Dumbing-Down of America ( Patrick J. Buchanan )
-
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
Patrick J. Buchanan
Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...
March 05, 2007
Dumbing-Down of America
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Fifty years ago this October, Americans were jolted by the news that
Moscow, one year after drowning the Hungarian Revolution in blood, had
put an 80-kilo satellite into Earth orbit.
In December, the U.S. Navy tried to replicate the feat. Vanguard got
four feet off the ground and exploded, incinerating its three-pound
payload. America was humiliated. Khrushchev was Man of the Year. Some
of us yet recall the Vanguard newsreels and the humiliating laughter.
Stunned, America went to work to improve education in math and
science, and succeeded. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of
high school seniors began to rise, reaching a high in 1964.
However, test scores for high school students have been falling now
for 40 years. In 1984, the Reagan administration issued A Nation at
Risk, documenting the deterioration of American public education.
More trillions of dollars were thrown at the problem. And if one
judged by the asserted toughening up of courses and rising grades of
seniors, it appeared we had made marvelous progress. On March 4,
The Washington Times reported:
"In 2005, 17 percent of graduates had completed a 'standard'
curriculum, 41 percent completed a 'midlevel' curriculum, and
10 percent completed a 'rigorous' curriculum. Fifteen years
earlier, the percentages were 9 percent (standard), 26 percent
(midlevel) and 5 percent (rigorous). Grade point averages (GPA)
increased, as well. The average overall GPA increased from 2.68
in 1990 to 2.98 (virtually a B level) in 2005.
However, it is all a giant fraud, exposed as such by the performances
of high school seniors on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress exams known as the "nation's report card." An NAEP test of
12th-grade achievement was given to what The New York Times called a
"representative sample of 21,000 high school seniors attending 900
public and private schools from January to March 2005."[Schools,
Money, And Results, March 3, 2007]
What did the tests reveal?
Since 1990, the share of students lacking even basic reading skills
has risen by a third, from 20 percent to 27 percent.
Only 35 percent of high school seniors have reached a "proficient"
level in reading, down from 40 percent.
Only 16 percent of black and 20 percent of Hispanic students had
reached a proficient level in reading.
Among high school seniors, only 29 percent of whites, 10 percent of
Hispanic students and 6 percent of black students were proficient in
math.
This is only the half of it. Among the kids whose test scores on
reading and math were not factored in were the 25 percent of white
students and 50 percent of black and Hispanic kids who had dropped out
by senior year.
Factor the dropouts back in, and what the NAEP test suggests is that,
of black kids starting in first grade, about one in eight will be able
to read at the level of a high school senior after 12 years, and one
in 33 will be able to do the math. Among Hispanic kids, one in 10 will
be able to read at a high-school senior level, but only one in 20 will
be able to do high-school math.
Yet, as columnist Steve Sailer writes on VDare.com, the Bush-Kennedy
No Child Left Behind Act mandates "that all children should reach a
proficient level of academic achievement by 2014."[ Why "No Child Left
Behind" Is Nuts, February 18, 2007 ]
We're not going to make it. We're not even going to come close.
Why are so many Americans ignorant of the depths of failure of so many
schools? As Sailer explains, it is due to government deceit.
"Not surprisingly, practically every single state cheats in
order to meet the law" mandating a rising academic proficiency.
"For example, Mississippi... recently declared that 89 percent
of its fourth-graders were at least 'proficient' in reading.
"Unfortunately, however, on the federal government's impartial
National Assessment of Education Progress test, only 18 percent
of Mississippi students were 'proficient' or 'advanced.'"
Hence, a huge slice of the U.S. educational establishment is complicit
in a monstrous fraud that, if you did it in business, would get you
several years at the nearby minimum security facility.
This is corruption. Teachers are handing out grades kids do not
deserve. States are dumbing-down tests to make themselves look good.
Voters are being deceived about how much kids are learning.
There is no real moral distinction between what teachers and educators
are doing on a vast scale and what professional athletes do on a
smaller scale when they take steroids to enhance performance.
As The Washington Times noted, according to the Digest of Education
Statistics, spending for public education, in constant
(inflation-adjusted) dollars, rose from $6,256 a year per student
before "A Nation at Risk" to $10,464 in the 2002-2003 school year.
Taxpayers have thus raised their annual contribution to education by a
full two-thirds in real dollars in a quarter century. More than generous.
Under George W. Bush, U.S. Department of Education funding has risen
92 percent in six years, from $35.5 billion in 2001 to $68 billion in
2007. Sinking test scores are what we have to show for it.
Taxpayers are being lied to and swindled by the education industry,
which has failed them, failed America and flunked its assignment-and
should be expelled for cheating.
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his
book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of
America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.
The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation.
We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions
are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute...
1999 - 2007 VDARE.com
DefendUSA.blogspot.com
It is ironic that Pat Buchanan is complaining about the dumbing down
of America. With the anti-education message of the ultra rightwingers,
pushing religion as a substitute for science in such areas as
Evolution and Global Warming and their deliberate sabatoging of
America's public and private education system, he should be one of the
last to complain about the effets of Republican policies. I think it
is ironic that after 40 years of Republican and right wing gutting of
our schools and educational system, Republicans are now bemoaning the
fact that their policies have had the desired result.
This opinion piece by Pat Buchanan is no different. The thrust of the
article apears to be that trying to make the schools better, by
raising standards, by supplying the schools with necessary funds is
not, according to him, fruitful. The main point that he wants people
to take out of this is funding education is a waste of money. Once
again, a right winger is trying to gut America's schools and America's
hopes for the future. I would say this to Pat Buchanan. Perhaps if the
right wing would actually support America and the American school
system with more than empty rhetoric, perhaps American students could
live up to their full potential and make America a country that would
once again lead the world in technology and learning. Perhaps the
right wing ought to be part of the solution rather than being the
cause of the problem.
A separate issue is whether the data really supports his conclusion.
Perhaps the reason why fewer high school seniors are proficient in
reading English is because a much large percent of them are
immigrants, some having been in a English speaking country for only a
few weeks, or months. Perhaps it is because standardized testing and
No Child Left Behind has forced schools to cut back on certain
subjects that aren't tested. Perhaps the newer set of standardized
testing is not comparable to the older tests. Perhaps the new tests
are faulty. Perhaps a larger percentage of students are taking the
tests. This is the problem with the SATs. When I took the SATs, only
the top 20 percent of all high school students took the test. Now it
is more like 90 percent. That by itself is probably responsible for
all of the decline in the SAT scores over the years. When the US is
compared to other countries, they compare the brightest 10 percent of
other countries students to the top 80 percent of US students. In
those cases, it is the comparison that is at fault, not the students.
------------------------------------------------
http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
Balanced View
>
> A separate issue is whether the data really supports his conclusion.
> Perhaps the reason why fewer high school seniors are proficient in
> reading English is because a much large percent of them are
> immigrants, some having been in a English speaking country for only a
> few weeks, or months. Perhaps it is because standardized testing and
> No Child Left Behind has forced schools to cut back on certain
> subjects that aren't tested. Perhaps the newer set of standardized
> testing is not comparable to the older tests. Perhaps the new tests
> are faulty. Perhaps a larger percentage of students are taking the
> tests. This is the problem with the SATs. When I took the SATs, only
> the top 20 percent of all high school students took the test. Now it
> is more like 90 percent. That by itself is probably responsible for
> all of the decline in the SAT scores over the years. When the US is
> compared to other countries, they compare the brightest 10 percent of
> other countries students to the top 80 percent of US students. In
> those cases, it is the comparison that is at fault, not the students.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
>
Excuses , excuses , excuses, the country has always been full of
immigrants, it was built on immigration. " Perhaps" Americans
have just become too fat, lazy and stupid, it happens in every Empire
eventually.
-
>> Dumbing-Down of America
"DefendUSA.blogspot.com" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is ironic that Pat Buchanan is complaining about the dumbing down
> of America. With the anti-education message of the ultra rightwingers,
> pushing religion as a substitute for science in such areas as
> Evolution and Global Warming and their deliberate sabatoging of
> America's public and private education system, he should be one of
> the last to complain about the effets of Republican policies. I think it
> is ironic that after 40 years of Republican and right wing gutting of
> our schools and educational system, Republicans are now bemoaning
> the fact that their policies have had the desired result.
Pat Buchanan does not count himself among the ultra rightwingers,
nor is he categorized with the neo-cons, having launched his own
Presidential Campaigns as an Independent or in the Reform Party.
Educational funding has not been "gutted." It has been "reallocated."
Liberals today simply disagree with how the money is being spent.
> This opinion piece by Pat Buchanan is no different. The thrust of the
> article apears to be that trying to make the schools better, by
> raising standards, by supplying the schools with necessary funds is
> not, according to him, fruitful. The main point that he wants people
> to take out of this is funding education is a waste of money. Once
> again, a right winger is trying to gut America's schools and America's
> hopes for the future. I would say this to Pat Buchanan. Perhaps if the
> right wing would actually support America and the American school
> system with more than empty rhetoric, perhaps American students
> could live up to their full potential and make America a country that
> would once again lead the world in technology and learning. Perhaps
> the right wing ought to be part of the solution rather than being the
> cause of the problem.
I am familiar with schoolteachers who are themselves difficult to
"educate." Nothing is more dangerous to a child than self-appointed
experts, and many of those schoolteachers consider themselves God's
gift to a classroom. In three of four schoolteacher cases of which I am
aware there are problems, for one reason or another, i.e. classroom
management, lack of empathy, inability to articulate clear agendas for
goal-setting, and of course the perennial problems with aggressive
parents who think that their child can do no wrong.
Pat Buchanan was a speech-writer for Richard Nixon, but I do not
recall when Pat Buchanan was ever asked to cast a congressional vote
concerning raising or lowering educational funding. Nixon's policies
(at the time) were those relatively of a fiscal liberal: he created the
Environmental Protection Agency and wished to require (at least) a
national minimum wage.
Merely throwing more money at schoolteachers isn't going to
improve educational quality. People will be attracted to schoolteaching
when the circumstances of the classroom are improved. In many ways
schoolteachers are "over-educated" about their course materials but
woefully "under-educated" concerning day-to-day people skills and
sound business practices. Nothing is more difficult than learning the
necessary life lessons that people do not wish to learn. Schoolteachers
themselves are coping with their own life problems and basic relationship
difficulties. We hope that their personal problems are not transferred
into the classroom. "Teacher ... leave those kids alone!" (Pink Floyd)
Schoolteachers can benefit by free extracurricular training programs
which improve methods for classroom management and articulation
of philosophy which addresses the _Aim_of_Education_ (Whitehead).
Classroom circumstances can be improved by addressing parental
support and involvement with child education and the home settings.
Neither of these are a necessary result of merely throwing more money.
To blame those who merely spout (empty) political rhetoric is to
completely misanalyze the dynamics of school classrooms. Does
"DefendUSA.blogspot.com" suppose that public school students are
misled by (empty) political rhetoric not to apply themselves to learning?
> A separate issue is whether the data really supports his conclusion.
> Perhaps the reason why fewer high school seniors are proficient in
> reading English is because a much large percent of them are
> immigrants, some having been in a English speaking country for only a
> few weeks, or months. Perhaps it is because standardized testing and
> No Child Left Behind has forced schools to cut back on certain
> subjects that aren't tested. Perhaps the newer set of standardized
> testing is not comparable to the older tests. Perhaps the new tests
> are faulty. Perhaps a larger percentage of students are taking the
> tests. This is the problem with the SATs. When I took the SATs, only
> the top 20 percent of all high school students took the test. Now it
> is more like 90 percent. That by itself is probably responsible for
> all of the decline in the SAT scores over the years. When the US is
> compared to other countries, they compare the brightest 10 percent of
> other countries students to the top 80 percent of US students. In
> those cases, it is the comparison that is at fault, not the students.
The SAT miscomparisons are a valid objection, though I am
fairly certain that Pat Buchanan is also aware of these. That's why
Mr. Buchanan's argument is not based upon decline in SAT scores.
He mentions longitudinal comparisons based upon representative
testing methods. Perhaps there's a "hype" factor in creating some
monster myth of poor education. If so, is there something intrinsically
wrong about "hype" of worried concern over a spectre of ignorance?
I've heard schoolteachers complain about "teaching for the test."
I don't suppose that it's wrong to be "teaching for the test" because
we don't know what's going to be on that test. Of course there are
many aspects of education that cannot be tested, however if those
other aspects don't provide a nurturing environment where students
can be inspired to excel on tests then perhaps the other aspects are
faulty. It seems there are insufficient grounds for either justifying or
criticizing aspects that cannot be tested or measured in some manner.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the World’s Eyes the US has become Amerika
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070306_world.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
theod...@lycos.com
but de bruvvas sho' can shoot dem hoops.
greg
lora...@cs.com
> >>http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
> >> Patrick J. Buchanan
> >> March 05, 2007
> >> Dumbing-Down of America
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good post..
But I would like to point out that educational methodology and purpose
has been changed from previous more successful paradigms. And that
these new goals have been imposed from ouitside (non-local) sources.
J. Carroll
That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the difference" .
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
lora...@cs.com
> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> > Good post..
> > But I would like to point out that educational methodology and purpose
> > has been changed from previous more successful paradigms. And that
> > these new goals have been imposed from ouitside (non-local) sources.
>
> That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the difference" .
> John R. Carroll
> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Yes, maybe so...
But I also wanted to point out that an external plan was formulated
and imposed to screw up the education of america's youngsters.
Why anyone would want to do such a thing - and allowed to do such a
thing - is still beyond my comprehension.
J. Carroll
> On Mar 7, 5:38 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
>> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
>>> Good post..
>>> But I would like to point out that educational methodology and
>>> purpose has been changed from previous more successful paradigms.
>>> And that these new goals have been imposed from ouitside
>>> (non-local) sources.
>>
>> That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the
>> difference" . John R. Carroll
>> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
>
> Yes, maybe so...
> But I also wanted to point out that an external plan was formulated
> and imposed to screw up the education of america's youngsters.
Whatever, you can't make such statements without adresing the underlying
fundament.
The lesson that is frequently overlooked regarding home schooled children is
that much of the success is largely due to parental involvement, even when
Mom or Dad are as dumb as a post.
>
> Why anyone would want to do such a thing - and allowed to do such a
> thing - is still beyond my comprehension.
There isn't a concerted effort, nor has there ever been, to screw up
education in America.
What there has been is a flood of lazy, thoughtless and irresponsible
parents.
The emphasis is on LAZY.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
traveler
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
While the rightwing Christians have done their part to dumb down
schools, the Left is every bit as guilty. It wasn't the rightwing who
introduced the gradual slackening of discipline and respect for the
authority of the teacher. It was the Left. And it was the Right who
gradually replaced old-fashioned teachers (who expected the most from
their students) with the sort of career-oriented, money-minded
educator who just wants to be the student's friend and doesn't expect
very much from them. There is no way to get around the obvious when
it comes to educating the young. The teachers and the administrators
are INCOMPETENT and the parents should be told to butt out. If you
want good teachers again, you are going to have to make it amenable
for them, and this does not mean paying them more money. What it
means is adjusting their working conditions so that excellence is
rewarded instead of discouraged.
traveler
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> While the rightwing Christians have done their part to dumb down
> schools, the Left is every bit as guilty. It wasn't the rightwing who
> introduced the gradual slackening of discipline and respect for the
> authority of the teacher. It was the Left. And it was the Right who
> gradually replaced old-fashioned teachers (who expected the most from
> their students) with the sort of career-oriented, money-minded
> educator who just wants to be the student's friend and doesn't expect
> very much from them. There is no way to get around the obvious when
> it comes to educating the young. The teachers and the
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Should read, "And it WASN'T the Right who gradually replaced old-
fashioned teachers...
Cognitus
> http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
>
>
> Patrick J. Buchanan
> Email a Friend...
> Printer Friendly Version...
>
>
> March 05, 2007
>
> Dumbing-Down of America
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
>
>
>
>
> Statistics, spending for public education, in constant
> (inflation-adjusted) dollars, rose from $6,256 a year per student
> before "A Nation at Risk" to $10,464 in the 2002-2003 school year.
> Taxpayers have thus raised their annual contribution to education by a
> full two-thirds in real dollars in a quarter century. More than generous.
If so, explain why school districts are desperately trying to hire
teachers
who can make more money in business, computer analysis and
programming,
etc.
> The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation.
> We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions
> are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute...
So we not find the TRUE message of this post. SEND MONEY.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
@news.isomedia.com:
>
> http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
>
>
> Patrick J. Buchanan
> Email a Friend...
> Printer Friendly Version...
>
>
> March 05, 2007
>
> Dumbing-Down of America
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
>
What we need is to toss out all the mexicans and introduce competition to
the educational system. If parents were given vouchers and could pick
schools for their kids, the schools would have to perform or else.
Fred Fazemeier
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns98ECF1A35F78Dr...@207.217.125.201...
Well, it is obvious you don't know how the school system works in this
country.
My wife is a school teacher. There has been a paradigm shift in the schools
brought about by the parents' sense of entitlement. Kids no longer have to
cooperate in school, why? Because of the NEA, as the neocons want to
believe? NO, because for some reason, parents now think they have the right
to go to the schools WHILE IN SESSION, and threaten teachers for attempting
to keep order. Would your parents ever have done that? Mine certainly
wouldn't. The threats of lawsuits have handcuffed the teachers in our public
schools. I agree something needs to happen, but it has more to do with
telling parents to get the fuck out. The reflection is parents' involvement
in kids' sports, you know all of these reports of parents threatening and
assaulting coaches? It doesn't stop there. My wife was pulled out of class
so that she could be threatened by some tattooed biker "dude" who made sure
she knew she was not to discipline his fucking incorrigible daughter. Now
tell me what is wrong with our schools.
me
> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:38 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
> >> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >>> Good post..
> >>> But I would like to point out that educational methodology and
> >>> purpose has been changed from previous more successful paradigms.
> >>> And that these new goals have been imposed from ouitside
> >>> (non-local) sources.
>
> >> That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the
> >> difference" . John R. Carroll
> >> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
>
> > Yes, maybe so...
> > But I also wanted to point out that an external plan was formulated
> > and imposed to screw up the education of america's youngsters.
>
> The lesson that is frequently overlooked regarding home schooled children is
> that much of the success is largely due to parental involvement, even when
> Mom or Dad are as dumb as a post.
I've lost any reference to the original article but the jist of the
story speaks
directly to what you suggest. Kansas got in a heap of trouble with
their
school system and the entire city was taken over by the federal
courts.
They moved in to try to "fix" the situation and basically turned the
school system into one huge friggin' educational experiment. They
started about every form of school from charter schools to "focus"
schools and every other educational fantasy anyone could dream up.
Amongst them was a relatively simple school. It did have the
"uniform" thing (really just a strict dress code). It just taught
basically the 3 R's and a touch of basic college prep stuff. One
"trick" was that for your kid to get into the school, you had to
sign a form that said the kid would have a place to do his
homework that was quiet. You had to promise to check on his homework,
occasionally signing report cards and similar items. Mind you, there
wasn't going to be any home inspection or anything. You just had
to sign the piece of paper.
The story goes that the school was wildly successful. Scores
on various tests were high, attendance was high, discipline problems
were low, etc. So year two rolls around and they figure they'll
create another one of these things. One teeny tiny problem
formed. They couldn't get enough parents to sign the form to
reasonably fill the school up. Again, remember, there was no
home inspection or anything, they just had to sign the form.
Getting a good education out of just about any school isn't all
that
tough. You just have to pay attention. Of course, this is true of
just about all aspects of parenting. None the less we are constantly
informed about how society is responsible for "helping" raise
children by doing for parents what they can't seem to do themselves.
We're suppose to pay attention for parents, because they just
can seem to do it themselves. No problem becoming parents
unfortunately.
JLS
>
> - Show quoted text -
The thing is, there is no evidence in the opinion piece that can be
used to point in either direction. In other words, the opinion
presented in the post has no supporting evidence. Perhaps reading
levels have gone down because Americans are stupid. Perhaps it is
because of problems in the test. Perhaps it is because of the
increasing number of immigrants from non-English speaking countries.
Regardless, the fact remains that Pat Buchanan presented an
unsupported theory not backed up by any evidence that he presented.
I find it a bit ironic that in attacking the intelligence and
education of Americans, Pat Buchanan either didn't have the
intelligence or the education to understand a fairly simple study.
------------------------------------------------
http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
-
"JLS" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One big problem with standardized tests is that they test the
> wrong things. What makes students an asset to a country is
> creativity. The tests do not test creativity. The emphasis on
> teaching to the test results in a lack of teaching of things like
> creativity that are not tested.
I don't suppose you can substantiate that tests are testing
the wrong things. It doesn't take long to take a test. I read
that this discussion concerns what sort of focus should occur
in classrooms, i.e. to aim for better scores on tests or to pursue
other, more nebulous, objectives. Pat Buchanan's essay does
not address chemistry labs in high school. He's talking about
the fundamentals in elementary schools -- reading, writing, and
arithmetic -- beyond which, without secure foundation, there isn't
much hope for skills in junior high or high school chemistry labs.
There isn't any conflict among educational strategies other
than the simple issue of how we ought to pursue available time
and how to design a curriculum. All of it, and any of it, is crucial.
Different schools are in play to offer different types of emphasis.
Posters have noted that many parents do not exercise options to
select the school most appropriate for their child. Some parents do
not ensure that their children can use a proper study environment.
Many "parents" do not rise to the level of a parental role but regard
the nature of this world is merely a dumping ground for their spawn.
That's why teaching seems unrewarding and why teachers clamor
for higher pay, to put up with frustrations of children dumped there.
Many "students" in high school are simply marking time until they
turn 18 and are never seen again.
In a sense "creativity" IS being "tested" because "JLS" asserts
that, ultimately, "creativity" will be an "asset to a country." Value
in such assets is how that "creativity" is being evaluated, assessed,
tested. We require more precise semantics for what a "test" means.
True/false tests are of limited potential, because students might easily
guess at the answers. Multiple-choice are an improvement if various
choices might seem fairly good, as answers, though there's a "best
answer" which stands out. Tests with essay questions are difficult to
grade, perhaps owing to the "creativity" factor, yet nevertheless they
can be graded and are useful indicators for student performance.
The essay test is not generally comparable over time and space, so
is deployed by one teacher for purposes of that classroom.
Tests occur in art and music, where "creativity" might be a factor,
though these again are tests which do not easily translate over time
and space. Those with high aptitude in music might continue with a
conservatory, and artists are expected to accomplish a high standard.
The notion that testing is abandoned merely because "creativity" gets
involved, is untenable, and an idea which cannot be sustained. In the
URL "JLS" supplied, students are also being tested for laboratory skills,
because that essay is from a professor who grades them on such skills:
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/83/print/8305edit.html
> I saw a study in the last couple of weeks which showed that the
> greater the reliance on standardized tests, the lower the future
> economic growth of a country. If anyone has a link to the study, I
> would appreciate it.
I, too, would like to examine that sort of study. I don't suppose
we are limiting what is meant by testing only to "standardized tests."
Testing is a critical tool which no education system can afford to avoid.
Those who despise testing might be likely to skimp on investigations.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------
9/11 -- the fairy tale from hell
http://tyrannyalert.com/800.html
------------------------------------------------------
lora...@cs.com
> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:38 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
> >> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >>> Good post..
> >>> But I would like to point out that educational methodology and
> >>> purpose has been changed from previous more successful paradigms.
> >>> And that these new goals have been imposed from ouitside
> >>> (non-local) sources.
>
> >> That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the
> >> difference" . John R. Carroll
> >> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
>
> > Yes, maybe so...
> > But I also wanted to point out that an external plan was formulated
> > and imposed to screw up the education of america's youngsters.
>
> Whatever, you can't make such statements without adresing the underlying
> fundament.
> The lesson that is frequently overlooked regarding home schooled children is
> that much of the success is largely due to parental involvement, even when
> Mom or Dad are as dumb as a post.
Home schooling is not the issue.
The subject was the degradation of US educational levels.
> > Why anyone would want to do such a thing - and allowed to do such a
> > thing - is still beyond my comprehension.
>
> There isn't a concerted effort, nor has there ever been, to screw up
> education in America.
> What there has been is a flood of lazy, thoughtless and irresponsible
> parents.
> The emphasis is on LAZY.
Lazy is part of it... but that lazyness is a learned behavior.
And oh, yes indeed, the decline in academic levels in favor of
societal 'harmonic' training is indeed a purposeful and coordinated
project that has spanned at least two decades..
Maybe you were one of its products.. explaing why you cannot discern
it.
lora...@cs.com
> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:38 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
> >> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >>> Good post..
> >>> But I would like to point out that educational methodology and
> >>> purpose has been changed from previous more successful paradigms.
> >>> And that these new goals have been imposed from ouitside
> >>> (non-local) sources.
>
> >> That's a pretty long winded version of " parents can make the
> >> difference" . John R. Carroll
> >> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
>
> > Yes, maybe so...
> > But I also wanted to point out that an external plan was formulated
> > and imposed to screw up the education of america's youngsters.
>
> Whatever, you can't make such statements without adresing the underlying
> fundament.
> The lesson that is frequently overlooked regarding home schooled children is
> that much of the success is largely due to parental involvement, even when
> Mom or Dad are as dumb as a post.
Home schooling is not the issue.
The subject was the degradation of US educational levels.
> > Why anyone would want to do such a thing - and allowed to do such a
> > thing - is still beyond my comprehension.
>
> There isn't a concerted effort, nor has there ever been, to screw up
> education in America.
> What there has been is a flood of lazy, thoughtless and irresponsible
> parents.
> The emphasis is on LAZY.
Lazy is part of it... but that lazyness is a learned behavior.
-
"JLS" <defen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I don't need to substantiate that other possible explainations of the
> data could be correct. All I have to do is show that there are other
> possible reasons for results. Pat Buchanan claims that the results
> PROVE his assertions.
Pat Buchanan is not alone in this. He cites early warning signs
(the 1984 report from the Reagan Administration), the NAEP tests
which the New York Times calls a "representative sample," and the
insightful articles by Steve Sailer.
> I have shown that there are other possible conclusions.
It's not clear to me what your "other possible conclusions" are.
You claim that tests do not test for creativity, though you have not
proved it. You refer to an unreferenced, mysterious URL. You claim
that creativity is an economic stimulus yet, if it can be tested by
economic performance, then there ought to be a way to test for it.
> Thus Pat Buchanan is incorrect. The results do not prove
> his assertions. There is no evidence supplied that prove his
> assertions.
Alternative explanations would not prove that anybody is incorrect.
It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove a negative.
> You're statement "It doesn't take long to take a test." is incorrect.
> Tests occur over several days, during which students are not given
> homework in any class so that they can prepare for the test. Given a
> school year of 180 days and a conservative 5 takes to take/prepare for
> the test. That means that is a decrease of time spent learning by 3
> percent. Hardly insignificant. I think that if you were to personally
> study the issue, you would probably find that preparation for the test
> takes longer than a week.
Surely the yearly test preparations should take at least 180 days,
and students might make use of their weekends and summertime to
continue preparing for tests. Students need to learn how to take
tests if they are going to perform as obedient test-takers, so that
they may rise to the level of basic competence in civic affairs.
I'm from the math program myself, and we never complained
about the necessary utility value of taking tests. Usually the
people who complain about tests are washouts heading for "F".
Homework is trivial compared to the crucial importance of tests.
> And then of source there are the unexpected side effects of all this
> testing. In Texas, for example, the increase in test scores under then
> Governor Bush was entirely due to take the lower 30 percent of
> students and making skip the grades in which the tests were given.
> This artificially increased the scores, but caused these kids to be
> overloaded with material far beyond their capability. Thus, while the
> test scores were increasing rapidly, the quality of education was
> dropping rapidly and the dropout rate shot up.
That doesn't apply for our present discussion because the
comparitive longitudinal data is "representative" (New York Times).
> As far as proving problems with the test. The fact that there are a
> lot of schools that are rated highly by other standards but rated
> "underperforming" by some of the standardized tests should tell you
> something. And of course, there was my previous statement that the
> tests do not test the most important thing which is creativity. That
> alone is a fatal flaw in the test. We are creating a country of
> mindless robots. That is not a good measure of education and that is
> bad for both the future of American democracy and the American
> economy. If we need to test something, we need a test that will test
> what is important for the future of America, not just what is easy to
> test for.
I am familiar with a Waldorf School that considers participation
in the National Testing Service if only to illustrate that methods for
encouraging creativity do not impair test scores, but can increase
the scores. Surely everyone is curious whether your thesis that
creativity is incompatible with high test scores, should be tested.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Illegal Alien 'Colonias' Shantytowns Spreading Diseases, Death
http://www.rense.com/general75/shanty.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bush the Evil Doer
people and Congress to increase the H1-B visas limits to displace the
American IT work force with cheaper (dumber) third world labor..
Its all lies and the dumbing of high school students means =>THEY
DON'T GO TO COLLEGE! Colleges are overloaded with student and these
college students still have to pass the college curriculum WHICH IS
NOT DUMBED DOWN.
Get smart, just because you read this BS in a paper DOES NOT MEAN IT
IS TRUE. WAKE UP.
-
Bush the Evil Doer <now...@proteus.com> wrote:
> This is all Republican right wing propaganda to swindle the American
> people and Congress to increase the H1-B visas limits to displace the
> American IT work force with cheaper (dumber) third world labor..
No, Pat Buchanan distanced himself from the present Republican
Party. Moreover, Mr. Buchanan opposes undocumented immigration.
> Its all lies and the dumbing of high school students means =>THEY
> DON'T GO TO COLLEGE! Colleges are overloaded with student and
> these college students still have to pass the college curriculum
> WHICH IS NOT DUMBED DOWN.
Oh, did you just find that out ?
> Get smart, just because you read this BS in a paper DOES NOT MEAN IT
> IS TRUE. WAKE UP.
Though seeing it posted on Usenet "makes it true" ?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Super bug kills dozens in hospitals across Israel...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3373478,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bush the Evil Doer
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:35:19 GMT, jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>
>Bush the Evil Doer <now...@proteus.com> wrote:
>> This is all Republican right wing propaganda to swindle the American
>> people and Congress to increase the H1-B visas limits to displace the
>> American IT work force with cheaper (dumber) third world labor..
>
>
> No, Pat Buchanan distanced himself from the present Republican
> Party. Moreover, Mr. Buchanan opposes undocumented immigration.
>
Just because Pat Buchanan is NOT a registered Republican anymore DOES
NOT mean he affiliated or bank rolled by these individuals. It
behooves the Repubs to have a Pat Buchanan in the Independents as
their representative to poison the political system as one of their
pawns. To steal votes, to spread to misdirection propaganda, etc.
>
>
>> Its all lies and the dumbing of high school students means =>THEY
>> DON'T GO TO COLLEGE! Colleges are overloaded with student and
>> these college students still have to pass the college curriculum
>> WHICH IS NOT DUMBED DOWN.
>
>
> Oh, did you just find that out ?
Are you a wise ass or what?
>
>
>
>> Get smart, just because you read this BS in a paper DOES NOT MEAN IT
>> IS TRUE. WAKE UP.
>
>
> Though seeing it posted on Usenet "makes it true" ?
>
I am talking about the press or public media in general. Americans are
programmed by mass media, and if you don't realize this then you are
one of the sheep I am referring to.
regards
Judge Tree By Its Fruit
<now...@proteus.com> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:35:19 GMT, jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>
>>
>>Bush the Evil Doer <now...@proteus.com> wrote:
>>> This is all Republican right wing propaganda to swindle the American
>>> people and Congress to increase the H1-B visas limits to displace the
>>> American IT work force with cheaper (dumber) third world labor..
>>
>>
>> No, Pat Buchanan distanced himself from the present Republican
>> Party. Moreover, Mr. Buchanan opposes undocumented immigration.
>>
>Just because Pat Buchanan is NOT a registered Republican anymore DOES
>NOT mean he affiliated or bank rolled by these individuals. It
>behooves the Repubs to have a Pat Buchanan in the Independents as
>their representative to poison the political system as one of their
>pawns. To steal votes, to spread to misdirection propaganda, etc.
