School Control (was Re: Education Standards)
Robert Singleton
My questions regarding education standards seem to have
generated quite a thread; but unfortunately, it has
de-generated into an argument over slavery and Christianity.
I am therefore starting this new thread.
I think the bottom line from my first post on Education
Standards, is that there are no nationally mandated standards
per se (but rather recommendations); however, state standards
typically do exist, most of which are rather uniform from
state to state. I've looked at a few of the state standards,
and they aren't bad at all. I should clarify that these are
curriculum standards, and not grading standards (there seems
to have been some confusion on this point). I should also
note one extreme deficiency: there was no mention whatsoever
of a foreign language requirement (which IMO is inexcusable).
So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
of education. Do the private citizens who actually pay for
*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
is primarily funded at the local (city) level (this funding
structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
with American education).
As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
It is my contention that parents should not possess much
formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
is not suitable subject matter in physics? The bottom
line here is that too much democracy is lethal (it was
democracy, after all, that killed Socrates).
Community objections, however, to public school curriculum
typically do not occur from topics as innocuous as diffraction.
Controversy arises over subject matter that challenges our
view of ourselves, such as evolution or _The Catcher in the
Rye_. And I would argue that as a nation we should be very
watchful of special interest groups that seek the manipulate
public school curriculum, even if we ourselves happen to
belong to some of those groups. The best way to insulate
against this is to place control where it belongs, with
the educators themselves (and to enforce state and national
curriculum standards).
Let me illustrate my point with a relevant concrete example.
Should a community be able to mandate that creationism and
evolution be taught as viable competing theories, one just
as accepted as the other?
Scientists themselves decide what is science (i.e. science
must be operationally defined as being what scientists
themselves do). If public schools are to teach science at
all, then they should teach what scientists are doing and
thinking, even if this conflicts with certain community
standards. In the science class room, students should not
be told what to believe, but rather, they should be *informed*
about the activities and beliefs of scientists. Therefore,
since virtually no biologists take creationism seriously
(which is not to say that most biologists are atheists,
since evolution and religion do not have to be in conflict),
creationism cannot be taught in the *science* classroom,
regardless of the sentiments of the local community.
The issues are more complicated regarding private and
home schooling, and I hope to start another thread on
these matters.
--
Robert Singleton work: (206) 543-9640
Department of Physics fax : (206) 685-0635
University of Washington office: B416 Phys & Astronomy Bldg.
Box 351560 bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu
Gene Royer
In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
snip snip
>So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
>reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
>me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
>of education. Do the private citizens who actually pay for
>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
>is primarily funded at the local (city) level (this funding
>structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
>with American education).
>
>As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
>It is my contention that parents should not possess much
>formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
>believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
>set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
>don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
>possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
>is not suitable subject matter in physics?
>
snip snip
Gene Royer writes:
Robert, daring risk the slings and arrows of countless thousands who
will read this posting, I have to say that I agree with you. But I
must say that cautionsly, because I sense the first wave of missils
already coming in now.
Seriously; you are right: If parents/taxpayers (and even if school
boards, who are the elected representatives) took on the task of
affixing the curriculum, any kind of standardization continuity would
be laughable.
However, taxpayers--through their elected school board members--do have
the right AND THE OBLIGATION to say what is to be obtained by the child
because of *any* curriculum that is selected and instituted by the
school district. Therefore, whatever curriculum is chosen by the
district, it MUST be one which delivers the expected benefits that the
school board dictated in its policies.
The problem is, however, that most school boards never get around to
writing those policies and defining exactly what those benefits are to
be. It's really not hard to do--every board member knows within their
hearts what they would like to occur for students because of the
schools influence in their lives. But they (as a board) just don't
specify what those *value* are.
Until they do, then administrations will have no choice (and sometimes
it is not so benevolent at all) but to try this and try that in an
effort to create a cirriculum that it, the administration, thinks is
the right one.
Until boards begin to actually govern instead of rubberstamping what
the administrator may suggest, then curricula will not (necessarily) be
selected for the purpose of benefiting the child at all; but to satisfy
the agendas of administrative staffs--which are not elected bodies and
have no direct link with the taxpayers/parents. There is no
representation there at all.
So, I am saying that the people who own the district should be able to
dictate what the quality of their children's education should be. And
it should be the duty of the administrator to dedide the applicable
curriculum that will deliver that quality.
It may sound as though I am coming down too hard on administrators. I
am not. In many cases they are between a rock and a hard place. Most
administrators would LOVE it if their boards would give them the kinds
of guide lines I have mentioned above.
Some of them say to me, "I just wish my board would tell me what
attitudes, abilities, and understandings they want the student to come
away with from here. Then I could have something concrete upon which
to base my administrative decisions."
