The 10%

            We as Academy students are getting a pretty great education. The amount of advanced and AP classes, along with college prep that we are offered is much greater than the average student in an American public high school. Most of us, therefore, are going to go on to at least a four year college, if not graduate school. However, many students are much less fortunate. While The Academy has a much higher college entry rate than the rest of Fayette County Schools, we have a pretty good education system. With roughly 75% proficiency rate in math and reading, one might assume we are below average, however on the contrary these are very high numbers. In the United States, state levels for math and reading range from 20% to 35% proficiency by 8^th grade. Broadly speaking, our education system has failed.

            The reason that the statewide proficiency levels are so low is that there are many failing schools, or so called “dropout factories”. These schools, which are quite numerous, fail over 40% of their students. Certain places have a very high concentration of dropout factories and bad schools, and these are often labeled failing districts. One example of this is Washington DC. In Washington DC, the proficiency rate for reading is 12% by 8^th grade. This means that 88% of public high school students in DC begin high school without a real chance to ever do well. Washington DC is not alone, and there are many schools and many districts across America that are failing. The problem with failing districts is that there are many students whose only options for education are through a failing school. Many students enter into schools where they know that statistically they will probably not graduate. Any family who lives in a failing school zone who cannot afford private schools is forced to send their students where they will not succeed.

            In the United States, the worst schools usually fall in the worst neighborhoods. The common assumption has always been that when students come from a rough uneducated background, they do not want to learn, and therefore drop out. Recently, a very different perspective has been presented. Some education reformers, like Geoffrey Canada believe that the failing schools cause the failing neighborhoods. Failing schools create uneducated dropouts who often become homeless or turn to crime. This is why failing schools are in bad neighborhoods. This has been proven by the opening of charter schools in the worst school districts in America. These charter schools ensure all students are held to high standards and are allowed to succeed. Even in the worst neighborhoods, many of these charter schools have achieved over 90% college entrance rate. While charter schools and magnet programs often have good results, they are not always perfect, or accessible. In many large school districts where spaces in charter schools are limited, lotteries are held to determine placing for students. Only some can get in, many others will be forced to go to their district dropout factories.

            Also, not all charter schools and magnet programs are perfect. What it comes down to is the quality of teachers. In schools with good teachers, students generally thrive. The problem is that there are many bad teachers who can not be fired. These teachers achieve tenure which makes it almost impossible for them to be fired. After a teacher has earned tenure, even if it is proven that they do not teach and that they are causing kids to be behind and not learn, the schools can not fire them. There is no accountability for teachers, and they can really do whatever they want.
            Teachers unions have become extremely powerful, and make the task of reforming schools almost impossible. Created originally to ensure equal pay for female teachers, teacher’s unions currently ensure that teachers receive tenure and cannot be judged or paid based on performance. Anyone trying to reform education runs into these barriers and cannot actually make teachers perform any better. If any schools go against the policies of the teacher’s unions they could face teacher strikes, legal penalties, and more. The teacher’s unions have also have massive political influence, and are the largest political donor out of any interest group. The problem here is that the teachers unions serve to protect the adults, and care nothing about the children.

            It has been figured that if the bottom 6-10% of teachers and schools were completely eliminated and replaced with average schools, the American education system would be the same as that of Finland, who currently leads the world. The bottom 10% that the teachers unions are protecting are the cause of our national education crisis.
            One example someone who tried to fight the unions was Michelle Rhee. Rhee became the Washington DC Chancellor of schools in 2007. She made it her goal to make teachers accountable and to improve education. One of her first moves was to close 23 schools, fire a quarter of all principles, and many teachers. She did this against the teachers unions and ran into powerful opposition. In the end she was legally forced to rehire every teacher and administrator that was fired because they had earned tenure. Rhee actually proposed a plan than involved giving teachers a choice between a small pay increase and being paid by performance up to double their original salary. While this plan would have given all teachers a pay increase, the teacher’s unions denied it because it involved teacher accountability and therefore threatened their job security.