(I had to correct a typo)
Just because Pat Buchanan is NOT a registered Republican anymore DOES
NOT mean he is NOT affiliated or bank rolled by these individuals. It
-
>> Bush the Evil Doer <now...@proteus.com> wrote:
>>> This is all Republican right wing propaganda to swindle the American
>>> people and Congress to increase the H1-B visas limits to displace the
>>> American IT work force with cheaper (dumber) third world labor..
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> No, Pat Buchanan distanced himself from the present Republican
>> Party. Moreover, Mr. Buchanan opposes undocumented immigration.
Bush the Evil Doer <now...@proteus.com> wrote:
> Just because Pat Buchanan is NOT a registered Republican anymore
> DOES NOT mean he affiliated or bank rolled by these individuals. It
> behooves the Repubs to have a Pat Buchanan in the Independents as
> their representative to poison the political system as one of their
> pawns. To steal votes, to spread to misdirection propaganda, etc.
Pat Buchanan won a considerable sum of money from the
Reform Party. Apparently you do not regard the First Amendment
as protective of American Freedoms because you must be sheeple
to a managed media system that prevents political system "poisons"?
In addition to opposing undocumented immigration, Pat Buchanan's
stance is anti-immigration in general.
>>> Its all lies and the dumbing of high school students means =>THEY
>>> DON'T GO TO COLLEGE! Colleges are overloaded with student and
>>> these college students still have to pass the college curriculum
>>> WHICH IS NOT DUMBED DOWN.
>> Oh, did you just find that out ?
> Are you a wise ass or what?
Wise asses don't answer questions.
>>> Get smart, just because you read this BS in a paper DOES NOT MEAN IT
>>> IS TRUE. WAKE UP.
>> Though seeing it posted on Usenet "makes it true" ?
> I am talking about the press or public media in general. Americans are
> programmed by mass media, and if you don't realize this then you are
> one of the sheep I am referring to.
Americans can just as easily be programmed by Usenet.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy to her dog Toto: "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Teacher
> I am familiar with schoolteachers who are themselves difficult to
> "educate." Nothing is more dangerous to a child than self-appointed
> experts, and many of those schoolteachers consider themselves God's
The self-appointed experts are rarely the teachers in the grade
schools and high schools, but rather in the "professors" in education
schools.
These are the people with the incredibly stupid ideas.
> and of course the perennial problems with aggressive
> parents who think that their child can do no wrong.
Yes.
>
> Merely throwing more money at schoolteachers isn't going to
> improve educational quality. People will be attracted to schoolteaching
> when the circumstances of the classroom are improved. In many ways
> schoolteachers are "over-educated" about their course materials but
> woefully "under-educated" concerning day-to-day people skills and
> sound business practices.
Suppose it's "your job" to get me ready to run a marathon. I'm a
couch potato. I like it that way. You're supposed convince me
otherwise. But you can't deprive me of money, of freedom, of
anything that I like. You can inform me of the "consequences" of not
running your marathon -- such as making me "couch potato of the month"
-- but that honor won't make me lose much sleep. What will you do?
How do you think "people skills" on your part will help you make me
run this marathon? How will "sound business" practices?
It's precisely the peddling of all these assorted soft skills that
purport to be the solutions to all our problems that are the
problem.
I happen to be a teacher. Nothing makes kids put their noses to the
grinding wheel like the realization that they might flunk and end up
in summer school or get rejected by their prefered college.
But when you take this away there are no "people skills" that will
make up for it. The problem with NCLB is not that it's about
"standardized" tests, but a question of who's facing the fallout.
> Schoolteachers can benefit by free extracurricular training programs
> which improve methods for classroom management and articulation
> of philosophy which addresses the _Aim_of_Education_ (Whitehead).
Hmm...more methods. Can't get enough of methods.
> Classroom circumstances can be improved by addressing parental
> support and involvement with child education and the home settings.
> Neither of these are a necessary result of merely throwing more money.
They are not a necessary result of asking a different way either. A
parent that prefers to watch soap operas instead of minding their kids
isn't going to change because you've shown them a slide show prepared
by some education guru. Now, if you made them pay for their kid's
education (I'm not advocating private schools, but a penalty, if you
will, for uncooperative parents) I'm sure you'd see an immediate about-
face.
Also, if you took kids' iPods away it would do more good more quickly
than any long winded strategies.
> I've heard schoolteachers complain about "teaching for the test."
Probably art and English teachers. If a standardized test like a
Regents test for physics omits an area that you feel shouldn't be
omitted, then you should work to have it included in the test instead
of arguing that regents tests should be eliminated or that they
shouldn't apply to you.
I have never seen anything wrong with "teaching to the test" if it's a
well-constructed test. My high school science and math teachers did
a great job preparing me for my regents examinations as well as for
all my college coursework. I am eternally grateful to them even
after 30 years.
I can't say the same for my English and social studies teachers who
seemed to feel compelled to teach me what they "felt" was
important.
New Teacher
> If so, explain why school districts are desperately trying to hire
> teachers
> who can make more money in business, computer analysis and
> programming,
> etc.
Not anymore. There are plenty of programmers and engineers who were
laid off, couldn't find work, and went into teaching. Go to a
teaching program. Count the laid off engineers.
New Teacher
> ..... and introduce competition to
> the educational system. If parents were given vouchers and could pick
> schools for their kids,
Absolutely incorrect. A kid who wants to do good will do good in
almost any school, and vice versa.
> the schools would have to perform or else.
How 'bout asking the kids to perform, or else?
New Teacher
> Well, it is obvious you don't know how the school system works in this
> country.
Agree.
> My wife is a school teacher. There has been a paradigm shift in the schools
> brought about by the parents' sense of entitlement.
Absolutely. When kids are told "you need to get at least a B",
that's interpreted as "teacher, YOU NEED to give me at least a B"
> Kids no longer have to
> cooperate in school, why? Because of the NEA, as the neocons want to
> believe? NO, because for some reason, parents now think they have the right
> to go to the schools WHILE IN SESSION, and threaten teachers for attempting
I have not seen that happen. Yet. But, there are some parents that
are less than cooperative. Problem is that just a few kids with
"entitlement" syndrome lower the bar for everyone else.
> to keep order. Would your parents ever have done that? Mine certainly
> wouldn't. The threats of lawsuits have handcuffed the teachers in our public
> schools. I agree something needs to happen, but it has more to do with
> telling parents to get the fuck out.
This is why I firmly believe in tests like the regents. You're then
not solely responsible for "passing" kids. Without a set of tests
that all kids in the state (should be the country) have to pass, the
teacher is both coach and referee. You're pressed both to "train" as
well as to "throw the game".
Some teachers oppose this thinking of what will happen if the kids
can't pass no matter what. But you're just as screwed the other
way. I could easily turn my class into total kindergarten and
everyone would happily pass and parents and students would all be
happy for a while. But they will complain eventually when they're in
college or on a job site, and the doggy-do will come right back to me.
Tazmanian Devil
"New Teacher" <Eds.Do...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173982803.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
New Teacher
> "New Teacher" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm not complaining. There are good days and bad. I do get miffed
though when I see all sorts of idiotic editorials (henceforth referred
to as "idiotorials") with proposals to "improve" education. They
often mirror the idiocy you hear in schools of education.
As an ex-engineer, do you find it bizarre that after decades of
physics being taught in high schools, by likely tens of thousands of
teachers executing dozens of "plans", worksheets, exercises,
homeworks, etc., that there wouldn't be anything like a repository of
these instruments, along with data on their effectiveness and a series
of incremental improvements?
As an engineer/programmer, one stood on the shoulders of those who
came before. You don't start a programming job by "creatively
inventing" your own object-oriented programming language; you use one
that has withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of your peers.
In teaching school all we ever talked about was how to write your own
lesson plan. Most were completely crazy (like teaching all of
Newton's laws of motion in one easy 45 minute lesson, complete with
assessment).
Tazmanian Devil
Yeah, I know. These "academics" stand on pies in the sky. I got right into
teaching, so I was going to teaching school concurrently, and I just gritted
my teeth and played their silly games, while I learned my chops actually
teaching.
>
> In teaching school all we ever talked about was how to write your own
> lesson plan. Most were completely crazy (like teaching all of
> Newton's laws of motion in one easy 45 minute lesson, complete with
> assessment).
I did pick up some organizational skills, regarding lessons, but if you're
like me, you probably had some peer teaching experience already in the
corporate world. I'm basically teaching Math and Social Studies because the
high school where I teach has no technology program. The class sizes are
small (15 or less) so that's a big part of my success.
Less pay, less stress, more time off.
-
>> I am familiar with schoolteachers who are themselves difficult to
>> "educate." Nothing is more dangerous to a child than self-appointed
>> experts, and many of those schoolteachers consider themselves God's
"New Teacher" <Eds.Do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The self-appointed experts are rarely the teachers in the grade
> schools and high schools, but rather in the "professors" in education
> schools. These are the people with the incredibly stupid ideas.
If prospective teachers in the education schools don't know
how to deal with and to confront "incredibly stupid ideas" then
perhaps they aren't really deserving of becoming teachers. What
are some of those "incredibly stupid ideas" that you could not refute?
>> Merely throwing more money at schoolteachers isn't going to
>> improve educational quality. People will be attracted to schoolteaching
>> when the circumstances of the classroom are improved. In many ways
>> schoolteachers are "over-educated" about their course materials but
>> woefully "under-educated" concerning day-to-day people skills and
>> sound business practices.
> ... I happen to be a teacher. Nothing makes kids put their noses to
> the grinding wheel like the realization that they might flunk and end up
> in summer school or get rejected by their prefered college.
How fortunate it is that you teach in a school district that can
afford to have "summer school" as well as an administrative staff
that is supportive of a teacher's decision to hold a student in the
"summer school" ! Yet that "solution" does not consist of merely
throwing -more- money at schoolteachers. It involves hiring the
summer teaching staff at the same rate.
>> Classroom circumstances can be improved by addressing parental
>> support and involvement with child education and the home settings.
>> Neither of these are a necessary result of merely throwing more money.
> They are not a necessary result of asking a different way either. A
> parent that prefers to watch soap operas instead of minding their kids
> isn't going to change because you've shown them a slide show prepared
> by some education guru. Now, if you made them pay for their kid's
> education (I'm not advocating private schools, but a penalty, if you will,
> for uncooperative parents) I'm sure you'd see an immediate about-face.
Exactly. Nowhere did the fouding fathers anticipate that education
ought to be a public obligation.
> Also, if you took kids' iPods away it would do more good more quickly
> than any long winded strategies.
Exactly. Throwing more money at schoolteachers won't take away iPods.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Philosophy of Entropy
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol2-3/2-3%20resolved/Salthe.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
Fred wrote:
*Fred): "...introduce competition to the educational system. If
parents were given vouchers and could pick schools for their kids..."
(teacher): "Absolutely incorrect. A kid who wants to do good will do
good in
almost anyschool, and vice versa.
The problem with that hypothesis is that there are statistically
significant differences between schools, where there is no reason to
expect that differences between student populations explain school-
level performance differences. I agree that differences in student
motivation strongly influence differences in performance measures.
This is not a defense of the system, however, since institutional
structure strongly influences student motivation.
(Fred): "...the schools would have to perform or else."
(teacher): "How 'bout asking the kids to perform, or else?"
That's the problem: "Or else" what? Compulsory, unpaid labor is
slavery. Schools which assemble their students at gunpoint (truancy,
compulsory attendance, educational neglect laws) too often give to
many students no reason to do what schools require. Policies which
give to individual parents the power to determine for their own
children which institution shall receive the taxpayers' K-12 education
subsidy place control in the hands of people who know their children
best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare. Vouchers
and other forms of parent control produce a better match between each
individual child's interests and abilities, on the one hand, and a
school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other.
New Teacher
> "New Teacher" wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> The problem with that hypothesis is that there are statistically
> significant differences between schools, where there is no reason to
> expect that differences between student populations explain school-
> level performance differences.
Someone once said something about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Statistically, catholic schools outperformed public schools where I
grew up. The catholic schools then trumpeted statistics like "95% of
our students go on to college" and the public schools do worse.
I went to both for my high school years and I can easily see the
discrepancy. Public school had a cross section of the population,
from people prepping themselves for medical school to people prepping
themselves for a life of fixing cars. The second group did not in
anyway interfere with the former. The two groups rarely crossed
paths. But, the presence of the latter group made the school look
statistically worse than the catholic school.
The big thing about the catholic school was that parents don't pay
tuition to catholic school if junior's destined to paint cars for the
rest of his life. I thought the education I received in the public
school was superior to the one at the catholic school, in spite of
whatever statistics one could gather.
Here's a logical fallacy: Basketball players are statistically
taller. Therefore, playing basketball makes you tall. The same
error is commited by people looking only at statistical comparisons
between schools.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that there are two schools,
each in separate but adjacent zip codes, that are "the same". We
start a rumor that one is "better" than the other. Parents with
money move from one area to the other driving up real estate prices
thereby limiting further migration to those with money. But, those
with money are more likely to be those with higher educations and more
likely to instill a sense that education matters. Voila! The
school ends up statistically "better". Had we not started the rumor,
what would be different?
I agree that differences in student
> motivation strongly influence differences in performance measures.
> This is not a defense of the system, however, since institutional
> structure strongly influences student motivation.
>
> (Fred): "...the schools would have to perform or else."
> (teacher): "How 'bout asking the kids to perform, or else?"
>
> That's the problem: "Or else" what? Compulsory, unpaid labor is
> slavery. Schools which assemble their students at gunpoint (truancy,
> compulsory attendance, educational neglect laws) too often give to
> many students no reason to do what schools require.
I have a sense you've never stood in front of a class.
I recently gave a test that most of my kids failed. I can't let
these types of grades stand, so I allow them to correct their mistakes
for half-credit. So, in the hour and a half that they spent racking
their brains they probably learned more than they did weeks prior.
Why? They took the subject seriously when they saw the "F". In
reality most of them won't be failing but the thought does a lot to
motivate them. I could give a test that they all will pass the first
time, but I'm know that they won't come close to rubbing as many brain
cells together.
Also, kids who need you to sign some thing from their coach suddenly
find academic religion.
It works. But it needs to be more widespread. When most of us
were kids, when you flunked, you flunked. And I don't remember that
many kids flunking because we wanted not to. Now the possibility is
so much more remote that no one takes it seriously.
> Policies which
> give to individual parents the power to determine for their own
> children which institution shall receive the taxpayers' K-12 education
> subsidy place control in the hands of people who know their children
> best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare.
"Know their children best"? Like all those folks who collectively
believe their children are above average?
> Vouchers
> and other forms of parent control produce a better match between each
> individual child's interests and abilities, on the one hand, and a
> school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other.
There are probably thousands of Versace wannabees among girls and
sports marketing superstars among boys. They've never done the math
and all think they're going to be on the cover of Time magazine
someday. Their parents agree (everyone's kid is above average, you
know). I'm sure that there are schools that cater to such fantasies
while these same kids can't multiply a number by 10. Thousands of
would-be fashion designers who can't read, and eventually work at
Walmart. Your dreamworld, huh?
Sorry, I don't agree with you at all. ALL kids in the country should
know how to multiply by 10. Giving kids (and their parents) some
fantasy is not the answer.
If you're right, then we don't need to improve education anyway.
It's perfect the way it is. Think about it. Kids are more
interested in iPods and fashion, and they're good at it. Even if
they never go to school they'll all be good at something they're
interested in like putting together an outfit. What the hell do we
need schools for if kids are to learn only what interests them?
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(New Teacher): "A kid who wants to do good will do good in almost
anyschool, and vice versa."
(malcolm): "The problem with that hypothesis is that there are
statistically
significant differences between schools, where there is no reason to
expect that differences between student populations explain school-
level performance differences."
(teacher): "Someone once said something about lies, damn lies, and
statistics. Statistically, catholic schools outperformed public
schools where I grew up. The catholic schools then trumpeted
statistics like "95% of our students go on to college" and the public
schools do worse."
"I went to both for my high school years and I can easily see the
discrepancy. Public school had a cross section of the population, from
people prepping themselves for medical school to people prepping
themselves for a life of fixing cars. The second group did not in
anyway interfere with the former. The two groups rarely crossed
paths. But, the presence of the latter group made the school look
statistically worse than the catholic school."
"The big thing about the catholic school was that parents don't
pay tuition to catholic school if junior's destined to paint cars for
the rest of his life. I thought the education I received in the
public school was superior to the one at the catholic school, in spite
of whatever statistics one could gather."
"Here's a logical fallacy: Basketball players are statistically
taller. Therefore, playing basketball makes you tall. The same error
is commited by people looking only at statistical comparisons between
schools."
That's not the comparison which establishes the superiority of
vouchers over a State (government, generally) monopoly school system.
Abundant empiical evidence indicates that competiton improves school
system performance and children gain when policy makers give parents
options for the use of the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy.
See:...
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
__Comparative Education__, Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.]
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991). This finding should convince countries to
reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the
field of education".
And:...
Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education
Research",___NBER Reporter___, summer, 2003.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
And:...
Angrist, et. al., "Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia", AER
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=737
And:...
Economic study of vouchers in Sweden
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoiceworks/swedenstudy0103.pdf
And:...
School Reform News on Sweden's school voucher policy
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606
And:...
James Tooley on independent schools.
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.educationnext.org/20054/22.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1669110,00.html
And:...
Policy Review on Sp-ed vouchers
http://www.policyreview.org/APR02/andrews.html
I reason axiomatically, here. 1). Most parents love their children and
want their children to outlive them. 2) If you live among people there
are basically three ways to make a living: i) you can beg, ii) you can
steal, iii) you can trade goods and services for other peoples' goods
and services. 3) Most parents accept #2 and prefer 2.iii for their
children. 4) Therefore, most parents want what taxpayers want from any
education system: that children be educated to be contributing members
of society. State school bureaucrats have an interest in enhancing the
revenue stream which flows through the system, and are not as
concerned as are parents for the welfare of individual children.
John Derbyshire,
New English Review, Dec. 2006
"The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists"
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4844&sec_id=4844
Neal McClusky on corruption in schools
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa542.pdf
No Voice,No Exit: The Inefficiency of America's Schools
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText
http://www.ednews.org/articles/3721/1/The-Reality-of-School-Corruption/Page1.html
Discussion deleted...
(Malcolm): "I agree that differences in student motivation strongly
influence differences in performance measures. This is not a defense
of the system, however, since institutional structure strongly
influences student motivation.
(Fred): "...the schools would have to perform or else."
(teacher): "How 'bout asking the kids to perform, or else?"
(malcolm): "That's the problem: "Or else" what? Compulsory, unpaid
labor is
slavery. Schools which assemble their students at gunpoint (truancy,
compulsory attendance, educational neglect laws) too often give to
many students no reason to do what schools require."
(Teacher): "I have a sense you've never stood in front of a class."
I was a teacher for ten years in the Hawaii DOE schools.
(Teacher): "I recently gave a test that most of my kids failed. I
can't let these types of grades stand, so I allow them to correct
their mistakes for half-credit. So, in the hour and a half that they
spent racking their brains they probably learned more than they did
weeks prior. Why? They took the subject seriously when they saw the
"F". In reality most of them won't be failing but the thought does a
lot to motivate them. I could give a test that they all will pass
the first
time, but I'm know that they won't come close to rubbing as many brain
cells together."
"Also, kids who need you to sign some thing from their coach suddenly
find academic religion. It works. But it needs to be more
widespread. When most of us were kids, when you flunked, you
flunked. And I don't remember that many kids flunking because we
wanted not to. Now the possibility is so much more remote that no one
takes it seriously."
"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole
span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks,
new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense
and common decency." --H.L. Mencken
"There is too much education altogether, especially in American
schools. The only way of educating is to be an example--of what to
avoid, if one can't be the other sort." --Albert Einstein--, __The
World As I See It__, p.22 (Citadel Press).
"Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive
measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the
teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter." --
Albert Einstein--, __Ideas And Opinions__, p. 61, (Three Rivers
Press).
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation,
stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and
ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion
and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible
to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were
possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour
continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out
under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.
"Autobiographical Notes," in __Albert Einstein: Philosopher-
Scientist__, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library
of Living Philosophers, Inc. http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html
(malcolm): "Policies which give to individual parents the power to
determine for their own children which institution shall receive the
taxpayers' K-12 education
subsidy place control in the hands of people who know their children
best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare."
(Teacher): "Know their children best"? Like all those folks who
collectively
believe their children are above average?"
Most people are above average in something. School is a rigged
contest, designed by Professors of Education, that is, by people who
are good at school, by people who have spent their entire lives in
school. They believe the highest form of life on Earth is a College
professor and that everyone wants to be an academic. The goals which
schools would have students pursue and the incentives which schools
offer are foreign to many normal children. You can't eat a transcript.
Training an artistically inclined child or a mechanically inclined
child for an academic career using the transcript as an incentive is
like teaching a cat to swim using carrots as the reward. There's a
good reason that 'academic' has become a synonym for 'irrelevant'.
(malcolm): "Vouchers and other forms of parent control produce a
better match between each individual child's interests and abilities,
on the one hand, and a
school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other."
(teacher): "There are probably thousands of Versace wannabees among
girls and
sports marketing superstars among boys. They've never done the math
and all think they're going to be on the cover of Time magazine
someday. Their parents agree (everyone's kid is above average, you
know). I'm sure that there are schools that cater to such fantasies
while these same kids can't multiply a number by 10. Thousands of
would-be fashion designers who can't read, and eventually work at
Walmart. Your dreamworld, huh?"
That's the world which the current system has produced.
(teacher): "Sorry, I don't agree with you at all. ALL kids in the
country should
know how to multiply by 10. Giving kids (and their parents) some
fantasy is not the answer."
I don't see that this is an argument against parent control. If
parents are not competent to select their children's schools, how can
parents, as voters, be competent to select the politicians who will
select school staff and curricula?
(Teacher): "If you're right, then we don't need to improve education
anyway. It's perfect the way it is. Think about it. Kids are more
interested in iPods and fashion, and they're good at it. Even if
they never go to school they'll all be good at something they're
interested in like putting together an outfit. What the hell do we
need schools for if kids are to learn only what interests them?"
What we don't need is a policy which restricte each parent's options
for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools
operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Please read this one page Marvin Minsky comment on school.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html
This article on artificially extended adolescence by Ted Kolderie.
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf
Also by Ted Kolderie
http://www.educationevolving.org/clevel.asp?alevel=a2&blevel=b1
E.G. West, "Education Vouchers in Principle and Practice: A Survey",
The World Bank Research Observer. http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/educate.htm
E.G. West on the history of compulsory attendance.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/pdfs/economics%20of%20compulsion.pdf
Caroline Hoxby's papers on the web.
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers.html
Caroline Hoxby on class size
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/classsize_oct2000.pdf
Caroline Hoxby on sorting in choice programs
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxby_2.pdf
Eric Hanushek on Education markets
http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/research%20observer.pdf
Eric Hanushek on teacher quality
http://www.nctq.org/nctq/research/1112806467874.pdf
Andrew Coulson's massive site. Useful links.
http://www.schoolchoices.org
Coulson/CATO study
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa585.pdf
Karl Bunday's site
http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html
Milton and Rose Friedman's site.
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org
Myron Lieberman's site.
http://www.educationpolicy.org
The Alliance for School Choice
http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/home.aspx
The Education Intelligence Agency
http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm
Home School Legal Defense Association
http://www.hslda.org
http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/
Chubb and Moe
Politics, Markets, And America's Schools (Brookings, 1990)
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/politicsmarketsandamericasschools.htm
C. Eugene Steuerle, et. al
Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services (Brookings, 2000)
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/vouchers.htm
New Teacher
> I reason axiomatically, here. 1). Most parents love their children and
> want their children to outlive them. 2) If you live among people there
> are basically three ways to make a living: i) you can beg, ii) you can
> steal, iii) you can trade goods and services for other peoples' goods
> and services. 3) Most parents accept #2 and prefer 2.iii for their
> children. 4) Therefore, most parents want what taxpayers want from any
> education system: that children be educated to be contributing members
> of society. State school bureaucrats have an interest in enhancing the
> revenue stream which flows through the system, and are not as
> concerned as are parents for the welfare of individual children.
>
This is no different than saying that pediatricians shouldn't be
treating children, but rather parents should be.
> I was a teacher for ten years ....
That long? And the only idea you can come up with is
privatization? That's like an experienced mechanic saying
"My car battery died, so I'm junking the car and calling a limo
service".
>in the Hawaii DOE schools.
Lovely place, Hawaii. I've been to Oahu and Maui. Maui,
especially, was resorts....and poverty.
Came across locals with college degrees who deliver fruit for a
living, or lead cyclists down
Haleakela. BIG reasons to do well in school, especially since
there's nothing else to do
except surf and watch babes on the beach. One of the first things
anyone told me there
was that there's little incentive to succeed academics so education
isn't that great.
But, you suggest that private education will magically inject
motivation into students.
>
> Most people are above average in something.
Precisely. So if your kid is above average in math, but below
average in foreign language
acquisition, what sense is there in sending him to a "better" school,
where he'll fit right
in with the math but bog everyone else down in French? Wouldn't it
be better to do a better
job sorting people in current schools? I have three "regular"
physics classes with a mix
in each -- calculus wizzes mixed in with people who can't solve for
"a" in "F = ma" -- so why
not re-sort the classes of high, middle, and low performers? Why
won't people even consider
this? All the science teachers I know see the value in this, so why
can't other people?
> School is a rigged
> contest, designed by Professors of Education, that is, by people who
> are good at school, by people who have spent their entire lives in
> school. They believe the highest form of life on Earth is a College
> professor and that everyone wants to be an academic.
There's nothing "academic" about education schools. They come out
with goofy ideas that
no one scrutinizes. This is not academia.
School is like a car with a dead battery. You don't need to junk the
car.
> The goals which
> schools would have students pursue and the incentives which schools
> offer are foreign to many normal children.
Math is foreign to most children, until they learn it.
> Training an artistically inclined child or a mechanically inclined
> child for an academic career using the transcript
No one's training anyone for an "academic" career. What are you
talking about?
Whether one is an artist, or a mechanic, it's necessary to be able to
do certain things, like read,
for one, or to be able to calculate the square footage of the room you
are in.
> as an incentive is
> like teaching a cat to swim using carrots as the reward.
What a loaded analogy. How do people train dogs to do something?
With things that dogs
crave, like scratches behind the ears and doggy treats.
>There's a
> good reason that 'academic' has become a synonym for 'irrelevant'.
>
Academic is not irrelevant. Applied and natural science departments
routinely advance
knowledge. As for education departments, they're hardly academics.
> That's the world which the current system has produced.
That's the dead battery the system has produced. It's not a reason
to junk the car.
> I don't see that this is an argument against parent control. If
> parents are not competent to select their children's schools, how can
> parents, as voters, be competent to select the politicians who will
> select school staff and curricula?
The whole idea of selecting "schools" is nuts. If I give you, and
only you, next week's winning lottery
number you'll be rich. If I give EVERYONE the winning number, well,
you figure it out.
The same with schools. If everyone gets to select schools you'll
immediately end up where
you started.
>
> What we don't need is a policy which restricte each parent's options
> for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools
> operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
Well maybe we should wrest control from people who are controlling it
currently instead
of turning education into a free-for-all.
Why not have an association of physics teachers, along with college
PHYSICS faculty, decide what is taught in high schools instead of
education and administration
types? Ditto for other subjects.
How do you expect the average parent to decide? My parents never
went to college, much less took a physics class. How the hell would
they be able to decide what
and how physics is to be taught? Your ideas will turn education into
an elitist fortress
because only those well educated already will be able to make the
right choices for
their kids.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(malcolm): "I reason axiomatically, here. 1). Most parents love their
children and
want their children to outlive them. 2) If you live among people there
are basically three ways to make a living: i) you can beg, ii) you can
steal, iii) you can trade goods and services for other peoples' goods
and services. 3) Most parents accept #2 and prefer 2.iii for their
children. 4) Therefore, most parents want what taxpayers want from any
education system: that children be educated to be contributing members
of society. Stateschoolbureaucrats have an interest in enhancing the
revenue stream which flows through the system, and are not as
concerned as are parents for the welfare of individual children."
(teacher): "This is no different than saying that pediatricians
shouldn't be treating children, but rather parents should be."
I'm saying students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers
would gain from a policy which gives to individual parents the power
to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers'
pre-college education subsidy. In education as in medicine expertise
is important, but it's important that experts not choose the
experts.
(Teacher): "One of the first things anyone told me there (Hawaii) was
that there's little incentive to succeed academics so education isn't
that great.
That's backwards: Hawaii DOE schools are among the worst in the US, in
part because they offer students so little incentive to perform.
(Teacher): "But, you suggest that private education will magically
inject
motivation into students."
There's little magic to it. A wider variety of educational options
would yield a better match between an individual student's interests
and abilities, on the one hand, and the school's curriculum and
methods of instruction, on the other.
(malcolm): "If parents are not competent to select their children's
schools, how can parents, as voters, be competent to select the
politicians who will
selectschool staff and curricula?"
(teacher): "The whole idea of selecting "schools" is nuts. If I give
you, and only you, next week's winning lottery number you'll be rich.
If I give EVERYONE the winning number, well, you figure it out. The
same with schools. If everyone gets to select schools you'll
immediately end up where you started.
Not at all. If your legislature empowers individual parents to
determine for their own children which institution (within limits)
shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy, the NEA/
AFT/AFSCME cartel will lose it's exclusive position in receipt of the
taxpayers' K-12 dedicated revenue stream.
New Teacher
> "New Teacher" wrote:...
> malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
>
>>
> I'm saying students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers
> would gain from a policy which gives to individual parents the power
> to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers'
> pre-college education subsidy. In education as in medicine expertise
> is important, but it's important that experts not choose the
> experts.
>
The thing that baffles me is why you're so obssessed with the idea of
choosing
"institutions". Look for example at the aviation industry. The
aviation industry
has a phenomenal safety record and that's mostly through the
implementation
of rigorous procedures everywhere. If we applied the logic of
education critics to
the problems of aviation safety we'd have one group arguing that
pilots should all
have the "freedom" to choose cruising altitudes as the mood suits them
and another
group claiming that all we need is to allow passengers to choose the
"best" airports.
And planes would still be falling from the sky.
You never addressed the suggestions that I made (and nearly all
science teachers I
know think the same way) and told me why you think they won't work.
> (Teacher): "One of the first things anyone told me there (Hawaii) was
> that there's little incentive to succeed academics so education isn't
> that great.
>
> That's backwards: Hawaii DOE schools are among the worst in the US, in
> part because they offer students so little incentive to perform.
Here we go again. The "school" is supposed to provide incentive.
So in your world,
if I take a bunch of texas good-ole-boys, stick them in ballet school,
watch them "fail",
it's because the school failed to provide "incentive". What
incentive is it supposed to
provide? Loose women who really, really dig good-ole-boys who take
up ballet?
What incentive is a school supposed to provide to a Hawaiian local
whose greatest
ambition is to be a lifeguard, but he's willing to settle for carrying
baggage in a hotel?
Given his circumstances his decision is entirely rational. Are
schools supposed to
give away surfboards?
In recent years there's been a decline in engineering and computer
science enrollment
in colleges. Are you telling me that the schools are somehow failing
to provide "incentive" when apparently no incentive was necessary
about a decade ago?
So the companies shipping these jobs overseas are not the ones
removing the
incentive, it's the engineering department at the local college.
Check.
> Not at all. If your legislature empowers individual parents to
> determine for their own children which institution (within limits)
> shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy, the NEA/
> AFT/AFSCME cartel will lose it's exclusive position in receipt of the
> taxpayers' K-12 dedicated revenue stream.
And then what? Schools competing? This isn't a Ditech
commercial. When Prego
and Ragu compete for the best-tasting sauce it's easy for consumers to
decide, and
the competitors may actually try to make a better tasting sauce.
