I miss a turn? Will someone be there to welcome me and grant me rest from my long travel? Why these questions seem so loud in my head I’ll never know until I’m home.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Comparing Effective Prevention Programs
As a returning college student at Columbia University, I am amazed by the number of volunteer groups, programs, and organizations that are interested in prevention. One might assume that most, if not all of these programs affiliated with the university, are effectively preventing what ever it is they say they are. But is this a safe assumption? Does the sexual violence prevention program actually prevent sexual violence? A practitioner, granting agency, or even a student wishing to volunteer in a prevention program is likely to be interested in evidence that a program is achieving its goal. Besides ensuring that funds and grants are allocated properly, private and public funders as well as eager volunteers are also interested in the most important bottom line: How effective is the program?
Nation et al.’s (2003) article “What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs” points out that not all prevention programs are replicated from science-based research models demonstrating positive effects. Some prevention programs were created or adapted by local agencies and showed marginal effects. By using a “review-of-reviews approach” to identify general principles of effective prevention programs Nation et al. found characteristics that were generalizable across areas of substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence. Then they ranked each characteristic from strong to moderate based on the percentage of reviews endorsing the characteristic. This approach yielded 9 characteristics that were associated with effective prevention programs and listed the characteristics from strong to moderate endorsement: comprehensive, varied teaching methods, sufficient dosage, theory driven, positive relationships appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluation, and well-trained staff.
The purpose of this article is to compare an actual prevention program at Columbia University with current research on “What works in prevention” (Nation Et al. 2003). I compared Nation et al.’s findings with observable characteristics in the program Peace by Peace (PxP). By interviewing staff members and volunteers, participating in training and teaching as a volunteer I gathered specific characteristics that matched Nation et al.’s general principles of effective prevention programs. Although Nation et al.’s article focused on substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence; for the purpose of this comparison, I will only focus on aspects associated with juvenile delinquency and violence (the target population of Peace by Peace).
Peace by Peace (PxP) began originally as a conflict resolution program sponsored by Yale University’s undergraduate public service organization in 1992. At that time the program was called “Peace Games at Yale” and taught middle school students ways to find creative solutions to conflicts. In 1993, community impact, a community service organization of Columbia University, established a similar conflict resolution program in New York City (Peace Games New York). In 1998 the program was renamed to Peace by PEACE International (Playful Explorations in Active Conflict-resolution Education) and is now established in Atlanta, Baltimore, New Haven, New York, and Toronto. According to the PxP website, program directors and volunteers, the program is highly effective in resolving conflict and reducing student violence in school. To test this claim, I evaluated PxP’s program by using Nation et al.’s principles of effective programs.
According to Nation et al, a prevention program is effective if it is comprehensive, has varied teaching methods, provides sufficient dosage, is theory driven, promotes positive relationships, is appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluative, and has well-trained staff.
A comprehensive program provides multiple interventions such as increasing information and awareness or promoting skill development. The program should also have multiple settings that address school norms and combine parent, peer, and school interventions (Nation 2003). PxP increases information and awareness by defining conflict in the classroom and showing students how a conflict develops and escalates. The “students examine their body language, tone-of-voice, words and action” (Peace by Peace). By using games, skits, discussions, and journal writing students develop skills such as apologizing, learning how to use body language, and getting help from others. Unfortunately, PxP serves only 5 schools on the Upper West Side, Washington Heights and Harlem. Although the target population is “at risk” fifth graders, not all students in the designated schools attend the program. This is due to scheduling conflicts and volunteer accessibility and involvement. The lack of multiple setting would reduce the program’s comprehensiveness.
Nation et al. (2003) noted that a majority of effective prevention programs included varied teaching methods, which included interactive instruction and provided active, hands-on experience that increased the participant’s verbal, language and social skills. The teaching method of PxP uses all of these aspects in there teaching curriculum. Students are given interactive instructions by discussing important rules of behavior and participation before each class. Then the students are encouraged to participate in a game, skit, or discussion with various themes. One game is called “shocker” in which students stand in a circle holding hands. The volunteer begins the game by squeezing a student’s hand and starting the timer. The object of the game is to beat the clock and improve the time by working together. The goal of the game is to show positive results of working together as a group.
The next characteristic was the amount of intervention provided. Nation et al. (2003) noted that the amount of problems or deficits should be in direct correlation to the amount of interventions available. The targeted schools of PxP are in high risk neighborhoods; however, not all schools are considered high risk. One school, I.S. 223 Mott Hall school, is a public school for gifted student. By interviewing volunteer students I found out that the class environment was very different at Mott Hall as compared to the other schools. The volunteers at Mott claim that the kids are easier to teach, pay attention more, and follow directions better. One possible explanation is that the admission process is extremely selective for Mott Hall. Students are admitted on the basis of their test scores, teacher recommendations, a written exam, and an interview. One volunteer questioned the differences in effectiveness between the schools stating that the Mott Hall students were less at-risk than the students at the other schools. PxP would be more effective in producing the desired preventative effects if they provided at least minimal prevention at all schools and increasing prevention involvement in schools that are considered high risk.
The next characteristic found in effective prevention programs is “scientific justification”. According to Nation et al. (2003) theories that focus on the causes of the problem and theories that focus on changing or reducing these causes should be identified in the prevention program. “Once the causes are identified, effective prevention programs are then based on empirically tested intervention theories shown to produce the desired changes…” (p.453). The PxP website offers statistics on demographics, crime, and students’ performance. They also state “the problem”: violence, aggression, and unsafe schools. PxP gives research data showing that “schools that implemented a conflict resolution program saw a 29 percent decline in hitting and fighting and a 20 percent decline in verbal aggression. But the cause of violence, aggression, or even simple conflict in schools is not clearly stated unless you consider not having a conflict resolution program as a cause. PxP should explicitly state the risk (i.e. violence and aggression in each elementary school) and give empirical data showing the number of incidents in each school. They should also add empirical research showing the causes of violence and aggression (i.e. verbal ability or anger management). They could also use
Another important principle associated with effective prevention programs was the amount of exposure to positive relationships. Nation et al. noted that strong relationships with positive adult models were very important in areas of school failure and dropout. The training of PxP volunteers encourages a positive relationship between the students and volunteers by empowering the student to control his or her behavior and by allowing students to give feedback. Volunteers and students build a strong rapport by mutually respecting the learning environment and each other. Volunteers are asked to respond to children with sentences like “I understand that…” or “I see your side…” Unlike the normal teacher-student relationship, students and volunteers interact as peers. This serves as a bridge between controlled behavior and self-motivation and gives students an advantage for transitional success into middle school.
The time a program is initiated also had an impact on the effectiveness of the program. Dryfoos (1990, as sited in Nation, 2003) stated that “programs should be timed to focus on changeable precursor behaviors prior to the full-blown problem behavior being prevented” (p. 453). Although I could not find information from PxP pertaining to age appropriateness for prevention in 5th graders, research has shown that early adolescence was the beginning of a downward pattern of problems in some individuals (Eccles et al. 1993). The 6th and 7th grade adolescence begin a general phase of transition, both physically and emotionally. Variables such as puberty, a change in school, and a desire for independence are especially problematic for adolescents who do not have close relationships with adults outside of their homes (Eccles, 1993).