            What we need are national education regulations that eliminate tenure for bad teachers and get rid of the bottom 10%. Teachers and schools that are failing completely need to simply be eliminated and replaced. As well, teachers should be accountable for performance. Good teachers should be paid much more, and bad teachers should be able to be fired. What this would do is make education in America a competitive work environment. Making teaching a high paying job that rewards those who do it well will attract many people who are good at teaching to become teachers, and make teachers work hard in order to continue teaching. Also, all students should be held to higher standards. Almost all students are capable of achieving good grades and scores if they are held accountable to do so. If everyone took higher lever classes, they would be forced to learn the higher lever material. Reforming education is not by any means going to be easy or fast, but it is also definitely not impossible. 

Speech blog

What are the basic necessities of life? You will recall learning probably the five in early elementary science classes or even before. First on the list is oxygen. Next is water. Third is food. Shelter and clothing were probably on the list you learned, but aren't necessarily necessities of human life. Oxygen is free and abundant for all. Water covers the earth and flows naturally all over the planet. Water isn't as abundant as oxygen, but is there and in all parts can be found for free. Food, also abundantly covering the Earth in countless forms, natural and man made. Out of the three basic necessities of life food of course,although abundant is the least accessable. Without one of the basic necessities of life a human being will die. Hunger may not be technically listed as the number one cause of death, but it is the most important most preventable cause of death. You must have food to survive and live. Without food and proper nutrition a human being will die. Of all the global problems we concern ourselves with, the most important seems to have the least focus. Without food there is no human. Without food there is no human to care for, to educate, to teach, to love, to pray for that they get better, to pray that they succeed in life, to improve this world we live in, because they did not receive a basic necessity of life. All the problems, pleasures, materials, and ideas we have are nonexistant if we are non-existant. oxygen plus water plus food equals life. Too often a part to this equation is missing causing the solution to be nonexistant.
This speech is not meant to make any one feel guilty or sad  or to ask that you give all your money to this cause, but to enlighten you of the most important global problem that can so easily be prevented, and how you can help in so many ways.
Have you ever felt hunger before? We all have to some extent, some more than others., but have you ever felt a hunger that you knew would only grow, having no idea when it would subside, literally fearing for your life? As awrestler, cutting weight I have felt strong painful hunger, but I always know there is a meal waiting for me after weigh-ins, I never fear I'll starve. According to squidoo.com over 870 million people do not have enough to eat and this fear is a reality. 98% of these people live in developing countries, but don't forget the people of out very own developed country where food really is everywhere. 1 in 6 people in the U.S. are hungry. Think about when you walk down the halls of school, or sit in the cafeteria. You will unlikely be able to pick out specific people but you see fellow students everyday who will go home to no food. There homes are food insecure- defined by world hunger.com as a household in which occupants live in hunger or live in danger of starvation. Think about how food secure your house is. Most of us can probably open our fridge, or cabinet, or freezer, or drawer and make a pizza, a sandwich, have a full meal. Our houses are very food secure. Much of our food will sometimes go uneaten, to waste. Its not only kids in Africa that are starving, its kids and adults alike all over the world who are fighting for their lives because they're not getting that basic necessity of life that we take so much for granted. Too many human beings approximately 20,864  a day die of hunger related problems. undernutrition contributes to five milion deaths of children under 5 each year in developing countries. That is 5 million children who never got a chance to get an education, get a job, worry about problems, write speeches, and  contribute to the world. These are all deaths which could so easily be prevented with something as simple as food. Cancer,aids, and many other diseases have no absolute cure, the death of their victims are mourned , but it is known everything was done to try and cure it and save the life. Hunger has a definite cure, and it is very cheap, so why are we not focused on something we have the cure and ability to save millions ov lives? We are instead focusing our money towards war and fighting, taking lives instead of  saving them. For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years.
What is stopping us from helping as individuals, as a country? Some people argue that thepeople are poor and hungry are that way becausethey didnt work hard in school or didnt go to school at all. Have you ever tried to focus on an empty stomach.? Try taking a math test when the only problem you really need to solve is the one mentioned in the first paragraph. When your life evolves around surviving, trying to find your next meal, it is hard to worry about anything else. malnutrition effects cognitive functioning and brain development. Its a vicious cycle from parent to child that continues until the hunger is solved or death takes away the pain. other than this argument i honestly don't understand what is stopping us, perhaps lack of education and realization. Im not sure exactly. Many can point to carelessness in our ecess food throwing it away, letting it spoil and rot. That could be part of the problem, and another big part of it is the inequality. Look at more developed nations, like our very own country. We are "struggling way more with obesity than hunger. Its sad to say that too many of us are receiving too much of a necessity of life and dying, while others are receiving little to none of that very same necessity. The food is unevenly distributed and we simply except it. It may sound childish , but we need to learn to share and distibute this necessity of life evenly, because no man is made more powerful or wealthier or better in anyway by having more food and being more obese as a man with money is. World hunger out of all the probems and conflicts we are plagued with is the most possible to solve.
This will not turn into one of those sad commercials showing a famished child asking for a dime a day, but I'd like to share with you how we can all work together to solve this problem. The first solution of course is money, you can look up any website and find hundreds of organizations aimed on giving that basic necessity to a human being so that they may survive. If youre uncomfortable giving money or don't have money to give, you can volunteer at the soup kitchen, and other food banks, Donate your excess food instead od letting it go to waste, call local restaurants and ask for them to donate their extra food. Even better there are several websites who give money through advertising by you just clicking like on hungersite.com or playing a game like on Freerice.com. Probably our best hope in getting the most impact is through our own government. The united Nations estimated that ending world hunger would cost only 195 billion a year.  22 countries have pledged to donate this money by contributing 0.7% less than 1% of their national income to international aid. This goal has yet to be reached in the U.S. You can help by going to Poverty.com and mailing the letter for the cause on their website.
Too many ways exist for Hunger to still be a problem. No human should die from not receiving a basic necessity of life. This world was created with all the necessities for all of its inhabitants to live. World hunger is one problem we can solve, and who knows once it is solve world peace could be next.