Competition doesn't
always yield better results (look at Microsoft). A course like
"Forensic science"
may look good to a lot of students and alot of parents, but if the kid
skips biology,
chemistry, or physics to take it, then the kid loses. This is what
competing
schools will do (in addition to shelling money out on advertising)
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(malcolm): "...students, parents, real classroom teachers, and
taxpayers would gain from a policy which gives to individual parents
the power to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the
taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy. In education as in medicine
expertise is important, but it's important that experts not choose the
experts."
(teacher): "The thing that baffles me is why you're so obssessed with
the idea of choosing "institutions". Look for example at the aviation
industry. The aviation industry has a phenomenal safety record and
that's mostly through the
implementation of rigorous procedures everywhere. If we applied the
logic of
education critics to the problems of aviation safety we'd have one
group arguing that pilots should all have the "freedom" to choose
cruising altitudes as the mood suits them and another group claiming
that all we need is to allow passengers to choose the "best" airports.
And planes would still be falling from the sky."
That I don't see. The State itself is a corporation. People do not
become more intelligent, better-informed, or altruistic when they
enter the State's employ. Quite the opposite; guns attract thugs. Why
suppose political processes will outperform markets in expressing the
preferences of the population? People want to survive air travel and
they want their children equipped to make their way through life.
Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a profit and they
don't want to get sued.
(teacher): "You never addressed the suggestions that I made (and
nearly all
science teachers I know think the same way) and told me why you think
they won't work."
Ability grouping? It's a good ides. So is self-paced curricula. The
practical problem with ability grouping, in the current system. is it
produces politically embarassing disparities in racial and gender
representation. The current system will not endorse self-paced
curricula because it does not take 12 years to teach a normal child to
read and compute. School is a make work program for dues-paying
members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, and the cartel has no incentive
to make efficient use of student time.
(malcolm): "Hawaii DOE schools are among the worst in the US, in part
because they offer students so little incentive to perform."
(teacher): "Here we go again. The "school" is supposed to provide
incentive.
So in your world, if I take a bunch of texas good-ole-boys, stick them
in ballet school, watch them "fail", it's because the school failed to
provide "incentive". What incentive is it supposed to provide?
Loose women who really, really dig good-ole-boys who take up ballet?
One strong incentive would be learning something they want to learn.
Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.
"There is too much education altogether, especially in American
schools. The only way of educating is to be an example--of what to
avoid, if one can't be the other sort." --Albert Einstein--, __The
World As I See It__, p.22 (Citadel Press).
"Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive
measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the
teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter." --
Albert Einstein--, __Ideas And Opinions__, p. 61, (Three Rivers
Press).
"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation,
stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and
ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion
and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible
to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were
possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour
continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out
under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly."
"Autobiographical Notes," in __Albert Einstein: Philosopher-
Scientist__, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library
of Living Philosophers, Inc. http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html
"Why do I tell you this little boy's story of medusas, rays, and sea
monsters, nearly sixty years after the fact? Because it illustrates, I
believe, how a naturalist is created. A child comes to the edge of
deep water with a mind prepared for wonder....Hands-on experience at
the critical time, not systematic knowledge, is what counts in the
making of a naturalist. Better to be an untutored savage for a while,
not to know the names or anatomical detail. Better to spend long
stretches of time just searching and dreaming." (E.O. Wilson,
__Naturalist__ p. 11-12).
"Adults forget the depths of languor into which the adolescent mind
descends with ease. They are prone to undervalue the mental growth
that occurs during daydreaming and aimless wandering. When I focused
on the ponds and stream lying before me, I abandoned all sense of
time." (E. O. Wilson, __Naturalist__ p. 86-87).
Discussion deleted...
(Teacher): "In recent years there's been a decline in engineering and
computer science enrollment in colleges. Are you telling me that
the schools are somehow failing to provide "incentive" when apparently
no incentive was necessary about a decade ago? So the companies
shipping these jobs overseas are not the ones removing the incentive,
it's the engineering department at the local college. Check.
Inept, abusive instruction in Math in early years kills students'
appetite for Math. I currently tutor. One kid whom I tutored from 3rd
to 6th grade started work on his Masters' degree last year (January
2006). He turned 18 in January, 2007. Competence is motivating, but
incoherent curricula deprive students of that incentive.
(malcolm): "If your legislature empowers individual parents to
determine for their own children which institution (within limits)
shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy, the NEA/
AFT/AFSCME cartel will lose it's exclusive position in receipt of the
taxpayers' K-12 dedicated revenue stream."
(Teacher): "And then what? Schools competing? This isn't a Ditech
commercial. When Prego and Ragu compete for the best-tasting sauce
it's easy for consumers to decide, and the competitors may actually
try to make a better tasting sauce. Competition doesn't always yield
better results (look at Microsoft)."
What about Microsoft? I don't see any State-monopoly software firm
dominating the operating system market.
(teacher): "A course like "Forensic science" may look good to a lot
of students and a lot of parents, but if the kid skips biology,
chemistry, or physics to take it, then the kid loses. This is what
competing schools will do (in addition to shelling money out on
advertising)"
It's what the curent inept system does.
The argument for competitive markets is the same as the argument for
empirical science. A market is an on-going experiment in using scarce
resources to satisfy consumer wants. A State-monopoly enterprise is
like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded
experimental design.
New Teacher
> That I don't see.
You mean you don't think that if the FAA didn't exist, along with
flight
control centers, approach departure control, air space restrictions,
we'd
do better just by being able to "choose" airports?
Sure, your prefered airport may have 2 fatal crashes per month, while
others would have, say, more. But the current level of safety you
enjoy
would be unimaginable to you.
> The State itself is a corporation.
The State may be a corporation, but at least theoretically it answers
to
citizens. "Real" corporations answer to no one. Look at the number
that are locating overseas.
> People do not
> become more intelligent, better-informed, or altruistic when they
> enter the State's employ.
Nor do they become these things when the boss suddenly is replaced by
a CEO and a bottom line.
>Quite the opposite; guns attract thugs.
Million dollar bonuses buy plenty of guns.
>Why
> suppose political processes will outperform markets in expressing the
> preferences of the population?
Please tell me you've been living under a rock for the last decade.
Then I'll
undestand. Does "Enron" mean anything to you? "Worldcom"? "Bernie
Ebbers"?
Social Security privatization?
>People want to survive air travel and
And most people no squat about aviation.
> they want their children equipped to make their way through life.
> Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a profit and they
> don't want to get sued.
>
When a CEO rakes in more money than most countries in a year, what
does he/she care about the "company" getting sued? The people
making
the decisions get paid 8 figures either way.
> Ability grouping? It's a good ides. So is self-paced curricula.
How is "self-paced" curricula any different from "you're on your own"?
> The
> practical problem with ability grouping, in the current system. is it
Me: "The car will run if you change the battery"
You: "No, under the current incarnation of the battery, the system,
henceforth
known as "the car", will not run. It must be junked, and we must now
rely
on limo service"
> produces politically embarassing disparities in racial and gender
> representation. The current system will not endorse self-paced
> curricula because it does not take 12 years to teach a normal child to
> read and compute. School is a make work program for dues-paying
> members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, and the cartel has no incentive
> to make efficient use of student time.
So all the teachers out there want to do nothing, according to you.
They like
things the way they are. I don't see that from my view point.
> One strong incentive would be learning something they want to learn.
Do you have a dog? See, I'm thinking of starting my own dog
obedience
academy. Except my doggie school will be different. I'm going to
teach
dogs to bark at cars, pee on rugs, chew shoes, and embarrass guests by
inappropriately sniffing them. All the thing Fido actually wants to
learn.
I observed at a school that prides itself on teaching kids what they
want to
learn. The "projects" these kids came up with resemble things kids
did
when they skipped school and played "hooky". Only now, the school
pretends it's "educating" them. Here are the types of things kids
"chose"
to learn:
Wrestling (The kind that Andre the Giant was into, the WWF kind)
Playing cards
Shooting pool
Getting into some Japanese cartoon
Belly dancing
Playing the penny whistle
Cutting hair
Eating up some radical group's lit ("Death to Israel!")
Changing the brakes on his dad's car (probably the most worthwhile
project I saw)
What would education look like in Hawaii?
Surfing
Waiting on tables
Pumping iron
bikini basics
Lei making
> Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.
Ah, an Ayn Rand disciple.
>
> Inept, abusive instruction in Math in early years kills students'
> appetite for Math. I currently tutor. One kid whom I tutored from 3rd
> to 6th grade started work on his Masters' degree last year (January
> 2006). He turned 18 in January, 2007. Competence is motivating, but
> incoherent curricula deprive students of that incentive.
And from this example you jump to the conclusion that a free-for-all
is what we need.
> What about Microsoft? I don't see any State-monopoly software firm
> dominating the operating system market.
Microsoft is what we got thanks to the glories of the marketplace.
When I was a programmer about a decade ago it was a big fad to
send someone some stupid email that would take over your machine
and show you a Santa that mooned you, or some stupid thing like
that. Since I worked on a Unix box those pranks never worked on
me, but people -- not CS types, secretaries and business types --
thought *I* had the primitive system. They just couldn't see that
what they thought was fun was the foundation for countless security
holes. I'm sure that folks at microsoft, even Gates himself, were
smart enough to know that this was just piss-poor design. They,
however, chose marketing. You're now paying for it.
It's apparently an article of faith with you that no government agency
can
ever do anything correctly. A counterexample is the VA. Read what
Paul Krugman has to say about their efficiency with respect to medical
records and mistakes. Many private places don't have medical records
even though they pay their executives seven figures.
>
> (teacher): "A course like "Forensic science" may look good to a lot
> of students and a lot of parents, but if the kid skips biology,
> chemistry, or physics to take it, then the kid loses. This is what
> competing schools will do (in addition to shelling money out on
> advertising)"
>
> It's what the curent inept system does.
And it's what your "system" will do even more when schools "compete".
> The argument for competitive markets is the same as the argument for
> empirical science.
You should go advertising.
> A market is an on-going experiment in using scarce
> resources to satisfy consumer wants.
Here's an experiment: Pay someone 50 million to "succeed". Pay 49
million to
fail.
> A State-monopoly enterprise is
> like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded
> experimental design.
Tell that to the VA.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
>
> Patrick J. Buchanan
>
> Dumbing-Down of America
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
> Taxpayers are being lied to and swindled by the education industry,
> which has failed them, failed America and flunked its assignment-and
> should be expelled for cheating.
Pat doesn't understand human nature. Life in the US is easy, and we
have become soft. There is little incentive to become educated, and at
least one major political party, the Republicans, caters to an anti-
education, anti-science constituency. The Democrats cater to several
demographic groups who have little love for learning, and the media,
television, radio, movies, newspapers, internet, provide infotainment
at best, with few exceptions. The president of the US is a poor
example, exhibiting no love of learning, language, rhetoric, science
or any of the arts. Our culture does very little to encourage kids to
improve their minds, so where does Pat lay the blame? At the feet of
those most powerless to influence education, the education
establishment.
Teachers are not allowed to discipline children, not allowed to remove
disruptive influences from the classroom, forced to dumb down
instruction and channel all efforts into lifeless memorization of
facts with the goal of teaching to the tests by whose scores they will
be judged. Is it any wonder that good teachers are quitting in
droves?
One of my good friends, and a gifted mathematics teacher, left the
profession because the NCLB act forced him (through the agent of the
school administration) to teach rote memorization of multiplication
tables so that the school would not be decommissioned. He had
previously had great success teaching inner city middle schoolers
mathematics by his own methods, concentrating on story problems,
geometry and other interest building devices. He taught real
mathematics -- real world mathematical problem solving, and was forced
to teach his kids to memorize what pushing buttons on a calculator
displayed.
Teaching to the test is a recipe for failure. When creative and
successful teachers are forced out, students are left with boring,
uninspiring instruction, and without the ability to discipline,
students cannot be forced to participate. In extremely poor countries,
desperation is a strong motivator and children hunger for education...
they will do anything to escape their poverty. What are the motivating
forces here?
Baldin Lee Pramer
toto
wrote:
>I observed at a school that prides itself on teaching kids what they
>want to learn. The "projects" these kids came up with resemble
>things kids did when they skipped school and played "hooky". Only
>now, the school pretends it's "educating" them. Here are the types
>of things kids "chose" to learn:
>
>Wrestling (The kind that Andre the Giant was into, the WWF kind)
>Playing cards
>Shooting pool
>Getting into some Japanese cartoon
>Belly dancing
>Playing the penny whistle
>Cutting hair
>Eating up some radical group's lit ("Death to Israel!")
>Changing the brakes on his dad's car (probably the most worthwhile
>project I saw)
There is a middle ground between activities that adult society does
not consider worthwhile and activities that are worthwhile, but that
kids really want to do.
What do you do when you want to learn something? You might read
a few books, take a class, look it up on the internet, watch someone
who already knows, ask questions, etc. You might find, after you do
some initial research, that you aren't really interested. Or you might
branch off into another area. Or you might pursue the interest until
you become an expert. All those choices are acceptable for adults.
To quote the old saying, "Children are people, too." The way they
learn is no different than the way we learn. Children are naturally
motivated to learn. Without any formal instruction at all (in most
cases), they learn to walk and talk--both pretty amazing
accomplishments. Children don't lose their curiosity and thirst for
learning unless we forcefeed them.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/184566,CST-NWS-unskul24.article
"The hardest thing for most people ... is that you have to trust that
the child will learn," said Mary Griffith, author of The Unschooling
Handbook: How to Use the Whole World As Your Child's Classroom.
"For those of us who had late readers, it was really hard. A lot of
unschooled kids don't learn to read when they are 6. Sometimes
waiting until they are 7, 8 or 9 is quite common," said Griffith.
"But once they learn to read, they read anything and everything."
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(malcolm): "That I don't see."
(teacher): "You mean you don't think that if the FAA didn't exist,
along with flight control centers, approach departure control, air
space restrictions, we'd do better just by being able to "choose"
airports? Sure, your prefered airport may have 2 fatal crashes per
month, while others would have, say, more. But the current level of
safety you enjoy would be unimaginable to you."
This I doubt. It's wandering pretty far from the current topic, but
it's not hard to imagine air carriers competing within an agreed
framework of designated air corridors and fligt schedules. In any
case, (by analogy with school) the options include more than a
completely unregulated market and a State-monopoly airline.
(malcolm): "The State itself is a corporation."
(teacher): "The State may be a corporation, but at least theoretically
it answers
to citizens. "Real" corporations answer to no one. Look at the
number that are locating overseas."
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice...
Whether an organization "answers" to anyone is a question of the
quantity and quality of feedback which decision-makers in the
organization receive. Competitive markets provide feedback through
prices and revenues.
(malcolm): "People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, or
altruistic when they enter the State's employ.
(teacher): "Nor do they become these things when the boss suddenly is
replaced by a CEO and a bottom line."
True. There's no reason to suppose that political actors care more for
your welfare than does the grocery clerk from whom you buy the
ingredients for tonight's dinner.
(malcolm): "Why suppose political processes will outperform markets in
expressing the preferences of the population?"
(teacher): "Please tell me you've been living under a rock for the
last decade. Then I'll undestand. Does "Enron" mean anything to
you? "Worldcom"? "Bernie
Ebbers"? Social Security privatization?
Please tell me you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years,
and read no 19th and 20th century History. Then I'll understand.
Stalin? Hitler? Mugabe? The Trail of Tears? The Tuskege experiment?
The Ukraine famine? The Great Leap Foreward (famine).
Social Security is a pretty good example of government failure. I
support privatization and consider Social Security nconstitutional.
*(malcolm): "People want to survive air travel and..."
(teacher): "And most people no squat about aviation."
Keep it civil,
Individual customers do not have to know all about the product for
competition to work. Consider the auto market? Anyone drive a Yugo,
Lada, Wartburg, or Zil? Socialist State-monopoly car makers made
crummy cars.
(malcolm): "...they want their children equipped to make their way
through life. Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a
profit and they don't want to get sued."
(teacher): "When a CEO rakes in more money than most countries in a
year, what does he/she care about the "company" getting sued? The
people making
the decisions get paid 8 figures either way."
Corporate executives respond to incentives. Lawsuits reduce corporate
revenues. Shareholders hire CEOs.
(malcolm): "Ability grouping? It's a good ides. So is self-paced
curricula."
(teacher): "How is "self-paced" curricula any different from "you're
on your own"?
The difference between self-paced curricula and standard classroom
methods is the difference between 55 mph and the Autobahn. It's the
difference between a swarm of individual runners in a marathon and a
"centipede" where runners tie themselves together and run as a team.
Neither is "you're on your own" as to the --direction-- of travel.
(malcolm): "The practical problem with ability grouping, in the
current system. is it produces politically embarassing disparities in
racial and gender representation. The current system will not endorse
self-paced curricula because it does not take 12 years to teach a
normal child to read and compute. School is a make work program for
dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, and the cartel has
no incentive to make efficient use of student time."
(teacher): "So all the teachers out there want to do nothing,
according to you. They like things the way they are. I don't see
that from my view point."
Teachers, especially government-employed teachers, tend to be risk-
averse.
(malcolm): "One strong incentive would be learning something they want
to learn."
(teacher): "Do you have a dog? See, I'm thinking of starting my own
dog
obedience academy. Except my doggie school will be different. I'm
going to
teach dogs to bark at cars, pee on rugs, chew shoes, and embarrass
guests by
inappropriately sniffing them. All the thing Fido actually wants to
learn."
"There is too much education altogether, especially in American
schools. The only way of educating is to be an example--of what to
avoid, if one can't be the other sort." --Albert Einstein--, __The
World As I See It__, p.22 (Citadel Press).
"Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive
measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the
teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter." --
Albert Einstein--, __Ideas And Opinions__, p. 61, (Three Rivers
Press).
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation,
stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and
ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion
and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible
to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were
possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour
continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out
under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.
"Autobiographical Notes," in __Albert Einstein: Philosopher-
Scientist__, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library
of Living Philosophers, Inc. http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html
(malcolm): "Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery."
(teacher): "Ah, an Ayn Rand disciple."
Nope. Jiust a human with a dictionary. What's "teacher's" definition
of slavery?
(malcolm): "Inept, abusive instruction in Math in early years kills
students'
appetite for Math. I currently tutor. One kid whom I tutored from 3rd
to 6th grade started work on his Masters' degree last year (January
2006). He turned 18 in January, 2007. Competence is motivating, but
incoherent curricula deprive students of that incentive."
(teacher): "And from this example you jump to the conclusion that a
free-for-all
is what we need."
I have concluded that State-monopoly enterprises deliver wretched
performance at high cost.
(teacher): "A course like "Forensic science" may look good to a lot
of students and a lot of parents, but if the kid skips biology,
chemistry, or physics to take it, then the kid loses. This is what
competing schools will do (in addition to shelling money out on
advertising)"
(malcolm): "It's what the curent inept system does."
(teacher): "And it's what your "system" will do even more when schools
"compete".
The evidence is against this:..
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
__Comparative Education__, Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.]
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other
contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987;
Jiminez, et. al, 1991). This finding should convince countries to
reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the
field of education".
(malcolm): "The argument for competitive markets is the same as the
argument for empirical science. A market is an on-going experiment in
using scarce
resources to satisfy consumer wants."
(teacher): "Here's an experiment: Pay someone 50 million to
"succeed". Pay 49 million to fail."
What's your point?
(malcolm): "A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one
treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design."
(teacher): "Tell that to the VA."
Given the recent bad press which the VA has received, seems to me
you're making my point here.
The charts below summarize ten years' worth of juvenile arrest data,
by month. During this time, most Hawaii schools operated on a
September-June schedule. Go [URL="http://new.photos.yahoo.com/
malcolmkirkpatrick/album/576460762329410123#page1"]here[/URL]. If that
link doesn't work, go [URL="http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/
malcolmkirkpatrick/detail?.dir=735dscd&.dnm=e37bscd.jpg&.src=ph"]here[/
URL].
New Teacher
> On 20 Mar 2007 12:08:05 -0700, "New Teacher" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> There is a middle ground between activities that adult society does
> not consider worthwhile and activities that are worthwhile, but that
> kids really want to do.
You're missing the point. One learns through both formal and
informal education. Since one is likely to learn things that one
finds interesting informally -- like playing poker -- what is the
point of "teaching" things like this in a formal setting if there are
more important things to learn?
It's always seemed rather obvious to me that the limited resource
called "formal education" should be reserved to teach things that a
person will not, or cannot, learn independently, and not squandered on
things people will learn anyway.
Reading comes to mind. Math comes mind. Fashion does not. Neither
does poker.
In the school I mentioned, all the school did was say "Find something
you're interested in learning, learn it, and we'll pretend we're
really brilliant at having taught these things to you."
toto
wrote:
>It's always seemed rather obvious to me that the limited resource
>called "formal education" should be reserved to teach things that a
>person will not, or cannot, learn independently, and not squandered on
>things people will learn anyway.
>
>Reading comes to mind. Math comes mind. Fashion does not. Neither
>does poker.
Interesting since I taught myself to read well before school. My
daughter did also. It was something we wanted to do and learned
without teacher help.
As for math, I guess that depends on what you mean in terms of
learning independently. While I benefited from some teaching, my son
was a math *nut* and figured out lots of things without teacher help.
He often saw something once in a book and got the concept without much
difficulty.
As for fashion, I consider that I really still have not learned much
about it because I am not interested. My clothing is comfortable and
clean, not fashionable. I had very little interest in card games and
never learned to play poker.
EDS Sucks
>
>This I doubt. It's wandering pretty far from the current topic, but
>it's not hard to imagine air carriers competing within an agreed
>framework of designated air corridors and fligt schedules. In any
>case, (by analogy with school) the options include more than a
>completely unregulated market and a State-monopoly airline.
But, according to you (by analogy with school) the system of
government-employed flight controllers and flight centers is
hopelessly flawed, and could never result in the surprisingly high
level of flying safety we enjoy now. We MUST dismantle it and replace
it with some private system.
The whole point of your argument so far is insisting that public
education cannot be fixed and is inherently bad.
>(malcolm): "Why suppose political processes will outperform markets in
>expressing the preferences of the population?"
>(teacher): "Please tell me you've been living under a rock for the
>last decade. Then I'll undestand. Does "Enron" mean anything to
>you? "Worldcom"? "Bernie
>Ebbers"? Social Security privatization?
>
>Please tell me you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years,
>and read no 19th and 20th century History. Then I'll understand.
>Stalin? Hitler? Mugabe? The Trail of Tears? The Tuskege experiment?
>The Ukraine famine? The Great Leap Foreward (famine).
Perhaps it's escaped your attention, but most of the atrocities that
you've mentioned occurred in foreign countries with entirely different
cultural histories and not directly linked to privatization/
deregulation.
Everything I mentioned IS directly linked to the privatization/
deregulation fanaticism that's occured since Ronald "I'm not a
thinking man, but it seems to me I've played one in a movie once"
Reagan.
All I've said is that systemic changes to the current system can yield
substantial improvements. You suggest that public education
invariably leads to Gulags. Gee, how likely is that?
You suggest that privatizing yet another function will yield better
results. Recent history suggests you're wrong.
>Social Security is a pretty good example of government failure. I
How's it a failure? SS overhead costs are about 4%. Chile
privatized its retirement system and retirees now receive less than
they would have under the old system. The only winners are financial
services companies -- exactly the people crusading for it in this
country.
Americans spend a bundle for medical care, yet receive less for it
than people in other countries.
Why think that privatizing education will yield better results?
>support privatization and consider Social Security nconstitutional.
First: Unless you're one of the nine folks on the Supreme Court this
isn't your call.
Second: Constitutions don't exist as ends in and of themselves, but
to serve the citizens of the nation. That's why the constitution
contains provisions for amendment.
>*(malcolm): "People want to survive air travel and..."
>(teacher): "And most people no squat about aviation."
>
>Keep it civil,
I wasn't talking about you. I meant it literally. Most people don't
know enough to make informed decisions, and if they had to depend on
advertising for their decisions they would likely make the wrong
decisioins.
>Individual customers do not have to know all about the product for
>competition to work.
Aviation, as an example, has an excellent safety record because it has
focused on error-reduction at the systemic level. In contrast, until
recently, medicine has relied on "heroic" measures to do the same.
Meaning that we simply "expect" and "demand" that doctors and nurses
be infallible and simply not screw up.
A certain nurse once responded to a code and ran to grab a particular
solution of potasium from the supply room. The supply room was
stocked with two different concentrations of potassium -- used for two
completely different purposes -- yet stored in adjacent bins in
similar containers. She chose the wrong one.
The response of most people is to fire the nurse. Yet replacing her
with someone else does not guarantee that she'll be immune to human
fallibility. A systemic approach, like re-vamping storage
procedures, would lessen the likelyhood of any accident in the first
place. Yet such a solution is not obvious to average people who can
use this knowledge when shopping for better medical establishments.
"Individual customers do not have to know all about the product for
competition to work" is just a recipe for more fired nurses and
continuing medical error.
Schools aren't that much different.
> Conider the auto market? Anyone drive a Yugo,
>Lada, Wartburg, or Zil? Socialist State-monopoly car makers made
>crummy cars.
Yet they often made stellar fighter planes and assault rifles. One of
the reasons that the soviet state did not produce great consumer
products is because that was not their focus.
Anyway, choosing a "better" car (or a "better" brand of cola) is far
easier than choosing an airport with better procedures -- or a better
education.
>(malcolm): "...they want their children equipped to make their way
>through life. Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a
>profit and they don't want to get sued."
>(teacher): "When a CEO rakes in more money than most countries in a
>year, what does he/she care about the "company" getting sued? The
>people making
>the decisions get paid 8 figures either way."
>
>Corporate executives respond to incentives.
Automakers estimated the amount they'd have to pay out in lawsuits vs.
the cost they'd incur fixing a problem that would lead to more dead
Americans. They chose dead Americans because they figured it'd be
cheaper.
>Lawsuits reduce corporate revenues.
These dis-incentives are slowly being dismantled. Besides, if the
decision-makers walk away with millions either way, they will do what
comes more easily.
>Shareholders hire CEOs.
Citizens vote for school boards.
>The difference between self-paced curricula and standard classroom
>methods is the difference between 55 mph and the Autobahn. It's the
>difference between a swarm of individual runners in a marathon and a
>"centipede" where runners tie themselves together and run as a team.
>Neither is "you're on your own" as to the --direction-- of travel.
Of course, it's now completely clear. Now how do you plan on
actually implementing a scheme like this in reality? Do we give self-
paced textbooks to kids and cut them loose? Oh wait. You said no to
that. So what do we do? Hire personal tutors for each and every
child in the country? Who, apart from the wealthy, could afford
this? I already have kids who work full time to support their
families (this is not to say that their parent(s) don't work), so how
would they swing this?
>
>(malcolm): "The practical problem with ability grouping, in the
>current system. is it produces politically embarassing disparities in
>racial and gender representation. The current system will not endorse
>self-paced curricula because it does not take 12 years to teach a
>normal child to read and compute. School is a make work program for
>dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, and the cartel has
>no incentive to make efficient use of student time."
>(teacher): "So all the teachers out there want to do nothing,
>according to you. They like things the way they are. I don't see
>that from my view point."
>
>Teachers, especially government-employed teachers, tend to be risk-
>averse.
And when they go to work for a private firm they suddenly undergo a
complete metamorphosis? This is the same neoconservative dogma that's
making an even bigger disaster in Iraq. According to folks from your
school of thought, an Army Ranger, recently trained and in top shape,
is inferior to a former Ranger, 20 lbs heavier and out of training for
at least a decade, because the former is -- drum roll -- a government
employee. So the Bush administration shells out money to private
firms to hire washed up soldiers and arm them, and avoids properly
arming and protecting current military personel.
Yeah, let's do this with education too.
>Nope. Jiust a human with a dictionary. What's "teacher's" definition
>of slavery?
Did you know I was an international financier? Just found that out
myself. You see, I once lent a Canuck some change for a vending
machine.
I worked with a total of about five folks who "owned their own
business" on the side. They had only one client -- themselves -- and
their only real function was saving Amway Motivational Organizations
an advertising budget by running around and trying to talk everyone
into "the business". They too, pointed to the dictionary definition
of "businessman" while everyone else just thought "sucker".
So, in conclusion Cmdr. Data, in this week's episode you've learned
that strict adherance to vocabulary definitions contained in our
databases will not help you navigate the subtleties of the human
experience.
>(malcolm): "The argument for competitive markets is the same as the
>argument for empirical science. A market is an on-going experiment in
>using scarce
>resources to satisfy consumer wants."
>(teacher): "Here's an experiment: Pay someone 50 million to
>"succeed". Pay 49 million to fail."
>
>What's your point?
>
The point is when you pay someone obscene amounts of money you remove
any incentive to succeed. "Success" requires much more effort and
ingenuity and often aren't worth the extra million. This is where
privatization/deregulation efforts have led.
The only people who are motivated to do a good job are those that need
a job NEXT year in addition to this year.
>(malcolm): "A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one
>treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design."
>(teacher): "Tell that to the VA."
>
>Given the recent bad press which the VA has received, seems to me
>you're making my point here.
Don't pop that champagne cork just yet.
Walter Reed is going down the tubes because neoconservatives fanatics
are following through with their "starve the beast" strategy. This
hardly refutes the idea that the "beast" was never viable or healthy
in the past.
My father, nearly ninety, receives his care exclusively at the local
VA. He recently (about a month ago) had a hip replacement, and a few
years ago underwent major cancer surgery. In both instances his care
was excellent. The routine care has been excellent as well. Since
English is not his first language, I've accompanied him on some of his
appointments and I've seen firsthand how efficient their record-
keeping and pharmacy is. All relevant data is literally at the
physicians' fingertips. I don't see that kind of thing when I go to
the doctor, just a lot of paper floating about.
My wife happens to be a physician. She did a portion of her
residency at the VA and has very positive things to say about it. The
nursing staff is more professional and cooperative than in other
hospitals, and there's the matter of the record keeping. The VA is
spartan and utilitarian, and the patients there tend to have chronic
illnesses making the place more depressing than some other hospitals,
but this is hardly a reflection on the professionalism of the staff or
the efficiency of the system. The VA, incidentally, underwent an
overhaul about a decade and, if memory serves, hired someone from the
aviation world to lead it.
After residency, my wife worked for a "non-government" organization.
They cried poverty when it came to medical record keeping, dictation
software, and diagnostic tests -- as they paid the top dog 8 figures
and spent money on advertising to make everyone BELIEVE they had their
ducks in a row.
EDS Sucks
>>It's always seemed rather obvious to me that the limited resource
>>called "formal education" should be reserved to teach things that a
>>person will not, or cannot, learn independently, and not squandered on
>>things people will learn anyway.
>>Reading comes to mind. Math comes mind. Fashion does not. Neither
>>does poker.
>Interesting since I taught myself to read well before school. My
>daughter did also. It was something we wanted to do and learned
>without teacher help.
>As for math, I guess that depends on what you mean in terms of
>learning independently. While I benefited from some teaching, my son
>was a math *nut* and figured out lots of things without teacher help.
>He often saw something once in a book and got the concept without much
>difficulty.
>As for fashion, I consider that I really still have not learned much
>about it because I am not interested. My clothing is comfortable and
>clean, not fashionable. I had very little interest in card games and
>never learned to play poker.
I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
that do not is in dispute.
Everyone seems to be worried about the state of education. We have
kids who can't multiply by powers of ten, can't read at their age
level, can't explain why seasons change, and can't locate Canada on a
map. Yet these same kids are well-versed in the the love life of
Britney Spears, the whereabout of Christina Aguilera's body piercings,
and the lyrics to the recordings of Fifty Cent. The proposals to fix
this situation range from firing "bad" teachers to the proposal made
by the poster to whom I was responding -- namely letting students
choose the subjects they happened to be interested in. Yet if we let
them choose what they're interested in they'll become experts in, you
guessed it -- the love life of Britney Spears, the whereabout of
Christina Aguilera's body piercings, and the lyrics to the recordings
of Fifty Cent. The example I gave illustrates this point well: few
of the kids at the school I mentioned chose projects that were non-
frivolous.
toto
wrote:
>I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
>kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
>to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
>that do not is in dispute.