And neither am I coming down hard on school board *members*. It is the
board process which I rale against. There is nothing wrong with board
members--they are dedicated and selfless people; but the process of
governance needs to be changed so that these same members can have a
way of affecting education and effecting a positive change in it.
Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself. The board's
job is to decide what those ENDS are to be. The Administrator's job is
to figure out the appropriate means to accomplish it to the board's
satisfaction.
--Gene Royer: Policy Governance(sm) consultant to nonprofit and public
governing boards. Author: SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 2000, The Things
Staff Didn't Tell You At Orientation. (Brockton 1996)
snip snip to end
David L. Hanson
In article <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>My questions regarding education standards seem to have
>generated quite a thread; but unfortunately, it has
>de-generated into an argument over slavery and Christianity.
>I am therefore starting this new thread.
You are asking on debate on too wide of an issue in too many groups. All I
did was state that we teach the Bible Truth of creation in our home and someone
started a tangent about slavery.
> Do the private citizens who actually pay for
>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
>is primarily funded at the local (city) level (this funding
>structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
>with American education).
Of course, private citizens are paying for government education and in a
democracy neither the "king" nor the government bureaucrat nor the government
school educationist is supposed to spend that tax money independently of
"We the People". What you propose is just another form of tryanny. We are
just supposed to hand over our money to government school educationists and
then keep quiet as they operate morally, spiritually, and academically corrupt
cesspools.
>Therefore,
>since virtually no biologists take creationism seriously
>(which is not to say that most biologists are atheists,
>since evolution and religion do not have to be in conflict),
>creationism cannot be taught in the *science* classroom,
>regardless of the sentiments of the local community.
There are many biologists who do take the Bible and creation seriously.
And the ones who don't are just plain wrong.
David L. Hanson
dha...@hal-pc.org
http://www.hal-pc.org/~dhanson
"Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life; NO MAN
cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." John 14:6
sockeye
Robert Singleton wrote:
> [ ... ]
> It is my contention that parents should not possess much
> formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
> believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
> set the curriculum in public schools.
that somebody. Speaking for myself, I cannot think of any one body of
individuals that I trust enough to receive this kind of power, and even
if I could, we can be fairly certain that my list and your list would
not match entirely. Look, you are advocating handing over a tremendous
amount of power on essentially Confucian grounds. Our society is not
capable of trusting itself enough to sustain this kind of an authority.
We are not a Confucian society, never have been, never will be. Perhaps
this is a weakness, but in any event it is a fact, and any attempt to
design an American educational system on filial piety and obedience to
appointed authority is doomed. Again, you may say this is lamentable. I
say it is not changable. You will sooner convince me we should make the
earth flat because we would be better off if the earth is flat, than
convince me we should obey a Grand Educational Poobah Board because we
would be better off if we had a Grand Educational Poobah Board.
> [ ... ] I would argue that as a nation we should be very
> watchful of special interest groups that seek the manipulate
> public school curriculum, even if we ourselves happen to
> belong to some of those groups. The best way to insulate
> against this is to place control where it belongs, with
> the educators themselves.
The "educators" ARE the "special interest group... that seek[s] to
manipulate public school curriculum", and you are advocating handing
over the whole kit and kaboodle to them. Look, if it helps to make it
clear, let me remind you the Christian Right worked hard and
successfully in the 1980's to get their candidates elected to local
school boards. Many of the things you decry - teaching creationism, for
example - are a direct result of governments placing control over
curriculum into the hands of school boards, then watching as the boards,
and the power they held, were taken over by "special interests". What
happens when your national school board goes the same way as the
National Endowment for the Arts? How will you stop it?
>
> Let me illustrate my point with a relevant concrete example.
> Should a community be able to mandate that creationism and
> evolution be taught as viable competing theories, one just
> as accepted as the other?
Let me illustrate my point with a relevant concrete example. Should an
individual who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible be
forced to profess theories *he does not believe? I am not a Christian,
but ... "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise [of
religion]".
School boards and censors are of the same ilk. Both wish to engineer
culture by granting, forcing, or denying citizens exposure to certain
ideas. Censors bar access to certain kinds of literature, and typically
disseminate their own(in the USSR, Glavlit was the censorship bureau AND
state publishing house). School boards require that all citizens spend
some ten or more years in an environment where not only is access to
media controlled, but association, movement, and speech are controlled
as well. Schools can actually REQUIRE the reading of certain books, and
can require the readers to interpret the content in an approved manner,
and can grant or withhold civil liberties(permission to use the
bathroom, or leave school grounds, for example), on the basis of that
interpretation. You want fewer of these folks to have MORE power? Are
you out of your mind? I hope that you will realize that those who wish
to control our presses and those who wish to control our schools are the
same kind of people, and deserve to be treated with the same contempt.