English Final Speech: Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) and Its Effect on the Modern Film Industry

I'm a movie fanatic; I enjoy watching movies from all genres, from horrors to comedies and from sic-fi adventures to dramas. Movies are enthralling, and I'm not the only person to think this. Motion picture films have captivated throngs of audiences for several generations now, since the first movie camera was created in 1891 by W.K.L. Dickson under the experienced direction of Thomas Edison. Over the years since that time, Hollywood has contributed some of the most memorable, well-known, and defining aspects of Western pop culture, including such classics as The Godfather and Pulp Fiction. Classics such as these have been cemented into the annals of movie history through their eloquent use of original plot lines, character development, and snappy dialogue as well as from their practical use of special effects which add depth and realism to the story. In the years preceding momentous advancements in computer technologies, most notably before the late 1990s when computer technology was yet to be invented or considered an extravagant luxury, special effects were done the old-fashioned way, with special effects artists utilizing their skill to create remarkable visual illusions. Now, however, trends in modern films have resulted in heightened reliance on computer generated imagery (or CGI for short), due to the fact that CGI is cheaper and requires less skill to integrate into the movie as a whole. But to countless movie fans, myself including, CGI lacks the realism that the older special effects techniques masterfully employed before it; movies with heavy CGI use are just not as aesthetically pleasing as the movies of old and even other modern movies that have courageously abstained from the fad afflicting many of their contemporaries. Plot and artistry do not matter now to today's Hollywood executives, only money, and impressive CGI work garners the big bucks. So, to the question that I have been meaning to pose, does CGI excuse an otherwise poor script and acting merely due to its flashy attractiveness to audiences? In my opinion, older movies—and modern movies using little to no CGI—are far superior to most movies today. The heavy reliance on CGI in the modern film industry has significantly detracted from the prior emphasis of plot, character development, and dialogue characteristic of earlier films. Furthermore, CGI lacks the subtle realism that effective special effects are known for, resulting in a jumbled mixture of digitalized wonderment that fails to deliver an enduring masterpiece.