Actually, my point is that most children can be interested in things
like learning to read and that often it is school and the way they are
taught that drives that love of learning out of them.
Note that we would never think of teaching children to walk or talk in
the way we teach them to read. Honestly, I think most kids want to
learn to read and do math when it is related to their life. When we
don't take advantage of their natural curiosity and their interests
and bore them to death with our drills and repetition, we drive out
any interest. Kids who don't want to learn when they enter school are
a rarity, ime.
EDS Sucks
> On 25 Mar 2007 18:38:48 -0700, "EDS Sucks" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
> >kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
> >to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
> >that do not is in dispute.
>
> Actually, my point is that most children can be interested in things
> like learning to read
A lot of children may want to learn to read, and do, but they don't
necessarily use this new found skill to then read what we want them to
read. Many use it to read teen gossip magazines and junk on
MySpace.com.
Don't confuse learning to read with reading at an advanced level, or
reading anything that isn't trash.
> and that often it is school and the way they are
> taught that drives that love of learning out of them.
Do you have evidence that it is school that drives learning out of
them? I see kids who read what they want to read, so school didn't
drive the desire to read away. I think kids have many more
distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods -- as well as more choices
that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
If we have so much power to "drive" a "love" out of someone, how come
no one has found a way to drive the love of MySpace.com out of
students? How come the Soviet state wasn't able to drive the
religion out of its population after 7 decades of trying?
> Note that we would never think of teaching children to walk or talk in
> the way we teach them to read.
Poor comparison. Every civilization in human history has, or has
had, a SPOKEN language. In every civilization in human history
people have walked. Written language (as well as science and
mathematics) have by no means been ubiquitous. People didn't pick it
up naturally or out of curiosity (except for a small minority). Many
civilizations lasted for centuries (at least) with no notion of
writing anything down. So reading/writing is by no means as
"natural" to humans as walking/talking.
> Honestly, I think most kids want to
> learn to read and do math when it is related to their life.
I don't think this is true at all. My mother-in-law grew up poor
and got constantly in trouble for reading because her mother was
widowed and chores needed to be done. Yet the love wasn't driven out
of her. Her husband is the opposite. Loathes reading. You can't
beat it INTO him. The kids are split down the middle. My sister-in-
law ridicules the idea of people reading for pleasure while my brother-
in-law enjoys it.
I think it's far more nature than nurture. Me? Both my parents
read, but neither is much for fiction. Ditto for me. No one every
tried to beat the love of fiction out of me. I just don't care for it
much.
And again, "related to their life". What does this mean? For many
that I see, who Britney Spears is current dating is "related to their
life". You seem to have this notion that there are all these kids
out there who are thinking "Gee, I really wish I could calculate the
maximum efficiency of a diesel engine because that's what I plan to
buy someday" and "I really want to understand how the Federal Reserve
works. It relates to my life and it's so much more interesting than
MySpace.com". Some might, but by no means a majority.
> When we
> don't take advantage of their natural curiosity and their interests
> and bore them to death with our drills and repetition,
Are you a teacher? It's often the repetitive drills that get many of
them going more than any sort of conceptual connection to something
they may be interested in. Sometimes when I think that some of them
might be interested in learning, for example, what the big deal is
with "hemi" engines all I get is stares of "I really don't give a
shit".
> we drive out
> any interest.
Speculation. If this was true, then all people who never set foot in
a school would be bursting with curiosity.
> Kids who don't want to learn when they enter school are
> a rarity, ime.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that school drove it out of them. All these
kids still "want to learn", but not anything relevant. In the
school I mentioned, apparently someone "wanted to learn" to wrestle
the WWF way. Someone "wanted to learn" to belly dance. Someone
"wanted to learn" something about some Japanese cartoon. Someone
"wanted to learn" to play cards, etc. The particular school declares
success, but at some point, when these kids are on the job or in
college, they are declared non-successes because they have failed to
learn something PARTICULAR, not because they have failed to learn
EVERYTHING.
Just because a five-year old willingly wants to learn to read some
fairy tale you hold in front of him doesn't mean he will naturally
want to read the chemistry book you hold in front of him 10 years
later. Remember, at age five, you're happy to have him reading
whatever, just to read. And he's curious, even about bathroom habits
that embarrass you. You can't expect him to have the same level of
curiosity about EVERYTHING (even bathroom habits) as a teenager.
Now, you're no longer willing to have him read anything, just to read,
you want him to get of MySpace and read his chemistry.
How did kids apparently manage to learn more (apparently) in the
past? Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
to learn no less than what kids now learn.
Not that I'm advocating the nuns ways, not by a long shot, but I don't
think making everything entertainment is the answer.
I think kids these days have far too many things going on in their
lives, and far too many options to choose from. And many people just
make the problem worse by adding even more options.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 26, 3:21 pm, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2007 18:38:48 -0700, "EDS Sucks" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
>> >kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
>> >to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
>> >that do not is in dispute.
>>
>> Actually, my point is that most children can be interested in things
>> like learning to read
>
>A lot of children may want to learn to read, and do, but they don't
>necessarily use this new found skill to then read what we want them to
>read.
>Many use it to read teen gossip magazines and junk on MySpace.com.
And what is wrong with that?
>Don't confuse learning to read with reading at an advanced level, or
>reading anything that isn't trash.
So? They probably think that what you like to read is trash, too.
>> and that often it is school and the way they are
>> taught that drives that love of learning out of them.
>
>Do you have evidence that it is school that drives learning out of
>them? I see kids who read what they want to read, so school didn't
>drive the desire to read away.
I think that school is indeed a factor, though not as direct as toto
alleges. Kids don't like "work" as contrasted with "play", and that
which they are told to do by authority figures is classified as
"work". Alas, it takes discipline to become skilled in most things,
and while some can develop self-discipline on their own, most require
it to be imposed by above.
Kids love to learn, but they love to learn what they are interested in
learning NOW, which is seldom what adults want to teach them NOW.
People are, in general, lazy. When something starts to get difficult,
a few who are interested will work harder to get past the difficulty,
but the rest would rather turn to something else that is easier and
more pleasurable.
Another factor is that school provides insufficient opportunities for
kids to burn off energy. Recess and lunch breaks have gotten shorter
since I was a kid, and what kids are allowed to do during breaks has
decreased (in the middle school my son attended, kids weren't allowed
outside on breaks - the fields were for PE classes).
Finally and most important, puberty (and the opposite sex) tends to
distract kids from learning at about the same time when they need to
assume a good deal of self-discipline in order to meet the demands of
teachers, while at the same time prompting kids hormonally into
rebellion against parental authority as they start to pull away into
independent adulthood.
In many cases, our methods of teaching are too much like our methods
of parenting, and therefore prompt the same kinds of reactions.
>I think kids have many more distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods
Maybe we need to make them tools for learning instead of distractions.
>-- as well as more choices
>that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
What is wrong with those choices? People DO make money in those
fields. I would have no problem with them, but the teaching should be
as demanding as physics class, because the professional world will be
that demanding.
>Just because a five-year old willingly wants to learn to read some
>fairy tale you hold in front of him doesn't mean he will naturally
>want to read the chemistry book you hold in front of him 10 years
>later.
So he doesn't learn history, and learns fashion marketing instead.
>Remember, at age five, you're happy to have him reading
>whatever, just to read.
Maybe we should be just as happy when they are 12, and they will keep
reading.
>How did kids apparently manage to learn more (apparently) in the
>past?
They didn't. Expectations were lower, and most kids failed to meet
those expectations as well.
You mention chemistry. What percentage of kids 100 years ago ever SAW
a chemistry book, much less were expected to study it for a year. The
answer is that less than 10% of kids even went to high school, and
chemistry wasn't a required high school class.
>Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
>qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
>any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
>never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
>to learn no less than what kids now learn.
I think that is where you are wrong. I think the typical high school
graduate probably has learned 50-100% more than one learned a half
century ago. But it is different stuff, and we notice what they
haven't learned, and not what they have learned that we didn't know
(which is a lot more than Britney's boyfriends). All those kids who
maneuver Myspace with ease - how many of their grandparents are
comfortable doing so?
We *expect* them to learn a lot more, because there is so much more to
learn. Science doubles its knowledge every generation. Even if the
world were not getting more complex, there is 30% more US history to
learn than there was 50 years ago, simply because the US has been
around 30% longer (and the history is far more complex than what we
expect them to know about the 18th century).
The kids know a lot more, but in teaching them more about more fields,
it becomes harder to see when they have learned something in greater
depth.
>I think kids these days have far too many things going on in their
>lives, and far too many options to choose from. And many people just
>make the problem worse by adding even more options.
In other words we are treating kids as individuals. What is wrong
with that (other than cost)? We don't need 5 million more identical
cogs coming out of our high schools every year.
lojbab
toto
wrote:
>How did kids apparently manage to learn more (apparently) in the
>past? Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
>qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
>any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
>never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
>to learn no less than what kids now learn.
>
I had nuns for my first year of school and when the nun hit my hand
with a ruler I took off and ran home. She did this because I was
writing my name on the flyleaf of the book which we had bought and
which needed to be labelled. She never did it again since my dad went
up and talked to her *and* I did not return to Catholic school after
that year. I went to public school where such things were not
countenanced for 2nd grade.
I had wanted to go to school and went early because the nuns said they
would accept me despite the fact that my dad did not register me on
time. I was already reading, writing and doing simple arithmetic
before I went to school.
School was, for me, a place to socialize with friends, not to learn
since most of what they taught with drills were boring. I finished my
work early, read my choice of books behind my papers and tried not to
get caught being *rude* to the teachers.
>Not that I'm advocating the nuns ways, not by a long shot, but I don't
>think making everything entertainment is the answer.
I don't think *entertainment* is the answer. I do think that using
the students real interests to scaffold them to a higher level of
learning about various subjects is the answer.
As for my teaching, I have taught many different ages. The best model
for teaching is to observe the children and what they play and then
use the things they are playing to teach them (this is especially true
in the early grades). For example, with K through 3rd grade, children
are often fascinated by robots. You can use this fascination to read
about the real thing. The Japanese robots are quite interesting and
reading, math, social studies and science can all be built around a
theme like this one.
toto
wrote:
>On Mar 26, 3:21 pm, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2007 18:38:48 -0700, "EDS Sucks" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
>> >kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
>> >to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
>> >that do not is in dispute.
>>
>> Actually, my point is that most children can be interested in things
>> like learning to read
>
>A lot of children may want to learn to read, and do, but they don't
>necessarily use this new found skill to then read what we want them to
>read. Many use it to read teen gossip magazines and junk on
>MySpace.com.
>
There is nothing wrong with reading *junk* as *part* of what you read.
Back in my day, it was comics and science fiction.
>Don't confuse learning to read with reading at an advanced level, or
>reading anything that isn't trash.
>
I have no real objection to *trash* if it gets kids to continue
reading and to advance their understanding and vocabulary.
>> and that often it is school and the way they are
>> taught that drives that love of learning out of them.
>
>Do you have evidence that it is school that drives learning out of
>them? I see kids who read what they want to read, so school didn't
>drive the desire to read away. I think kids have many more
>distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods -- as well as more choices
>that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
>
I agree that there are more distractions. However, when we give kids
things that are *great literature* to read, but that do not relate to
their real lives, is it any wonder that they don't want to read these
things?
I'm not suggesting that we never ask kids to read great literature,
but that we must be careful about what we choose. For example,
nowadays, I see no reason for kids to read The Scarlet Letter. Nor do
I see any reason for them to read Moby Dick unless they have a
interest in doing so. There are many other choices that are more
appropriate.
>If we have so much power to "drive" a "love" out of someone, how come
>no one has found a way to drive the love of MySpace.com out of
>students? How come the Soviet state wasn't able to drive the
>religion out of its population after 7 decades of trying?
>
Because when you try to drive out something, kids rebel.
When you just do it by boring them to death, then you manage it well.
When you do it by constant criticism that makes them belief they can't
read, when you insist that they drill on skills instead of reading
interesting books at their level and talking about the themes in them,
you will end up with children who don't want to read anything.
New Teacher
> I think that school is indeed a factor, though not as direct as toto
> alleges. Kids don't like "work" as contrasted with "play", and that
> which they are told to do by authority figures is classified as
> "work". Alas, it takes discipline to become skilled in most things,
> and while some can develop self-discipline on their own, most require
> it to be imposed by above.
>
> Kids love to learn, but they love to learn what they are interested in
> learning NOW, which is seldom what adults want to teach them NOW.
>
> People are, in general, lazy. When something starts to get difficult,
> a few who are interested will work harder to get past the difficulty,
> but the rest would rather turn to something else that is easier and
> more pleasurable.
You're right. But we add more distractions to the mix. It's like
dealing with a group of people who are starving by letting the scent
lasagne waft in.
> Another factor is that school provides insufficient opportunities for
> kids to burn off energy. Recess and lunch breaks have gotten shorter
I don't disagree here. Yet you hear proposals suggesting the school
day and school year be lengthened.
> >I think kids have many more distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods
>
> Maybe we need to make them tools for learning instead of distractions.
There's too much of this crap already.
> >-- as well as more choices
> >that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
>
> What is wrong with those choices? People DO make money in those
> fields.
Where I'm from people graduate at age 18 from high school. The life
expectency is somewhere in the mid-seventies. That means that --
with the exception of a premature demise -- one has roughly six
decades to learn all sorts of stuff after HS. So why is everyone so
hellbent on learning everything by HS graduation? Especially since
now every kid is also pushed to go onto college.
Certain skills and knowledge need to rest upon a foundation of other
skills/knowledge, and Americans, especially, seem inclined to want to
skip foundations for glory. I see examples of this in my physics
classes. You'll see someone who can't grasp notions of measurement,
unit conversion, vector arithmetic, velocity, acceleration,
displacement, or the distinction between mass and weight -- yet I'll
notice that they're focusing on some "technology" project wherein
they're "designing" industrial robots. Make money? The people who
make money designing robots are quite capable (and required) of
navigating vectors in not only cartesian coordinates, but cylindrical
and sperical systems as well, and know how to calculate displacements,
velocities, and accelerations in them. These projects are little
more than glorified art. Yet they distract these kids away from the
very foundations that they would really need if they wanted to go into
robotics.
If some girl wants to major in fashion marketing in college, then why
all the redundancy studying it in HS? What if, by the time she
graduates from college, the job market is saturated with Versace
wannabees? Maybe now she's thinking of going into nursing, but she
can't figure out how many micrograms are in a milligram or that 1cc is
unit of volume. She'd be dangerous with a needle. She cheated
herself out of learning these things because her head was filled with
other dreams.
When I was a grad student in computer science back in the dark ages, I
TAed a freshman programming class. Those kids who had prior
"exposure" to computing in high school had no advantage over those
who'd done nothing with computing in high school, but they did have
disadvantages. They were less likely to understand the value of
certain practices (like avoiding global) variables and had a less
professional outlook.
I interviewed at a charter school sometime ago that specialized in
three different fields: finance, information technology, and
hospitality. The school expected students to choose a direction
AFTER THEIR FRESHMAN year. I saw some of the IT kids in action.
They were doing little more than playing with MS office. But, "in
theory", they were being prepared for the technology jobs of the
future. Sure. And what about the finance folks? If these kids
were anything like the kids I have now (and my kids seem sharper) then
they can't multiply by powers of ten either. Think that's good for a
career in finance?
I've known people who obtained bachelor's degrees in philosophy and
english, and went on to MS degrees in computer science (and subsequent
good jobs (back then)) without any problems. Specialization in HS
is nuts, especially when the price is ignorance in more fundamental
matters.
Same with film studies. A good film critic will have a grasp of
culture and history, not just "film" in isolation.
> I would have no problem with them, but the teaching should be
> as demanding as physics class,
How do you make film as "demanding" as physics?
>because the professional world will be
> that demanding.
There's another phenomenon in play. There are thousands of film-
critic wannabees for every Ebert. There are thousands of Versace
wannabees for every Versace. Do the math. They don't.
> So he doesn't learn history, and learns fashion marketing instead.
Which leads us to modern day America. This is why Americans involve
themselves in foreign policy mistakes. This is why Americans
underestimate the productive capacity of nations like China. This is
why Americans assume with a dumb grin that our over-consuming ways can
last forever.
Because frivolous crap takes precendence over understanding.
> Maybe we should be just as happy when they are 12, and they will keep
> reading.
Then why bother with school at all? And why bother spending your
time on misc.education if it doesn't matter?
> They didn't. Expectations were lower, and most kids failed to meet
> those expectations as well.
I covered more in physics in HS nearly thirty years ago than the kids
here do.
>
> You mention chemistry. What percentage of kids 100 years ago ever SAW
I don't know about 100 years ago, but 30 years ago probably fewer than
now. All we've done is put kids with less ability and or less
seriousness in with those with more. And all it does is slow the
faster ones down. Education, imo, would be better served if we
grouped more by ability and focused on skills and knowledge that form
foundations for a multidude of disciplines, and got rid of crap.
> a chemistry book, much less were expected to study it for a year. The
> answer is that less than 10% of kids even went to high school, and
> chemistry wasn't a required high school class.
I'm not that old, so I can't comment.
>
> >Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
> >qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
> >any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
> >never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
> >to learn no less than what kids now learn.
>
> I think that is where you are wrong. I think the typical high school
> graduate probably has learned 50-100% more than one learned a half
> century ago. But it is different stuff,
Fine. It's different stuff. But is it better stuff? If you claim
that it doesn't make a difference, then there's no point in you
wasting your time even thinking about education. Neanderthals
didn't go to school, but yet they knew stuff. Therefore, they were
educated. If you look closely, everyone knows stuff, even if it's
only the love lives of soap opera characters. So everyone's really
educated. We're done. If we're not to make value judgements on what
people learn then we may as well shut all forums on education down and
do something better with our time.
> and we notice what they
> haven't learned, and not what they have learned that we didn't know
> (which is a lot more than Britney's boyfriends). All those kids who
> maneuver Myspace with ease - how many of their grandparents are
> comfortable doing so?
So you believe that old crap that geezers can't "learn computers"? I
worked in the IT field, and I've come across many geezers who never
met a computer till they were close to retirement and did just as well
as much younger people. The only difference between older and
younger folks using a computer for the very first time is the fact
that many older people are courteous enough to consider the fact that
they may accidentally break something --- this is the reason for
hesitation and making sure they're doing things correctly. Kids
often don't give a shit about breaking something. That's why they're
bolder. But no one needs "years of training" to obtain the
"technology skills of tomorrow". "Searching the internet" is not a
"computer skill", but a general knowledge skill, a spelling skill, and
an English usage skill. Being able to navigate MySpace is as much a
skill as barking like a dog. Anyone who has to can "pick it up" in a
pinch.
Which brings us back to my original point.
> We *expect* them to learn a lot more, because there is so much more to
> learn. Science doubles its knowledge every generation.
The fact that science doubles its knowledge doesn't mean that, say the
HS physics curriculm, doubles. We're trying to teach the same basic
ideas now that I learned in HS physics 30 years ago. We are NOT
expecting more.
> The kids know a lot more, but in teaching them more about more fields,
> it becomes harder to see when they have learned something in greater
> depth.
That's the problem. There is no depth. "A mile wide and an inch
deep". And yet more distractions are proposed leading to more
"width"
> In other words we are treating kids as individuals. What is wrong
> with that (other than cost)? We don't need 5 million more identical
> cogs coming out of our high schools every year.
I beg to differ. When a future fossil-fuel crisis hits, Americans
will suffer more than anyone else because of our lifestyles. In
order to mitigate this, it would be nice to have nearly all Americans
on the same page as far as basic scientific knowledge goes. But we
don't have that. We have people who blissfully think that the
hydrogen economy will magically make $4/gallon gasoline a thing of the
past, and in the meantime, these people make decisions that
collectively will make our situation even more tenuous. Yet, the
proposal that everyone learn some fundamentals regarding the reality
around us is met with "People are individuals! We don't all have to
study science, some of us can study fashion!".
Some people in some parts of the country aren't even made aware of the
basic principles of evolution. This makes it impossible for them to
even engage in productive public discourse with people who are.
Like I said previously, the average person has nearly six decades to
"find themselves". I don't think that devoting one's HS education to
acquire a fundamental set of skills/knowledge is all that ridiculous.
New Teacher
>
> I don't think *entertainment* is the answer. I do think that using
> the students real interests to scaffold them to a higher level of
> learning about various subjects is the answer.
You, apparently, deal with much younger kids.
I teach science in high school. I have 16-19 year olds. What you
describe doesn't work.
"In theory", I can teach physics concepts through what they're
interested in, like sports, for example. We have a set of "Active
Physics" books, and one subset is "Sports". Sounds good, but asking
kids to throw around a football is one thing -- they jump on this --
but getting them to understand how the rotation of the football keeps
its axis aligned in one direction is met with complete apathy and
"This is boring, can't we just play football? When do we get to blow
stuff up?". Physics, to them, IS just tossing around a football.
You can spend a month with them working on the "concept" of momentum
and a week later all you hear is "Momentum? Huh?".
I get far more mileage teaching them "boring" calculation, like
converting square feet to square meters. They seem to find this far
more interesting than "concepts", and they actually seem to learn more
(ie., two months later they still seem pretty good at calculation --
at least compared to their "concept" retention)
People who complain about "boring" calculations should keep this in
mind: A Canadian airliner ran out of fuel in the middle of its
flight. Why? The guys on the ground screwed up a conversion.
Everyday tens of thousands of planes are refueled. Not by people who
always found such a task "interesting" but by people who need to be
proficient nontheless. What would be going through your mind if you
were on the flight? "I'm glad they learned the CONCEPT of
refueling. Maybe they they found other things more interesting."
If I gave all my kids the following problem: "Convert 40,000 lbs of
kerosene to its equivalent in litres" maybe 5% wouldn't screw it up.
This is AFTER me drilling them. Prior, it would be 0%. These are
people who are graduating this year or next year.
Regarding the Canadian flight, some people might say that better
technology can help the problem. To a degree. But all these kids who
are growing up with calculators and Excel have no concept of scale.
I can ask kids to figure out how many miles they'll cover on their
bikes in 15 minutes if they're riding at 20 miles per hour and a huge
number of them will come up with 300. These are kids who will be
graduating in a year or two.
Central to physical science is the concept of measurement, error, and
calculation. Without them "conceptual" physics is crap. If teachers
before me don't teach kids this, then I have to.
> As for my teaching, I have taught many different ages. The best model
> for teaching is to observe the children and what they play and then
> use the things they are playing to teach them (this is especially true
> in the early grades).
Kids in early grades end up in High school, eventually.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 27, 10:36 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> People are, in general, lazy. When something starts to get difficult,
>> a few who are interested will work harder to get past the difficulty,
>> but the rest would rather turn to something else that is easier and
>> more pleasurable.
>
>You're right. But we add more distractions to the mix.
We don't have to try to add more distractions to the mix. Kids find
them. 75 years ago there were a lot fewer distractions, but kids still
played hookey, and failed to do their homework.
>> Another factor is that school provides insufficient opportunities for
>> kids to burn off energy. Recess and lunch breaks have gotten shorter
>
>I don't disagree here. Yet you hear proposals suggesting the school
>day and school year be lengthened.
I would have no problem with those if they added in more breaks in the
day.
>> >I think kids have many more distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods
>>
>> Maybe we need to make them tools for learning instead of distractions.
>
>There's too much of this crap already.
It ain't going away just because some people don't like it.
>> >-- as well as more choices
>> >that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
>>
>> What is wrong with those choices? People DO make money in those
>> fields.
>
>Where I'm from people graduate at age 18 from high school. The life
>expectency is somewhere in the mid-seventies. That means that --
>with the exception of a premature demise -- one has roughly six
>decades to learn all sorts of stuff after HS. So why is everyone so
>hellbent on learning everything by HS graduation?
Because they then have to go on to college in order to earn enough
money for the American dream. Otherwise they have to do physical
labor to "Make Money Fast!!!", which is soooo lower class.
Until they can support themselves and any kids that pop up, their
parents have to support them, so parents generally push their kids
into studies that will enable them to make more money.
>Certain skills and knowledge need to rest upon a foundation of other
>skills/knowledge, and Americans, especially, seem inclined to want to
>skip foundations for glory.
Yep.
>I see examples of this in my physics
>classes. You'll see someone who can't grasp notions of measurement,
>unit conversion, vector arithmetic, velocity, acceleration,
>displacement, or the distinction between mass and weight -- yet I'll
>notice that they're focusing on some "technology" project wherein
>they're "designing" industrial robots. Make money? The people who
>make money designing robots are quite capable (and required) of
>navigating vectors in not only cartesian coordinates, but cylindrical
>and sperical systems as well, and know how to calculate displacements,
>velocities, and accelerations in them. These projects are little
>more than glorified art. Yet they distract these kids away from the
>very foundations that they would really need if they wanted to go into
>robotics.
They'll have no interest in learning the foundations unless they get
interested in what those foundations lead to.
>When I was a grad student in computer science back in the dark ages, I
>TAed a freshman programming class. Those kids who had prior
>"exposure" to computing in high school had no advantage over those
>who'd done nothing with computing in high school, but they did have
>disadvantages. They were less likely to understand the value of
>certain practices (like avoiding global) variables and had a less
>professional outlook.
But they did have interest. There is plenty of time to learn "a
professional outlook" when they start getting paid to have that
outlook. Unless we start paying kids professional salaries to study,
why would they want to act like professionals?
>I interviewed at a charter school sometime ago that specialized in
>three different fields: finance, information technology, and
>hospitality. The school expected students to choose a direction
>AFTER THEIR FRESHMAN year. I saw some of the IT kids in action.
>They were doing little more than playing with MS office. But, "in
>theory", they were being prepared for the technology jobs of the
>future.
My daughter's ability to use a spreadsheet, a word processor and the
like got her a job practically out of high school as a medical
receptionist.
>Same with film studies. A good film critic will have a grasp of
>culture and history, not just "film" in isolation.
>
>> I would have no problem with them, but the teaching should be
>> as demanding as physics class,
>
>How do you make film as "demanding" as physics?
By expecting the kids to learn culture and history and not just film
in isolation.
>>because the professional world will be
>> that demanding.
>
>There's another phenomenon in play. There are thousands of film-
>critic wannabees for every Ebert. There are thousands of Versace
>wannabees for every Versace.
There are thousands of wannabes for every Michael Jordan too.
>Do the math. They don't.
They don't care! They are kids.
>> So he doesn't learn history, and learns fashion marketing instead.
>
>Which leads us to modern day America. This is why Americans involve
>themselves in foreign policy mistakes. This is why Americans
>underestimate the productive capacity of nations like China. This is
>why Americans assume with a dumb grin that our over-consuming ways can
>last forever.
>
>Because frivolous crap takes precendence over understanding.
And there is nothing we can do about it, because such things are the
logical followon to a philosophy of maximizing freedom and
anti-authoritarianism.
>> Maybe we should be just as happy when they are 12, and they will keep
>> reading.
>
>Then why bother with school at all?
Because parents want their kids out of the house when they become
adults. Generally about then the kids want to be gone, too.
>And why bother spending your time on misc.education if it doesn't matter?
That argument could be made about all of Usenet.
>> They didn't. Expectations were lower, and most kids failed to meet
>> those expectations as well.
>
>I covered more in physics in HS nearly thirty years ago than the kids
>here do.
I have the book used when my dad was in school in the 40s. "Physics"
required no algebra. Much of it was practical household mechanics.
We did PSSC physics in the late 60s. A few kids got it; most had no
clue. But the experiments were fun.
>> >Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
>> >qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
>> >any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
>> >never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
>> >to learn no less than what kids now learn.
>>
>> I think that is where you are wrong. I think the typical high school
>> graduate probably has learned 50-100% more than one learned a half
>> century ago. But it is different stuff,
>
>Fine. It's different stuff. But is it better stuff?
A meaningless question. The stuff they learn now is the stuff they
are likely to need now. The stuff we learned then was the stuff we
were likely to need then. I had a semester of drafting in middle
school, and a semester of machine shop; both required. The girls had
home ec. I probably would have learned more useful stuff in home ec,
though I still have my candle scones, and my wife uses the footstool I
made in shop (the pizza tray and lamp are still around but not too
usable due to my poor design). I don't think many people these days
do paper and pencil drafting.
We also had music and art classes in middle school, both mandatory.
Nowadays they give kids some choice.
Everyone took foreign language back then, but very few kids actually
learned any language well enough to use it. That is probably still
the same, but I suspect that they are coming closer.
>If you claim that it doesn't make a difference,
Actually, I don't think it makes a LOT of difference. We stress what
we think is useful to kids, but the important thing is that they learn
HOW to learn, so that the rest of their lives they can continue
learning.
And ya know, while we still have a high dropout rate, by age 25 most
of those dropouts have a GED, so they probably learned how to learn.
>Neanderthals didn't go to school, but yet they knew stuff. Therefore, they were
>educated.
They were?
>If you look closely, everyone knows stuff, even if it's
>only the love lives of soap opera characters. So everyone's really
>educated.
You have a funny idea of educated.
>We're done.
We are never done.
> If we're not to make value judgements on what
>people learn then we may as well shut all forums on education down and
>do something better with our time.
1) The only person really qualified to make value judgements on what
someone has learned is the learner, and then only in retrospect. All
of us outsiders are only playing the probabilities of covering as much
of what we think they probably need to know to make it. But since the
world keeps changing, even we don't really know what the kids will
need.
2) You forget that one of the reasons for public schooling is to keep
kids out of the workforce as much as possible until they are adults,
so that they don't take jobs away from people supporting families.
The economy would be much different in the kids were not in school.
>> and we notice what they
>> haven't learned, and not what they have learned that we didn't know
>> (which is a lot more than Britney's boyfriends). All those kids who
>> maneuver Myspace with ease - how many of their grandparents are
>> comfortable doing so?
>
>So you believe that old crap that geezers can't "learn computers"?
Not hardly. But I am a 53 year old geezer who spent 15 years working
in software. I can play a search engine better than most, in part
because I've learned how to build on my existing knowledge and I have
a decent memory, but my kids can keep in contact with each other using
their cell phones, giving them an interpersonal communications
networking skill that I couldn't come close to matching (I can only
barely dial a number on a cell phone, with reminders of how to do it).
My kids use online banking; I can't get used to the idea. At 19 and
20 they are more savvy about shopping online than I was at shopping in
stores at the same age.
The next generation older can learn to do all the stuff I have
learned, but not too many are interested. Of my 4 remaining aunts
that are alive 3 don't even have computers, and the 4th no longer uses
hers. I'm not sure she ever got much beyond using it for email when
she did.
>Being able to navigate MySpace is as much a
>skill as barking like a dog. Anyone who has to can "pick it up" in a
>pinch.
But us geezers DON'T have to, so we usually don't learn how. The kids
have to, because that is the only way that they can keep up with their
peers.
>> We *expect* them to learn a lot more, because there is so much more to
>> learn. Science doubles its knowledge every generation.
>
>The fact that science doubles its knowledge doesn't mean that, say the
>HS physics curriculm, doubles.
The percentage of kids taking HS physics has more than doubled though,
because more schools are expecting kids to have some basics in the
subject, because the basics are needed for more fields in college.
When I was a kid, the only reason for taking physics in high school
was if you were going into the physical sciences or engineering in
college. So of course they could make the courses a tad more rigorous
(but not all that much - as I said, not all that many kids could
handle PSSC physics when I was in high school once they got past the
experiments). A few more took chemistry, because the University of
California required two years of science in high school, and most took
biology and chemistry. But neither class was any more rigorous than
the classes taught today (indeed the biology teacher was teaching
1930s biology in 1970, and very few kids learned anything, including
me who aced the class).
>We're trying to teach the same basic
>ideas now that I learned in HS physics 30 years ago. We are NOT
>expecting more.