Another important characteristic that was found in many effective prevention programs was the socio-cultural relevance of the planning and implementation of the program to include the targeted group (Nation, 2003). Student participation is a major function of PxP’s curriculum. Although the class activities are coordinated in advance, students use their personal experiences, cultural norms, beliefs, and attitudes in PxP games, skits, and discussion. Rather than focusing on beliefs or practices that inadequate, students focus on finding alternative solutions to violence and anger while retaining their pride in culture, family, and school.
Characteristics that were moderately endorsed by Nation et al.’s (2003) study included outcome evaluation and involved well-trained staff. Studies have shown that some programs using anecdotal or case study evidence may actually not be effective. Studies have also shown that prevention programs are enhanced by staff members who are adequately trained, supported, and receive sufficient supervision. As mentioned earlier, PxP does not use empirical research theories for possible causes or theories showing successful treatments for school violence and aggression. Unfortunately, research-based outcome evaluations of the program are non-existent.
At present, PxP gives a two hour training and orientation session at the beginning of each semester. Volunteers also meet once a week in smaller groups to plan the week’s curriculum and discuss any problems or concerns from the previous meeting. PxP uses a “learn-as-you-go” method of training. Each volunteer is given a curriculum booklet (see attachment) which includes the activities for each session. The games, skits, and class discussions for each session are reviewed in the weekly group meetings.
Discussion
Before drawing any conclusions from this comparison, it is important to point out that PxP has an enormous of support in the elementary schools that are involved in the program. I observed 6 different classrooms in 3 New York City schools and received a massive amount of positive feedback. Both teachers and students look forward to each session. Volunteers are also enriched by the experience. Nicole Safranek, the co-director of Peace by Peace at Columbia University, has been involved in the program for 3 years. She stated that she has witnessed positive changes in the students’ behavior and attitudes. “One child explained how she used one activity at home when her mother was very angry”. Although PxP were unable to supply research information, research has shown the importance of various levels of the child’s environment.
As Bronfenbrenner (1986) pointed out, the child’s environment is extremely influential in fostering a healthy development and that this environment consisted of varying levels or models, such as the mesosystem model and exosystem model. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model also shows which system has the greatest impact on the child, such as the direct relations between the child and the immediate environment (microsystem) vs. the network of interrelationships (mesosystem). But the majority of studies only focused on the influence of the family on the child’s performance in school rather than looking at the parent-child, student-teacher, or student-peer relationships.
Epstein’s research on “Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes” (1983a, 1983b, as cited in Bronfenbrenner,1986) showed that greater opportunities for communication and decision-making increased the child’s initiative and independence and led to higher grades. Epstein focused mainly on the processes involved in the family and classroom that impact the change in pupil’s attitudes and academic achievement. Although her research showed that family processes were more powerful than interactions in school, the processes in school were still effective in changing attitudes and academic achievements.
In conclusion, a practitioner, granting agency, or even a student wishing to volunteer in a prevention program, would have a difficult time evaluating PxP according to the principles of effective programs that were endorsed in Nation et al.’s (2003) article. This, by no means, shows that PxP is ineffective as a prevention program; rather, this comparison illustrates the difficulty in presenting and finding characteristics that empirically show program efficacy. Although many of the volunteers, teachers, and students are convinced that the program is highly successful in reducing violence and aggression in schools, anecdotal evidence and case-study interviews may not enough. Prevention programs need to use science-based research as evidence that the program is effective including using most, if not all of, the characteristics found in effective prevention programs. Efficacy information should be easy to locate and contain concise data allowing practitioners, granting agencies, and perspective volunteers to make educated appraisals of the prevention program.
Reference:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 6, 723-742.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Miller-Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., Mac Iver, C. (1993). Development during Adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in school and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 2, 90-101.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., Davino, K. (2003) What works in prevention: principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 6-7, 449-456.
Peace by peace. (2004). http://www.peacebypeace.org/
Safranek, N. (Feb. 7, 2005). Personal Interview. Co-director: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York
Surapaneni, P. (Feb. 13, 2005). Personal Interview. Group leader: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York
Nation et al.’s (2003) article “What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs” points out that not all prevention programs are replicated from science-based research models demonstrating positive effects. Some prevention programs were created or adapted by local agencies and showed marginal effects. By using a “review-of-reviews approach” to identify general principles of effective prevention programs Nation et al. found characteristics that were generalizable across areas of substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence. Then they ranked each characteristic from strong to moderate based on the percentage of reviews endorsing the characteristic. This approach yielded 9 characteristics that were associated with effective prevention programs and listed the characteristics from strong to moderate endorsement: comprehensive, varied teaching methods, sufficient dosage, theory driven, positive relationships appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluation, and well-trained staff.
The purpose of this article is to compare an actual prevention program at Columbia University with current research on “What works in prevention” (Nation Et al. 2003). I compared Nation et al.’s findings with observable characteristics in the program Peace by Peace (PxP). By interviewing staff members and volunteers, participating in training and teaching as a volunteer I gathered specific characteristics that matched Nation et al.’s general principles of effective prevention programs. Although Nation et al.’s article focused on substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence; for the purpose of this comparison, I will only focus on aspects associated with juvenile delinquency and violence (the target population of Peace by Peace).
Peace by Peace (PxP) began originally as a conflict resolution program sponsored by Yale University’s undergraduate public service organization in 1992. At that time the program was called “Peace Games at Yale” and taught middle school students ways to find creative solutions to conflicts. In 1993, community impact, a community service organization of Columbia University, established a similar conflict resolution program in New York City (Peace Games New York). In 1998 the program was renamed to Peace by PEACE International (Playful Explorations in Active Conflict-resolution Education) and is now established in Atlanta, Baltimore, New Haven, New York, and Toronto. According to the PxP website, program directors and volunteers, the program is highly effective in resolving conflict and reducing student violence in school. To test this claim, I evaluated PxP’s program by using Nation et al.’s principles of effective programs.
According to Nation et al, a prevention program is effective if it is comprehensive, has varied teaching methods, provides sufficient dosage, is theory driven, promotes positive relationships, is appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluative, and has well-trained staff.
A comprehensive program provides multiple interventions such as increasing information and awareness or promoting skill development. The program should also have multiple settings that address school norms and combine parent, peer, and school interventions (Nation 2003). PxP increases information and awareness by defining conflict in the classroom and showing students how a conflict develops and escalates. The “students examine their body language, tone-of-voice, words and action” (Peace by Peace). By using games, skits, discussions, and journal writing students develop skills such as apologizing, learning how to use body language, and getting help from others. Unfortunately, PxP serves only 5 schools on the Upper West Side, Washington Heights and Harlem. Although the target population is “at risk” fifth graders, not all students in the designated schools attend the program. This is due to scheduling conflicts and volunteer accessibility and involvement. The lack of multiple setting would reduce the program’s comprehensiveness.