One of the scariest movies that I have ever seen contained absolutely no CGI whatsoever, preferring instead suspenseful closeups, and incredible musical score, and a thrilling buildup that ultimately led to the terrifying reveal of the very frightening, and very realistic-looking, monster. This movie was Steven Spielberg's 1975 horror classic Jaws. Jaws was an effective thriller for several reasons. Firstly, Spielberg allowed his audience only glimpses of the nightmarish shark's dorsal fin for most of the movie, only until the film's heart pounding climax do we as the audience view the shark in all of its gargantuan entirety. By portraying the shark as an unseen predator stealthily stalking its prey (humans), Spielberg confirms that assertion that some of the most frightening visuals come from enemies and threats that are imperceivable to the human eye. Secondly, and equally important, the colossal monster terrorizing hapless beach patrons in the movie who are unlucky enough to attract the attention of its ravenous appetite, appropriately named The Shark, consisted of little more than a skeletal body modeled to resemble a shark and a propellor system; no cuter was used to render a digitalized shark. And this made The Shark a horrifying sight to behold. It looked real because it was made of real, tangible materials, not pixels. Thirdly, and finally, the acting and dialogue within the movie were top-notch, brilliant. Such lines as "We're going to need a bigger boat." and Quint's famously chilling monologue further added to the movie's thrilling tone. The point that I'm trying to make here is that Jaws, a movie totally devoid of CGI wizardry, accomplishes far more in its purpose to scare the audience through its simple, yet ingenious, use of camera angles, old-fashioned special effects, and acting/dialogue than most other horror movies employing CGI today; movies do not need CGI to be successful. As an additional example, Ridley Scott's 1978 science-fiction/horror Alien used many of the same techniques that made Jaws such a spine chilling thriller: Like Jaws, Alien featured distinctive camera angles and an antagonistic monster that seemed to blend in with is surroundings, traditional special effects with absolutely no CGI used, and suspenseful plot and acting, and it too is considered one of the scariest movies ever made. The realistic and gruesome "chestburster" scene—again filmed with no CGI— attests to this contention.

The detriment of trends in the modern film industry towards the increased reliance on CGI is not only apparent in the realm of horror; rather, it also applies to countless other films, most evidently Star Wars. You might wonder how CGI could ever prove disastrous to such a popular franchise as Star Wars; after all, CGI would seem perfectly appropriate for application in the science-fiction genre, with its focus on imaginary worlds and vivid fantasies, since some special effects may prove difficult or even impossible to produce without the support of CGI. For instance, many of the various alien world now crucial to the events of the Star Wars universe were but figments of creator George Lucas's creative imagination—that is, until the advent of CGI. Yet hardcore Star Wars enthusiasts, like Mr. Lentz, still profess their uttermost loyalty to the original trilogy, denouncing the disappointing inadequacies of the recent prequel trilogy (episodes on through three of the saga). These critics' primary arguments center around the amount of CGI used in the prequels. The critics assert that the prequels lack the subtle realistic qualities that defined the old-fashioned effects of the originals and that these movies focus far too much of their attention on CGI-related special effects, leaving essentials like plot and acting at the wayside. They believe that George Lucas, attracted by the alluring directness of CGI, has lost touch with his ability to tell stories in an interesting and creative way. Instead of focusing on plot and dialogue, as he did in the original trilogy  with the special effects adding yet more depth to the movie as a whole, Lucas lazily attempts to excuse an honestly boring and cliche script by bombarding each scene with one computer-generated image after another—as I have said, a trend that I fear is becoming the quintessential model image for movies today. I agree with these critics, and as someone who was not alive when the original films were released, I can safely say that I do not have nostalgia clouding my mind when it comes to making that judgment. There is something about the original trilogy that continues to impress me with a sense of realism that I (rather unfortunately) cannot say the same for the prequels: The aliens and robots (droids) look real, the environments look real, and the characters are considerably more believable because of this. If you're interested in comparing the dramatic difference between the old-fashioned effects of the originals and the CGI approach used in the prequels, consider Jabba the Hutt in his original form in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and in his digitalized form as he appears in the re-edits of the original trilogy; the disparity could not by any more striking.