Not of the pre-engineering kids, but you are expecting a lot more of
the kids who wouldn't have considered taking physics 30 years ago, but
who would have taken "film studies" (which were taught back then as
well).
>> In other words we are treating kids as individuals. What is wrong
>> with that (other than cost)? We don't need 5 million more identical
>> cogs coming out of our high schools every year.
>
>I beg to differ. When a future fossil-fuel crisis hits, Americans
>will suffer more than anyone else because of our lifestyles.
And we won't be willing to do something about it until it hits.
>In
>order to mitigate this, it would be nice to have nearly all Americans
>on the same page as far as basic scientific knowledge goes.
I spend much time on Usenet arguing with people whose religion
requires that they believe that creationism is more scientific than
evolution. Since our government cannot impose on freedom of religion,
that isn't likely to change, so what you think would be nice won't
happen.
>Yet, the
>proposal that everyone learn some fundamentals regarding the reality
>around us is met with "People are individuals! We don't all have to
>study science, some of us can study fashion!".
But more kids are taking science than 30 years ago. So many that you
wish you didn't have them because they slow down your elite.
>Some people in some parts of the country aren't even made aware of the
>basic principles of evolution. This makes it impossible for them to
>even engage in productive public discourse with people who are.
And they don't want to change, and it is impossible to make them
change. It is even harder once they become adults.
>Like I said previously, the average person has nearly six decades to
>"find themselves".
Once they get out of school, most of them will have to find a job,
find a babysitter, find a plumber. They won't have time to find
themselves.
>I don't think that devoting one's HS education to
>acquire a fundamental set of skills/knowledge is all that ridiculous.
The trouble is that we cannot agree as to what the fundamental set of
skills/knowledge should be. The Bible thumpers insist that the
fundamentals include the Holy Bible. And their vote counts as much as
yours.
lojbab
New Teacher
>
> >There's too much of this crap already.
>
> It ain't going away just because some people don't like it.
Then why are we in this forum? I thought the whole point of
being here was to discuss ways to improve things.
> Until they can support themselves and any kids that pop up, their
> parents have to support them, so parents generally push their kids
> into studies that will enable them to make more money.
And some of these studies are self-defeating, which is why having
schools "compete" by offering the cool subject dujour is self-
defeating.
> They'll have no interest in learning the foundations unless they get
> interested in what those foundations lead to.
But they don't get interested in the fundamentals, ever.
You see the same thing in other realms of life. I was reading about
some tennis academy in Moscow, the one that's cranking out all these
female champions these days, and apparently the secret of their
success is that they focus on fundamentals -- like hitting the ball.
They do this for a LONG time before ever playing a match. Americans
immediately jump to playing tournaments.
Same with youth hockey. Same with recreational sports. I play
recreational ice hockey and I've seen a parade of average Joe's think
they can focus on things like power plays without bothering to learn
how to skate or handle the puck. They always seem surprised that this
strategy leads to zero progress.
We do this with education. And we complain about the results.
So why don't we try to take a cue from some other countries in the
world? It's been said that in other countries the number of
subtopics studied in math is far less than it is here, but they're
studied in far greater depth. Here, math education tries to be all
things to all people by covering too little of too many things. Yet
discussions like this rarely see the light of day. Editorials about
education constantly harp on "better" teachers, longer school years,
corporatization of schools, schools "competing", homeschooling, and
getting laptops for every child. Education schools, on the other
hand, talk of nothing but lesson plan formats and nebulous strategies
for "differentiating" instruction. School administrations just want
to see everyone visibly busy.
> >I interviewed at a charter school sometime ago that specialized in
> >three different fields: finance, information technology, and
> >hospitality. The school expected students to choose a direction
> >AFTER THEIR FRESHMAN year. I saw some of the IT kids in action.
> >They were doing little more than playing with MS office. But, "in
> >theory", they were being prepared for the technology jobs of the
> >future.
>
> My daughter's ability to use a spreadsheet, a word processor and the
> like got her a job practically out of high school as a medical
> receptionist.
So? Did she have to attend a charter school that specialized in
"Information Technology"? Do you regret not sending her to one?
> By expecting the kids to learn culture and history and not just film
> in isolation.
My point exactly.
> >Do the math. They don't.
>
> They don't care! They are kids.
That's right. That's why we don't leave this thinking to them in the
hope it'll improve education.
> >Because frivolous crap takes precendence over understanding.
>
> And there is nothing we can do about it, because such things are the
> logical followon to a philosophy of maximizing freedom and
> anti-authoritarianism.
I repeat my question: Why are we here?
> >Then why bother with school at all?
>
> Because parents want their kids out of the house when they become
> adults. Generally about then the kids want to be gone, too.
Again, I thought this was a forum to discuss ways education can be
improved, not one to make smart-ass cynical comments.
> >And why bother spending your time on misc.education if it doesn't matter?
>
> That argument could be made about all of Usenet.
Some positive things have happened due to discussions on Usenet. A
lot of open source software had its beginnings here. I would think
our kids' future would be subject to such potential.
> I have the book used when my dad was in school in the 40s. "Physics"
> required no algebra. Much of it was practical household mechanics.
> We did PSSC physics in the late 60s. A few kids got it; most had no
> clue. But the experiments were fun.
I wasn't around then. Can't comment.
> >Fine. It's different stuff. But is it better stuff?
>
> A meaningless question.
If it was a meaningless question this forum wouldn't be here. Bill
Gates wouldn't be campaigning for unlimited H1Bs because he deems
Americans too stupid, and no one would believe him if he did.
> The stuff they learn now is the stuff they
> are likely to need now.
Bill Gates, Craig Barrett, and others disagree. Now theirs is a
cynical ploy to cut costs, but as long as their argument is
plausible...
> >Neanderthals didn't go to school, but yet they knew stuff. Therefore, they were
> >educated.
>
> They were?
If you buy the argument that learning ANYTHING is education -- and
some promote this like the school in which I observed -- then
Neanderthals deserved diplomas.
> >If you look closely, everyone knows stuff, even if it's
> >only the love lives of soap opera characters. So everyone's really
> >educated.
>
> You have a funny idea of educated.
I was being sarcastic. I thought it was obvious, since I criticized a
school that patted itself on the back for "teaching" kids to play
cards.
> >We're done.
>
> We are never done.
More sarcasm. See above.
> 1) The only person really qualified to make value judgements on what
> someone has learned is the learner, and then only in retrospect.
Yes, which is why giving 15 year olds all these choices is a big
mistake.
> of us outsiders are only playing the probabilities of covering as much
> of what we think they probably need to know to make it. But since the
> world keeps changing, even we don't really know what the kids will
> need.
Yes, but some branches of knowledge are more useful than others.
> 2) You forget that one of the reasons for public schooling is to keep
> kids out of the workforce as much as possible until they are adults,
> so that they don't take jobs away from people supporting families.
> The economy would be much different in the kids were not in school.
Be that as it may, there is a great deal of discussion about improving
education. If we don't raise our voices and put our cynicism on the
back burner we will let those who did raise their voices make our
decisions.
> >Being able to navigate MySpace is as much a
> >skill as barking like a dog. Anyone who has to can "pick it up" in a
> >pinch.
>
> But us geezers DON'T have to, so we usually don't learn how. The kids
> have to, because that is the only way that they can keep up with their
> peers.
Has someone banned conversation?
> The percentage of kids taking HS physics has more than doubled though,
I know that.
>
> >I beg to differ. When a future fossil-fuel crisis hits, Americans
> >will suffer more than anyone else because of our lifestyles.
>
> And we won't be willing to do something about it until it hits.
So you just want to sit here and shoot people down until it does?
> I spend much time on Usenet arguing with people whose religion
> requires that they believe that creationism is more scientific than
> evolution. Since our government cannot impose on freedom of religion,
> that isn't likely to change, so what you think would be nice won't
> happen.
Evolution is not religion. Any religious nut can also claim that
there's no such thing as gravity on the grounds that credit is being
denied god for pulling stuff down. Do we cave to "Intelligent
Falling"?
> But more kids are taking science than 30 years ago. So many that you
> wish you didn't have them because they slow down your elite.
I didn't say I wish I didn't have them. I suggested they be grouped
differently. I shouldn't have 3 classes with a mix of calculus
students and those with no trigonometry in every single class. I
also said that the focus on "conceptual physics" denies many students
not only physics concepts, but also the simple calculation skills they
need not only for physics, but even to calculate how far a truck will
travel down the expressway in 45 minutes (because some of them may be
driving trucks in a year or two). I suggested that they be better
served by an additional math class instead of the charade of
"conceptual physics". I don't have a problem teaching them math that
they need for the physics. I object to pretending to teach the
physics minus the math. Other science teachers I work with agree. I
suggested that since some of the slowest students are also enrolled in
fashion classes they take math science/skills even less seriously, and
that therefore such carrots shouldn't be dangled in front of those who
chronically flunk math. "Fashion" should be open to those who do
well, or at least TRY, to pass math, science, history, etc.
> >Some people in some parts of the country aren't even made aware of the
> >basic principles of evolution. This makes it impossible for them to
> >even engage in productive public discourse with people who are.
>
> And they don't want to change, and it is impossible to make them
> change. It is even harder once they become adults.
They don't have to change. If we're to believe in the separation of
church and state, then religious nuts shouldn't be able to undermine
public education.
> Once they get out of school, most of them will have to find a job,
> find a babysitter, find a plumber. They won't have time to find
> themselves.
You seem to have found lots of time to comment on something you claim
can't be changed.
> >I don't think that devoting one's HS education to
> >acquire a fundamental set of skills/knowledge is all that ridiculous.
>
> The trouble is that we cannot agree as to what the fundamental set of
> skills/knowledge should be.
The trouble is we're not even talking about trying. Actually, a lot
of people are. You're just telling me to shut up.
toto
wrote:
>But all these kids who
>are growing up with calculators and Excel have no concept of scale.
>I can ask kids to figure out how many miles they'll cover on their
>bikes in 15 minutes if they're riding at 20 miles per hour and a huge
>number of them will come up with 300. These are kids who will be
>graduating in a year or two.
That's a problem that needs to be remedied in elementary school.
It's hard to deprogram children in high school who have never measured
anything at all. But, see, if we did measure things in the lower
grades and continued it all through school at each juncture by
measuring things kids are interested in, then they would have some
idea of scale.
They should be estimating in preschool. I ask my 4 year old
granddaughter things like *how many more blocks before the tower will
be as tall as you?* *Will this container hold as much water as that
one?* *Why did the King and the Apprentice say that the bed measured
differently?* (Reading How Big is a Foot by Rolf Mylar). Kids should
be asked to guess how many jelly beans fill a jar. They should be
asked to collect things to see how *big* 100, 1000 or other large
numbers might be (my junior high kids collected 1,000,000 pop tops).
I've taught all ages. You can use the kids interests to get into the
meat of Physics and Math, but you have to first create an atmosphere
of cooperation in the classroom and they also need to have a
foundation from earlier classrooms (not easy). One thing that was
helpful with my HS math classes was having kids who graduated come
back and talk to them about how they needed their math in their jobs
or in technical schools (if they were not in college). I had kids who
were learning to be auto mechanics or beauticians come back and
explain how they wished they had paid more attention in math class.
Also note that you will find different levels of interest in anything
you do use. Football may be interesting to some kids, but not really
be interesting to others. So a variety of themes works better than a
single theme in high school whereas in elementary school, you can
often create interest in the kids who don't start out interested if a
lot of the kids are interested in a particular theme.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 28, 12:57 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> >There's too much of this crap already.
>>
>> It ain't going away just because some people don't like it.
>
>Then why are we in this forum?
For a variety of reasons. Some use it to proselytize the One True Way
to Whatever; some use it as a forum for anything touching on
Church/State separation, whether it has something to do with education
or not; some use it to vent. Some indeed are interested in education
reform, but I think very few (and their concepts of what "reform"
means are contradictory). That is all you can get from an unmoderated
misc. group.
>I thought the whole point of being here was to discuss ways to improve things.
If you can find a charter for misc.education, then feel free to post
it. But it will likely be ignored.
Very few people post to Usenet actually seeking to change anything.
There are far more fruitful ways to pursue change.
The basic problem is that "we the people" have not come to a consensus
of what public education is for, and every attempt to do so gets
shanghaied by politicos trying to win the next election
Meanwhile, any real reform would take at minimum an entire k/12 cycle
(hence 13 years) in order to know whether it is working. No
educational experiment can survive that long.
>> They'll have no interest in learning the foundations unless they get
>> interested in what those foundations lead to.
>
>But they don't get interested in the fundamentals, ever.
If not, and yet most people somehow manage to stumble through life, it
is arguable that the fundamentals aren't in fact all that
fundamentally necessary.
>You see the same thing in other realms of life. I was reading about
>some tennis academy in Moscow, the one that's cranking out all these
>female champions these days, and apparently the secret of their
>success is that they focus on fundamentals -- like hitting the ball.
I would think you would argue that having kids play tennis at all is
distracting them from the fundamentals. They shouldn't be distracted
by such things. Tote that barge; heft that bale!
>So why don't we try to take a cue from some other countries in the
>world?
Because we are a different country from those others, with a
completely different culture. People hold up the Asian schools, but
Asian kids are raised to NOT question authority, and to surrender
personal comfort for the good of the group, so they can sit 60 kids in
a classroom for hours without misbehavior. By contrast, the Jewish
culture even in this country generally values education more than some
other priorities, with the result that Jews are disproportionately
represented in higher education and the professions.
The school system has to live with the culture of the people that it
is educating. Even if we could agree to try to change the culture,
and knew how to do so, it would take a full generation in order to see
any results.
>It's been said that in other countries the number of
>subtopics studied in math is far less than it is here, but they're
>studied in far greater depth. Here, math education tries to be all
>things to all people by covering too little of too many things. Yet
>discussions like this rarely see the light of day.
They are incessant in math reform forums. Yet they only convince
people who already agree with them.
>Editorials about
>education constantly harp on "better" teachers, longer school years,
>corporatization of schools, schools "competing", homeschooling, and
>getting laptops for every child. Education schools, on the other
>hand, talk of nothing but lesson plan formats and nebulous strategies
>for "differentiating" instruction. School administrations just want
>to see everyone visibly busy.
That is what it takes to get reelected by "we the people".
>> My daughter's ability to use a spreadsheet, a word processor and the
>> like got her a job practically out of high school as a medical
>> receptionist.
>
>So? Did she have to attend a charter school that specialized in
>"Information Technology"?
No.
>Do you regret not sending her to one?
Not in the least.
>> By expecting the kids to learn culture and history and not just film
>> in isolation.
>
>My point exactly.
That is curriculum design for the film studies course. It is not
something you accomplish by dropping film studies as a course.
>> >Do the math. They don't.
>>
>> They don't care! They are kids.
>
>That's right. That's why we don't leave this thinking to them in the
>hope it'll improve education.
Alas, the kids are soon-to-be-voters, and the politicians know it.
>> >Because frivolous crap takes precendence over understanding.
>>
>> And there is nothing we can do about it, because such things are the
>> logical followon to a philosophy of maximizing freedom and
>> anti-authoritarianism.
>
>I repeat my question: Why are we here?
Nothing better to do, or more likely something better to do that we
are avoiding doing.
>> >Then why bother with school at all?
>>
>> Because parents want their kids out of the house when they become
>> adults. Generally about then the kids want to be gone, too.
>
>Again, I thought this was a forum to discuss ways education can be
>improved, not one to make smart-ass cynical comments.
It is a forum to discuss whatever its participants wish to discuss,
which usually means smart-ass cynical comments. That is the nature of
Usenet.
Generally if one sticks to the general arena of education in
misc.education, one will be somewhat more popular. But there are few
real rules.
If you want to discuss something, then discuss it. Your posts have
been a rather vague sort of motherhood rant, so there isn't much to
answer other than to give a smart-ass cynical comment. If you would
rather no answer than a smart-ass answer, I can oblige.
>> >And why bother spending your time on misc.education if it doesn't matter?
>>
>> That argument could be made about all of Usenet.
>
>Some positive things have happened due to discussions on Usenet.
Such as?
>A lot of open source software had its beginnings here.
Ah, well that is because the sorts of people who envisioned Usenet
also envisioned open source software. They have no such vision for
education, or for that matter any non-computer topic.
>I would think our kids' future would be subject to such potential.
I wouldn't.
The educational equivalent of open-source is unregulated
charter-schools. It won't happen.
>I wasn't around then. Can't comment.
>
>> >Fine. It's different stuff. But is it better stuff?
>>
>> A meaningless question.
>
>If it was a meaningless question this forum wouldn't be here.
Wrong.
>> The stuff they learn now is the stuff they
>> are likely to need now.
>
>Bill Gates, Craig Barrett, and others disagree.
Bill Gates dropped out of college. The only reason his opinion is
respected is that he made a lot of money, and is spending it liberally
to support his ideas. If you have 2 billion dollars to invest in
ideas for improving schools, I am sure that I can come up with a more
serious answer. But I wouldn't post it to Usenet.
>> >Neanderthals didn't go to school, but yet they knew stuff. Therefore, they were
>> >educated.
>>
>> They were?
>
>If you buy the argument that learning ANYTHING is education
I don't. I might argue that TEACHING anything is a more or less
systematic manner is "education".
-- and
>some promote this like the school in which I observed -- then
>Neanderthals deserved diplomas.
I suspect that in some districts, if the Neanderthal put in the seat
time, he would get the diploma.
>> 1) The only person really qualified to make value judgements on what
>> someone has learned is the learner, and then only in retrospect.
>
>Yes, which is why giving 15 year olds all these choices is a big
>mistake.
We have no other choice but to give them choices. Otherwise they'll
simply spit in our faces (or other anti-authoritarian gesture of
choice).
Our culture has promoted anti-authoritarianism to the extent that many
people are rabidly of that persuasion, and their kids are already
inclined by adolescence to be that way without parental encouragement.
The modern emphasis on capitalism and the free market further promotes
free choice. People, including kids, do things only to "Make Money
Faster" or if that is not an *immediate* option, because they feel
like it. People have no loyalty to the employers, and their employers
have no loyalty to them - loyalty is anti-competitive and seldom
"Makes Money Fast"
You can call it cynicism, or perhaps realism. Any "reform" that is
undertaken has to bear in mind political and economic and cultural and
in some cases religious reality, and also has to fit within the
current legal framework because all of the above serve to hinder
change to the legal framework.
Several years back, I myself posted my own reform ideas (you'll have
to find it yourself, if you care). Even then the main issue was how
to get from here to there. What I described MIGHT be achievable in a
charter school. But I wasn't qualified to teach my own kids, much
less to run a charter school (and they don't have charter schools here
in any event), so I haven't even put much effort into revising that
proposal - though I probably should.
>> of us outsiders are only playing the probabilities of covering as much
>> of what we think they probably need to know to make it. But since the
>> world keeps changing, even we don't really know what the kids will
>> need.
>
>Yes, but some branches of knowledge are more useful than others.
To whom?
>> 2) You forget that one of the reasons for public schooling is to keep
>> kids out of the workforce as much as possible until they are adults,
>> so that they don't take jobs away from people supporting families.
>> The economy would be much different in the kids were not in school.
>
>Be that as it may, there is a great deal of discussion about improving
>education.
99% of which is political attacks on the opposing side, whatever it
may be.
>If we don't raise our voices and put our cynicism on the
>back burner we will let those who did raise their voices make our
>decisions.
There is something to be said for that. But of course that presumes
that any of us have a politically acceptable idea on how to do any
better than those who are making the decisions now
>> >Being able to navigate MySpace is as much a
>> >skill as barking like a dog. Anyone who has to can "pick it up" in a
>> >pinch.
>>
>> But us geezers DON'T have to, so we usually don't learn how. The kids
>> have to, because that is the only way that they can keep up with their
>> peers.
>
>Has someone banned conversation?
That and their cell phones is how they converse. MySpace covers the
situations where people cannot all get together to converse at the
same convenient time. So does Usenet, for that matter. MySpace is in
some ways a multimedia form of Usenet, though it is centered on
individuals rather than topics. (But then, so are some Usenet
groups)>
>> >I beg to differ. When a future fossil-fuel crisis hits, Americans
>> >will suffer more than anyone else because of our lifestyles.
>>
>> And we won't be willing to do something about it until it hits.
>
>So you just want to sit here and shoot people down until it does?
I don't see any alternatives.
>> I spend much time on Usenet arguing with people whose religion
>> requires that they believe that creationism is more scientific than
>> evolution. Since our government cannot impose on freedom of religion,
>> that isn't likely to change, so what you think would be nice won't
>> happen.
>
>Evolution is not religion. Any religious nut can also claim that
>there's no such thing as gravity on the grounds that credit is being
>denied god for pulling stuff down. Do we cave to "Intelligent
>Falling"?
If someone claims it as a religious belief, we have no choice but to
take their word for it. Of course if it is religious belief, it
cannot be taught in school.
Evolution is taught because it is science, which is a prescribed topic
in the curriculum, and science does not define itself as a religion.
>> Once they get out of school, most of them will have to find a job,
>> find a babysitter, find a plumber. They won't have time to find
>> themselves.
>
>You seem to have found lots of time to comment on something you claim
>can't be changed.
It is a distraction from other things that I should be doing, but
don't feel like.
>> >I don't think that devoting one's HS education to
>> >acquire a fundamental set of skills/knowledge is all that ridiculous.
>>
>> The trouble is that we cannot agree as to what the fundamental set of
>> skills/knowledge should be.
>
>The trouble is we're not even talking about trying. Actually, a lot
>of people are. You're just telling me to shut up.
Not at all. I am merely responding to you. Would you rather be
ignored? Your postings really haven't offered much to respond to in a
constructive way, in part because they are so loaded with unstated
assumptions (including the one that other schools have the exact same
problems that you are seeing). Thus your only responses have been from
me, toto (who I agree with on many things), and MK who wants to
destroy the public school system because of his ideology and his
personal vendetta against teachers unions that did not support him
when he was teaching (probably because of his ideological extremism).
The realities of the present day are that NCLB is up for renewal (and
supported by both the administration and by Ted Kennedy, hence hard to
get rid of), and that IDEA Special Ed is probably the most expensive
and underfunded component of education (and the money won't be
forthcoming while we are still pouring money into Iraq and cutting
taxes). Any change, whether locally, regionally, or nationally, has
to be responsive to the political and legal realities. Unless you can
put your proposals in the context of one of those two programs, and
cater to the other realities, your ideas aren't going to be a blip on
a politician's radar screen. That limits you to proposing a charter
school to undertake the sort of ideas that you have in mind, which is
a very local solution, but possibly the only sort of realistic one.
But remember that all of your kids have to pass the NCLB and state
standards tests, whether they are calculus students or film-studies
wannabes. If they put such a test in Physics, what will you do then
for your kids of different skill levels?
lojbab
Herman Rubin
EDS Sucks <Eds.Do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 26, 3:21 pm, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2007 18:38:48 -0700, "EDS Sucks" <Eds.Does.S...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I'm really struggling here to understand your point. That some some
>> >kids are interested in non-frivolous things and voluntarily undertake
>> >to learn them was never in dispute. What to do about the majority
>> >that do not is in dispute.
>> Actually, my point is that most children can be interested in things
>> like learning to read
>A lot of children may want to learn to read, and do, but they don't
>necessarily use this new found skill to then read what we want them to
>read. Many use it to read teen gossip magazines and junk on
>MySpace.com.
By the time they are teens, the schools have done their
damage.
>Don't confuse learning to read with reading at an advanced level, or
>reading anything that isn't trash.
Let them read mathematics, physics, history, geography
as soon as they can read.
>> and that often it is school and the way they are
>> taught that drives that love of learning out of them.
>Do you have evidence that it is school that drives learning out of
>them? I see kids who read what they want to read, so school didn't
>drive the desire to read away. I think kids have many more
>distractions -- like more TV, movies, iPods -- as well as more choices
>that we stupidly give them (like film studies, and fashion marketing).
They may want to read fiction, but subject matter? Do
they want to learn? They start out wanting to know
why, but the schools do not even try to teach that; the
teachers know facts and routine, but most do not know
why, and hence cannot teach it. This also helps drive
down education.
>If we have so much power to "drive" a "love" out of someone, how come
>no one has found a way to drive the love of MySpace.com out of
>students? How come the Soviet state wasn't able to drive the
>religion out of its population after 7 decades of trying?
You can drive out the love of learning by keeping children
from learning. They may associate learning with school
early, but then if most of what they get is repetition and
drill, it does become VERY boring. Under those circumstances,
even the few nuggets of gold in the stream of garbage can be
missed. You can reduce the ability to understand concepts by
only teaching more facts and more routine, what is needed by
machines, clerks, assembly line workers, etc., but not by
those who are doing anything with intelligent activity which
will not eventually be taken over by machines.
>> Note that we would never think of teaching children to walk or talk in
>> the way we teach them to read.
>Poor comparison. Every civilization in human history has, or has
>had, a SPOKEN language. In every civilization in human history
>people have walked. Written language (as well as science and
>mathematics) have by no means been ubiquitous. People didn't pick it
>up naturally or out of curiosity (except for a small minority). Many
>civilizations lasted for centuries (at least) with no notion of
>writing anything down. So reading/writing is by no means as
>"natural" to humans as walking/talking.
Every civilization which progressed did so by the efforts
of the small minority. Is talking natural to humans? No,
the ability to speak and to understand above a very low
level is unique, and those proto-humans who could not were
driven out of the tribe by the ones who could.
We advance by making available the knowledge which has been
extracted from nature; it is not necessary to "reinvent the
wheel". This is what is happening when children are only
given facts without structure; the structure makes learning
the facts easier, if that is important, and also makes it
possible to classify them, not shove them all under the
category of "miscellaneous".
>> Honestly, I think most kids want to
>> learn to read and do math when it is related to their life.
>I don't think this is true at all. My mother-in-law grew up poor
>and got constantly in trouble for reading because her mother was
>widowed and chores needed to be done. Yet the love wasn't driven out
>of her. Her husband is the opposite. Loathes reading. You can't
>beat it INTO him. The kids are split down the middle. My sister-in-
>law ridicules the idea of people reading for pleasure while my brother-
>in-law enjoys it.
>I think it's far more nature than nurture. Me? Both my parents
>read, but neither is much for fiction. Ditto for me. No one every
>tried to beat the love of fiction out of me. I just don't care for it
>much.
Except for GOOD science fiction, neither do I care for it.
But that does not mean I ignore it; some has some meaning,
not just entertainment.
However, one cannot like a subject, if one does not know it
exists. I did not hesitate to learn what was presented, but
until almost my teens, I did not know anything about mathematics,
and I was quite good at arithmetic. Neither did I know anything
about science; good science needs good mathematics first.
If anyone had tried to teach me mathematics shortly after I
learned to read, and this was well before going to school, I
would have dived in. The same for other such subjects.
>And again, "related to their life". What does this mean? For many
>that I see, who Britney Spears is current dating is "related to their
>life". You seem to have this notion that there are all these kids
>out there who are thinking "Gee, I really wish I could calculate the
>maximum efficiency of a diesel engine because that's what I plan to
>buy someday" and "I really want to understand how the Federal Reserve
>works. It relates to my life and it's so much more interesting than
>MySpace.com". Some might, but by no means a majority.
I agree about not restricting to "related to their life".
Education is for the distant future, not the present.
>> When we
>> don't take advantage of their natural curiosity and their interests
>> and bore them to death with our drills and repetition,
>Are you a teacher? It's often the repetitive drills that get many of
>them going more than any sort of conceptual connection to something
>they may be interested in. Sometimes when I think that some of them
>might be interested in learning, for example, what the big deal is
>with "hemi" engines all I get is stares of "I really don't give a
>shit".
I am a professor, and went to school before the dumbing
down was far under way. Nevertheless, for me there was
far too much drill and repetition. The serious student
will probably do too much practice on his own, and there
is no need to even look at the "easy" problems, which are
the only ones sufficiently dumbed down students can do.
Also, my children went to school, and without the home
education, they would have been far more bored. Bright
children, and THESE are the ones we need to educate for
progress, need little drill, and the really bright need
essentially none, and neither group needs formal repetition.
>> we drive out
>> any interest.
>Speculation. If this was true, then all people who never set foot in
>a school would be bursting with curiosity.
The ability can be stifled in other ways. But it must
be present in the first place.
>> Kids who don't want to learn when they enter school are
>> a rarity, ime.
>Yes, but it doesn't mean that school drove it out of them. All these
>kids still "want to learn", but not anything relevant.
In the early years, it does not have to be relevant. But
the educationists are afraid that bright first graders
will ask questions the teachers cannot understand. I mean
they cannot understand the questions, not just that they
do not have the answers. Teaching what is "relevant" is
anti-educational; we should teach them for 5, 10, 20, or
more years down the line.
................
>How did kids apparently manage to learn more (apparently) in the
>past? Back when I was a kid I had loser nuns as teachers who had no
>qualms about hitting us for real and imagined offenses. No one gave
>any thought to finding "interesting" ways to get us to learn. Yet they
>never drove my desire to learn out of me. And other people managed
>to learn no less than what kids now learn.
They learned more. The idea was that the important thing
about school was learning, not playing, and definitely
not socializing.
>Not that I'm advocating the nuns ways, not by a long shot, but I don't
>think making everything entertainment is the answer.
Nor do I. But teach individual children at the level at
which they can learn for the future. The bright should get
far more than the present high school education by their
early teens, and the gifted even younger.
>I think kids these days have far too many things going on in their
>lives, and far too many options to choose from. And many people just
>make the problem worse by adding even more options.
They have far too many of the wrong things. They have
class activities which are time consuming and do not
contribute to education. They are in class repeating
what they already know. They have "busy work" homework
which takes lots of time. Also, they do not have any
idea of even the types of studying which the scholars
are doing; mathematicians may use numbers, but rarely
use what people call arithmetic in their work, and some
do not even do that. Chemists do not spend all their
time in laboratories pouring the contents of one vial
into another.
The schools do "units" on countries, not real histories.
History can be presented as a motion picture, not a
list of events and dates. I received the latter, but
somehow thought the former. But today's children do
not get the essentials of the ancient history which is
behind our culture.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Citizen Jimserac
> http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070305_education.htm
>
> Patrick J. Buchanan
> Printer Friendly Version...
>
> March 05, 2007
>
> Dumbing-Down of America
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
Well said Mr. Buchanan!
For a DRAMATIC and EXACT expose of the
entire "education" fraud - read this online book
from a teacher of 30 years who was stopped
every step of the way from doing his job
and now uncovers the LID on the whole scam:
http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
At about the same time that we reform congress
and the two tweeldedum and tweedledee parties,
we will need to fix the education mess - Gato's
book will be a good starting point.
Citizen Jimserac
New Teacher
> Football may be interesting to some kids, but not really
> be interesting to others.
What I've been trying to tell you is that there are kids who are
intensely interested in football, but it's impossible to teach them
physics VIA football. They don't have the ability and/or interest in
ABSTRACTION that physics requires. They simply veer off on football
and the current NFL season. The football is just a distraction.
They simply want to PLAY football, not learn the physics of football.
Ditto for basketball.
Ditto for wrestling.
Ditto for soccer.
Ditto for auto sports.
Etc.
> So a variety of themes works better than a
Variety is beside the point. If a kid can only learn that 2 + 2 = 4
via "two apples plus two apples equals four apples" because he likes
apples but can't get "two oranges plus two oranges equals four
oranges" because he doesn't like oranges then he doesn't grasp
addition, period. We can't simply address addition by appealing to
everyone's favorite fruit over and over again. There are an infinite
number of items that can be added together. Someone who needs
coaching in an infinite number of addition techniques isn't getting
it.
I have kids like this in physics. I have others who DO appreciate
abstraction, and while a particular type of mass (e.g., "linebacker")
may interest them a little more, they are quite capable of analyzing
problems using any arbitrary mass. They see the PHYSICS through the
window dressing. Kids who can't see past the window dressing aren't
learning physics, they're simply spinning their wheels and learning
nothing. They could be honing valuable math skills that might one
day prepare them to actually learn physics, or, if they never actually
do learn physics, they'll at least be able to figure out how long it
takes the bus to make it across town.
