About
Pegasus Magazine

Magazine Videos

Our editorial team is proud to introduce video supplements to selected articles of Pegasus Magazine. We hope you enjoy listening to members of our community.

Pegasus Magazine - Spring 2018

College Advice

List of 1 items.

  • Changing the Conversation: Preparing Students for Life, Not College

    by Daniel Patterson

    The line separating supportive parents from helicopter parents can be blurry. Especially when students are young. How do we help children succeed today, prepare for tomorrow, and remain happy and balanced? We want to give our children all the opportunities in the world. But, to them, those opportunities can often feel like burdens. Not enough support—you’ve failed as a parent; too much support— students never achieve autonomy and independence. There is no judgment here, only a charge to examine our norms in an effort to decrease academic anxiety and increase authentic student success.

    Even elementary school can be stressful. For many parents, fear sets in early. Is their child’s classroom experience enough? Is the program giving them everything they need to succeed in the future? Is there an alternative that will make them more competitive? If college is a zero-sum game, no time is too early to gain an edge. How often do we hear: What classes does your son have? How are they doing in math? Oh, you have Mrs. So-and-So, then you’re gonna need a tutor. If you want them to get into Trendy-Prep-School, you better make sure they take This-Really-Hard-Class. This worry soon turns into shotgun scheduling — piling up an arsenal of experiences, resume builders and academic interventions. With each new line item added, paternal anxiety subsides, while child anxiety increases.

    Supplemental activities—club sports, tutors, strength coaches, private music teachers, or outside academic classes—can improve a child’s intellectual capacity and potential. After all, there’s nothing more dangerous than children with too much free time on their hands. However, as other parents add activities for their own children, anxieties resurface. A second opportunity is added to the docket. And a third. And so on. This ultimately results in another childhood danger: overextension.

    Academic overextension emphasizes (or values) being busy — and associates busy with success. Therein lies the problem. Our educational norms have placed a disproportionate value on the product, and not enough value on the process. The product is merely a list of markers: report cards, test scores, IQ tests, and reading levels. It functions on the fuel of extrinsic motivation. The process, on the other hand, consists of abilities: work-ethic, values, communication skills, routine, trial and error. It functions on the fuel of intrinsic motivation. The product defines what a child is, whereas the process defines who they are.

    The same anxieties that impact parents also affect students. Adolescents are highly sensitive beings, and often use peers as barometers to measure their own value. What classes do you have? What grades do you have? What team did you make? What score did you earn? What’s your GPA? These are common peer-to-peer questions, but get asked largely because of learned behavior. Would they ask such questions, with such fervor, if they didn’t constantly hear it from the adults in their lives? In short, no. You cannot change society, but you can change the conversation.

     A crucial first step in changing the conversation is to first clarify what you want for your child. If the answer is happiness and autonomy, I encourage you to pivot. Measure success and growth through the lens of the process. Focus on implementing a solid read-eat-sleep-play-laugh ratio. Your child’s current performance is not an accurate indicator of their future potential. And you’ll never discover that potential by exhausting them. As opposed to adding another obligation or academic resource to the table, work in the opposite direction and try removing one. Sometimes, with children, less is more.

     The next crucial step is to slow down. Go slow to go far. Imagine the process of honing authentic knowledge and talent to that of laying a foundation for a home. Of course, you can produce a beautiful house of cards if you pay little attention to the integrity of your foundation. Curating sustainable knowledge and talent is not a sprint; it’s a marathon. And the magic is in the pace. Before you add a supplemental math class, for example, evaluate if the step intends to foster your child’s innate curiosity for math, or to check a perceived box on sociallynormed must do list.

     The last step, easily the hardest, is to insulate yourself from the reality of others. Not to be confused with isolation, insulation is an imaginary buffer built to thwart reactions not best suited for your child. The reality of other families is not yours, nor your child’s. Only take the steps necessary to help your unique child reach her unique potential. If something external will help bridge the gap between your child’s performance and his capability, it may make sense to pursue it. But if it’s being done merely because the child next door is doing it, rethink your strategy. Grades, extracurriculars, social connections, all of it—your child is not someone else, despite anyone’s efforts to change that fact.

    Academic anxiety thrives on the principles of trickle-down economics — and we should work to stop the flow from parent to child. This alone will stunt the epidemic. Okay, guy, you’re telling me to cut it all out? Stop the tutors, the sports, the music? No, I’m simply asking you to assess the who before the what of your child before adding another activity. As a realist, and former teacher/administrator at a highly competitive high school in Orange County, I’ve seen good intentions crumble. Teenagers lose their internal drive. They’re devoid of grit. They lack the independent critical thinking skills commensurate with rigorous curriculum. They spend unending hours training for sports they hate and, without fail, they blame their parents for the aforementioned.

    So, as you approach tomorrow—focus less on tangible supports, and more on the intangibles of reassurance, belief, patience and acceptance. Your child, after all, is not a resume, they are a person. And people matter most.