=Eric
Julie A.Pascal
Philip Cain wrote:
>
> In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism, I'd like to
> suggest that there are some realities we cannot (nor should we want
> to) change. They are:
>
> 1. Teaching is the realm of teachers, just as medicine is the realm of
> doctors. No one can know how to teach better than teachers, so we must
> depend on the judgement of teachers on teaching, just as we depend on
> doctors for medicine or lawyers for law.
Gak! Every single one of us, every single day, must use our
abilities, great or small, to communicate subject matter (of some
sort) to other people. Is that not teaching?
"Teachers" are trained to address a very narrow aspect of this.
They are trained to "teach" a classroom of children. Why do
college instructors not need a "teaching" degree?
I would agree that a classroom teacher knows more about teaching
in a classroom than anyone who has not done so. Any classroom
"reform" would be best served if we were to depend on "teachers"
in their professional capacity.
This thread has been cross-posted to the home school newsgroups.
Considering home school; Parents do not serve the same function
as classroom teachers.
> 2. Pre-college schools are governed locally - that is, at the
> community level. In form at least, the people of each community have
> the opportunity to set any number of operational standards for their
> schools. In spite of the objections of individuals, we must take it
> that every school has the quality it wants. By that I mean that no
> matter the quality, the people, by definition, agree to it. If the
> school has gone to ruin (in anyone's opinion) then the community has
> agreed, by its sufferance, that it should be so. All of the arguments
> that say that change is impossible cannot be true by definition. In
> spite of the truth that it may be impossible for some enlightened
> individuals to make change, it is the community and only that which
> drives overall conditions.
A good point, though in large school districts the feeling of
"community" is tenuous.
> 3. The parents, and those who stand in loco parentis, have the primary
> responsibility for the success of their children.
Schools stand in loco parentis only as parents have given their
children over to them. Schools _do_not_ have that responsibility
otherwise. My possition is in accordance with the US Constitution
and Supreme Court rulings that children do not belong to the State.
I do not know if that's what you intended to address, but much of
your post seems to assume that the interest "Society" has in
a child's education is at least equal to the interest of parents or
individual students.
> Given all of that, there are some important and unanswered questions:
>
> A. How can anyone, or the community generally, not being teachers,
> measure the quality of the teachers on hand? Without such a
> measurement, the community can have only a muddled voice in driving
> school policy.
The "quality" of a teacher will not be the same for each student.
Nor would it be reasonable to only accept teachers who effectively
teach the greatest number of students in a class. Learning is
an "individual" activity and should be treated as such, (though
it almost never is.) Even _good_ teachers will be bad for a few
unlucky students. Nor should teachers be held accountable if
the students in their class don't hold up their end of it. (Learning)
The _answer_ is to allow students and parents to form _voluntary_
partnerships with teachers.
> B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
> to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
The success of the society is best served by the success of
individual children. The people best situated to define that
success are parents and children..._not_ society as a whole.
> These questions are really variations of one another. How does anyone
> evaluate education? Teachers, if self-governing, can apply a wide
> variety of 'standards'. Are they all desireable? Some school boards
> can and do waste resources on competitive sports programs at the
> expense of scholarship. How can society be assured that they will
> still meet some minimum standard? An individual parent may pull a
> child from a public school (and should have that right) but what
> determines that the alternative education has value?
People are very good at identifying their own best interest. Other
than the fact that we have been conditioned to give up our
responsibility for our own educations, there is no reason to think
that parents and children are not fully capable of determining
the value of any alternative education chosen.
If you disagree please provide an example that does not include
criminal behavior.
> We cannot change the three realities (except in our imaginations) so
> how do we make them work together?
>
> Philip Cain
j.pascal
Gene Royer
In <5broef$m...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>
>In article <5brk93$1...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Gene Royer <gg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself.
>>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be.
>In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>>bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
>
>--
>Robert Singleton work: (206) 543-9640
>Department of Physics fax : (206) 685-0635
>University of Washington office: B416 Phys & Astronomy Bldg.
>Box 351560 bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu
Gene Royer writes:
Good question.
Well, the ENDS of public education should be those things for which the
school district was originally established. As I mentioned in a
previous post: What are the attitudes, the abilities (skills) and the
understandings
we want our children to obtain because of the school's existence and
its influence in their lives. That is a broad definition, but there is
plenty of room for further delineation.
Those values might vary widely from district to district because of a
variance in community values. For example a rural district might
desire that those benefits (Ends) be such that would "help keep the
young people here
at home after graduation", rather than sending the majority of them
off to the big city and thereby deminishing the population growth of
the town. A metropolitan or inner-city district might have an entirely
different o
utlook as to their children's futures.