Citizen Jimserac
You are quite correct.
Any attitude about what kids cannot do is WRONG.
They CAN do it - it is the atmosphere, the teaching environment,
the teacher, the books, the core curriculum and the cultural
milleau that all contribute to this. But at the heart of it
is a system designed to coddle and warehouse students
rather than teach them. Docility, obedience and unthinking
servitude are the educational goals, however unapropos this
might be for this day and age in the future that is now.
John Gato's devastating analysis is irrefutable.
http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>John Gato's devastating analysis is irrefutable.
>
>http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
Actually it is easily refutable.
Gatto's books are largely composed of unfootnoted half-truths
interpreted through his extremist ideological filter.
For example, the first few pages of that book are a mixture of quotes
from European philosophers, and a popular *novel* by Eggleston, as if
a novel contains factual recording. He then has a quote from Colonel
Edward Mandel House which indicates that as a kid they played soldier
with real guns, and that the school he attended had violent hazing
(that this totally contradicts the image presented by the novel seems
lost of Gatto). He seems to think that this is the sort of education
that a kid should get.
Funny how libertarians have trouble with government practicing legally
restrained violence, but not kids practicing unconstrained violence
and torture. (Actually on one page Gatto criticizes schools for not
subjecting misbehaving kids to the lash, so that they learn popular
behavior).
I rarely read even a page of Gatto without finding a claim so
off-the-wall as to be silly, and seldom supported by actual
historians' interpretations of history but only his own (which as
noted rely on selective data that cannot be easily verified).
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
Ah..., I see. And his 30 years of experience teaching
can be discounted too, eh?
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 29, 5:37 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >John Gato's devastating analysis is irrefutable.
>>
>> >http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
>
>can be discounted too, eh?
There are a lot of teachers with 30 years experience. Several of them
have even won awards comparable to Gatto's. Most of them did not quit
teaching in order to make money promoting their political ideology.
Few of them seek the destruction of the public school system. Few of
them who were honored for their math teaching try to assert themselves
as experts in or teachers of history, philosophy, or economics.
And few people with any intelligence would accept a math teacher with
30 years experience as necessarily have any special knowledge of
history, philosophy, or economics, especially when that person
regularly makes false and unsupported statements on the subject.
His 30 years experience teaching is useless to anyone except himself,
unless he is teaching math in a setting somewhat akin to the public
school system in which he earned his award, such that his experience
has some applicability to something he is doing.
I might grant that someone who taught for 30 years might be
well-equipped to identify problems in the immediate classroom
environment (though it is unclear that this would generalize to even
include the class next door, much less the entire US). I might also
credit an award-winning teacher's opinion as to whether a suggested
reform MIGHT work to resolve the problems he sees in that limited
environment, but would not call his opinion definitive, since the
reform might be outside of his realm of expertise.
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
An intriguingly narrow focus. So, in your view, no intelligent
person who has specialized in one area of teaching,
can be permitted to espouse or have philosophical views
on the efficacy of the public education institutions, their
organization and possible weknesses and make comments on the
underlying
philosophies which have been used to set up these structures.
This makes some sense, and, in addition, implicitly contains contempt
for the average tax paying citizen, who has done no teaching
at all but remains mystified at the gap between the public education
lobbies' expressions of success and the typical mental attitudes
and states of typical young people that are encountered
in everyday life.
Do you really believe that I need a degree in philosophy in order
to form an opinion about the philosophicall foundations of American
education?
If, for example, Nazis were to gain control of the NEA and they
started to espouse racist seperatism as the key to improving
education, do you really think that common citizens could
not see the fallacies of such a theory and would not reject
it? Would you still reject Gato's certain condemnation
of such an idea because
he did not have a degree and expertise in political science??
Why not then, pay attention to a teacher - a person who has spent
years inside the system - yes it is true, he spent that time teaching
a specialty subject, but one would think such a person
would be preeminently qualified to comment on that system
having observed the consequence of their organizational
and systemic philosophies from the bottom up.
Mr. Gato claims that a very specific group of people, calling
themselves
"social scientists" took control of the school system starting as
early
as the 1880's and that this movement established as orthodoxy
by the 1920's with the full consent of the government.
He gives names and books which espouse their philosophy -
an elitist view which seeks to "dumb down" education
for the vast majority of students and in addition to inculcate
attitudes of conformity, consumeristic behaviour, docility
and non-thinking. Creativty is carefully blocked, prevented
and its growth heavily throttled. Individual thinking, and most
especially analytical thinking which exposes the numerous
fallacies of government, relgion or authority were to be the
province only of the upper class elites while the masses
were "programmed" to be content in their rote factory jobs
or in selfless sacrifice on unamed battlefields for wars
whoose motives were never to be questioned.
I, and many others, do not believe that schools were
intended to be pressure cookers of violence
and drugs, nor that their proper purpose
is the warehousing of young people, for as long
as possible, for motives and philosophies detailed by people
such as Gato. I stand on the irrefutablility of his position -
that the current state of today's schools is a direct
result of the philosophical foundations accepted
as gospel and by default so long ago - that the
strict segregation by age groups and "grades"
in cubical "classrooms" is more apropos for
a penal colony than for the uplifiting
liberation, intellectual stimulation and growth
that should have been characteristic
of the growing years of many past generations.
In fact, the easy dismissal of consideration of his ideas,
with a contemptuous shrug of indifference,
would be the most characteristic response of the
elitists themselves - the very group interested
in preserving such a system and who would
perceive social mobility and an alert and
well educated citizenship as a threat and danger.
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>person who has specialized in one area of teaching,
>can be permitted to espouse or have philosophical views
>on the efficacy of the public education institutions, their
>organization and possible weknesses and make comments on the
>underlying philosophies which have been used to set up these structures.
Of course they can. Anyone has a right to an opinion. But what is
an opinion worth?
Their specialization in one area of education provides them no special
claim to expertise in other areas, or in the general field of
education. Their opinions are worth no more than mine (I don't claim
my opinions are especially valuable either, but then I don't try to
sell books full of them).
>This makes some sense, and, in addition, implicitly contains contempt
>for the average tax paying citizen, who has done no teaching
>at all but remains mystified at the gap between the public education
>lobbies' expressions of success and the typical mental attitudes
>and states of typical young people that are encountered
>in everyday life.
Not at all. I would only hold contempt for the average tax paying
citizen, if he were to read an author like Gatto, and believe what he
reads (probably because Gatto used the correct ideological buzzwords
to push his buttons).
Of course the average tax-paying citizen *doesn't* read Gatto and
believe him, or the loonytoonian party would probably get more votes
than it does, and the public schools would have less support than they
do.
I haven't heard a lot of "expressions of success" from the public
education lobbies, so I am not sure what gap there might be between
such and anything else. Indeed one of the classic complaints is that
the public education lobbies are always seeking more money, which
tends to be considered an "excuse for failure" rather than an
"expression of success".
The typical mental attitudes and states of typical young people have
little or nothing to do with the public schools, and much more to do
with the culture (both popular culture and general American culture),
and their age and its inherent immaturity and focus on other things
besides what adults think are good for them. In particular, there is
no reason to believe that the market place will solve such problems -
indeed popular culture itself demonstrates how the market place feeds
and caters to such attitudes.
>Do you really believe that I need a degree in philosophy in order
>to form an opinion about the philosophicall foundations of American
>education?
Anyone can form an opinion.
An opinion about philosophy isn't worth anything, except perhaps to
the person who holds that opinion.
>If, for example, Nazis were to gain control of the NEA
Not especially likely. The usual bogeyman fear is that "socialists"
would gain control of the NEA. Bogeyman arguments of course show
contempt for the opinions of the average teacher, who being
college-educated should be considered to be at least a little smarter
and better-informed than the average tax-paying citizen.
>and they started to espouse racist seperatism as the key to improving
>education, do you really think that common citizens could
>not see the fallacies of such a theory and would not reject
>it?
Depends on whether a demagog like Gatto or Hitler was trying to sell
that theory.
Your argument fails the test of history because indeed in Nazi Germany
a lot of common citizens DID accept Hitler's ideas and did not reject
them. Furthermore, a lot and probably the majority of common citizens
in the antebellum south did not see the fallacies of the arguments for
slavery. And our entire society bought precisely such a racist
separation argument, up to the level of the US Supreme Court in 1896,
and that opinion held sway for more than 50 years - a lot longer than
the Nazis held power.
>Would you still reject Gato's certain condemnation of such an idea because
>he did not have a degree and expertise in political science??
I don't reject Gatto's ideas because he has no expertise. I reject
Gatto's attempt to pretend that he DOES have relevant expertise. And
then I reject his opinions because they are founded on ideology
mingled with erroneous factoids.
I have a prejudice against ideology in the first place. Erroneous
factoids merely irritate me. Trying to pass off erroneous factoids in
an alleged attempt to improve education really offends me.
>Why not then, pay attention to a teacher - a person who has spent
>years inside the system - yes it is true, he spent that time teaching
>a specialty subject, but one would think such a person
>would be preeminently qualified to comment on that system
>having observed the consequence of their organizational
>and systemic philosophies from the bottom up.
I would tend to think that such a person might be well-qualified to
comment on the policies of the department that he teaches in, somewhat
less qualified to discuss the policies of the school that he teaches
is, much less qualified to discuss the policies of the district that
he teaches in, etc.
Note that I use "policies" and not "philosophies". No one is
especially qualified to comment on "philosophies" held by anyone other
than themselves, which is no problem because comments on philosophies
aren't worth anything.
>Mr. Gato claims that a very specific group of people, calling
>themselves "social scientists" took control of the school system starting as
>early as the 1880's and that this movement established as orthodoxy
>by the 1920's with the full consent of the government.
And his claim is baloney.
The first clue is that the phrase "the school system" is used. This
country has no singular "school system". One could argue that there
is a single school system in each territory and state, but that
ignores the very real degree of autonomy each district has in most
states. In the 1880s to 1920s, this autonomy was far greater than it
is now; few states had much in the way of standards and controls over
individual schools and districts; in the 1880s, there weren't even
standards for teacher training.
The second clue, matching the first, is the use of "the government"
which is an identical fallacy.
Then the final straw is that this is a classic conspiracy-theory
argument, the sort of thing used by extremists to inspire paranoia.
Conspiracy theories demand the highest level of skepticism.
It is indeed the case that in the 19th century, political machines
sometimes controlled "the government" of some particular jurisdiction,
usually a city. Such machines arose when there were no checks and
balances against such things; they usually hinged on the machinations
of a "boss" who was skilled at pulling the strings of the
organization, and such machines often unraveled when a boss lost
power. Machines in one jurisdiction did not have especial power in
another jurisdiction, except to the extent that a large city machine
had considerable influence at the state level because it could deliver
votes.
I reject any meaningful comparison between the "education lobbies" and
"political machines". A political machine was much more than a lobby,
and it was specific to the jurisdiction.
>He gives names and books which espouse their philosophy -
[yawn] Who gives a damn about philosophy?
>an elitist view which seeks to "dumb down" education
>for the vast majority of students and in addition to inculcate
>attitudes of conformity, consumeristic behaviour, docility
>and non-thinking. Creativty is carefully blocked, prevented
>and its growth heavily throttled. Individual thinking, and most
>especially analytical thinking which exposes the numerous
>fallacies of government, relgion or authority were to be the
>province only of the upper class elites while the masses
>were "programmed" to be content in their rote factory jobs
>or in selfless sacrifice on unamed battlefields for wars
>whoose motives were never to be questioned.
More conspiracy theories, and ideological nonsense which attempts to
derive "philosophy" out of behavior, and occasionally from selective
quotations from individuals whose power never approached that of a
political boss. (And Gatto in particular has used unfootnoted quotes
allegedly from Dewey that experts on Dewey couldn't even find, quotes
which those experts said were not characteristic of Dewey's opinions).
>I, and many others, do not believe that schools were
>intended to be pressure cookers of violence
>and drugs,
"Intended" by whom? This is a question of fact. It is indeed likely
that there was no one who ever said to themselves "lets make schools
into pressure cookers of violence and drugs".
>nor that their proper purpose is the warehousing of young people,
This on the other hand is not a question of fact. The use of the word
"proper" suggests a moral argument. Moral arguments are worthless
without common agreement on moral standards.
It is in fact historical truth that the schools were in some locales
intended to "warehouse" young people, in the sense of a) removing them
from the labor force in conjunction with child labor laws and b) keep
them off the streets, which is where they would likely be if they were
not in school and not employed. There were policies enacted in law
that were explicitly supported by such arguments because the arguments
are in the historical record. (whether those arguments reflected some
underlying "motives and philosophies" is unanswerable; see below)
You may disagree with such policies, but that then becomes a political
argument, not a question of fact, and resolvable in our society at the
ballot box.
>for as long as possible,
Since different states have different compulsory education laws, and
yet do not have significant differences in the nature of their young
people, "as long as possible" is not an accurate description of such
laws. Clearly it is *possible* for compulsory education in all states
to extend to age 18 as it does in Virginia, but it doesn't.
>for motives and philosophies detailed by people such as Gato.
I reject the claim that Gatto has the mind-reading power to state the
motives of other people. In any event, the "motives and philosophies"
aren't especially relevant The policies are what matter, regardless
of why someone voted for them.
It is useful for historians to analyze events and figure out why they
occurred, which can include some amount of speculation as to the
motives and philosophies of the key players in those events. But such
speculation is generally recognized for what it is - it takes
significant scholarship to establish what someone actually thought
about a subject, even given an extensive record of their writings over
their entire lifetime, and even more scholarship to try to connect
those thoughts with how the person actually acted. The example that
comes to mind is Thomas Jefferson who wrote the words of the
Declaration of Independence, but who owned slaves; who is noted for
the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" but who
attended church services in the Capitol, while meanwhile writing
privately that most of the New Testament was wrong, who questioned
whether the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional but did it anyway.
TJ is an individual whose ideas are better documented than most, and
yet expert historians often disagree on how much the "motives and
philosophies" mattered. Gatto and you have a lot of hubris to think
that with even less training and scholarship, you can state
conclusively what the "motives and philosophies" of large numbers of
others are, as if they were a monolithic entity, and that specific
policies were derived from the "motives and philosophies".
>I stand on the irrefutablility of his position -
All kinds of wild-assed claims are irrefutable. The question is
whether they can be supported by objective evidence. In matters of
social science, objective evidence is hard to come by without careful
controls and analysis. Gatto doesn't even pretend to be objective.
>that the current state of today's schools is a direct
>result of the philosophical foundations accepted
>as gospel and by default so long ago
That is an indeed irrefutable position. It can not be disproven that
ANYTHING is a direct result of "philosophical foundations". Nor can
it be proven.
And it is a vacuous position too. Even if it were true, one would
have to know WHICH philosophical foundations had this magical "direct
effect", WHY they had that effect, and HOW they came to be accepted
"as gospel" which by the words themselves starts one into the realm of
the psychology of religion, another scholarly subject which is quite
inconclusive.
And I'm not sure that it would matter because why a policy was enacted
doesn't necessarily tell us why it was sustained for a long period of
time. The political and social environment, the motives and
philosophies, and the players themselves, all don't stay the same.
Marxism was adopted by 1918 Russia and rejected by 1992 Russia, and it
is quite arguable that the form of Marxism wasn't the same at the end
as it was at the beginning and neither form was something Karl Marx
would have approved of.
>- that the
>strict segregation by age groups and "grades"
>in cubical "classrooms" is more apropos for
>a penal colony than for the uplifting
>liberation, intellectual stimulation and growth
>that should have been characteristic
>of the growing years of many past generations.
I see a "should" in there which is a moral question, an "apropos"
which is a political question, "uplifting liberation" which is
ideological blather, and a mystical invocation of "past generations"
which isn't necessarily relevant to the question of what today's
generation needs.
In other words, that sentence is meaningless noise to me.
>In fact, the easy dismissal of consideration of his ideas,
>with a contemptuous shrug of indifference,
>would be the most characteristic response of the
>elitists themselves
It is also the characteristic response of a lot of other people. Like
everyone who gives contemptuous shrugs of indifference at any form of
ideological blathering.
And irrelevant. Just because I agree with Josef Stalin that Hitler
should not have invaded Russia, does not make me a Stalinist; nor does
it make me wrong, despite the evils which Stalin inflicted.
Of course it is also meaningless unless the "elitists" you mention
actually exist as a meaningful force in politics. Most of the
identifiable elitists that show up in the education newsgroups tend to
be libertarians and quite ineffectual politically.
I dismiss his ideology, because it is clearly an ideology and hence
automatically dismissible. I dismiss his history which is
contemptibly inaccurate. Every once in a while he might have a point
or two that would be worth considering if it were divested of the
ideological and erroneous historical blather, but it isn't worth the
effort because the only ones who want to discuss Gatto are True
Believers (tm) that are committed to every word of his scripture, and
this seem incapable of such divestiture.
>the very group interested in preserving such a system and who would
>perceive social mobility and an alert and
>well educated citizenship as a threat and danger.
[yawn - more conspiracy theories]
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
>
> read more »
Since opinions are worth nothing, I don't quite understand
why you responded at all - perhaps mine WERE worth that much
anyway.
You attack Gatto himself (fine with me) and his lack of philosophical
erudition (again fine with me) but have NOTHING to say about his
ideas - that the very foundations of American education, based
on "classrooms" rigid seperation of students into age groups
and the completely uniform curriculum they currently have
(or try to) is deleterious.
Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories or
loonytoonian parties (I like that word!!) does nothing to
address the fundamental facts that there have already
been not one but several Columbine's, that foreign students
are beating the crap out of our students intellectually
and that the prevailing culture most certianly DOES come,
in part from ideas, attitudes and values prevalent in the public
education system.
The additional wholesale diminution of an already ailing public
schools system by the addition of hundreds of thousands
of non-english speaking or barely english speaking newcomers,
again reinforces Gatto's idea that the system is being used
more for social warehousing and social control than
for education.
These developments are not exactly "conspiracies", I don't think
Gatto see groups of people meeting secretly to hold back
the American student - rather, I think it is the idea
that "social sciences" (sic) and behaviourism
derived from an anti-humanistic charlatan named Skinner,
combine to provide a very handy idealogy and
"scientific" justification for a whole class of smug
self appointed and well paid "experts" whoose only net
result is the dumbing down of our educational
system EXACTLY as the original post regarding
the article by Buchanan describes. I submit
that Gatto provides the rationale for that dumbing
down process, that the philosophical ideas
exposed in his book explain this clearly
for ANYONE who cares to read the book
and consider what he is saying - no Phd's
reqired and without so easily dismissing
with a wave of the hand all of Gatto
the moment one encounters a single
missing ibid., footnote or exact page reference.
Citizen Jimserac
racqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh, what the heck, this looks like fun, so I might as well jump in...
Since Gatto is such an expert with, what, twenty-eight years as a math
teacher, my near thirty years as a physics and chemistry teacher
certainly trumps that!
>You attack Gatto himself (fine with me) and his lack of philosophical
>erudition (again fine with me) but have NOTHING to say about his
>ideas - that the very foundations of American education, based
>on "classrooms" rigid seperation of students into age groups
>and the completely uniform curriculum they currently have
>(or try to) is deleterious.
Any organization created by man is inherently flawed. The current
organization of the public education system developed over time as a
series of decisions were made of how to best serve the needs of the
children, the wishes of the parents, the demands of society at large,
given the economies allowed by taxpayers. That what came out of that
is not perfect should certainly not come as a surpirse to anyone. The
same would be true if every one of those decisions along the way had
gone in some other, or indeed, the opposite direction. It's easy to
criticise things; it's quite something else to come up with something
that is demonstrably superior given the constraints.
>Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories
Having read some of the charges being thrown around, one would be
hard-pressed to refer to them in any other fashion.
>loonytoonian parties (I like that word!!) does nothing to
>address the fundamental facts that there have already
>been not one but several Columbine's,
Which have little to do with the educational system other than having
occured on school property. MANY comparable acts have occured OFF
school property. This is a societal problem, not an educational one.
> that foreign students
>are beating the crap out of our students intellectually
Well, firstly, you need to state the criteria you're using to justify
the statement. Regardless, there are more of THEM than there are of
US, and this, too, is a societal issue. Most such statements involve
comparisons between statistical populations that are not comparable in
the first place.
>and that the prevailing culture most certianly DOES come,
>in part from ideas, attitudes and values prevalent in the public
>education system.
They cannot be divorced, certainly, but it would be hard to justify
the position that the educational system is, in fact, the CAUSE or
driving force for our culture. The educational system ia EXPECTED to
reflect the desires and mandates of our society. Why would you be
surprised to see commonalities?
>The additional wholesale diminution of an already ailing public
>schools system by the addition of hundreds of thousands
>of non-english speaking or barely english speaking newcomers,
>again reinforces Gatto's idea that the system is being used
>more for social warehousing and social control than
>for education.
Hardly. Schools have a mandate to provide an education to ALL
children. They must, therefore, attempt to do so. That this
complicates the situation is self-evident. Still, this is the will of
the people, and so the educational system attempts to do the best it
can. Your solution is what?
>These developments are not exactly "conspiracies",
Well good; it's nice to see that you are not a wacko.
> I don't think Gatto see groups of people meeting secretly
> to hold back the American student
Well, I wouldn't presume to guess what Gatto thinks, but clearly there
ARE people who think this way.
> - rather, I think it is the idea
>that "social sciences" (sic) and behaviourism
>derived from an anti-humanistic charlatan named Skinner,
>combine to provide a very handy idealogy and
>"scientific" justification for a whole class of smug
>self appointed and well paid "experts" whoose only net
>result is the dumbing down of our educational
>system EXACTLY as the original post regarding
>the article by Buchanan describes.
Care to identify a few of these people and list their bases of power
for subverting the entire educational system? I confess myself
dismayed that a secret cabal could accomplish so much on a national
level without obviously identifying themselves. I, for one, would
like to know who they are!
Look, Citizen, I'm sure you're a nice guy who loves his family and
tries to muddle through life doing as much good and as little harm as
you can. I am sure you'd agree that there would be people who would
second guess most everything you've done, and who would find fault
with any number of decisions/steps you've made. In may cases, these
people are referred to as "parents". So, yes, people can find things
to complain about with regard to the educational system. The problem
is that no one has provided an alternative that is acceptable to
society. ANY alternative can be similarly attacked. Doing NOTHING
can be similarly attacked. Our educational system was NEVER intended
to serve only those who are the intellectually elite, so if the
intellectually elite are not optimally served, it should not be seen
as a "failure", but instead as an inevitable result of an attempt to
serve EVERYONE. It may be (and I believe it SHOULD be) that we need
to do something additional for the intellectually elite, or to at
least provide some mechanism to promote excellence, but that is NOT
the mandate handed down to the educational system, and it is NOT
funded as an extension of the mandate, so it is not a justified
criticism to make of the system. We have, by and large, what WE have
demanded. If WE, as a society, decide otherwise, then things will
change. It's really a very simple proposition.
Bob LeChevalier
>Since opinions are worth nothing, I don't quite understand
>why you responded at all - perhaps mine WERE worth that much
>anyway.
Thus is Usenet. Most of what is posted is worthless. I don't make
any claim that my posting is worth anything to anyone but myself (as
an opportunity to vent).
>You attack Gatto himself (fine with me) and his lack of philosophical
>erudition (again fine with me)
I don't give a damn about philosophical erudition. Philosophy is
bunk. It is his historical erudition that I argued with.
>but have NOTHING to say about his ideas
His ideas are a natural offshoot of his ideology. I reject his
ideology. What more is there to say?
>that the very foundations of American education, based
>on "classrooms" rigid seperation of students into age groups
>and the completely uniform curriculum they currently have
>(or try to) is deleterious.
That was not the topic of discussion. Each of those could serve as a
worthy newsgroup topic. Why don't you post your own opinions rather
than parroting someone who isn't present to defend his ideas?
A brief answer to each:
Rigid separation into age groups might indeed be deleterious for some
reasons. Alternatives might be deleterious for other reasons. The
more the subjectivity of the decisions on age grouping, the more the
chance of denying equal protection under the law. Various other
alternatives are merely more expensive.
The curriculum isn't nearly completely uniform. Innumerable numbers
of attempts have been made to make national standards. To the extent
that such standards have even been written, they are entirely
non-binding. The right-wing push for NCLB has come the closest to
causing compulsion of the curriculum to a standard, but even there the
standards are at the state level, and are only in certain subjects.
Generally, it has also been the right-wing that has pushed for
adoption of really rigid reading curriculums that stress phonics.
Thus if you have a disagreement, it is largely with one political
wing.
The curriculum was less rigid and less uniform in the past, and the US
was judged to be noncompetitive with other nations because of lower
test scores. The focus on test scores is largely a marketplace issue.
Kids with higher scores tend to get into better colleges, and to get
hired quicker and to get higher salaries in the private sector. It is
also moderately popular in the political marketplace.
Be that as it may, differences in curriculum have the potential to
also be "equal protection under the law" issues, if it can be argued
that one curriculum prepares someone for college and the marketplace
better than another. There is also the cost of offering multiple
curricula. Individualized education is expensive, and the public
dislikes taxes.
>Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories
That is what you described.
>does nothing to
>address the fundamental facts that there have already
>been not one but several Columbine's,
So?
>that foreign students are beating the crap out of our students intellectually
Because their countries DO have rigid standardized curricula, strong
central regulation of education, and even stricter age grouping as
well as segregation based on test scores. They also generally have
less tolerance for dissent and misbehavior from students, supported by
the parents and the culture.
>and that the prevailing culture most certianly DOES come,
>in part from ideas, attitudes and values prevalent in the public
>education system.
I see no reason to believe that, except in the most trivial sense that
failure to change the culture causes the culture to continue to
prevail.
>The additional wholesale diminution of an already ailing public
>schools system
It isn't "ailing". It merely isn't excelling as much as some would
like.
>by the addition of hundreds of thousands of non-english speaking or barely english speaking newcomers,
Singapore, one of those countries that regularly trounces us, has
multiple national languages.
In the meantime, those are the kids that need educating (and indeed
those are the kids for whom public education is most important, since
it serves as a vehicle for integrating immigrants into our culture.
When Horace Mann was first setting up the school system, integrating
Irish immigrants into Massachusetts society was one of the key goals.
The foriegn-born were 16.5% of the population in 1850 Massachusetts,
21% in New York, 36% in Wisconsin. By 1900, the foreign born were
more than 30% of the Massachusetts population, and 25% of the
California population, as well as 13.6% of the entire national
population.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab13.html
Only California has such a problem nowadays, with more than 25%
foreign-born. New York has risen to 20%.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-34.pdf
Some localities have greater percentages - here in northern Virginia,
more than 30% of entering kindergartners do not speak English.
Of course the schools are going to reflect demographics. It is in
fact quite arguable based on WHERE the public schools developed, and
HOW they developed in their earliest years, that teaching those
foreign students was part of the designed intent of the school system.
>again reinforces Gatto's idea that the system is being used
>more for social warehousing and social control than
>for education.
I don't argue that the schools are being used for those purposes IN
ADDITION to education. The schools were in part created for those
purposes. In an era where even more parents work, they serve as
publicly supported day care as well as all the prior purposes of
keeping kids off the streets and out of the regular work force.
>These developments are not exactly "conspiracies"
It is your (and Gatto's) characterization of them that makes them
conspiracy theories.
If one adopts the more naturalistic explanation that the schools are
the way they are as a response to local demographics and local
politics, one gets a better explanation of what one sees. Thus we see
relatively high test scores in Utah despite much-lower-than average
school spending. Utah is only 7% foreign-born, and has a more uniform
culture dominated by Mormonism, which is strongly family-based and
somewhat authoritarian.
No conspiracies are needed, and demographics accounts for the much of
the differentiation of results by states (I've argued that one other
variable - weather, accounts for much of the rest; in places where it
is cold and there are fewer alternatives, kids are more likely to
study than literally "chill" with their friends and hence do well in
school), whereas Gatto's ideology does not (high scoring Minnesota
does not have more libertarian principles in its schools than low
scoring Mississippi).
>I don't think
>Gatto see groups of people meeting secretly to hold back
>the American student - rather, I think it is the idea
>that "social sciences" (sic) and behaviourism
>derived from an anti-humanistic charlatan named Skinner,
Since Skinner had his heyday in the mid-20th century, and Gatto per
your prior post said that schools were taken over by "social sciences"
before 1920, you have a severe historical disconnect.
I am also quite sure that Skinnerism is not a particularly popular
doctrine these days, having been harshly attacked by the left (as well
as by Randians) as "totalitarian".
Schools do practice "behavior management" techniques, but they have
little relationship to what Skinner proposed.
>combine to provide a very handy idealogy and
>"scientific" justification for a whole class of smug
>self appointed and well paid "experts"
Since the experts don't agree, the evidence is lacking that there is
any uniform ideology.
>whoose only net result is the dumbing down of our educational
>system EXACTLY as the original post regarding
>the article by Buchanan describes.
The dumbing down of our educational system, to the extent that it is
real, derives from the anti-elitist attitudes of American voters
coupled with the anti-elitist "equal protection" provisions of the
14th amendment and civil rights laws, such that there is a tendency to
reduce things to the lowest common denominator, rather than the more
difficult raising of the lower-achieving to the highest standard.
It is heightened by such programs as NCLB.
But as I have oft posted, our education system, while it might be
"dumbed-downed" from the point of view of a gifted elite, is not more
so than it was 150 years ago when the education system was first
created.
>I submit that Gatto provides the rationale for that dumbing
>down process,
It is his rationale that one of those conspiracy theories. No
conspiracy or rationale is needed. It is a natural offshoot of modern
politics in our culture.
>that the philosophical ideas exposed in his book explain this clearly
Philosophical ideas never explain anything. Philosophy rarely has
anything to do with the real world.
>no Phd's reqired
No critical thinking required, you mean.
Any serious intellectual argument has to intelligently present
alternative points of view. Gatto presents strawmen parodies of other
positions (from which I opine that he deserves no better from me,
though as you can see, I do spend the time to respond to his
uncritical supporters).
>and without so easily dismissing with a wave of the hand all of Gatto
I don't dismiss ALL of Gatto. I specifically said at the end of my
post
<Every once in a while he might have a point
<or two that would be worth considering if it were divested of the
<ideological and erroneous historical blather, but it isn't worth the
<effort because the only ones who want to discuss Gatto are True
<Believers (tm) that are committed to every word of his scripture, and
<this seem incapable of such divestiture.
Because his ideology so strongly pervades his book, and his facts are
subsidiary to his ideology, his books are a waste of time. There are
better things to read, though hardly as simplistic in their
assumptions and conclusions.
>the moment one encounters a single missing ibid., footnote or exact page reference.
I dismiss him because that unfootnoted data is WRONG, and thus he
argues his philosophy based on incorrect and selectively edited
factoids.
I dismiss him not because of single errors, but because the errors are
pervasive.
I also dismiss him because his argument is essentially ideological,
and I reject ideology and philosophy as a matter of course.
Ideological arguments at best amount to assuming your conclusion, and
Gatto is an excellent example of this.
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
> I dismiss him not because of single errors, but because the errors are
> pervasive.
>
> I also dismiss him because his argument is essentially ideological,
> and I reject ideology and philosophy as a matter of course.
> Ideological arguments at best amount to assuming your conclusion, and
> Gatto is an excellent example of this.
>
> lojbab
Thanks, interesting objections and I have figured out the key
fundamental
to your position which explains why I could not quite understand your
position.
The key is that you do not believe philosophy and reject ideology and
philosophy as a matter of course.
I, on the other hand, believe that ideology and philosophy have
an inextricable and direct connection with the historical events
of history right up to the present moment.
At this fundamental level we are proceeding from such disparate
assumptions that no additional communication is possible.
Thanks again, however, for stating your position so clearly -
it was of interest.
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>The key is that you do not believe philosophy and reject ideology and
>philosophy as a matter of course.
>
>I, on the other hand, believe that ideology and philosophy have
>an inextricable and direct connection with the historical events
>of history right up to the present moment.