Nation et al. (2003) noted that a majority of effective prevention programs included varied teaching methods, which included interactive instruction and provided active, hands-on experience that increased the participant’s verbal, language and social skills. The teaching method of PxP uses all of these aspects in there teaching curriculum. Students are given interactive instructions by discussing important rules of behavior and participation before each class. Then the students are encouraged to participate in a game, skit, or discussion with various themes. One game is called “shocker” in which students stand in a circle holding hands. The volunteer begins the game by squeezing a student’s hand and starting the timer. The object of the game is to beat the clock and improve the time by working together. The goal of the game is to show positive results of working together as a group.
The next characteristic was the amount of intervention provided. Nation et al. (2003) noted that the amount of problems or deficits should be in direct correlation to the amount of interventions available. The targeted schools of PxP are in high risk neighborhoods; however, not all schools are considered high risk. One school, I.S. 223 Mott Hall school, is a public school for gifted student. By interviewing volunteer students I found out that the class environment was very different at Mott Hall as compared to the other schools. The volunteers at Mott claim that the kids are easier to teach, pay attention more, and follow directions better. One possible explanation is that the admission process is extremely selective for Mott Hall. Students are admitted on the basis of their test scores, teacher recommendations, a written exam, and an interview. One volunteer questioned the differences in effectiveness between the schools stating that the Mott Hall students were less at-risk than the students at the other schools. PxP would be more effective in producing the desired preventative effects if they provided at least minimal prevention at all schools and increasing prevention involvement in schools that are considered high risk.
The next characteristic found in effective prevention programs is “scientific justification”. According to Nation et al. (2003) theories that focus on the causes of the problem and theories that focus on changing or reducing these causes should be identified in the prevention program. “Once the causes are identified, effective prevention programs are then based on empirically tested intervention theories shown to produce the desired changes…” (p.453). The PxP website offers statistics on demographics, crime, and students’ performance. They also state “the problem”: violence, aggression, and unsafe schools. PxP gives research data showing that “schools that implemented a conflict resolution program saw a 29 percent decline in hitting and fighting and a 20 percent decline in verbal aggression. But the cause of violence, aggression, or even simple conflict in schools is not clearly stated unless you consider not having a conflict resolution program as a cause. PxP should explicitly state the risk (i.e. violence and aggression in each elementary school) and give empirical data showing the number of incidents in each school. They should also add empirical research showing the causes of violence and aggression (i.e. verbal ability or anger management). They could also use
Another important principle associated with effective prevention programs was the amount of exposure to positive relationships. Nation et al. noted that strong relationships with positive adult models were very important in areas of school failure and dropout. The training of PxP volunteers encourages a positive relationship between the students and volunteers by empowering the student to control his or her behavior and by allowing students to give feedback. Volunteers and students build a strong rapport by mutually respecting the learning environment and each other. Volunteers are asked to respond to children with sentences like “I understand that…” or “I see your side…” Unlike the normal teacher-student relationship, students and volunteers interact as peers. This serves as a bridge between controlled behavior and self-motivation and gives students an advantage for transitional success into middle school.
The time a program is initiated also had an impact on the effectiveness of the program. Dryfoos (1990, as sited in Nation, 2003) stated that “programs should be timed to focus on changeable precursor behaviors prior to the full-blown problem behavior being prevented” (p. 453). Although I could not find information from PxP pertaining to age appropriateness for prevention in 5th graders, research has shown that early adolescence was the beginning of a downward pattern of problems in some individuals (Eccles et al. 1993). The 6th and 7th grade adolescence begin a general phase of transition, both physically and emotionally. Variables such as puberty, a change in school, and a desire for independence are especially problematic for adolescents who do not have close relationships with adults outside of their homes (Eccles, 1993).
Another important characteristic that was found in many effective prevention programs was the socio-cultural relevance of the planning and implementation of the program to include the targeted group (Nation, 2003). Student participation is a major function of PxP’s curriculum. Although the class activities are coordinated in advance, students use their personal experiences, cultural norms, beliefs, and attitudes in PxP games, skits, and discussion. Rather than focusing on beliefs or practices that inadequate, students focus on finding alternative solutions to violence and anger while retaining their pride in culture, family, and school.
Characteristics that were moderately endorsed by Nation et al.’s (2003) study included outcome evaluation and involved well-trained staff. Studies have shown that some programs using anecdotal or case study evidence may actually not be effective. Studies have also shown that prevention programs are enhanced by staff members who are adequately trained, supported, and receive sufficient supervision. As mentioned earlier, PxP does not use empirical research theories for possible causes or theories showing successful treatments for school violence and aggression. Unfortunately, research-based outcome evaluations of the program are non-existent.
At present, PxP gives a two hour training and orientation session at the beginning of each semester. Volunteers also meet once a week in smaller groups to plan the week’s curriculum and discuss any problems or concerns from the previous meeting. PxP uses a “learn-as-you-go” method of training. Each volunteer is given a curriculum booklet (see attachment) which includes the activities for each session. The games, skits, and class discussions for each session are reviewed in the weekly group meetings.
Discussion
Before drawing any conclusions from this comparison, it is important to point out that PxP has an enormous of support in the elementary schools that are involved in the program. I observed 6 different classrooms in 3 New York City schools and received a massive amount of positive feedback. Both teachers and students look forward to each session. Volunteers are also enriched by the experience. Nicole Safranek, the co-director of Peace by Peace at Columbia University, has been involved in the program for 3 years. She stated that she has witnessed positive changes in the students’ behavior and attitudes. “One child explained how she used one activity at home when her mother was very angry”. Although PxP were unable to supply research information, research has shown the importance of various levels of the child’s environment.
As Bronfenbrenner (1986) pointed out, the child’s environment is extremely influential in fostering a healthy development and that this environment consisted of varying levels or models, such as the mesosystem model and exosystem model. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model also shows which system has the greatest impact on the child, such as the direct relations between the child and the immediate environment (microsystem) vs. the network of interrelationships (mesosystem). But the majority of studies only focused on the influence of the family on the child’s performance in school rather than looking at the parent-child, student-teacher, or student-peer relationships.
Epstein’s research on “Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes” (1983a, 1983b, as cited in Bronfenbrenner,1986) showed that greater opportunities for communication and decision-making increased the child’s initiative and independence and led to higher grades. Epstein focused mainly on the processes involved in the family and classroom that impact the change in pupil’s attitudes and academic achievement. Although her research showed that family processes were more powerful than interactions in school, the processes in school were still effective in changing attitudes and academic achievements.
In conclusion, a practitioner, granting agency, or even a student wishing to volunteer in a prevention program, would have a difficult time evaluating PxP according to the principles of effective programs that were endorsed in Nation et al.’s (2003) article. This, by no means, shows that PxP is ineffective as a prevention program; rather, this comparison illustrates the difficulty in presenting and finding characteristics that empirically show program efficacy. Although many of the volunteers, teachers, and students are convinced that the program is highly successful in reducing violence and aggression in schools, anecdotal evidence and case-study interviews may not enough. Prevention programs need to use science-based research as evidence that the program is effective including using most, if not all of, the characteristics found in effective prevention programs. Efficacy information should be easy to locate and contain concise data allowing practitioners, granting agencies, and perspective volunteers to make educated appraisals of the prevention program.