    Daniel Patterson is a former teacher/administrator turned author, advocate and educational-centered coach.Contact: daniel@pattersonperspective.com

Talking Politics

List of 1 items.

  • Pop Goes the Bubble

    by Karla Joyce

    Geopolitical events are streaming, without filter, to younger and younger audiences. Opinion dominates the airwaves. Decorum is dead.
    Welcome to the world, kids.

    Risk: (noun) the possibility of something bad happening
    ― Cambridge English Dictionary

    Our decision to discuss extreme rhetoric and partisan hostility in this issue of Pegasus Magazine is embedded with risk and requires (in election-speak) frontloading. The subject, by its nature, taps into the ideological tribalism that quietly divides even us, the Pegasus community. It is my duty, both as writer and role-model to my daughters, to present unbiased commentary; our teachers are held to the same standard. The reason we’ve decided to tackle this subject is because...we can’t not. Name-calling, profanity, and SHOUTING is threatening to inhibit genuine debate and, as a result, critical, independent thinking. Even at Pegasus. And, that is the ultimate risk.

    * * *
    Bubbles exist for good reason. In the weeks after birth, babies are susceptible to infection because their immune systems aren’t fully functional. So, we keep them home. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, studies revealed that young children had developed acute stress reactions from cumulative exposure to media coverage of the event. The Journal of Pediatrics routinely publishes research on the wave-like consequence of trauma —or its mere representation— prior to cognitive, emotional, and social maturity.

    Banning television on weekdays or keeping computers out of bedrooms has become Flintstone-ian in its thinking, but the urge to bubble-wrap our children or invent implantable, uber-silencing headphones is real. When second graders have cell phones, they are privy to “presidential” tweets. Hours spent like-ing silly selfies in fourth grade is loose cover for amassing “friends” and, by default, their views, their language, and their links. And, by middle school, online exposure, regardless of usage-limitations, delivers an unending, unfiltered deluge of the distressing information, insulting language, and explicit imagery in our world today.

    Let’s face it: the bubble has popped.

    Civil Discourse: Oh, How We Took It For Granted
    A Pew Research Center survey identifies our era as the apex of ideological division in the United States. Was it the election of Donald Trump that triggered it, or more sinister social-media algorithms segregating us into like-minded factions? (The jury is split.) Most political scientists agree, however, that the 2016 presidential election itself stands out for an unprecedented level of discord in the political sphere. “There has never been a presidential election where you had such a high negative rating for both presidential candidates and where each candidate was distrusted by such high majorities of Americans,” said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University political science and sociology professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. Faster than a fly, the stumpers’ mudslinging metamorphosed into partisan hyperbole, habitual skepticism, and almost war-like division. The electorate, comprised of legal adults, processed the maelstrom to the best of its ability which, to this day, hasn’t been very adult-like at all.

    In effect, in 2016, the world came rushing in. Despite every well-meaning effort to keep it at bay, to shield our students to meet developmental readiness, that negativity wormed its way like a noxious gas into the middle school classrooms of The Pegasus School.

    “At the beginning of last year,” recalled James Swiger, eighth-grade social studies teacher, “we were noticing that the political and cultural climate in the United States was clearly affecting everyone, including our students here at Pegasus.” (During the 2016-2017 school year, the Middle School social studies team included Amy Weiss, James Swiger, and Jim Conti, teaching sixth, seventh, and eighth graders, respectively.) “Increasingly, we saw people less willing to listen to each other and trying to present their views ‘louder’ than any opposing views.” From the presidential-debate dais to the middle school doorstep, “we were seeing political discussion that included opinionated commentary and, far too often, vitriol.”

    “That's just not democracy,” said Swiger, Parenting OC’s 2017 Top 25 Teacher of OC winner. “In a democracy, and in a classroom, you should be able to comfortably bring up ideas that challenge others. But it's imperative that all sides of an issue are respectful, avoid bias, use empirical evidence, and be open to new ideas.” Argument itself isn’t out of the norm at this age, he admitted. “And that’s been the beauty of Pegasus Middle School. We have always allowed kids to voice opinions and exercise these social skills in a way that won’t come back to bite them.” Inherent in that success, however, was the ability to filter out —“not censor,” he insisted — the emotional visual components of current events. “We can no longer do that,” Swiger lamented. “They are simply bombarded with media.” He knew he needed to address head-on what they were incidentally seeing and hearing, from tweets to insults to fake news, and give them the tools to process it all prior to developmental readiness. So, he devised a curricular unit on civil discourse. Together, with Conti and Weiss, he intentionally brought the mechanics of democracy into classroom discussions.

    “I think we were effective,” he said. He even admitted to having his personal opinion influenced by a student’s deeper, attentively-unbiased current event report and the ensuing class discussion. “Exercising civil discourse creates opportunities for us all to get to a better place,” Swiger said. “And that's democracy.”

