Text analysis

Module Text Analysis In this text, it is clear that the tries to explain the predicaments of having a school that is completely controlled by the learners. The Brooklyn Free School is designed in such a way that the kids are in full control, where they decide on discipline, have a decision on which classes should be taught and what steps should be taken suppose teachers do not attend classes. In this scenario, the kids are decision makers and have the right to choose what should be taught. To make this worse, there are no tests or homework and the kids are not graded (Chicago Public Media and Ira Glass 2). The author tries to explain how the school is run, problem solving and the repeated day-to-day meetings. Though the kids hold meetings to solve an incumbent problem, they do not come up with a straight-forward solution to their problems. Apparently, they will keep postponing the meetings. The author states that this gives them ample time to think of a better solution to their problem. However, these solutions may not be achieved. For example, the students make meetings on how to reduce noise making. However, these meetings are noisy, which makes the whole situation complex.
The author tries to toss both sides of the coin by giving the positivity and negativity in a school controlled by the kids. The author explains that the kids have succeeded in enrolling to other schools that have a different way of governance. Therefore, the success story of this school is just like any other. However, the decision making criterion involving kids is in shambles.
The author makes strong remarks on the issue of governance as controlled by the kids. As much as they are performing well, there are some issues of concern. First, they do not have aptness in cleanliness. They keep debating on any punishment that should be given to the perpetrators. However, the kids are not bold enough to come up with a control measure. All they do is keep debating about the issue, instead of plotting a control measure. The purpose of this text is to show that kids have the ability and responsibility to achieve at some point. However, when they are given the sole responsibility of making choices in everything, they are going to fail. For example, they have mixed feelings about the “ no screens rule” which forbids using any garget that has a screen. Though some of the kids are in support of this rule, it sometimes reduces their concentration on research (Chicago Public Media and Ira Glass 3). Therefore, the “ no screen rule” affects their way of research. While this is a rule, some students break the rule while doing research. This creates a situation where there are double standards and dilemma. In this text, the author has achieved in enlightening the reader about the possible encounter when kids make decisions for themselves. This is a strong case worthy of consideration. As much as it is important to give kids freedom, it is also critical to control their freedom to an extent.
This is an issue that has brought mixed reaction. First, it is prudent to give kids the right to make decisions. However, it is also significant to ensure adults are present during such times. This instills control and critical thinking. As such, the kids will come up with reasonable and achievable decisions in relation to the situation. For example, the no screen rule would be reasonable if some exceptions were made.
Work Cited
Chicago Public Media and Ira Glass. 424: Kid Politics. Chicago: Chicago Public Media. 2011. Print.