Reference:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 6, 723-742.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Miller-Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., Mac Iver, C. (1993). Development during Adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in school and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 2, 90-101.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., Davino, K. (2003) What works in prevention: principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 6-7, 449-456.
Peace by peace. (2004). http://www.peacebypeace.org/
Safranek, N. (Feb. 7, 2005). Personal Interview. Co-director: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York
Surapaneni, P. (Feb. 13, 2005). Personal Interview. Group leader: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York
Loosing Sidewalks
It’s a warm summer day in Watervliet. My mother pushes my sister in the carriage with one hand and holds my jacket hood with the other. Although I’m only six, my mother knows that as soon as I see Harrison’s Dry Cleaner I’ll take off and run down the sidewalk. We walk up 6th Avenue and turn right onto 19th Street. My mother’s grip loosens now that we’re on the same block as my grandparents’ dry cleaning business. As we pass the pharmacy, I remind my mother that she promised to buy me a fudge-sickle as soon as we got to Nudding’s—the corner store on 19th Street. As the fudge-sickle drips over my hand, I run into the Dry Cleaners and surprise my grandmother and Aunt El who are working at the counter. I stay long enough until my mother catches up then I run to the back of the cleaners to see my grandfather and Uncle Tom. It’s amazing how sometimes you can remember every crack in the sidewalk.
Watervliet New York is a small arsenal town in Upstate New York and is where I grew up. It was a town where your last name meant everything; but because my father was not originally from Watervliet, I often had to give my mothers maiden name in order to avoid the puzzled look of non-familiarity. Watervliet was a place were kids came home when the street lights turned on; a place where your mother would call you for dinner from the backdoor; and a place where every piece of the sidewalk was full of memories. As a young child, the sidewalk was my playground. I learned how to walk, run, ride my Big-Wheels, and eventually learned how to ride a bicycle on the same stretch of worn-down, cracked, and beaten-up pieces of cement squares. More than likely, my DNA can still be found on every crack and crevice from the countless spills of my youth. The sidewalk was a safe place, where my parents knew that someone would be looking out for me. Everyone on the block knew me; they knew how accident prone and hyperactive I was; they knew I was allergic to bees and even knew the subtle differences in my voice if I was in trouble. Then when I was 14, my parents moved to North Greenbush, or as my friends called it: “the boonies.”
Living in a rural area without sidewalks, I never seemed to miss the sidewalks of Watervliet. When my parents moved, they gained space, peace and quite, and more importantly to them, they gained privacy: No more door-to-door salesmen, nosy neighbors, Mrs. Penny-Feather calling because she doesn’t want me playing on her stoop or Mrs. Palmer calling to have me go to the store for her. But there was something different about our new home without a sidewalk.
I know I’ve heard this saying many times: “Sidewalks have a life of their own.” There is something about sidewalks that has an energy force, a certain vibration or rhythm. But like a certain genre of music, there are people who love it, people who hate it, and people who don’t really know what it is. Then there are people like me who are all of the above; I love it, hate it, and still don’t know what it is. Jane Jacobs is another person who seems to have a love-hate relationship with city sidewalks. Even after reading about sidewalks in her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” I felt as though Jacobs could have written an entire book on the stories about and relationships with sidewalks, and still not completely understand what sidewalks represent.
Jane Jacobs would be very frustrated with my parents if she were to discuss the positive aspects of sidewalks in urban neighborhoods because they wouldn’t get it. Jacobs presents an almost “Leave it to beaver” setting on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where you could leave a key to your apartment with Joe Cornacchia, “who keeps the delicatessen” (78). Jacobs further explains that she’d leave the key with the store keeper “because we trust him” (78). Of course my parents would be quick to say “you don’t trust Joe, you just know that he doesn’t have your actual address, therefore the key is useless to him.” Then my parents would notice the year that Jacobs wrote about her neighborhood and would say that times have changed because people have changed. Although Jacobs made a great argument for sidewalk interactions, there must be a reason why people left this style of cohabitating and chose an alternative style. In order to understand why development shifted from neighborhoods with sidewalks to suburbs without them, we need to see what changed in America. This is where Jacobs might need a little help in showing her point of view about sidewalks and understanding what happened to sidewalks.
Jacobs could not deny that city sidewalks were not always as idyllic as her neighborhood in the 60’s. There were reasons why people left their neighborhoods in the city for a house in the country. In James Howard Kunstler’s book entitled “The Geography of Nowhere: The rise and decline of America’s man-made landscapes,” he shows that the decline in sidewalks began after World War II. The economy was booming and the focus of the nation shifted from war to “American consumerism” (77). Jacobs’ endearing view of city sidewalks was absent in the futuristic vision of modern living. As industry and technology exploded, overcrowded cities became the “industrial slums” for factory workers (60). The exciting new devices of modernism promised to free the “working slave” by improving his life. But the free industry workers needed a better place to live, while still working in the city; therefore a new design was needed to enable city workers to live outside of the city. And so the search began for an affordable way to commute.
One of the most popular inventions to improve the standard of living was the affordable automobile. Although Henry Ford did not invent the car, he was able to cheaply produce motorcars for the general population, not just for the wealthy elites. The U.S. government got financially involved by subsidizing auto use and improving roads. At the same time, streetcar companies received almost nothing from the government while car companies conspired to put them out of business. General Motors bought up street car line companies and removed the tracks. The working class American was encouraged to buy a car and leave the overcrowded and dirty cities and move to the country, where sidewalks were not needed. After World War II, Americans were obsessed with futuristic private transportation (the automobile) and an “old romantic idea” of bringing man closer to nature (Kunstler79). A minimalist style building called the “Bauhaus,” would sit in the middle of a park. Of course no one conceived the idea that the surrounding park would need to be paved over for a parking lot; but the buildings still remain. In the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s homes were designed to include the automobile as a member of the family, attaching a garage to the overall design of the house. Businesses, catering to car owners, became a symbol of modernization and pop-culture. Drive-in theaters and restaurants allowed you to stay in your car while the service came to you. From the end of World War II right up to today, the car represented freedom and independence; Americans freely gave up sidewalks of the city for paved streets, freeways, and superhighways of the suburbs; but as Kunstler and Jacobs point out, Americans are loosing a vehicle of human interaction.
Jacobs explains that there is a unique balance in a city between a person’s necessary privacy and his or her desire for varying levels of interaction from other people (77). But as Kunstler mentions the automobile suburbs, without sidewalks, were the “motive force” in the “elimination of the public realm” where social interactions occur (Kunstler 189).
For the most part, the public realm of suburbia is composed of streets and highways. By separating and scattering businesses that would be found within a ten-minute walk in the city, suburbanites must spend most of their time alone in their cars (Kunstler 119). The balance that Jacobs speaks about is virtually absent in the suburban setting. Kunstler points out this unbalance by describing how some shoppers in a supermarket will linger just to have some purposeful activity with other living humans (119). Social interactions that my parents complained about in Watervliet, now is strongly desired by them and many other Americans.