Thus far, I have ranted on about my opinion of the CGI controversy, what I  believe should be done. Let me now consider the opposing side's arguments in favor of CGI use in the modern film industry and offer any necessary rebuttals to these claims as I see proper. Proponents of CGI might begin their dispute by noting the relatively low cost of CGI use in movies—at least when compared to the cost of traditional special effects. While this fact may be true, CGI is usually less expensive to produce than traditional special effects of a similar nature, CGI also looks cheaper and, as I have expressed repeatedly less realistic, which is the reason why I cannot understand its continued existence in filmmaking. After all, a little extra money should not hinder the filmmaker's ability to create a masterpiece. Filmmaking is itself an art form and therefore requires the needed respect and recognition it so deserved as well as the understanding that all good things require added effort, dedication, and resources. Then there are those people who, noting the impressive grossings for movies employing heavy CGI usage (Avatar for instance), have argued for CGI primarily on the basis of its profit to the modern film industry. Now, I cannot even begin to identify the numerous erroneous thoughts contained in this thought. Like I have said, filmmaking is an art form, and the content of movies should not be determined by its ability to generate money, especially if it is detrimental to the movie as a whole. Finally, many contend that CGI allows filmmakers to experiment in ways that were not possible before its widespread use, or at least in ways that are financially advantageous. To this statement, I gain use Star Wars  as an example. Several of George Lucas's closest friends believed the special effects required in some scenes of the first Star Wars were impossible to simulate, given the technology of the time. Yet George Lucas proved them wrong once he recruited the aid of a visual effects studio willing to assume the "impossible" task, and these effects are still stunning today. This example represents my point: Visual effects can be accomplished without CGI. It takes time, patience, and money—sure—but it can be done, and it looks better.

Considering my passion for movies, it may not be entirely suprising when I tell you that I am truly concerned for the future of the film industry. If the current trends in CGI use persist, there will come a time when movies, some of the greatest contributors to and embodiments of Western pop culture, will be totally devoid of meaning and purpose, other than the purpose of generating revenue. Plot, acting, and dialogue will not matter anymore if these trends do indeed persist. Instead, filmmakers will concentrate less on these three essential facets that have constituted drama throughout the ages, preferring to focus attention on cheap special effects through CGI, as the Star Wars prequel trilogy has no doubt demonstrated. But countless other movies, including Jaws, Alien, and the original Star Wars trilogy, have revealed that CGI, while expanding the limits of what filmmakers can do, does not necessarily make a better movie. On the contrary, CGI often looks less realistic than traditional special effects. So why is it used at all? Well, it's cheaper than traditional special effects and it has, in recant years, proved very successful at the box office. However, movies like Jaws and Star Wars show that movies employing traditional special effects can also perform well while providing and enduring imprint on pop culture. For example, every time that I have been at the beach, I have always considered the possibility of a shark attack even though I know that I am more likely to be struck by lightning than experience a shark attack. While it may seem that I am absolutely against any use of CGI in movies whatsoever, this is not at all true. I believe that when used sparingly, and in conjunction with traditional special effects, CGI can create and entire universe of new possibilities and options for filmmaker to experiment with and yet still concentrate on the essential elements of a good movie.