You share that opinion with Karl Marx and numerous others who promoted
ideology.
Alas, no one can prove their ideology is more correct than any other,
since it all depends on the fundamental assumptions.
>At this fundamental level we are proceeding from such disparate
>assumptions that no additional communication is possible.
I agree.
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
>
> You share that opinion with Karl Marx and numerous others who promoted
> ideology.
>
Indeed others such as Jefferson, Hancock and a fellow named
Thomas Paine.
Anyway, do not fear about the public education system - it is
doomed to self destruction as sudents in greater and greater
numbers gradually discover online Internet initiatives such as
the remarkable MIT Open Courseware and gradually it will come
to be understood that its true purpose, despite pretensions
of educating the student wll actually be to socially
isolate and indoctrinate them. In addition, technological
devices such as cell phones will permit a rapid inter-communication
will do end runs around the moribund moves, motives and manipulations
of the aging elitists whoose days of glory are all in the past.
I am quite certain you will not agree with the interpretation
of that development either but, as an idealogue
you can understand my "bias" (!).
Good luck.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> On 31 Mar 2007 09:48:03 -0700, "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com>
That's odd, I replied to this but the response seems
never to have made it to the newsgroup.
Well, in case it got lost, essentially I think you do know who
this group of people is - you've ben working for them for
some time - the school adminstrators. Their base
of power is any group from the PTA on up
that continues to support the current system
of public education with its increasingly diminsihingly
unmeasurable returns. If anything the hordes
of newcomers with their language problems have added
to the obfuscation of performance of a system
which has been unworkable for quite some time.
The key to whatever group you wish to blame,
if any, is the continued refusal to re-examine
the possibility of fundamental and systemic
changes in the system. But, I understand
that the long ossified organizational structure
probably precludes even the conception of
such ideas
It is time to re-examine the fundamentals of this
system. Do the students need to be segregated
by age and to be place in rigid time seperated
classes which operate with the punctuality
of an old fashioned factory - right down to the
clocks, the barren brick or stone walls
and the regimentation more characteristic
of an army training camp than a place of learning.
Why not allow students more opportunity
to go out into the real world and see
how things are done? Do the students
ALWAYS need professional teachers
preaching to them - how about brining
in retired physicists or machinists
or war veterans for some seminars
on life experiences - there are a million
different things one could do to make
improvements.
I suspect that none of the above reforms
would even be considered in any but the
most progressive private schools (which
are, neverthless, spinging up everywhere).
But, most likely the key straw to break the
camel's back will be technological. The comming
of the Internet and its dramatic breaking of the
control of information by specialists,
also offers new and unparalleled opportunities
by motivated students to participate in such
things as the MIT Open Courseware initiative
or download extraordinary programs such
as "Maxima" a symbolic algebra program
capable of solving algebraic (and many
other) problems symbolically as well
as nigh infinite precision math which runs
even on cheap desktop or laptop PC's.
Then there is the comming of the cell phone
which allows instant communication between
groups of students which opens up
all kinds of fun possibilites including
outguessing the school adminstration's
next moves.
I exchanged some comments with the person who
inititated this thread regarding the possible
applicability of Gatto's ideas but that
got dismissed immediately because
Gatto uses "idealogy" and "philosophy".
I don't know how this other responsdent
would make criteria for reform and hesitate
to ask but, if it comes, reform must come
from the bottom up - from the teachers and the
students themselves - never from the top down.
This is why Gatto's comments seemed
particularly appropos to me, because he was
a teacher for so many years and his observations
are telling and his conlclusions logical.
I am of course as skeptical of the position
that public education just needs more money
to "make things right" as the original
respondent is of Gatto's doctrinaire condemnation
of Dewey and the "social scientists".
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 31, 10:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> You share that opinion with Karl Marx and numerous others who promoted
>> ideology.
>
>Indeed others such as Jefferson, Hancock and a fellow named
>Thomas Paine.
Of them, perhaps Paine can be considered to have expressed a coherent
ideology, but I am not sure he held to those ideals consistently
through his life. I'm not familiar with any significant philosophical
or ideological writings of Hancock.
Jefferson has numerous and voluminous writings, but they do NOT show a
consistent ideology, but rather an evolving pragmatism colored by his
beliefs about morality. Pragmatism is pretty much the antithesis of
ideology.
The one thing Jefferson was arguably consistent about in both theory
and practice was the need for public education.
>Anyway, do not fear about the public education system - it is
>doomed to self destruction as sudents in greater and greater
>numbers gradually discover online Internet initiatives such as
>the remarkable MIT Open Courseware
Students can discover all sorts of things on the net. Whether they
will use them is another thing. Whether their parents will be
satisfied with something that their kids have found on the net, even
with MIT's name attached, is still another thing.
Still, the existence of such things is a pragmatic approach to
creating alternative, and thus I approve.
>and gradually it will come to be understood that its true purpose,
There you go again.
For something to have a singular "true purpose" then *all* those
involved in creating the thing must have had that "true purpose" in
mind when they did so. This is "conspiracy theory".
I doubt that there is any single purpose that can be stated for the
public schools that is not so nebulously worded as to be meaningless.
>despite pretensions of educating the student wll actually be to socially
>isolate and indoctrinate them.
"indoctrinate" is merely another word for "teach", so that is one of
those nebulously-worded goals.
<Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
<1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
<2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of
< view, or principle
If you are focusing on the second meaning (which is still rather
nebulous), then indeed most Americans will agree that this is
applicable as well. We want kids to know the fundamental principles
of American citizenship, such as are stated in the BoR, the
Constitution, and the DofI. Jefferson specifically mentioned training
for citizenship as one of his goals.
"socially isolate" is one of those phrases that is so nebulous as to
be uninterpretable.
If you mean that kids are isolated from the vast majority of adults
for much of the day so that the latter can "Make Money Fast", then
that is certainly one goal. But since the kids spend only 30-35 hours
a week at school, they have plenty of non-school time to be
non-isolated from adults.
In rural areas at the time the schools were started, schools and
churches were the only means to break the isolation inherent to rural
living, so such isolation cannot be considered a fundamental goal of
the system. For those non-English-speaking immigrants, the schools
break their isolation from speakers of other languages, and
reflexively break the isolation that English speakers have from
non-English speaking immigrants.
>In addition, technological
>devices such as cell phones will permit a rapid inter-communication
>will do end runs around the moribund moves, motives and manipulations
>of the aging elitists whoose days of glory are all in the past.
Actually, they will just create new elites of people who are skilled
in and comfortable with networking by cellphone. These new elites
will have their own moves, motives, and manipulations which they will
inflict on others.
Anyone who has seen the sort of juvenile clique-building,
rumormongering and such that teens practice on MySpace will not assume
that new technologies will necessarily bring forth any improvement in
what appears to be a fundamental aspect of human nature.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Well, in case it got lost, essentially I think you do know who
>this group of people is - you've ben working for them for
>some time - the school adminstrators.
Alas, but school administrators (which are hardly a monolith much less
a conspiracy), aren't capable of what you accuse them of. They are no
more in control than anyone else.
>Their base of power is any group from the PTA on up
>that continues to support the current system
>of public education with its increasingly diminsihingly
>unmeasurable returns.
Odd, that most of the world thinks that NCLB and other endeavors have
made "measuring returns" the highest priority of the system, in some
ways even higher than educating kids.
>If anything the hordes
>of newcomers with their language problems have added
>to the obfuscation of performance of a system
>which has been unworkable for quite some time.
Since the performance of the system for those newcomers is part of the
performance that needs to be measured, what you seem to be saying is
that you are one of those elitists who think that only
English-speakers matter.
>The key to whatever group you wish to blame,
Why blame a group? The problems are not the fault of any "group"
other than perhaps "we the people" who have expectations that do not
match the resources that we wish to apply (and I am not talking about
money especially).
>if any, is the continued refusal to re-examine
>the possibility of fundamental and systemic
>changes in the system.
There is more such reexamination than there is reexamination of other
systems. But there is no consensus that any fundamental changes are
needed, much less that particular changes would be efficacious.
>But, I understand
>that the long ossified organizational structure
>probably precludes even the conception of
>such ideas
The use of polysyllabic pejorative adjectives merely makes you more
unconvincing than if you talked straight.
>It is time to re-examine the fundamentals of this system.
Why? It wouldn't do any good.
>Do the students need to be segregated by age
Not necessarily. But any alternative would cost money (because change
always costs money), and the disruption would hurt the education of
those kids already in the system, some of whom would invariably fall
through the cracks.
And there is no reason to believe that any other form of organization
would be any better.
>and to be place in rigid time seperated classes which operate with the punctuality
>of an old fashioned factory - right down to the
>clocks,
Factories were created because they were cost and time effective,
always a priority when resources are limited.
>the barren brick or stone walls
Decorating the walls makes little difference.
>and the regimentation more characteristic
>of an army training camp than a place of learning.
Interestingly enough, army training camps are among the most effective
and efficient places of learning that there are.
>Why not allow students more opportunity to go out into the real world and see
>how things are done?
Because most adults don't want them around. They would disrupt the
work that is being done, require supervision that no one has time to
offer, and wouldn't learn much anyway.
>Do the students ALWAYS need professional teachers preaching to them
No. But "we the people" aren't willing to pay professional salaries
to people who aren't trained to that level, and very few people are
willing to work for less than teachers earn.
>- how about brining in retired physicists or machinists
>or war veterans for some seminars on life experiences
Sounds like a nice after school extracurricular activity. But life
experiences won't help the kid pass the state tests.
> there are a million different things one could do to make
>improvements.
"We the people" think most of these things would not be improvements,
and "we the people" are the ones paying the bills.
>I suspect that none of the above reforms would even be considered
Most of them have been considered, and in fact aspects of them have
been tried. None has proven to be a panacea. Arguably none has even
raised test scores an iota.
The most successful charter school program is doing what it does by
increasing the length of the school day, adding some Saturday classes,
and imposing additional rules on students.
>in any but the most progressive private schools (which
>are, neverthless, spinging up everywhere).
The number of private school students is almost flat, and only
slightly higher than the numbers at the beginning of the Reagan era.
Public school enrollment is more than 10% higher.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_054.asp
in 12 of the 50 states, the number of private school students dropped
from 1991 to 2001.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_061.asp
You might be correct that the number of "progressive private schools"
is increasing. But those gains would be coming mostly at the expense
of the private Catholic schools, whose numbers and enrollments have
been steadily dropping
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_060.asp
>But, most likely the key straw to break the
>camel's back will be technological. The comming
>of the Internet and its dramatic breaking of the
>control of information by specialists,
Changes in information control is more likely to have impact on adult
private sector markets than on students. Information isn't worth much
unless the student has the background needed to process the
information, and the knowhow to find the information. Learning
background, information finding and information processing sounds like
a nice summary of why kids need an education.
A few geniuses can figure it out for themselves. I was one of them,
but my IQ is nowhere near average, and I know lots of people that are
above average intelligence but less than stratospheric intelligence
who have severe problems in the background or in the finding of
information (though they usually do OK in the processing IF they have
the background).
And half the people have below average intelligence, and many who are
at or above average intelligence don't speak the lingo and therefore
suffer language-based disadvantages.
You apparently want a system that favors a particular elite of
self-motivated and bright learners with access to the latest
technology, at the expense of everyone else.
>also offers new and unparalleled opportunities by motivated students
There's your problem. Most students are NOT motivated.
>to participate in such things as the MIT Open Courseware initiative
>or download extraordinary programs such
>as "Maxima" a symbolic algebra program
>capable of solving algebraic (and many
>other) problems symbolically as well
>as nigh infinite precision math which runs
>even on cheap desktop or laptop PC's.
So what? It's a fancy calculator. If the kid doesn't know the
concepts of algebra, something that solves algebra problems isn't much
help. If the kid isn't interested in algebra (and most kids are not),
they'll never even try to use the program unless someone tells them to
do so, and in many cases not even then.
>Then there is the comming of the cell phone which allows instant communication between
>groups of students which opens up all kinds of fun possibilites including
>outguessing the school adminstration's next moves.
Like confiscating cellphones during school hours, which some schools
do if they catch the kids using them during school hours?
>I exchanged some comments with the person who
>inititated this thread regarding the possible
>applicability of Gatto's ideas but that
>got dismissed immediately because
>Gatto uses "idealogy" and "philosophy".
and erroneous factoids, and not much else.
>I don't know how this other responsdent
>would make criteria for reform and hesitate
>to ask
Good idea. But the first step would be to try to get agreement on the
goals for reform. If you can't do that, then even if you come up with
good ideas, you won't be able to sell them to "we the people".
>but, if it comes, reform must come
>from the bottom up - from the teachers and the
>students themselves - never from the top down.
The teachers and the students don't make the rules, and they don't pay
the bills. Neither has the power for significant reform. Furthermore
schools are imposing added rules and restrictions on teachers to
achieve NCLB goals, which means that teachers have even less ability
than they used to have to try something new, unless the administration
buys into it.
>This is why Gatto's comments seemed particularly appropos to me, because he was
>a teacher for so many years and his observations
>are telling and his conlclusions logical.
In conclusions are of course logical, because he assumed them.
>I am of course as skeptical of the position that public education just needs more money
>to "make things right"
Good idea. Any one who says that is probably as much a snake oil
salesman as Gatto.
The school system needs more money, but that is hardly all it needs,
and that won't "make it right", though it might keep it from getting
worse as the teacher shortage grows, and market forces drive teacher
salaries up at the same time that the public wants class sizes to go
down.
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 31, 10:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> You share that opinion with Karl Marx and numerous others who promoted
> >> ideology.
> >
> >Indeed others such as Jefferson, Hancock and a fellow named
> >Thomas Paine.
>
> Of them, perhaps Paine can be considered to have expressed a coherent
> ideology, but I am not sure he held to those ideals consistently
> through his life. I'm not familiar with any significant philosophical
> or ideological writings of Hancock.
HA! Nobody is exactly consistent in their ideals
or their thinking over the course of their entire lives,
my god man look at Malcom X who made the journey
from hate to tolerance to understanding. Rerember the
aphorisim "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
or is Ralph Waldo Emerson too much of an idealogue
for you too??
> Jefferson has numerous and voluminous writings, but they do NOT show a
> consistent ideology, but rather an evolving pragmatism colored by his
> beliefs about morality. Pragmatism is pretty much the antithesis of
> ideology.
AGAIN with the consistency thing, eh? Ah but now we begin to see
your philosophical misconceptions exposed - where the HELL did you
get
the idea that pragmatism is the antithesis of ideology? The two go
hand
in hand, in fact Pragmatism IS an ideology - it is the idea that the
search
for "what works" is the be all and end all. By an incredible
coincidence,
it was the guiding philosophy of the very people that Gatto
speaks out against and condemns. Did you think that there
are idealogues dedicated to following their principles when they
think it will not work??
Your characterization of Jefferson's writings as "evolving
pragmatism", even
if it were correct, belies the fundamental import of his revolutionary
and
idealogical writings which establish not only the recognition of
fundamental
rights for people, but also (and this is key) the RIGHT to change or
even overthrow
a government when it becomes destructive of those rights.
You automatically dismiss consideration of ideas when they do not fall
into the
proper category or are too philosophical or too idealogical, in your
opinion??
My god man, what is left - you have abstracted yourself out of all
human
discourse - YOU make yourself into a machine, a selective
categorization
machine which bypasses uncomfortable questions though it may leave
you in perfect agreement with yourself.
> The one thing Jefferson was arguably consistent about in both theory
> and practice was the need for public education.
>
> >Anyway, do not fear about the public education system - it is
> >doomed to self destruction as sudents in greater and greater
> >numbers gradually discover online Internet initiatives such as
> >the remarkable MIT Open Courseware
>
> Students can discover all sorts of things on the net. Whether they
> will use them is another thing. Whether their parents will be
> satisfied with something that their kids have found on the net, even
> with MIT's name attached, is still another thing.
And whether the teaching profession will continue
to exist in its current form, yet another.
>
> Still, the existence of such things is a pragmatic approach to
> creating alternative, and thus I approve.
Nobody cares, its happening with or without your approval.
>
> >and gradually it will come to be understood that its true purpose,
>
> There you go again.
>
> For something to have a singular "true purpose" then *all* those
> involved in creating the thing must have had that "true purpose" in
> mind when they did so. This is "conspiracy theory".
YES! And Gatto's premise is that the fundamental agreements
amongst the conspirators was that the masses of immigrant
kids who were to be the subject of their little big social experiment
were NOT to be given the same classical education that the
wealthier kids got but instead were to be "socialized"
(translation: made to become unthinking, docile slaves, obediently
and willingly ready to serve in the trenches, or do rote work
in the factories, to exist with maximum conformity with their peers
and to respect their "masters" or "bosses").
>
> I doubt that there is any single purpose that can be stated for the
> public schools that is not so nebulously worded as to be meaningless.
Nothing nebulous about it, Gatto states clearly the agreement
between the Harvard educated "social" scientists and businessmen
who funded the "experiment". In the 1920's they even stated openly
their purpose and Gatto gives exact quotes. How about you read the
entire
book instead of rejecting it out of hand after a few pages?
>
> >despite pretensions of educating the student wll actually be to socially
> >isolate and indoctrinate them.
>
> "indoctrinate" is merely another word for "teach", so that is one of
> those nebulously-worded goals.
> <Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
> <1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
> <2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of
> < view, or principle
I was referring, was it not obvious? to the second of the
meanings above - "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian
opinion".
>
> If you are focusing on the second meaning (which is still rather
> nebulous), then indeed most Americans will agree that this is
> applicable as well. We want kids to know the fundamental principles
> of American citizenship, such as are stated in the BoR, the
> Constitution, and the DofI. Jefferson specifically mentioned training
> for citizenship as one of his goals.
Yes! But exactly which principles are these. The real ones or the
distorted ones. For example, it is a common misconception that we
OWE something to our country for the wonderful freedoms
that we have enjoyed. If one wishes to serve in the military out of
thankfullness that is most wonderful BUT THE IDEA THAT WE OWE
ANYTHING BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT IS A PERNICIOUS
FALSEHOOD, perpetrated by many and subverts the Declaration
of Independence's assertion that those rights are granted without
exception
at birth. There is NO payback required. Period.
Again, WHY must their be a pledge of allegiance to the flag?
And WHY must it have the god word in there. These are things
taken for granted that we must question. The idea of a pledge
is Bismarckian and embodies a philosophy of servitutde to the state,
BAD IDEA as I'm sure you will agree.
The government serves US at OUR pleasure, NOT the other way around,
got it?
> "socially isolate" is one of those phrases that is so nebulous as to
> be uninterpretable.
> If you mean that kids are isolated from the vast majority of adults
> for much of the day so that the latter can "Make Money Fast", then
> that is certainly one goal. But since the kids spend only 30-35 hours
> a week at school, they have plenty of non-school time to be
> non-isolated from adults.
Do you have a problem with words and meanings
or do you run to the dictionary at every moment to ascertain
if there is an "idealogical" conflict in which case you simply
block out the offending sentence? Yes, I meant
kids being isolated from adults for much of the day.
Read Gatto on this.
> In rural areas at the time the schools were started, schools and
> churches were the only means to break the isolation inherent to rural
> living, so such isolation cannot be considered a fundamental goal of
> the system. For those non-English-speaking immigrants, the schools
> break their isolation from speakers of other languages, and
> reflexively break the isolation that English speakers have from
> non-English speaking immigrants.
Unacceptable.
> >In addition, technological
> >devices such as cell phones will permit a rapid inter-communication
> >will do end runs around the moribund moves, motives and manipulations
> >of the aging elitists whoose days of glory are all in the past.
>
> Actually, they will just create new elites of people who are skilled
> in and comfortable with networking by cellphone. These new elites
> will have their own moves, motives, and manipulations which they will
> inflict on others.
As always. Welcome to the 21st century.
> Anyone who has seen the sort of juvenile clique-building,
> rumormongering and such that teens practice on MySpace will not assume
> that new technologies will necessarily bring forth any improvement in
> what appears to be a fundamental aspect of human nature.
Anyone who has seen the sort of juvenile clique-building,
rumormongering and such that goes on in Washington
will not assume that new technologies will necessarily bring forth
any improvement in what appears to be a fundamental aspect
of human nature.
I object to your single minded avoidance of key issues by categorizing
them as "idealogical" or bypassing them on the grounds of semantic
issues instead of dealing with the key issues themselves.
I object to your constant intellectualizing rather than facing up to
the
idea that generations of young people have not been treated
well by the public educational system and that the goals of that
system
have more to do with social control than education, EXACTLY as Gatto
says.
I object to your innuendo's and ad hominems when someone's ideas
do not pass your own hobgoblin tests of consistency and conformity.
YOU are a BORG, a cog in the system, and do not even know it,
and are therefore incapable of even questioning the fundamentals
of an educational system which is no longer relevant in the future
that is now.
BUT, you ARE consistent and it was informative to hear
your thoughts, which I enjoyed.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
James Pannozzi
racqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Mar 31, 7:15 pm, racqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Look, Citizen, I'm sure you're a nice guy who loves his family and
>> tries to muddle through life doing as much good and as little harm as
>> you can. I am sure you'd agree that there would be people who would
>> second guess most everything you've done, and who would find fault
>> with any number of decisions/steps you've made. In may cases, these
>> people are referred to as "parents". So, yes, people can find things
>> to complain about with regard to the educational system. The problem
>> is that no one has provided an alternative that is acceptable to
>> society. ANY alternative can be similarly attacked. Doing NOTHING
>> can be similarly attacked. Our educational system was NEVER intended
>> to serve only those who are the intellectually elite, so if the
>> intellectually elite are not optimally served, it should not be seen
>> as a "failure", but instead as an inevitable result of an attempt to
>> serve EVERYONE. It may be (and I believe it SHOULD be) that we need
>> to do something additional for the intellectually elite, or to at
>> least provide some mechanism to promote excellence, but that is NOT
>> the mandate handed down to the educational system, and it is NOT
>> funded as an extension of the mandate, so it is not a justified
>> criticism to make of the system. We have, by and large, what WE have
>> demanded. If WE, as a society, decide otherwise, then things will
>> change. It's really a very simple proposition.
>
>That's odd, I replied to this but the response seems
>never to have made it to the newsgroup.
It never made it to me, certainly...
>Well, in case it got lost, essentially I think you do know who
>this group of people is - you've ben working for them for
>some time - the school adminstrators.
Well, principals answer to superintendents, who are answerable to the
school boards, who are answerable to the local citizens, who do not,
in general, correspond, nor even touch base with their counterparts in
the next town, much less on a national level, so that leaves me once
again unable to identify this small cabal who control everything.
> Their base
>of power is any group from the PTA on up
>that continues to support the current system
>of public education
In other words, their base of power is society itself. No argument;
in fact, that is exactly what I wrote! I went farther in stating that
the direction that the educational system has taken has, in fact, been
dictated by that power base, and NOT, as you claim, by
"administrators" who serve at the sufferance of that power base. And
I certainly see no evidence of a nationwide group who can be pointed
to as the ringleaders of this process.
>if any, is the continued refusal to re-examine
>the possibility of fundamental and systemic
>changes in the system.
Actually the examination of the system is ongoing and always has been.
That you detect a gradual change in the educational system is ample
evidence that what you would like to see is already in place.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), society as a whole simply doesn't
agree with your ideas for change.
>Do the students need to be segregated
>by age and to be place in rigid time seperated
>classes which operate with the punctuality
>of an old fashioned factory
Please propose an alternative that works better for ALL students, and
I'm sure people will flock to your point of view. However, I cannot
envision ANYONE who would go along with a proposal with NO mandated
attendence times or locations. They apparently are also opposed to
mixing different age groups together, and in some cases there are good
reasons for avoiding that. For myself, I endorse grouping by
ability/achievement, but I recognize the potential problems of doing
so.
>Why not allow students more opportunity
>to go out into the real world and see
>how things are done?
For example?
> Do the students ALWAYS need
>professional teachers preaching to them
I think they need oversight, generally, and someone around who can
guide them. If you prefer to call these guides something other than
"professional teachers", I can't see the advantage, but I was always
partial to "your majesty".
> - how about brining
>in retired physicists or machinists
>or war veterans for some seminars
>on life experiences
This often occurs. Would you have it be the ONLY "instruction" thye
receive?
> - there are a million
>different things one could do to make
>improvements.
So name a few. Surely if there are a "million things one could do",
you could give me, say, five of the best and we'll thrash them around?
The one you offered above is nice for a change of pace, but, imo,
worthless as a primary instructional technique.
>I suspect that none of the above reforms
>would even be considered in any but the
>most progressive private schools (which
>are, neverthless, spinging up everywhere).
Well, not knowing what these "reforms" entail, I find it unlikely that
ANY school is going to consider them. Most people want specifics.
>But, most likely the key straw to break the
>camel's back will be technological. The comming
>of the Internet and its dramatic breaking of the
>control of information by specialists,
Well, yes, but in many cases has repaced "information by specialists"
with information by wackos, con men, people with an ax to grind,
idiots, and pranksters. Believing everything you read online is,
frankly, naive at best.
>also offers new and unparalleled opportunities
>by motivated students to participate in such
>things as the MIT Open Courseware initiative
>or download extraordinary programs such
>as "Maxima" a symbolic algebra program
>capable of solving algebraic (and many
>other) problems symbolically as well
>as nigh infinite precision math which runs
>even on cheap desktop or laptop PC's.
For that tiny handful of students motivated to seek these resources
out, I agree that there is potential for considerable gain.
>Then there is the comming of the cell phone
>which allows instant communication between
>groups of students which opens up
>all kinds of fun possibilites including
>outguessing the school adminstration's
>next moves.
And coordinating those Columbine-like attacks? Technology is ALWAYS a
double-edged sword!
>but, if it comes, reform must come
>from the bottom up - from the teachers and the
>students themselves - never from the top down.
Well, I wouldn't say never, but I'm encouraged that you apparently
value teachers enough to allow them to lead for a change. I agree
with you that those in the trenches have a better grasp of what uis
workable than those at the top. That said, however, there are LOTS of
people who would disagree with you on this point. I'm also not so
sure I would have liked giving my own children the authority to
dictate the path their instruction would take. By the time they were
teenagers, they might have been able to offer something of value to
the decisionmaking process, but as elementary students?!? Can you say
"party"? I thought you could.
>This is why Gatto's comments seemed
>particularly appropos to me, because he was
>a teacher for so many years and his observations
>are telling and his conlclusions logical.
Well, I taught longer, and I don't agree with a lot of his positions,
so there you go. The phrase "your mileage may vary" comes to mind.
>I am of course as skeptical of the position
>that public education just needs more money
>to "make things right"
Being skeptical shows good sense, imo. More money is likely to
purchase more informed and skilled teachers, however. Will that be
enough to overcome societal problems to a sufficient extent to improve
the overal educational climate? Frankly, I'm not sure. Good as I am
<g>, I can't make kids want to learn, study, plan for their future,
etc. Many (most?) parents struggle with this with their own kids; I
know I did. Can I reasonably expect strangers to do better with MY
kids than I can? I don't think so. As a parent, however, I WOULD
like to be confident that the people teaching my children care, are
skilled instructors, and very knowledgeable about their subject. I
think paying them well goes a long way toward ensuring that.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >Indeed others such as Jefferson, Hancock and a fellow named
>> >Thomas Paine.
>>
>> Of them, perhaps Paine can be considered to have expressed a coherent
>> ideology, but I am not sure he held to those ideals consistently
>> through his life. I'm not familiar with any significant philosophical
>> or ideological writings of Hancock.
>
>HA! Nobody is exactly consistent in their ideals
>or their thinking over the course of their entire lives,
Then why would anyone think that their ideals are worth implementing.
A few years from now, even they themselves will hold different ideals.
>my god man look at Malcom X who made the journey
>from hate to tolerance to understanding.
Would I want to live in a society designed by Malcolm X at any of
those stages? No.
>Rerember the aphorisim "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
Oh, I remember. I think of it every time an ideologue poses an
assertion that they say "logically follows" from their assumptions and
definitions.
Human behavior doesn't ever logically follow; human beings as
individuals are fundamentally irrational, and as masses are often
unpredictable.
You left off the other half of the quote, BTW:
", adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Why, look at the sorts of people that practice "foolish consistency":
politicians, philosophers and the religious, with ideologues and
theologians implied because they comprise the boundaries between those
groups. All the sort of people that I am predisposed to disagree
with.
>or is Ralph Waldo Emerson too much of an idealogue for you too??
Yes. I may accept points that he makes, but I have no trust of any
philosopher's attempt to systematically examine any idea.
>> Jefferson has numerous and voluminous writings, but they do NOT show a
>> consistent ideology, but rather an evolving pragmatism colored by his
>> beliefs about morality. Pragmatism is pretty much the antithesis of
>> ideology.
>
>AGAIN with the consistency thing, eh?
Ideology is nothing if not an attempt to be self-consistent.
>where the HELL did you get
>the idea that pragmatism is the antithesis of ideology?
Since I define "pragmatism" as the antithesis of ideology, from my
definition.
>The two go hand in hand, in fact
Nope.
>Pragmatism IS an ideology - it is the idea that the
>search for "what works" is the be all and end all.
But of course I reject that *anything* is "the be all and end all", so
that is not what I believe. The word has multiple meanings, you know
(as do most).
>By an incredible coincidence,
>it was the guiding philosophy of the very people that Gatto
>speaks out against and condemns.
So?
>Did you think that there
>are idealogues dedicated to following their principles when they
>think it will not work??
You imply that, since Gatto believes that his ideas "work" then he is
himself a pragmatist, and therefore his philosophy is one that he
himself should condemn. Or that everyone is a pragmatist and that
therefore the word is pretty meaningless.
>Your characterization of Jefferson's writings as "evolving
>pragmatism", even if it were correct, belies the fundamental import of his revolutionary
>and idealogical writings which establish not only the recognition of
>fundamental rights for people,
They don't establish any such thing. The D of I merely states it as
an assumption.
>but also (and this is key) the RIGHT to change or
>even overthrow a government when it becomes destructive of those rights.
Likewise stated as an assumption.
He said that people should have a revolution every generation or so.
Of course, he didn't think so highly of the idea when Aaron Burr tried
to practice it. In other words, he said a lot of things, but one must
look to his actions, and not just his stated principles.
>You automatically dismiss consideration of ideas when they do not fall
>into the proper category or are too philosophical or too idealogical, in your
>opinion??
I automatically dismiss "consideration of ideas" as a particularly
worthwhile endeavor.
>My god man, what is left - you have abstracted yourself out of all
>human discourse
Nope. It is the abstraction that I reject. Give me data, not
interpretations of data.
>- YOU make yourself into a machine, a selective categorization
>machine which bypasses uncomfortable questions
Of course. I am human; we all avoid the uncomfortable. In my case I
know that the uncomfortable questions have no answers.
>though it may leave you in perfect agreement with yourself.
God help me if I should ever be in perfect agreement with myself.
That would be a foolish consistency, indeed.
>> >Anyway, do not fear about the public education system - it is
>> >doomed to self destruction as sudents in greater and greater
>> >numbers gradually discover online Internet initiatives such as
>> >the remarkable MIT Open Courseware
>>
>> Students can discover all sorts of things on the net. Whether they
>> will use them is another thing. Whether their parents will be
>> satisfied with something that their kids have found on the net, even
>> with MIT's name attached, is still another thing.
>
>And whether the teaching profession will continue
>to exist in its current form, yet another.
The bottom line is that kids need adult supervision. I can't imagine
that will change. If the adult supervision has any responsibilities
above and beyond preventing mayhem, then they will be something akin
to the current teacher.
>> >and gradually it will come to be understood that its true purpose,
>>
>> There you go again.
>>
>> For something to have a singular "true purpose" then *all* those
>> involved in creating the thing must have had that "true purpose" in
>> mind when they did so. This is "conspiracy theory".
>
>YES! And Gatto's premise is that the fundamental agreements
>amongst the conspirators was that the masses of immigrant
>kids who were to be the subject of their little big social experiment
>were NOT to be given the same classical education that the
>wealthier kids got but instead were to be "socialized"
>(translation: made to become unthinking, docile slaves, obediently
>and willingly ready to serve in the trenches, or do rote work
>in the factories, to exist with maximum conformity with their peers
>and to respect their "masters" or "bosses").