Social interaction, which is taken for granted on the city sidewalks, has become highly desired in the auto suburbs. One example of this hunger for the “public realm” is the popularity of malls, which commercialized on the new demand for social interactions. This public need was also capitalized by the Walt Disney Corporation. Kunstler called Disney World one of the “capitals of unreality” because of its ability to cash in on the relationships that occurred on Main Street U.S.A. (217). In Disney World, sidewalks, streets, building facades, cart venders, and even the seamlessly pressed employees are forced to come together and intermingle. There is a shared feeling of joy and anticipation as the hordes of visitors contemplate which direction should be next on the agenda. In the 1980’s the Disney Corporation decided to expand the “it’s a small world” theme to an actual living environment.
In Julia Duin’s article in the Washington Times entitled “Social Engineering is by Design in Florida town Disney Built: Community Intricately planned to spur Interaction”, she describes how Celebration, Florida is a perfect example of everything that people want but is missing in other post-World War II suburbs. The town has been compared to Levittown, Pleasantville, a Norman Rockwell painting, and a John Winthrop’s “city on a hill” (1). The Disney Corp. ensured that every detail in the planning and construction of Celebration centered on “community interaction”; there are no privacy walls or thick obtrusive shrubs; porches and sidewalks are in close proximity to encourage a sense of “togetherness” (3). But as Duin mentions in her article, there are some downsides to living in a “prepackaged” neighborhood.
Although Celebration, FL has recaptured some of the pre-World War II concepts of “neighborliness”, some residents complain about the same issues that my parents faced in Watervliet. As Jacobs mentioned, there has to be a balance between public and private life. Unfortunately in Celebration, the neighbors are always “in your Hair” (Jacobs 73). There is not a subtle assumption of neighborly support; it is blatant, demanded, and enforced. Disney actually has “porch police” to ensure that the residents of Celebration follow the guidelines of their contract; they must have the correct window treatments, hedges can not be taller than 42 inches, and landscaping must allow passersby to see in. After reading Duin’s article I felt like Walt Disney took Jacobs’ and Kunstler’s predilections to the extreme. But Celebration is not the only example of an extreme form of community.
There seems to be a growing trend in America to create that feeling of togetherness found on many urban neighborhood sidewalks; however, there is also a growing fear of public safety. One possible solution has been “gated communities.” As Dell Champlin explains in her article in the Journal of Economic Issues entitled “The Privatization of community: Implications for Urban Policy”, “privatized neighborhoods try to enhance individual social involvement while also providing additional public safety (1). But like so many other “projects,” there is always a price to be paid for any reward. There is a great debate on the benefits and short-comings of Privatization; but no one would argue that “gated communities” are the responses to the need for safe social contact. This desire to interact with others brings me back to my parents in Upstate New York.
My parents would never consider taking a walk or a bike ride on their street. If you asked them to describe their neighbors in any way, they would only be able to mention the next door neighbor on the right side of their property. They have never met the family living on the left side of their property even though that family moved in around seven years ago. And the neighbors across the street, “well they’re just weird.” There seems to be an unwritten suburban rule: “We don’t bother them, they don’t bother us; we like everyone to keep to themselves.” Sidewalks (or the lack there of) seems to support this unwritten rule. It’s easy to keep to yourselves if you do not have a way to bother your neighbors. Privacy becomes a popular side effect when a sidewalk is removed.
The issues of public vs. private do not just pertain to how we view sidewalks; instead we use sidewalks to view ourselves. Sidewalks become instrumental in establishing a quality of life.
A sidewalk can be thought of as a welcome mat, encouraging others to come and socialize with the residents. If you remove this symbol of social interaction you remove more than just concrete or slate; you restrict an innate desire to be with others as one of many. Perhaps we need to look much further than sidewalks to find an answer to our problems of anti-social forms of living; but it’s a damn good place to start.
Watervliet New York is a small arsenal town in Upstate New York and is where I grew up. It was a town where your last name meant everything; but because my father was not originally from Watervliet, I often had to give my mothers maiden name in order to avoid the puzzled look of non-familiarity. Watervliet was a place were kids came home when the street lights turned on; a place where your mother would call you for dinner from the backdoor; and a place where every piece of the sidewalk was full of memories. As a young child, the sidewalk was my playground. I learned how to walk, run, ride my Big-Wheels, and eventually learned how to ride a bicycle on the same stretch of worn-down, cracked, and beaten-up pieces of cement squares. More than likely, my DNA can still be found on every crack and crevice from the countless spills of my youth. The sidewalk was a safe place, where my parents knew that someone would be looking out for me. Everyone on the block knew me; they knew how accident prone and hyperactive I was; they knew I was allergic to bees and even knew the subtle differences in my voice if I was in trouble. Then when I was 14, my parents moved to North Greenbush, or as my friends called it: “the boonies.”
Living in a rural area without sidewalks, I never seemed to miss the sidewalks of Watervliet. When my parents moved, they gained space, peace and quite, and more importantly to them, they gained privacy: No more door-to-door salesmen, nosy neighbors, Mrs. Penny-Feather calling because she doesn’t want me playing on her stoop or Mrs. Palmer calling to have me go to the store for her. But there was something different about our new home without a sidewalk.
I know I’ve heard this saying many times: “Sidewalks have a life of their own.” There is something about sidewalks that has an energy force, a certain vibration or rhythm. But like a certain genre of music, there are people who love it, people who hate it, and people who don’t really know what it is. Then there are people like me who are all of the above; I love it, hate it, and still don’t know what it is. Jane Jacobs is another person who seems to have a love-hate relationship with city sidewalks. Even after reading about sidewalks in her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” I felt as though Jacobs could have written an entire book on the stories about and relationships with sidewalks, and still not completely understand what sidewalks represent.
Jane Jacobs would be very frustrated with my parents if she were to discuss the positive aspects of sidewalks in urban neighborhoods because they wouldn’t get it. Jacobs presents an almost “Leave it to beaver” setting on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where you could leave a key to your apartment with Joe Cornacchia, “who keeps the delicatessen” (78). Jacobs further explains that she’d leave the key with the store keeper “because we trust him” (78). Of course my parents would be quick to say “you don’t trust Joe, you just know that he doesn’t have your actual address, therefore the key is useless to him.” Then my parents would notice the year that Jacobs wrote about her neighborhood and would say that times have changed because people have changed. Although Jacobs made a great argument for sidewalk interactions, there must be a reason why people left this style of cohabitating and chose an alternative style. In order to understand why development shifted from neighborhoods with sidewalks to suburbs without them, we need to see what changed in America. This is where Jacobs might need a little help in showing her point of view about sidewalks and understanding what happened to sidewalks.
