“Education is the p – Kofi Annan, Sec
While education is a lif overstatement to say th society. It equips children w and inspires them to bring a world
But time and time a education system. systematic, and acc proven in standardized issue is not the schoo the competitive nature and material success red building impressive and
As high school students Through our articles and ar toward a mor
premise of progress, in every society, in every family.” cretary-General of the United Nations from 1997 to 2006
felong process not restricted to the classroom, it isn’t an hat the formal schooling system is the cornerstone of our with knowledge, enriches their understanding of cultures, innovation and improvement to their communities. Even dwide pandemic couldn’t stop us from attending school.
again, we are reminded of the imperfections plaguing the Oftentimes, the things that make schools more efficient, cessible are precisely what degrades their moral ground, tests and college admission processes. Other times, the oling system itself but students’ and parents’ response to e of schools. As the gap between academic achievement duces, education is increasingly marked by the pursuit of d unique resumés rather than exploring genuine interests.
s ourselves, we hold these concerns close to our hearts. rtworks, we hope to shed light on these issues and strive re equitable, effective, and worthwhile education system.
This artwork was made digitally and was made to represent the stress students experience from exerted studying. Many students often study hard in order to achieve their college goals but build a tower too high for them to appreciate the small things in life. A tower made of books and folders with a house is illustrated in the artwork with a student with a blank look. Overall, this piece was created with the hope that overworking students can learn to take a rest at times.
Minji Kim
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION
P
arents are expected to be involved in theirchild’seducation.Fromaparent’s perspective, all they want is for the childtosucceedandhaveagoodeducation so that they can have a better future. This leads to a numberof parents overindulging in their children’s educational lives, which can have certain effects on the child. Thus, towhatextentshouldparentsbeinvolvedin their child’s education? First,thereareobviousbenefitstohaving a heavily involved parent in a child’s education.Researchshowsthatparentalinvolvementresultsinthestudentbeing“morelikely tohavehighergradesandtestscores,attend school regularly, have better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to school”. Consequently, parental association is linked with the student having better socialandacademicoutcomes, which can positivelyimpactthestudentinthelongrun. Furthermore, the National Parent Teacher Association(PTA)fromtheNationalEducation Service states that “the most accurate predictorsofstudentachievementinschool
arenotfamilyincomeorsocialstatus,butthe extenttowhichthefamilycreatesahomeenvironmentthatencourageslearning”(same source as above). It can be deduced that involvedparentsstimulatethechildtostudy moreandbeinvolvedinschool.Notonlyare resultsseenthroughtheperformanceofthe child,butRiaSimon,anearlychildhoodeducator, states that “when a child sees that theirparent(s) is supporting them, they are more inclined to take risks and learn something new instead of staying in theircomfort zone”. The comfort orsupport that a parent gives to theirchild’s education can be interpreted as a positive influence for the child andcausethechildtobemoreexperimental and open-minded. All in all, there are major benefitsthatparentalinvolvementhas,such as better school grades and a more willing and open-minded child. On the other hand, over-excessive parentalinvolvementinachild’seducationcan alsoresultinnegativeoutcomesforthechild. InarecentstudydonebyJelenaObradović, an associate professorat Stanford University, the “children of parentswhomoreoften steppedintoprovideinstructions,corrections or suggestions … performed worse on tasks thatmeasureddelayed gratification and other executive functions, skills associated with impulsecontrolandthe
“Themostaccuratepredictorsofstudentachievementinschoolare notfamilyincomeorsocialstatus,buttheextenttowhichthefamily createsahomeenvironmentthatencourageslearning...”
abilitytoshiftbetweencompetingdemands for their attention”. Thus, although there are certainly benefits forbeing involved in a child’seducation,itmustbekeptincheckas toomuchinvolvementcanresultinnegative outcomes.Furthermore,AnaAznar,adevelopmental psychologist at the University of Winchester, states that over-involved parentsresultinpre-schoolandprimaryschool children experiencing “high levels of shyness,anxietyandpoorpeerrelations”.Furthermore,Aznarstates that it also results in 16to28yearoldstudentshaving“lowlevels ofself-efficacy–thetrustthatpeoplehavein theirownabilitiesandskills–andpoorrelationshipswiththeirpeers”.Thisclearly showshowover-involved parents canhindertheirchild’sdevelop-
ment and thus limit theirchild’s ability to become more resilient and grow on theirown. In conclusion, although highly involved parents can have positive impacts on their children, this is only to a certain degree as overlyinvestedparentsgenerallynegatively impacttheirchildthroughlimitingthechild’s abilitytodeveloptheskillsthattheyneedby themselves.