    The Illusion of Opinion, Part I: A Moral Matrix

    While blaming Trump for (fill in the blank) is tempting, it’s not like we woke up the day he formally entered politics and decided to hate each other more. According to Jonathan Haidt, social scientist and author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, it is our own moral psychology that forms the basis of our political choices and deepening disconnection. In other words, tribalism is a basic aspect of human cognition. Haidt insists, however, that the power to evolve within that framework remains in our hands. Long before Trump he was urging his audiences to “disagree more constructively.”

    “People need their views challenged and shaken in both political and theological debate if they want to truly grow,” said Haidt at a TED panel discussion two weeks post-election. “It’s so important to avoid the deadening conformity of getting stuck in a circle of people where everyone agrees.” But the introduction of disgust into our political discourse has transformed debate. “Disgust is different,” he said. “It paints an ideological opponent as subhuman, morally deformed, satanic. And then, of course, we want nothing to do with them.” (He cited recent speaker expulsions on college campuses as example of this urge to silence disagreement by simply keeping people away.)

    Less exposure to different viewpoints can breed epidemic intolerance, Haidt warned through analogy. “We are essentially all trapped in ‘The Matrix.’ Each moral community is a consensual hallucination. And so if you're within the blue matrix, everything's completely compelling that the other side is filled with troglodytes, racists, the worst people in the world. And you have all the facts to back that up. But somebody in the next house from yours is living in a different video game, so they see a different set of facts and different threats to the country. What I've found from the middle, trying to understand both sides, is that both sides are right. There are many threats to this country and each side is constitutionally incapable of seeing them all.”

    Are we guilty of this as parents? Do our zip codes, friend-circles, or civil associations unconsciously shape our perspectives, or can we still see both sides? Do we espouse critical thinking skills but reinforce consensual hallucination? Do we empathize… not just with the politically-preferred classes of victims but with them, the political other? Do we reach out, listen, and model objectivity?

    Surely, we try. Unfortunately, even if our self-reflection skills are spot on, the mushrooming use of online algorithms to curate our very exposure is silently censoring contrasting perspectives, blocking other points of view. And the isolation continues.

    The Illusion of Opinion, Part II: Filter Bubbles

    Shortly after 9/11, a 20-year-old named Eli Pariser created a website calling for a multilateral approach to fighting terrorism. Within two weeks, half a million people had signed on; two months later it merged with MoveOn.org and he ultimately became Executive Director then Director of the organization’s Board of Trustees. A self-proclaimed progressive — “Big surprise,” he joked — Pariser had always been purposeful about maintaining his relationships with conservatives and followed their links and posts on Facebook... “to learn or thing or two.” One day he noticed that the conservatives had disappeared from his Facebook feed. “I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links so, without consulting me, they were edited out. They just disappeared.”

    His fascination with algorithmic editing of web content led to his 2011 book, The Filter Bubble, which shows how modern search tools, our filter to the wider world, are returning only those search results it thinks we want to see. As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, Pariser said, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. “Your filter bubble is your own personal, unique universe of information that you live in online. And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and what you do. But the thing is, you don't decide what gets in and, more importantly, you don't see what gets edited out.”

    It’s not just Facebook or Google, either. This is sweeping the Web. According to Pariser, “Yahoo News, Huffington Post, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are all flirting with personalization.” Pariser opened his 2011 TED talk with a chilling statement made by Mark Zuckerberg in response to a reporter: "’A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.’" (That’s called censorship, kids!) Essentially, Pariser went on to explain, a web that is based on relevance keeps us comfortably cut off from things that are uncomfortable, challenging or important… a.k.a. other points of view.

    Imagine the ramifications in middle school. Two students, hailing from different matrices, embark on a research paper from their home computers and receive vastly different links, culled from family online behaviors. If there was a time when the nightly news posed a threat to young ears, imagine the volume of stealth ads and algorithmic redirection that occured on our computers after the last presidential election!

    Pariser, Haidt and Swiger all argue powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be harmful to democracy. Information suppression, moral sequestration, and demonizing rhetoric not only exacerbates the bitterness of the political realm, it seeps freely into our children’s lives. In a strange way, maybe a bubble-free view of this new norm will help students learn to identify groupthink, strive relentlessly for multiple perspectives, and come to recognize that civility applies to the manner in which we debate, not the content of our arguments. Achieving civility cannot be buzz-speak for silencing those pesky dissenters. Meanwhile, technology is continually changing, and human creativity can surely tackle the adverse upshot of progress as it happens; if algorithms can create bias, they can identify it as well.

    The takeaway from all three is the same, and works for adults and teenagers alike: make friends with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum; engage in honest conversations; create opportunities for mutual listening and consideration and, maybe, lasting friendships.

    And remember: friends don’t SHOUT.


    Karla Joyce is an alumni parent, a Board Trustee, and a contributing writer to Pegasus Magazine. Contact: karlajoyce@cox.net
The Pegasus School is a coed, non-profit, nonsectarian day school in Huntington Beach, California, that serves students in pre-Kindergarten through Grade 8. A Pegasus education equips bright, motivated students to achieve future academic success and make a positive impact on society.