Jacobs could not deny that city sidewalks were not always as idyllic as her neighborhood in the 60’s. There were reasons why people left their neighborhoods in the city for a house in the country. In James Howard Kunstler’s book entitled “The Geography of Nowhere: The rise and decline of America’s man-made landscapes,” he shows that the decline in sidewalks began after World War II. The economy was booming and the focus of the nation shifted from war to “American consumerism” (77). Jacobs’ endearing view of city sidewalks was absent in the futuristic vision of modern living. As industry and technology exploded, overcrowded cities became the “industrial slums” for factory workers (60). The exciting new devices of modernism promised to free the “working slave” by improving his life. But the free industry workers needed a better place to live, while still working in the city; therefore a new design was needed to enable city workers to live outside of the city. And so the search began for an affordable way to commute.
One of the most popular inventions to improve the standard of living was the affordable automobile. Although Henry Ford did not invent the car, he was able to cheaply produce motorcars for the general population, not just for the wealthy elites. The U.S. government got financially involved by subsidizing auto use and improving roads. At the same time, streetcar companies received almost nothing from the government while car companies conspired to put them out of business. General Motors bought up street car line companies and removed the tracks. The working class American was encouraged to buy a car and leave the overcrowded and dirty cities and move to the country, where sidewalks were not needed. After World War II, Americans were obsessed with futuristic private transportation (the automobile) and an “old romantic idea” of bringing man closer to nature (Kunstler79). A minimalist style building called the “Bauhaus,” would sit in the middle of a park. Of course no one conceived the idea that the surrounding park would need to be paved over for a parking lot; but the buildings still remain. In the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s homes were designed to include the automobile as a member of the family, attaching a garage to the overall design of the house. Businesses, catering to car owners, became a symbol of modernization and pop-culture. Drive-in theaters and restaurants allowed you to stay in your car while the service came to you. From the end of World War II right up to today, the car represented freedom and independence; Americans freely gave up sidewalks of the city for paved streets, freeways, and superhighways of the suburbs; but as Kunstler and Jacobs point out, Americans are loosing a vehicle of human interaction.
Jacobs explains that there is a unique balance in a city between a person’s necessary privacy and his or her desire for varying levels of interaction from other people (77). But as Kunstler mentions the automobile suburbs, without sidewalks, were the “motive force” in the “elimination of the public realm” where social interactions occur (Kunstler 189).
For the most part, the public realm of suburbia is composed of streets and highways. By separating and scattering businesses that would be found within a ten-minute walk in the city, suburbanites must spend most of their time alone in their cars (Kunstler 119). The balance that Jacobs speaks about is virtually absent in the suburban setting. Kunstler points out this unbalance by describing how some shoppers in a supermarket will linger just to have some purposeful activity with other living humans (119). Social interactions that my parents complained about in Watervliet, now is strongly desired by them and many other Americans.
Social interaction, which is taken for granted on the city sidewalks, has become highly desired in the auto suburbs. One example of this hunger for the “public realm” is the popularity of malls, which commercialized on the new demand for social interactions. This public need was also capitalized by the Walt Disney Corporation. Kunstler called Disney World one of the “capitals of unreality” because of its ability to cash in on the relationships that occurred on Main Street U.S.A. (217). In Disney World, sidewalks, streets, building facades, cart venders, and even the seamlessly pressed employees are forced to come together and intermingle. There is a shared feeling of joy and anticipation as the hordes of visitors contemplate which direction should be next on the agenda. In the 1980’s the Disney Corporation decided to expand the “it’s a small world” theme to an actual living environment.
In Julia Duin’s article in the Washington Times entitled “Social Engineering is by Design in Florida town Disney Built: Community Intricately planned to spur Interaction”, she describes how Celebration, Florida is a perfect example of everything that people want but is missing in other post-World War II suburbs. The town has been compared to Levittown, Pleasantville, a Norman Rockwell painting, and a John Winthrop’s “city on a hill” (1). The Disney Corp. ensured that every detail in the planning and construction of Celebration centered on “community interaction”; there are no privacy walls or thick obtrusive shrubs; porches and sidewalks are in close proximity to encourage a sense of “togetherness” (3). But as Duin mentions in her article, there are some downsides to living in a “prepackaged” neighborhood.
Although Celebration, FL has recaptured some of the pre-World War II concepts of “neighborliness”, some residents complain about the same issues that my parents faced in Watervliet. As Jacobs mentioned, there has to be a balance between public and private life. Unfortunately in Celebration, the neighbors are always “in your Hair” (Jacobs 73). There is not a subtle assumption of neighborly support; it is blatant, demanded, and enforced. Disney actually has “porch police” to ensure that the residents of Celebration follow the guidelines of their contract; they must have the correct window treatments, hedges can not be taller than 42 inches, and landscaping must allow passersby to see in. After reading Duin’s article I felt like Walt Disney took Jacobs’ and Kunstler’s predilections to the extreme. But Celebration is not the only example of an extreme form of community.
There seems to be a growing trend in America to create that feeling of togetherness found on many urban neighborhood sidewalks; however, there is also a growing fear of public safety. One possible solution has been “gated communities.” As Dell Champlin explains in her article in the Journal of Economic Issues entitled “The Privatization of community: Implications for Urban Policy”, “privatized neighborhoods try to enhance individual social involvement while also providing additional public safety (1). But like so many other “projects,” there is always a price to be paid for any reward. There is a great debate on the benefits and short-comings of Privatization; but no one would argue that “gated communities” are the responses to the need for safe social contact. This desire to interact with others brings me back to my parents in Upstate New York.
My parents would never consider taking a walk or a bike ride on their street. If you asked them to describe their neighbors in any way, they would only be able to mention the next door neighbor on the right side of their property. They have never met the family living on the left side of their property even though that family moved in around seven years ago. And the neighbors across the street, “well they’re just weird.” There seems to be an unwritten suburban rule: “We don’t bother them, they don’t bother us; we like everyone to keep to themselves.” Sidewalks (or the lack there of) seems to support this unwritten rule. It’s easy to keep to yourselves if you do not have a way to bother your neighbors. Privacy becomes a popular side effect when a sidewalk is removed.
The issues of public vs. private do not just pertain to how we view sidewalks; instead we use sidewalks to view ourselves. Sidewalks become instrumental in establishing a quality of life.
A sidewalk can be thought of as a welcome mat, encouraging others to come and socialize with the residents. If you remove this symbol of social interaction you remove more than just concrete or slate; you restrict an innate desire to be with others as one of many. Perhaps we need to look much further than sidewalks to find an answer to our problems of anti-social forms of living; but it’s a damn good place to start.
The Lens of “Arbitrage”
In Andre Aciman’s essay “Arbitrage”, one’s ability to use cognitive perception as a lens plays an important role in how one observes objects and places. When one views a cup of tea, his or her perception of that cup could be very different than another person’s perception of that very same cup. The first person to view the cup might only perceive the cup to be a container for holding tea. While the second person, perceives the cup to be not only a container for tea but also as a tool for viewing memories. One could then argue that the cup becomes the lens. Are the lenses of “Arbitrage” the objects and places or is the lens cognitive perception?