Writer Sam Hong Layout June Jeong
A
ffirmative action is defined as the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously—also known as positive discrimination. Though this practice began for universities around 1965, it has become a controversial issue recently due to challenges against it in high-profile Supreme Court cases. The primary argument for those who support affirmative action is that it helps minorities who often don’t have
Writer Nate John Wilson D Writer: Layout Eunice Rhee
Layout: John D
the same opportunities as others and produces a diverse campus. Those who argue against it, however, argue that it doesn’t affect minorities effectively and prevents merit from determining who gets accepted to top universities. Those arguing for affirmative action reason that it not only helps minorities go past restrictions but also helps universities have a diverse student body. A major point of emphasis for those who agree with affirmative action is that students of color are still an underrepresented group within most college campuses. An example of this is in the state of Mississippi: 50% of the graduating high school students were black; however, only 12.9% of the undergraduate population for the University of Mississippi were black. With more affirmative action, this number would rise. More educated minority populations would allow for more social mobility, which is “the movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification.” It would allow
for lower-income groups to move out of their socio-economic positions and even the playing ground for everyone. Groups who have been historically and systematically discriminated in the
United States receive what they deserve for being unjustly persecuted, helping them regain a small fraction of what they’ve lost. On the other hand, those who argue against affirmative action largely believe that while it helps provide an opportunity for people of color to get educated, it has unseen negative effects on the admitted students. Some claim that colleges with a large preference for certain minority groups end up hurting them by accepting students who are unable to keep pace with their fellow students. This problem is referred to as a mismatch and it ends up often putting minority students at the bottom of their class with lower GPAs than their peers. This could lead to students of color being stigmatized and the reinforcement of stereotypes concerning their incapability. On top of this, it might lead to many students experiencing “imposter syndrome” and suffering from
severe anxiety and panic. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue, and though the current system certainly has flaws, it’s also definitely necessary to have some sort of policy that promotes equality. College admissions cannot be based purely on either merit or environment, and we’re still in the process of finding the right balance between the two. What’s most necessary at the moment is to make the appropriate adjustments that address the criticisms of affirmative action rather than getting rid of it entirely or keeping it as it is. How that balance will be met is unclear— perhaps through Supreme Court cases, or decades of feedback— but colleges should strive towards achieving it for the sake of their students and the greater good of the society it seeks to serve.
You’re Going Places Hana Ito
I painted colorful flowers and imitations of gold flakes to suggest education’s beauty and rich value. However, I intended to contradict these through the eeivrie visual and inverted color spectrum, indicating toxicity. I think of schooling as planting flowers in a child’s head. For better or for worse, I won’t claim and want to remain at the viewer’s discretion—whether the modern schooling system is one of care and service or coercion and damage.
EXTRACURRICULARS:
TROPHIES OR GENUINE INTEREST?
H
arvard, Yale, Princeton, and other elite institutions are notorious for how selective they are, to the point where having a stellar GPA and SAT score is simply not enough. The only criteria separating one student from another are their essays and extracurriculars, which have become a key factor in the admissions process. Essays and extracurriculars are great, as they allow an individual to express themselves beyond their academics. Or so we thought. Although the intentions behind weighing essays and extracurriculars, also known as holistic applications, are just and authentic, there are problems with incentives. These elite institutions and their rising selectivity have caused students to take extracurriculars not out of genuine interest, but rather as superficial trophies to showcase their exaggerated accomplishments. This can be seen first hand, with hundreds of students applying for the National Honor Society (NHS) simply because it seems impressive to admissions officers and not because they believe in the core values of the program. Clubs that have a genuine interest in bettering the world around them are being exploited by students who desire to come off as passionate and caring individuals. Now, this is not an attack on just the NHS; in fact, it is a trend seen across many extracurriculars. This trend is so prominent that in a survey conducted at the American School in Japan (ASIJ), 22 out of 30 students stated that they took part in service clubs solely as a resumé booster. Even though a student may believe that what they are doing is boosting their chances of getting into their dream schools, admissions officers can often see straight through it. In fact, Doug McQueen, a college counselor at ASIJ, saw a positive correlation between a student’s level of authenticity in their extracurriculars and their success at selective institutions: “... students who ultimately have been the most successful with highly selective colleges, have
Writer: John D Layout: John D
generally been quite authentic in what they do at ASIJ and do what they do because they enjoy it.” He went on to say that when students take part in activities where they show no dedication or commitment, “the application does not feel truly authentic, and [he worries] that colleges will think the same way.” Of course, it is natural for students to do everything in their power to have an edge in the non-academic side of applications. However, if a student does not show commitment to an extracurricular, doesn’t that take away from the authenticity of an individual’s application? If a student is inauthentic and is simply participating in extracurricular activities to boost their chances of admission, that shows poor character. As mentioned before, some students who do not have any real interest are taking advantage of organizations that truly care about their cause. What kind of person does that make them? A two-faced individual. A liar. A manipulator. One might say that these are exaggerations, but to a large extent, that’s what some of these students are. They carry on knowing the fact that they partially manipulated their way into their dream school. When everything from participating in a service club to taking certain classes is done to impress elite colleges, students often forget what they actually go to school for: to learn and to build relationships. The goal of learning skills and valuable knowledge is thrown out the window, and much of it is due to the demanding criteria of the college system in the United States. Students need to take a step back and realize that faking their personality and interests in an effort to get accepted is not only unethical but also bad for their own well-being. If a student is truly passionate about something, they should find their niche and really dive into it rather than spreading themselves too thin and participating in clubs they do not have a genuine interest in.
