Why I Watch

My interest in TV tends to be minimal, usually spanning a minor dedication to one or two shows. Since my relaxation time now occurs almost exclusively after 9pm, I've recently had a lot more exposure to what the networks have to offer. Sons of Anarchy and Fringe are two shows that I've become awkwardly attached to in the last several months. I say the connection is awkward because recently, both shows have left me disappointed.

Sons of Anarchy was an incredible show last season. As a start-up show with a somewhat finite audience, SoA was underrated and under-hyped by critics. With characters and story lines based on Shakespeare plays, the show has integrated powerful themes into a weekly smorgasbord of badassery. Katey Sagal and Ron Perlman lead a strong cast of newcomers, and season one ended with a conflict on the horizon between Perlman's character Clay, and his fictional stepson, Jax. It was an emotional season finale, and the second season seemed poised to deliver in full.

Then the first episode of season two aired, and it ended not only with a bizarre and unprecedented alliance between a staunch good guy and an avowed white supremacist, but Katey Sagal's character Gemma was gang raped - yes, gang raped - by members of a white supremacist gang that's moved into the town. Before I go any further, I should say that Katey Sagal deserves a lot more recognition than she's getting for the job she's doing with this role. She's one of the most powerful and compelling matriarchs on TV right now. In any case, while the event has been worked into the overall plot of the show fairly well, such a disturbing scene is a far cry from where the show was last season. It seems like the writers weren't expecting the funding for a second season. Things are improving, but I hope the writers pick up the pace.

On the other end of the Ludicrous Scale, there's Fringe. I think I'm missing something with this show. I think the lack of power in Anna Torv's acting is part of it, but I think the disconnect between all the stories is the biggest downer. A simple one-liner in each episode's recap saying, "We call these events The Pattern!" doesn't cut it. They've demonstrated no connection between any of the bad guys; the German guy from season one just happened to show up in multiple episodes, and the bald dude who eats lots of pepper (and apparently resurrected Peter?) is possibly a really bad guy who's shown up in multiple episodes.

But after two dozen episodes, there's still little or no connection. Apparently, the writers wanted to write a "procedural" and make each paranormal event the disease that has to be cured each week, much like a medical problem in an episode of House, but I think the lack of an overarching goal just makes it feel like a sorry excuse to have all these (admittedly neat) incidents occur to the same group of investigators. It's a crappy way to write.

To sum up my feelings about Fringe, here's every episode broken into 10 lines:

1. Peter: "Holy HELL! That chick just caught fire, blew up, and destroyed an airplane with her mind, all while flying in the air!"

2. Broyles: "We're calling these events the PATTERN."

3. Olivia: "...What the hell is wrong with me?"

4. Walter: "This is fan-TASTIC!"

5. Peter: "Walter, stop eating that sandwich while you've got those bloody surgical gloves on!"

6. Olivia: "I wonder if these cases are connected."

7. Nina Sharp: "You know, agent Dunham, you're quite gifted!"

8. Olivia: *draws gun on guy trying to help her* "What HAPPENED to me!???"

9. Evil Doer of the Episode: "You'll never understand what I'm trying to do."

*gunshots*

10. Olivia: "I just want to know what happened."

...You and me both, Olivia. You and me both.

Hating Homework, Part 2

A quick follow up to my post last night: David Shenk responded to my comments (scroll down to the comments section) and I made another point. Shenk says:

"I think there's two separate issues worth examining at here.

The first is an easy one. QUALITY. There is way too much homework out there that is ill-conceived, wasteful, overly stressful. Teachers and administrators should make it a point of pride to assign only high-quality homework: assignments that are clear, well thought out, efficient in their time demands, entertaining and inspiring if possible.

The second issue is a lot tougher. QUANTITY. Even in a world where all homework is quality homework, should we have a lot less of it, so as to give kids more time to pursue their own endeavors, and to rest, and to be kids? This is a difficult question, because on a subject by subject basis, it's easy to make the argument for the importance of high-quality of homework. So something has to give. My gut says that kids need that time to themselves more than they need homework -- even if it is high-quality homework."

My response:

"What are high-quality assignments? That's such a subjective thing, especially when the judges are primarily students and parents who are at least 1 step removed from the curriculum planning process. Maybe you're talking about rote-memorization like flash cards to increase a student's comfort with vocabulary. Maybe you're talking about readings with questions attached. All these things are helpful if used correctly by teachers and students. Parents and teachers need to instill an understanding in their students that practice after school is important to maintaining a firm grasp of the material. Study skills are important, and they are often taught by homework.

Quantity is obviously more difficult to discuss. With learning disabilities, extracurricular activities, etc. it can be very hard to figure out how much is too much, even on a per-class basis. But again, I'll point to the fact that study after study shows that school just isn't enough for students to understand all this material, and that students will not seek out reinforcement if left to their own devices. I'm not sure that we should be so willing to throw homework out the door based on the assumption that kids don't have enough time to be kids. Any parent will tell you that kids will stay up late to do that after homework is done anyway."

Shenk's intentions are good. Who wouldn't want the best possible results from their kid's education? The problem with his article is that without a discussion of homework in the context of the rest of the curriculum, readers don't understand the possible benefits associated with homework if all the parties involved make good use of it.

Hating Homework

I realized after I posed my comments on David Shenk's anti-homework inquiry that they would make a good blog post, so when you look at the bottom and see text very similar to the rest of what you're reading here, don't think less of me. As an educator, I have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that suggests doing less to further a child's intellectual abilities. However, I do understand that homework frustrates a lot of students, and that there might be alternatives. It should be no surprise though, that Shenk's rather lazy suggestion that homework is altogether useless made me cringe.

I think it'd ridiculous for anyone to write off the opportunities that homework offers. That said, I can understand why it's scoffed at by kids and parents: People (often including teachers) don't understand how to use it. Of course homework completion doesn't correlate with success in school. It's been shown time and time again that the only real push factors in student achievement are socioeconomic status and parent involvement. To take it one step further: success (usually) begets success.

What homework offers is not a laundry list of isolated, tedious tasks. Homework offers parents and their kids a chance to gauge, reinforce, and support academic success through cooperation and parental guidance. Is this a lot to ask of parents today? Sure. But that responsibility is what comes with having kids.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about whether or not too much homework gets given out, but keep in mind that teachers are under incredibly tight deadlines with regards to their curriculum. Sometimes, homework teaches new material, and that's just an occupational hazard (and a topic for another discussion). Also remember that the vast majority of studies that explore how kids spend their leisure time don't show them rushing to libraries, music lessons, etc... they're watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web.

Maybe if parents started showing a little more finesse and willingness to engage and co-navigate the educational experiences of their kids, we'd have more successful students