The lens of a camera or microscope allows a person to see things differently and is the most valuable part. The objects and places of “Arbitrage” used as lenses have an exchange value. Aciman defines “Arbitrage” as the exchange of place and time. While pouring tea into the cup, Aciman exchanged his focus of the cup for the memory of his childhood tutors. The Cambridge windowpanes were used in exchange for the memory of Alexandria. But recalling the memory of Alexandria was needed in order for this particular lens to work. Wordsorth’s “Tintern Abbey” helps to clarify the function of the lens in “Arbitrage”. “To use focus A you need to establish focus B, but to establish focus B you need A.” Focus A could be wool trousers and focus B could be the cognitive perception or memory of wool trousers. Focus A and B serve as intricate parts of the lens. However, this lens is not to better view the real world but rather to view memories and imaginations.
The lens of a camera or microscope allows a person to see things differently and is the most valuable part. The objects and places of “Arbitrage” used as lenses have an exchange value. Aciman defines “Arbitrage” as the exchange of place and time. While pouring tea into the cup, Aciman exchanged his focus of the cup for the memory of his childhood tutors. The Cambridge windowpanes were used in exchange for the memory of Alexandria. But recalling the memory of Alexandria was needed in order for this particular lens to work. Wordsorth’s “Tintern Abbey” helps to clarify the function of the lens in “Arbitrage”. “To use focus A you need to establish focus B, but to establish focus B you need A.” Focus A could be wool trousers and focus B could be the cognitive perception or memory of wool trousers. Focus A and B serve as intricate parts of the lens. However, this lens is not to better view the real world but rather to view memories and imaginations.
The Gardner and the Seed
As a mentor, teacher, or professor, you might believe that your actions are small and insignificant. You could feel as though your dedication, devotion, motivation, and inspiration provide very little support in the total education of a student. But in reality, your actions are as important as water is to a plant.
You are a gardener. You provide nourishment of knowledge and understanding. You remove weeds that would stunt our growth. You balance sun and shade to maximize our potential. A gardener also provides small and insignificant things. Water and sun are free and plentiful. Only labor is required for weed pulling. Balancing sun and shade comes from experience. But what would we be with out these things?
We are only seeds. We are small genetic capsules of potential. Our stored energy is found deep within our shell. However, most of this energy is used to break that shell. The remaining energy is used to reach out. It is at this point when the seed would strive and thrive or lie and die. It is at this point, when you are not merely a worker; you are the gardener.
Only the gardener can place the seed in the perfect soil. Only the gardener can make the seed germinate. Only the gardener can ensure the sun will be there when the seed reaches for it. Only the gardener can help the seed to grow and blossom. Only the gardener can help the seed to share its fruit and produce more seeds. Only the gardener can teach a seed how to give shade to those seeds that are struggling, burned out, or scorched. Only a gardener can turn a seed into a tree. You are only a gardener. You only provide these small and insignificant things. Your small actions will continue to go unnoticed and unappreciated by many who were once only seeds. But should you feel melancholy about being only a gardener, go to Central Park and sit under a tree. Try to imagine how many people love that tree on a hot summer day. Look in the branches and you’ll find other creatures that love that tree as well. All of this originated from a simple gardener and a simple seed. Both may be forgotten, but their energy lives on. You are our gardener and we are your seeds.
You are a gardener. You provide nourishment of knowledge and understanding. You remove weeds that would stunt our growth. You balance sun and shade to maximize our potential. A gardener also provides small and insignificant things. Water and sun are free and plentiful. Only labor is required for weed pulling. Balancing sun and shade comes from experience. But what would we be with out these things?
We are only seeds. We are small genetic capsules of potential. Our stored energy is found deep within our shell. However, most of this energy is used to break that shell. The remaining energy is used to reach out. It is at this point when the seed would strive and thrive or lie and die. It is at this point, when you are not merely a worker; you are the gardener.
Only the gardener can place the seed in the perfect soil. Only the gardener can make the seed germinate. Only the gardener can ensure the sun will be there when the seed reaches for it. Only the gardener can help the seed to grow and blossom. Only the gardener can help the seed to share its fruit and produce more seeds. Only the gardener can teach a seed how to give shade to those seeds that are struggling, burned out, or scorched. Only a gardener can turn a seed into a tree. You are only a gardener. You only provide these small and insignificant things. Your small actions will continue to go unnoticed and unappreciated by many who were once only seeds. But should you feel melancholy about being only a gardener, go to Central Park and sit under a tree. Try to imagine how many people love that tree on a hot summer day. Look in the branches and you’ll find other creatures that love that tree as well. All of this originated from a simple gardener and a simple seed. Both may be forgotten, but their energy lives on. You are our gardener and we are your seeds.
My Epiphany
How could education be a source of great pleasure? For most of my life, I believed that these two elements could never find association with each other, but last year, most of my enjoyment came from learning. In 1999, I was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), which is a neurological dysfunction that inhibits a person’s ability to focus on one subject. Instead the brain receives and transmits numerous impulses simultaneously. Imagine trying to study while on a rollercoaster or reading while driving. Before treatment, I was unable to read and retain more than 2 pages at a time. Reading assignments always meant frustration and a feeling of incompetence.
As a young child, my family knew I had a learning problem but felt it could be corrected with more discipline. Eventually they learned to accept report cards of poor grades and teachers’ comments like, “can not pay attention,” “daydreams too much,” and “won’t follow directions.” They were not at all surprised by my lack of enthusiasm in attending college. My parents, who never went to college, believed it would be a waste of money to send me to college. They did not have money to waste, and my younger sister and brother deserved to go to college because they received good grades, paid attention, and followed directions. I also felt I could never be successful in college. I knew I would need to give 100% of my attention, which was impossible. I resigned to the fact that I would never attend college. But that all changed in 1999 when I began treating ADD with medication and counseling.
As soon as I started to show signs of improvement, I realized that my world opened up. I now have the ability to read for hours and retain the information. Reading assignments and homework are proving that I do have the ability. For the first time in my 35 years of life, I am beginning to understand, comprehend, and retain the information. I am able to study without feeling like I am on a rollercoaster. This simple task was impossible only 2 years ago. The first semester of my new college career, I received all “A”’s. This meant that I must change my beliefs about myself. For most of my life, I told myself I was not intelligent and I couldn’t study or concentrate. I was always told, “If you don’t pay attention you will never learn.” I assumed I could never learn and was not as motivated as others in my class and therefore deserved less. I know now that everyone deserves a chance to receive an “A” and should be helped in any way possible. My goal now is to help students with ADD and other learning disabilities. I feel compelled to share my thoughts, struggles, pain, and triumphs. I hope my experiences could be used to help others. I want everyone to experience the freedom that I feel now. While attending college at BMCC, I have found an overflowing amount of support and encouragement. Now my voice can be heard in my words and in my writing. I am empowered simply with a pen and piece of paper. Nothing can stop me from my journey, and I feel like it has just begun.
As a young child, my family knew I had a learning problem but felt it could be corrected with more discipline. Eventually they learned to accept report cards of poor grades and teachers’ comments like, “can not pay attention,” “daydreams too much,” and “won’t follow directions.” They were not at all surprised by my lack of enthusiasm in attending college. My parents, who never went to college, believed it would be a waste of money to send me to college. They did not have money to waste, and my younger sister and brother deserved to go to college because they received good grades, paid attention, and followed directions. I also felt I could never be successful in college. I knew I would need to give 100% of my attention, which was impossible. I resigned to the fact that I would never attend college. But that all changed in 1999 when I began treating ADD with medication and counseling.