It is the "translation" that is bogus. I doubt that any "conspirator"
thought that was a desirable goal of education. Furthermore, you
assert some significant difference between a classical education and
what the schools were set up to offer. I don't think there was. A
classical education however did not stop after 3 or 6 grades, whereas
the early public education systems usually did.
>> I doubt that there is any single purpose that can be stated for the
>> public schools that is not so nebulously worded as to be meaningless.
>
>Nothing nebulous about it, Gatto states clearly the agreement
>between the Harvard educated "social" scientists and businessmen
>who funded the "experiment".
But of course they didn't run the school systems of the country (which
were already well-established by the 1880s to 1920s).
>In the 1920's they even stated openly
>their purpose and Gatto gives exact quotes.
Which are probably bogus or out-of-context, but in any case, they
weren't the ones with the power. (Back in the 1880s, one did not even
need to go to a school of education to be a teacher. So anyone who
thinks that the schools of education drove the school system already
is guilty of anachronistic assumptions - not that I think the schools
of education are that much more powerful now than they were then.)
>How about you read the entire book instead of rejecting it out of hand after a few pages?
Why waste my time. When someone's writing is so filled with factual
errors, I see no reason to seriously consider his "ideas".
>> >despite pretensions of educating the student wll actually be to socially
>> >isolate and indoctrinate them.
>>
>> "indoctrinate" is merely another word for "teach", so that is one of
>> those nebulously-worded goals.
>
>> <Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
>> <1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
>> <2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of
>> < view, or principle
>
>I was referring, was it not obvious? to the second of the
>meanings above - "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian
>opinion".
I know what you intended. Gatto's writing has all the hallmarks of
that sort of indoctrination, so you should be an expert in being
indoctrinated.
>> If you are focusing on the second meaning (which is still rather
>> nebulous), then indeed most Americans will agree that this is
>> applicable as well. We want kids to know the fundamental principles
>> of American citizenship, such as are stated in the BoR, the
>> Constitution, and the DofI. Jefferson specifically mentioned training
>> for citizenship as one of his goals.
>
>Yes! But exactly which principles are these. The real ones or the
>distorted ones.
Who gets to decide which ones are real and which ones are distorted?
>For example, it is a common misconception that we
>OWE something to our country for the wonderful freedoms
>that we have enjoyed.
If you owe nothing to your country, than your country owes nothing to
you. So renounce your citizenship and leave - you have no right to
even be here.
But people in this country have the freedoms whether they have the
citizenship or not. It is the assumption of citizenship that incurs
the obligation to the country, not the freedoms.
>If one wishes to serve in the military out of
>thankfullness that is most wonderful BUT THE IDEA THAT WE OWE
>ANYTHING BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT IS A PERNICIOUS
>FALSEHOOD,
You don't owe to the government for your freedoms, though without the
government you likely wouldn't have them. The laws of the jungle
aren't too kind except to those who manage to be on top, and one is
foolish if they think they would be the ones on top.
You owe to society for the benefits of that society, which benefits
include a lot more than the freedoms.
>perpetrated by many and subverts the Declaration
>of Independence's assertion that those rights are granted without
>exception at birth.
The DofI is has nice ideas, but is not the law of the land. The
Constitution is. And it is the Constitution that grants us rights.
You may think otherwise, but if it comes down to you vs "we the
people", "we the people" will win unless you leave.
Your obligations to society are part of the social contract. You can
break that social contract any time you want by leaving, but of course
then you will find out the reality of life that no other society
respects your asserted rights even as much as our government does.
>Again, WHY must their be a pledge of allegiance to the flag?
There is one; that is a fact of life. That doesn't mean that there
"must be" one.
>And WHY must it have the god word in there.
There is one; that is a fact of life. That doesn't mean that there
"must be" one.
>These are things taken for granted that we must question.
Yep, and Newdow has been doing so for years. Alas "we the people"
seem to want that "god word" in there, so unless the USSC decides to
uphold the Constitutional separation of church and state in that
situation, it will remain. If the court were to remove it, I wouldn't
rule out the possibility that "we the people" might change the
constitution to put it back.
My recognition of this does not mean that I don't applaud Newdow. The
pledge is not something I support.
>The idea of a pledge is Bismarckian
Bullshit. The pledge was proposed by a socialist named Bellamy. It
wasn't adopted until a couple of decades later, and the "under God"
was put in during the McCarthy era as an anti-communist statement.
>and embodies a philosophy of servitutde to the state,
Nonsense. There is no indication of "servitude" in there (though some
religions might interpret "under God" as a statement of servitude to
God, other religions merely consider it a statement of fact).
"Allegiance" is not servitude. It is loyalty.
>The government serves US at OUR pleasure, NOT the other way around,
>got it?
Yes, but YOU aren't US. Nor am I. WE like the pledge, even if YOU
and I don't like the pledge, so the pledge will stay.
>> "socially isolate" is one of those phrases that is so nebulous as to
>> be uninterpretable.
>> If you mean that kids are isolated from the vast majority of adults
>> for much of the day so that the latter can "Make Money Fast", then
>> that is certainly one goal. But since the kids spend only 30-35 hours
>> a week at school, they have plenty of non-school time to be
>> non-isolated from adults.
>
>Do you have a problem with words and meanings
No. I have a problem with what ideologues to with words and meanings.
>or do you run to the dictionary at every moment to ascertain
>if there is an "idealogical" conflict
No. I go to the dictionary to try to figure out how an ideologue is
twisting the meanings of the word in order to prove his assumptions.
>in which case you simply block out the offending sentence?
I block out the entire argument, once it is identified as ideological.
>Yes, I meant kids being isolated from adults for much of the day.
"We the people" want it that way, and as you admit, the government
serves US at OUR pleasure, so the kids will continue to be isolated
from adults.
>Read Gatto on this.
No.
>> In rural areas at the time the schools were started, schools and
>> churches were the only means to break the isolation inherent to rural
>> living, so such isolation cannot be considered a fundamental goal of
>> the system. For those non-English-speaking immigrants, the schools
>> break their isolation from speakers of other languages, and
>> reflexively break the isolation that English speakers have from
>> non-English speaking immigrants.
>
>Unacceptable.
Tough. That is the way it is, and that is the way that "we the
people" want it to be. The government serves US at OUR pleasure, and
not YOU at YOUR pleasure, so the schools will continue to do so.
>> >In addition, technological
>> >devices such as cell phones will permit a rapid inter-communication
>> >will do end runs around the moribund moves, motives and manipulations
>> >of the aging elitists whoose days of glory are all in the past.
>>
>> Actually, they will just create new elites of people who are skilled
>> in and comfortable with networking by cellphone. These new elites
>> will have their own moves, motives, and manipulations which they will
>> inflict on others.
>
>As always. Welcome to the 21st century.
So you approve of elitism, so long as you think you will be one of
those on top, while attacking elitism if you think it is promoting an
elite other than what you choose to be. Self-centered hypocrisy - the
mark of the Randian.
>> Anyone who has seen the sort of juvenile clique-building,
>> rumormongering and such that teens practice on MySpace will not assume
>> that new technologies will necessarily bring forth any improvement in
>> what appears to be a fundamental aspect of human nature.
>
>Anyone who has seen the sort of juvenile clique-building,
>rumormongering and such that goes on in Washington
Oh I have. I live in the suburbs, and it is a bigger part of the
culture around here than in most places.
That is reality, and reality isn't pretty, and doesn't match up with
your ideals (or mine, which is why I don't worry much about ideals).
>will not assume that new technologies will necessarily bring forth
>any improvement in what appears to be a fundamental aspect
>of human nature.
Correct. Human nature won't change. So we either let it go
ungoverned and hope that we can stay at the top in a society ruled by
the law of the jungle, or we have a government and then hamstring that
government with checks and balances so as to minimize the effect that
any self-styled elite can have over others, while still maintaining
enough social order to satisfy "we the people" (who will change the
government to impose MORE order, if we perceive that the status quo is
not providing us enough. I am more afraid of what "we the people"
might do to our "rights" than I am of what some mythological elite
might do.
>I object to your single minded avoidance of key issues by categorizing
>them as "idealogical"
I don't avoid issues. I avoid ideals and abstractions of issues.
Issues are pragmatic concerns.
>or bypassing them on the grounds of semantic issues
Looking at the slippery semantics of an ideologue helps me figure out
what shenanigans he is trying to pull.
> instead of dealing with the key issues themselves.
When you have talked about issues, I have dealt with them. When you
talk about ideals and wishful thinking, and when you attribute ideals
to others (nebulous conspirators) who aren't here to defend
themselves, and couldn't have done what you accuse them of doing in
the first place, since "we the people" had the power, not them, then I
scoff.
>I object to your constant intellectualizing rather than facing up to
>the idea
"facing up to the idea" is itself "intellectualizing".
>that generations of young people have not been treated
>well by the public educational system
They have been treated the way "we the people" have chosen to treat
them. Do you deny that "we the people" have the power to treat them
that way?
>and that the goals of that system
There is no one system, in part because our constitution mandated that
there be many systems because there are many states, and in part
because "we the people" can't agree on what the goals are even within
one state.
>have more to do with social control than education,
The schools serve many purposes, including both of those. Neither of
them is necessarily preeminent. "We the people" have chosen to have
our cake and eat it to, and "we the people" have the power to "let
ourselves eat cake".
>I object to your innuendo's and ad hominems when someone's ideas
My insults are directed against the ideas, and to the person only to
the extent that they are wedded to their ideas (which is the norm for
ideologues).
>do not pass your own hobgoblin tests of consistency
Which test is that. I don't claim to be consistent. I habitually
entertain conflicting assumptions.
>and conformity.
Not too many people would call me a conformist. In one sense I am - I
don't choose to violate many of societal norms but mostly for my own
convenience.
>YOU are a BORG, a cog in the system, and do not even know it,
Who is the one practicing innuendo and ad hominem?
>and are therefore incapable of even questioning the fundamentals
>of an educational system which is no longer relevant in the future
>that is now.
It is relevant, because kids attend schools in that educational
system, and will continue to attend schools in that educational system
for the foreseeable future, because I do not foresee "we the people"
deciding that we don't want kids to attend school, nor do I see "we
the people" deciding that the schools that they attend should be
fundamentally different than they are.
I myself have reform ideas that would lead to schools that are
fundamentally different. Unlike you, I know that my reform ideas
aren't marketable, however good they might be, and therefore not worth
spending a lot of time on.
>BUT, you ARE consistent
Then I have failed.
>and it was informative to hear your thoughts, which I enjoyed.
You enjoy hearing the thoughts of a BORG, whose thoughts you already
purport to know because Gatto has told you what they are? Now that is
a rare bit of inconsistency for an ideologue. I compliment you on it.
lojbab
Citizen Jimserac
I must return to the real world
my dear Borg drone whoose ideas
or, more correctly, dismissal of them,
I find quite entertaining and enjoyable.
In the meantime, it sounds very much
as though YOU are a TEACHER -
if so, this is to your credit as
I cannot imagine a more difficult
job, particularly given the constraints
of the current "system"
If so, it is YOU, not I and the other
respondent who said he was, I believe, a
physics teacher who are the ones
to propose ideas for improvement
since you have the experience.
True, having had all of the experience
within the system may blind you to
radical structural changes but
the very first people we want
to hear from on this are teachers
themselves which is why I paid
such attention to Gatto.
I will go back and re-read Gatto more
critically and with the caveats that you
have mentioned but everything clicked
so well last time I read it that I don't
think anything will change in my opinion
(we'll see).
In the meantime, please get yourself
a half decent dictionary - you can do no
better than Samuel Johnson's - it has,
after all, stood the test of time.
I must go and write
some more software (that's what I"VE been
doing for the last 30 years)
but many thanks for a most
interesting and enlightening discussion.
Citizen Jimserac
Bob LeChevalier
>Good as I am
><g>, I can't make kids want to learn, study, plan for their future,
>etc. Many (most?) parents struggle with this with their own kids; I
>know I did. Can I reasonably expect strangers to do better with MY
>kids than I can? I don't think so.
My experience is that strangers REGULARLY do better with my kids than
I can, in limited arenas, in the realm of education. Furthermore,
while I can sometimes tell a teacher won't work well with my kid, most
of the time I could not do so until after a few months, so giving me a
"choice" wouldn't have helped much. Giving him a choice might have
helped a small amount, by allowing him to get out of classes where he
had a personality conflict with the teacher, but I don't think he had
the maturity to recognize that sort of conflict apart from his own
unwillingness to do work, until he was in high school.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In the meantime, it sounds very much
>as though YOU are a TEACHER -
Nope. Just a parent who has had two kids more or less struggle
through the system. Even in retrospect, I cannot think of many things
that could have been done differently that would have made SIGNIFICANT
improvements in my kids' final educational achievement. My son, being
special ed, had an individualized education plan which was extremely
expensive, and it helped, but individualized education for all kids in
the system would cost much more than taxpayers are willing to pay.
Because he flunked one year, he was NOT kept with his age group. This
may have helped slightly because his maturity level was somewhat lower
than his age-peers along with his academic level.
>In the meantime, please get yourself
>a half decent dictionary - you can do no
>better than Samuel Johnson's - it has,
>after all, stood the test of time.
Language changes, and Johnson's dictionary is thus quite obsolete.
>I must go and write
>some more software (that's what I"VE been
>doing for the last 30 years)
I dropped out to be a full time parent after 14 (though the parenting
took a few more years to actually happen). Parenting taught me that
kids are not nearly as programmable as computers.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
<racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 31 Mar 2007 09:48:03 -0700, "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>Oh, what the heck, this looks like fun, so I might as well jump in...
>Since Gatto is such an expert with, what, twenty-eight years as a math
>teacher, my near thirty years as a physics and chemistry teacher
>certainly trumps that!
Gatto was an English teacher, and literature is really
philosophy. My decades as a professor of mathematics
and statistics trumps yours.
I have personally seen the dumbing down at the university
level, because of the politics involved. How would a
school get away by claiming that the straight A high
school student knew essentially nothing? How could
they place a student who had A's in one of the "standard"
high school courses in a remedial course in that subject?
The key undergraduate mathematics courses have been, over
more than the past half century, the "abstract" courses
taken in the junior and senior years of college. They
have lower-level prerequisites, which are not of that
much importance. But they have now been degraded to
doing so little abstract as to be useless. Whatever
courage the faculty had to maintain the standards of
the courses was undercut by the administrations.
>>You attack Gatto himself (fine with me) and his lack of philosophical
>>erudition (again fine with me) but have NOTHING to say about his
>>ideas - that the very foundations of American education, based
>>on "classrooms" rigid seperation of students into age groups
>>and the completely uniform curriculum they currently have
>>(or try to) is deleterious.
>Any organization created by man is inherently flawed. The current
>organization of the public education system developed over time as a
>series of decisions were made of how to best serve the needs of the
>children, the wishes of the parents, the demands of society at large,
>given the economies allowed by taxpayers.
The Chicago public schools changed quickly during the
Depression from subject matter orientation (specification
of what was to be covered in which grades) to age grouping,
with the resulting dumbing down. This decision was made
by the educationists, and foisted on everyone else. Did
it serve the needs of anyone except the educationists and
politicians? Did giving elementary school diplomas to
those who could not read at the third grade level do
any good? It ended up by not expecting eight graders
to know more than third grade reading.
The only defense against this is to have affordable
academic schools independent of the state-run schools.
If this had been the case, the 10-20 percent who
wanted their children to learn would have been able
to keep that going, and the public schools would have
been shown up. The colleges would have been able to
keep their standards, and even raise them.
That what came out of that
>is not perfect should certainly not come as a surpirse to anyone. The
>same would be true if every one of those decisions along the way had
>gone in some other, or indeed, the opposite direction. It's easy to
>criticise things; it's quite something else to come up with something
>that is demonstrably superior given the constraints.
It is IMPORTANT not to have an effective monopoly.
>>Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories
>Having read some of the charges being thrown around, one would be
>hard-pressed to refer to them in any other fashion.
No, they are not conspiracies. They are the result
of a pseudo-religious cult imposing their tenets;
this is worse.
Herman Rubin
Citizen Jimserac <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 31, 8:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> I dismiss him not because of single errors, but because the errors are
>> pervasive.
>> I also dismiss him because his argument is essentially ideological,
>> and I reject ideology and philosophy as a matter of course.
>> Ideological arguments at best amount to assuming your conclusion, and
>> Gatto is an excellent example of this.
>> lojbab
You seem to have no problem with the ideology of the
schools of education, that it is more important to
warehouse children by age rather than to teach them
according to their abilities. If that is not
ideology and philosophy, what is?
Herman Rubin
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The key is that you do not believe philosophy and reject ideology and
>>philosophy as a matter of course.
>>I, on the other hand, believe that ideology and philosophy have
>>an inextricable and direct connection with the historical events
>>of history right up to the present moment.
>You share that opinion with Karl Marx and numerous others who promoted
>ideology.
The educationists openly advocated socialism.
Jimserac does not agree with the Marxist view that
what has happened historically was inevitable, and
the influence of individuals was unimportant. That
view would say that the current miseducational mess
was independent of anyone's intentions.
The highly democratic 19th century had no problems
with bright children getting better educations than
the village idiot, and when only a small proportion
was going to high school, had no problem in funding
low-tuition colleges. It was not inevitable that
public education had to devolve into age-grouping,
"objectivity", and lack of thinking.
Herman Rubin
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 31, 10:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
................
>The one thing Jefferson was arguably consistent about in both theory
>and practice was the need for public education.
But NOT for equal education independent of ability.
>>Anyway, do not fear about the public education system - it is
>>doomed to self destruction as sudents in greater and greater
>>numbers gradually discover online Internet initiatives such as
>>the remarkable MIT Open Courseware
>Students can discover all sorts of things on the net. Whether they
>will use them is another thing. Whether their parents will be
>satisfied with something that their kids have found on the net, even
>with MIT's name attached, is still another thing.
They are unlikely to discover abstract mathematics,
or foundational physics or chemistry. They are
unlikely to discover predicate logic, or mathematical
notation as a simple language. And they are likely
to get into some trouble if they study something on
their own which contradicts the teachers.
Herman Rubin
In article <6eqv0311qm5lh4vtt...@4ax.com>,
<racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 31 Mar 2007 20:29:31 -0700, "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Mar 31, 7:15 pm, racqu...@gmail.com wrote:
.....................
>Well, principals answer to superintendents, who are answerable to the
>school boards,
who have neither the time nor the resources to really
look into the curriculum. There are matters which come
to their attention, like which books may be required or
permitted as literature, teaching religion, and some
other matters where academic ability is not important.
They are only paid expenses for the actual board meetings,
and they have to consider discipline problems, parking,
budget, hiring of faculty members, whether the school's
football performance was bad enough to fire the coach,
and matters unrelated to the curriculum or standards.
Some knowledgeable ones HAVE objected to government
forcing of standards.
who are answerable to the local citizens, who do not,
>in general, correspond, nor even touch base with their counterparts in
>the next town, much less on a national level, so that leaves me once
>again unable to identify this small cabal who control everything.
The cabal consists of the faculties of the schools of
education, who brainwash their students. A few of
the teachers can partially withstand that brainwashing,
but few manage to get more than a perfunctory knowledge
of their subject.
Bob LeChevalier
>The highly democratic 19th century
You mean the "highly democratic" century in which society denied the
vote to women, blacks, and in some states, men without property?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <1175388381.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>Citizen Jimserac <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 31, 8:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>> I dismiss him not because of single errors, but because the errors are
>>> pervasive.
>
>>> I also dismiss him because his argument is essentially ideological,
>>> and I reject ideology and philosophy as a matter of course.
>>> Ideological arguments at best amount to assuming your conclusion, and
>>> Gatto is an excellent example of this.
>
I don't care about the ideology of the schools of education, because
they don't post that ideology to Usenet.
>that it is more important to warehouse children by age rather than to teach them
>according to their abilities.
That is no one's ideology, but rather is a pragmatic accommodation of
resources to necessities.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
It wasn't far into the 19th century when, except in a small
number of places, property was not a criterion. In the
north, and to a considerable extent in the west, blacks
could vote. At that time, where in the world was it
considered reasonable for women to vote? Women were
not denied an education, although at the higher levels,
there was reluctance to admit them, because what could
they do with it?
Whether there was "full democracy", there was a highly
equal opportunity aspect to the philosophy, and there
was even such distrust of appointed officials that even
dogcatchers were elected. Yet there was no pressure to
give weak students even high school educations, but
there was pressure to give poor bright students college
education. And this is as it should be.
Herman Rubin
There is no more problem to allow them to go at their
own rates, or closer to it, as was done before the
educationists decided to kill it in the name of
teaching the children to "socialize".
racqu...@gmail.com
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <pmot03di55ef897o1...@4ax.com>,
> <racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Mar 2007 09:48:03 -0700, "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>Oh, what the heck, this looks like fun, so I might as well jump in...
>>Since Gatto is such an expert with, what, twenty-eight years as a math
>>teacher, my near thirty years as a physics and chemistry teacher
>>certainly trumps that!
>
>Gatto was an English teacher, and literature is really
>philosophy. My decades as a professor of mathematics
>and statistics trumps yours.
Actually, Herman, since your experience does not include participation
in the "governmental educational system", and since that appears to be
the focus of the discussion, you fall well behind Gatto AND myself.
When the discussion turns to instruction at prestigous universities,
your qualifications and experiences will trump mine, but not until we
reach that point.
>>>You attack Gatto himself (fine with me) and his lack of philosophical
>>>erudition (again fine with me) but have NOTHING to say about his
>>>ideas - that the very foundations of American education, based
>>>on "classrooms" rigid seperation of students into age groups
>>>and the completely uniform curriculum they currently have
>>>(or try to) is deleterious.
>
>>Any organization created by man is inherently flawed. The current
>>organization of the public education system developed over time as a
>>series of decisions were made of how to best serve the needs of the
>>children, the wishes of the parents, the demands of society at large,
>>given the economies allowed by taxpayers.
>
>The Chicago public schools changed quickly during the
>Depression from subject matter orientation (specification
>of what was to be covered in which grades) to age grouping,
So the Chicago public schools consisted of "one-room schoolhouses"
prior to that time? I find that a bit hard to credit. And am I to
assume that in addition to going to age grouping "they" simultaneously
dropped the specification of what subject matter material was to be
covered in which grades? I find that ALSO hard to credit.
>This decision was made by the educationists,
Specify who "they" are, please.
> and foisted on everyone else.
How, exactly, was this accomplished?
> That what came out of that
>>is not perfect should certainly not come as a surpirse to anyone. The
>>same would be true if every one of those decisions along the way had
>>gone in some other, or indeed, the opposite direction. It's easy to
>>criticise things; it's quite something else to come up with something
>>that is demonstrably superior given the constraints.
>
>It is IMPORTANT not to have an effective monopoly.
Your ideology is duly noted.
>>>Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories
>
>>Having read some of the charges being thrown around, one would be
>>hard-pressed to refer to them in any other fashion.
>
>No, they are not conspiracies. They are the result
>of a pseudo-religious cult imposing their tenets;
>this is worse.
Ooo.... Supernatural cabals "imposing their tenets". One pictures
groups of cowled individuals circling a fire while chanting and waving
little voodoo dolls. Perhaps IF I can get you to commit yourself as
to EXACTLY who these people are, and how they subverted the will of
the people, we can have an intelligent discussion.
racqu...@gmail.com
Rubin) wrote:
>The highly democratic 19th century
You have GOT to be kidding! Would this be the 19th century during
which slavery flourished "democratically"? Or is this the 19th
century during which only a tiny fraction of the population received
ANY significant education? Or perhaps this was the 19th century
during which the wheels of industry were routinely greased by the
blood of the poor and the immigrants arriving here?
racqu...@gmail.com
This is a good response, but I liked mine better. ;-)
racqu...@gmail.com
Rubin) wrote:
>
>In article <6eqv0311qm5lh4vtt...@4ax.com>,
> <racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Mar 2007 20:29:31 -0700, "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Mar 31, 7:15 pm, racqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> .....................
>
>>Well, principals answer to superintendents, who are answerable to the
>>school boards,
>
>who have neither the time nor the resources to really
>look into the curriculum. There are matters which come
>to their attention, like which books may be required or
>permitted as literature, teaching religion, and some
>other matters where academic ability is not important.
They are also directly answerable to their neighbors who complain
freely about things that bother them. Presumeably, if they (the
public) have the expertise to choose wisely with regard to which
schools their kids would attend, they can also be trusted not to let
policies with which they disagree, flourish.
>who are answerable to the local citizens, who do not,
>>in general, correspond, nor even touch base with their counterparts in
>>the next town, much less on a national level, so that leaves me once
>>again unable to identify this small cabal who control everything.
>The cabal consists of the faculties of the schools of
>education, who brainwash their students.
Which "brainwashing" fails on first contact. No one is more critical
about the failings of education courses than teachers themselves.
Credentials, however, are REQUIRED, and NO parents would sit still for
uncredentialed teachers teaching THEIR kids, so the system is, once
again, answerable to the public at large.
Also, it is pertinent to point out that the opinions of college
professors, who have never spent a day teaching in public schools,
must ALWAYS be taken with a grain of salt. This is as true of the
"faculties of the schools of education" as it is the faculties of
mathematics and statisitics at Purdue. Your opinions are no better
(and may be worse since you are unconcerned with "education" per se,
but only with "mathematicians") than theirs.
Citizen Jimserac
> In article <dqau039gofr8nqvv19i51apuftaiosm...@4ax.com>,
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
YOU are wrong. It is all there on the web waiting to be used
and discovered by any student that cares to download
and try it out. A program called "Maxima", originally a symbolical
math program funded by the DOE for the "Macsyma" project
at MIT lets anyone (NOT jut phd's, not just educationalists,
not just insiders, do advanced mathematical, engineering
and physics computations, or solve their algebra 1 homework.
There are courses on electronics, history, philosophy.
Sure it takes some intelligence and initiative to join these course
inititatives or to download these programs and try them out
but the students against whom you speak have already
had their minds crippled by their presence in the
educational system which was designed to warehouse
them and prepreare them for menial jobs (which no longer
exist) or for "service" in the military. Right now, there
are but a few students in this group who will sense the opportunity
to break out of their preassigned position as gammas
but that number will grow as the ease of use, artificial intelligence,
low cost laptops (you've heard no doubt of the $100 laptop
planned by MIT) and other technological developments
accelerate the trend I've indicated.
YOU are correct however that the essential purpose of education
was NEVER to encompass everyone in order to create the illusion
and fufill the politically correct idea of equal opportunity - this is
a fraud
perpetuated and exploited by such initiatives as the farcical
"No Child Left Behind", whoose software is produced
by a company with which Bush's brother is connected
and whoose textbooks are provided by a company partly
owned by Haliburton. I'd love to hear what some teachers
have to say about farces like that one.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> In article <td6u03d4tibvadp4kptiluu2oludvog...@4ax.com>,
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Exactly correct. Could not have said it better meself.
Citizen Jimserac
James Pannozzi
Herman Rubin
<racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 Apr 2007 22:19:03 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <pmot03di55ef897o1...@4ax.com>,
>> <racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 31 Mar 2007 09:48:03 -0700, "Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>Oh, what the heck, this looks like fun, so I might as well jump in...
>>>Since Gatto is such an expert with, what, twenty-eight years as a math
>>>teacher, my near thirty years as a physics and chemistry teacher
>>>certainly trumps that!
>>Gatto was an English teacher, and literature is really
>>philosophy. My decades as a professor of mathematics
>>and statistics trumps yours.
>Actually, Herman, since your experience does not include participation
>in the "governmental educational system", and since that appears to be
>the focus of the discussion, you fall well behind Gatto AND myself.
>When the discussion turns to instruction at prestigous universities,
>your qualifications and experiences will trump mine, but not until we
>reach that point.
I would not say that. I suffered through about 10 years
of not being allowed to reach my potential, or even being
aware of my abilities. My children were similarly treated
by the public schools, and in fact at a worse time, but
they fortunately learned to read before the whole word
method was foisted on them, and they also learned mathematics
from me.
I know from quite a few sources about the massive decline
in the standards of the public schools. In the 50's, it
could be assumed that a high school graduate going to
college would have had a decent algebra course, a "Euclid"
type geometry course, and probably strong trigonometry
and "college algebra". They are now required to have
and algebra course and a geometry course, whose level
is so low that they really should start over, and if they
have a college algebra course it is below the level of
the old first-year algebra.
The old requirements also included two years of a foreign
language, which was a good grammar-oriented version. Then
the change was to attempt to get the students to learn a
language like a pre-school child, by the oral-aural method,
with emphasis on tying the language to the "culture".
My daughter had first year German from a substitute who
taught by the "old" method, and the second year from the
regular teacher who was more concerned with teaching the
holidays than the language, and actually had lower
standards in vocabulary and grammar for the second year
than what she learned in the first year.
...............
>>The Chicago public schools changed quickly during the
>>Depression from subject matter orientation (specification
>>of what was to be covered in which grades) to age grouping,
>So the Chicago public schools consisted of "one-room schoolhouses"
>prior to that time? I find that a bit hard to credit. And am I to
>assume that in addition to going to age grouping "they" simultaneously
>dropped the specification of what subject matter material was to be
>covered in which grades? I find that ALSO hard to credit.
Who said they consisted of one-room schoolhouses before?
But they believed in more rapid advancement if the
child's academic ability was up to it, and holding back
if not. At that time, they had a semester system, so the
rapid advancement or retention was on a half-year basis.
>>This decision was made by the educationists,
>Specify who "they" are, please.
They are the people who do not know subject matter, but
claim to know how all children learn. They were the
ones responsible for taking out cognition and limiting
the curriculum to recognition. It is they who believed
that being with one's age group was more important than
learning subject matter.
>> and foisted on everyone else.
>How, exactly, was this accomplished?
Easily. It was the educational establishment which
specified the rate of subject matter progress in the
various grades. The school boards never felt that
they had to look into the matter, unless their schools
had a very bad reputation relative to other schools.
So in a school district, the superintendent could
essentially change things. The change was made a
little at a time, including the dumbing down. When
the improperly promoted children could not follow the
material, it was adjusted to what they could do; that
unfortunately happens at the college level as well.
.................
>>>>Distracting attention with references to "conspiracy" theories
>>>Having read some of the charges being thrown around, one would be
>>>hard-pressed to refer to them in any other fashion.
>>No, they are not conspiracies. They are the result
>>of a pseudo-religious cult imposing their tenets;
>>this is worse.
>Ooo.... Supernatural cabals "imposing their tenets". One pictures
>groups of cowled individuals circling a fire while chanting and waving
>little voodoo dolls. Perhaps IF I can get you to commit yourself as
>to EXACTLY who these people are, and how they subverted the will of
>the people, we can have an intelligent discussion.
I have explained all of this. The John Dewey school of
educational PHILOSOPHY took over; this is not too difficult.
In fact, since WWII we have had a group of intellectual
Marxists who have dominated the history departments,
claiming that individuals do not matter, and instilling
this view among the students. They have not completely
taken over, as there are a few who can resist them, but
the educationists had an easier time because of their
involvement in teacher certification.
Herman Rubin
Your socialist views are duly noted.
Highly democratic means that the rather large electorate
made their views known, not as now when we have farcical
elections with a few politicians limiting the choices.
Slavery was essentially gone in the North before the 19th
century, and completely gone there early in that century.
Education was available in the cities to those who had real
ability, even if poor, and those with the drive could also
get it if they qualified. Try reading the biography of
George Washington Carver, who was born a slave. I am not
convinced that he high school education of today is much
more than the grammar school education of the 19th century
except in terms of details not available then.
Of course the industrialists, many of whom came up from
poverty themselves by their abilities, hired workers.
The immigrants largely came because there were jobs and
opportunities, and many took advantage of those and became
industrialists themselves. My parents were immigrants.