Writer Tomo Ishikawa Layout Andrew Ham
Writer: John D Layout: John D
Failure of the NoChildLeftBehindAct
S
tandardized testing is one of the most fundamental pillars of the modern education system. But lately, people have begun to question its effectiveness in measuring the true intellectual capability of students, with some even calling to remove the system entirely. This discourse has once again shed light on the No Child Left Behind Act, which was essentially the starting point for the modern US education system. The No Child Left Behind Act required all US states to continuously test students’ reading and math skills and report the results, allowing the government to judge the relative success of each school’s education. Each state government would determine a “proficient level” for students and encourage schools to have every one of their students fulfill that criterion by the end of high school. To motivate schools to comply with these requirements, schools would be subject to various sanctions from the state. For example, the school would be forced to allow students to transfer to better-performing public schools in the same district, offer free tutoring, and undergo state intervention. The law was signed by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, amid fears that the US education system was no longer internationally competitive, and that minority students were too economically and educationally disadvantaged to receive a proper education. The law passed with strong bipartisan support and was applauded as a major step in improving the US education system. However, when looking at how the law affected American education in reality, most believe that the law has not seen very many successes. One of the main criticisms is based on the incentives provided for schools to be held more accountable for how well they educate their students. Though students in low-performing schools are provided with the option to transfer or receive free tutoring, most students did not take advantage of the opportunity and made the incentive futile. Furthermore, the state interventions that were reserved for schools that continuously showed a lack of improvement were often too tame to promote any meaningful change. Many have also criticized the law on a macroscopic level. They argue that the law shows the growing strength of the federal government’s grip on education, as well as its continued ww on standardized testing to measure how well schools are doing. Others also argue that because schools are only required to test math and reading, other subjects such as social
studies, foreign languages, and the arts receive less attention from schools, which narrows the paths that students can take after graduation. Though most of these criticisms are just opinions, the numbers reveal that they are indeed correct. The deadline set for schools to get all their students to the “proficient level” was 2014. In 2010, 38% of schools were considered “failing,” which rose to over 50% by 2011. So what can we learn from the failure of the No Child Left Behind Act? The most important lesson is that standardized testing is not an accurate measure of whether a student or school is successful. An education system that depends almost solely on standardized testing to determine if teachers should keep their jobs and if students are succeeding is inefficient and shifts the focus more on tests, not learning. Instead of teaching students skills and information for their future employment, schools are more focused on maintaining their reputation. Furthermore, even if these tests tell us the broad areas in which students are struggling, it offers no information as to how to fix them. The main purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act was to ensure that state governments could identify which areas of the educational system were lacking for which demographic of students. However, this was not possible with the miniscule amount of information that the law’s policies provided. It is important for the US education system to improve by collecting accurate data on more important areas. For example, it is important to know which demographic seems more interested in certain fields such as STEM or humanities, and how that is affected by the amount of resources available to them. It is also essential that schools recognize which teachers can proficiently teach students without solely utilizing standardized testing. Though it is clear that the No Child Left Behind Act has failed, we can still learn from its failures in the US education system. By analyzing the law’s history, we can clearly see how the modern education system must be improved so that students receive equal opportunities to learn. While most educational institutions still focus on standardized testing instead of more accurate methods of receiving information on a school’s success, it is essential that schools move away from this system to ensure that disadvantaged students are given more opportunities and schools are held accountable.
Writer Junseo Lee Layout Andrew Ham, Woojune Kim
Minji Kim This artwork was made digitally and was based on a game-like concept. It was created to represent the fact that laziness is the biggest factor to why many students are unable to finish work, thus grating down their GPA. The game concept was added because video games are another reason why students don’t do their work in a punctual manner. In general, this artwork is to show and inspire students to fix their bad habits and to prevent them from giving in to all their wants.
CREDITS
Execs
BryanKim
Presiden
AliceLee PublicAffairs
m
nt
RachelYoon Writing Exec
Vivienne Chung Art Exec
AimeeChoi VicePresident
Eunice Rhee Layout Exec
Jihoon Kim Production Manager
Andrew Ham Layout Exec
June Jeong Layout Exec
Woojune Kim Writing Exec
IM MINJI K K I
NJI KIM M MI
IM JI K MINJ IN
IM
MINJI KIM
CELINE Y G A N
CELINE Y A NG
CELINE Y A NG
NG
CELINE Y A
A
A ITO HAN AN
HANA ITO I
NA ITO H HA
HANA ITO O T
SopheenL
Write
Tom
W
JunseoL
Elle
L
Lee
er
moIshikawa
Writer
Lee Writer
enRyu
Layout
Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer
SamHong
JasonLee
Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer
Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout
IreneNam
PaulMoon
Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer Writer
Also thank you to: Nate Wilson Lindsey Lim Sahngwon Lee Eric Cho Ryan Haddad Leo Sugino