As soon as I started to show signs of improvement, I realized that my world opened up. I now have the ability to read for hours and retain the information. Reading assignments and homework are proving that I do have the ability. For the first time in my 35 years of life, I am beginning to understand, comprehend, and retain the information. I am able to study without feeling like I am on a rollercoaster. This simple task was impossible only 2 years ago. The first semester of my new college career, I received all “A”’s. This meant that I must change my beliefs about myself. For most of my life, I told myself I was not intelligent and I couldn’t study or concentrate. I was always told, “If you don’t pay attention you will never learn.” I assumed I could never learn and was not as motivated as others in my class and therefore deserved less. I know now that everyone deserves a chance to receive an “A” and should be helped in any way possible. My goal now is to help students with ADD and other learning disabilities. I feel compelled to share my thoughts, struggles, pain, and triumphs. I hope my experiences could be used to help others. I want everyone to experience the freedom that I feel now. While attending college at BMCC, I have found an overflowing amount of support and encouragement. Now my voice can be heard in my words and in my writing. I am empowered simply with a pen and piece of paper. Nothing can stop me from my journey, and I feel like it has just begun.
I am Ashamed to be Catholic
This emotion first came to me when I was about 10. My mother considered herself to be a “devout” catholic which meant (in her eyes) someone who went to church every Sunday. That was it. As long as you went to church in nice clothes every week and behaved yourself during mass people would know you were a good Catholic. So every Sunday everyone except my father (who was Protestant) was forced to get out of bed early, put on “nice” clothes and go to church. For my sisters and me this meant sitting for an hour, daydreaming and looking at other people in church. All of us knew when to sit, stand, and kneel at the right time. We even knew the prayers said by everyone in church. But all of this meant absolutely nothing to any of us including my mother. We acted like robots. We didn’t listen to what was being preached and we definitely did not think about why we were there. But one Sunday I actually became aware of just how unconscious my family was in church. I looked at my mother during the Homily (adlib for the priest) and noticed her typical glazed-over look. She was in her own world and never heard a thing. The priest could have been talking about pedophilia for all she knew. All that she was concerned about was how she was perceived by other parishioners. According to her “you have to look nice, don’t be late, sit quietly, and take a quarter from her to put in the basket when it comes around.” God forbid if you forget to bring any money with you to church. That would be the worst thing anyone could do in church besides wearing jeans with holes in them, shorts, sneakers, or anything that shows cleavage. Although my mother zoned out for the entire mass she could always find something or someone to talk about. “Did you see so-and-so? She looked like shit. I can’t believe she wore that blouse. You could see everything.”
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Give me Peace
This is a note I wrote to God. I know it's silly but I really wanted to piss him off:
Here I am
Back where I started
All alone
Once again broken hearted
All I see
Is misery
And emptiness
From everything I’ve started
Tell me why
Do you insist on hurting me
Tell me why
Do I deserve this agony
What have I done
Can I fix it
Can I make it right
If not then just end it
Take my life
Take my heart
And my soul
And give me a brand new start
I just want peace
Just give me peace
I know you can hear me
And I know you’re right beside me
Give me peace
What are you waiting for
Give me peace
I promise I won’t ask for more
Give me peace
So let’s be honest
Are you still mad at me
I said I’m sorry
And I promised I’d never do it again
But why do you keep pushing me
Why do you keep punishing me
Here I am
Back where I started
All alone
Once again broken hearted
All I see
Is misery
And emptiness
From everything I’ve started
Tell me why
Do you insist on hurting me
Tell me why
Do I deserve this agony
What have I done
Can I fix it
Can I make it right
If not then just end it
Take my life
Take my heart
And my soul
And give me a brand new start
I just want peace
Just give me peace
I know you can hear me
And I know you’re right beside me
Give me peace
What are you waiting for
Give me peace
I promise I won’t ask for more
Give me peace
So let’s be honest
Are you still mad at me
I said I’m sorry
And I promised I’d never do it again
But why do you keep pushing me
Why do you keep punishing me
Stop the Hurt
This is what I wrote when I sensed there was something going on with a former boyfriend. After a call from my brother who read this I realized that someone might get an idea that I'm one step away from ending it all. But nothing could be further from the truth. I am sharing my darkest moments in the hopes that someone else could connect and realize that they are not alone and that they are never alone regardless of how pathetic they may seem. Although I am talking about hurting myself, this is in the form of self-persecution where I am my biggest enemy. But thanks D for being concerned.
Stop the Hurt
I can’t want someone this much. I feel so out of control. I feel as though I know he can’t truly love me. He’s lying about his feelings. He’s just waiting to hurt me, waiting for the right moment when I am in need of his love and affection. He’ll wait until I start planning a future and looking forward to building something together and then he’ll say he made a mistake. He’ll say he doesn’t really love me. I can’t wait for that to happen. I am not going to let anyone hurt me like that.
Sabotage, sabotage, sabotage
Call Chris. Go online. Find someone else. Pretend that I am not interested in him anymore. Don’t call him. Don’t return his emails. Let him see that I am fine without him. Let him realize that I can be without him. I don’t need him. I don’t need anyone. No one is going to hurt me again.
So what do I do? Do I tell him what is going on inside my head and risks losing him? Do I distance myself from him so that I don’t feel so threatened? I can’t just sit here with these feelings. I feel like I’m dieing. I see myself as this pathetic psychopath wanting to run as far away as possible. I want to go somewhere where no one knows me. I could be anyone and have no past, no pain, no problems, and no plan.
Why do I hate myself so much? Why do I think I am the lowest person on earth? Why do I want to always beat myself up? How could I expect anyone to love me if I can’t even love myself? This is why no one can get close to me. This is why no one can know who I really am. This is why I want to run as soon as someone gets a little to close. This is why no one could really love me. They all fall in love with someone pretending to not be a loser. If I stop pretending then I just become an honest loser. I lose either way.
I can’t keep hurting this much. I just want all of this pain to go away. Why should love hurt so much? Why does my heart break as soon as I fall for someone? I never get a chance to enjoy love. I only prepare myself for getting hurt. Now I’m hurting more than ever all because of falling in love.
I just want to stop hurting. I am so sick of pain; pain in my back, pain in my heart and pain in my life. I know that the only one hurting me right now is me. But this only gives me more reasons to hate myself and hurt myself more.
Who Knows?
So this is my very first blog and I really just need to get some things off of my chest. Why are the guys who want to be trusted the most, the most unlikely to be untrustworthy? Why do these guys insist on you trusting them and become very offended if you don’t? Then when you finally feel like you can trust the guy, he immediately does something to betray that trust. I must be a magnet for guys who want to lie, cheat, deceive, and most of all sabotage a relationship. Perhaps I unconsciously see this quality early on and for some reason become attracted because of it. Maybe it’s an unresolved conflict or maybe it’s my way of sabotaging right from the beginning. Who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)