Like it or not, that is part of what *local control* of the schools
entails.
So, then, we can see that the job of the school board is very important
because only the board--as trustee owner of the district and ostensibly
a representative (or agent) of the taxpayers in the district--has the
right t
o decide what those values are. It should obtain its input from the
people who seated it.
However, school boards generallly fail miserably at this.
The board should sit down and decide (based upon its ownership's input)
what those ENDS values are. Just what do we want our kids to obtain
from the school? Then the job of the administrator is to select a
curriculum tha
t will *Make it come to pass*. Make it happen. If the superintendent
cannot do that, then you need to find one who can.
Now, let me open another can of worms:
If we say that the ENDS of public education (which was your question)
are those things for which the school was established in the first
place, then can we really say that school safety and comfort are ENDS
of public educ
ation?
I mean, did the founding fathers get together and say, "Hey, let's
build us a school house over yonder so that our kids can be safe and
warm?"
If we use the term ENDS, then of course there must be MEANS. A MEANS
is anything the school either uses, does, or provides toward
accomplishment of the ENDS. Therefore, safety and comfort (and good
equipment)--although
very important issues--are simply *important* means toward our ends.
Think about it.
They are simply important commons sense paths to creating the ends.
But the ENDS are the most important thing to consider. And it is about
the ends that the school board should continually obsess. Finding the
means to
accomplish them is the job of a competent administrator.
Gene <off his soapbox and going to bed> Royer
______________
Gene Royer: Policy Governance(sm) consultant to nonprofit and public
governing boards. Author: SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 2000, The Things
Staff Didn't Tell You At Orientation. (Brockton 1996)
>
>In article <5brk93$1...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Gene Royer <gg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself.
>>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be.
>In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>>bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
>
>--
>Robert Singleton work: (206) 543-9640
>Department of Physics fax : (206) 685-0635
>University of Washington office: B416 Phys & Astronomy Bldg.
>Box 351560 bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu
Gene Royer writes:
Good question.
Well, the ENDS of public education should be those things for which the
school district was originally established. As I mentioned in a
previous post: What are the attitudes, the abilities (skills) and the
understandings
we want our children to obtain because of the school's existence and
its influence in their lives. That is a broad definition, but there is
plenty of room for further delineation.
Those values might vary widely from district to district because of a
variance in community values. For example a rural district might
desire that those benefits (Ends) be such that would "help keep the
young people here
at home after graduation", rather than sending the majority of them
off to the big city and thereby deminishing the population growth of
the town. A metropolitan or inner-city district might have an entirely
different o
utlook as to their children's futures.
Like it or not, that is part of what *local control* of the schools
entails.
So, then, we can see that the job of the school board is very important
because only the board--as trustee owner of the district and ostensibly
a representative (or agent) of the taxpayers in the district--has the
right t
o decide what those values are. It should obtain its input from the
people who seated it.
However, school boards generallly fail miserably at this.
The board should sit down and decide (based upon its ownership's input)
what those ENDS values are. Just what do we want our kids to obtain
from the school? Then the job of the administrator is to select a
curriculum tha
t will *Make it come to pass*. Make it happen. If the superintendent
cannot do that, then you need to find one who can.
Now, let me open another can of worms:
If we say that the ENDS of public education (which was your question)
are those things for which the school was established in the first
place, then can we really say that school safety and comfort are ENDS
of public educ
ation?
I mean, did the founding fathers get together and say, "Hey, let's
build us a school house over yonder so that our kids can be safe and
warm?"
If we use the term ENDS, then of course there must be MEANS. A MEANS
is anything the school either uses, does, or provides toward
accomplishment of the ENDS. Therefore, safety and comfort (and good
equipment)--although
very important issues--are simply *important* means toward our ends.
Think about it.
They are simply important commons sense paths to creating the ends.
But the ENDS are the most important thing to consider. And it is about
the ends that the school board should continually obsess. Finding the
means to
accomplish them is the job of a competent administrator.
Gene <off his soapbox and going to bed> Royer
______________
Robert Singleton
In article <5brk93$1...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Gene Royer <gg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>>
>>formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
>>believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
>>set the curriculum in public schools.
>Robert, daring risk the slings and arrows of countless thousands
>who will read this posting, I have to say that I agree with you.
>But I must say that cautionsly, because I sense the first wave
>of missils already coming in now.
I've already donned my armor.
>However, taxpayers--through their elected school board
>members--do have the right AND THE OBLIGATION to say what
>is to be obtained by the child because of *any* curriculum
>that is selected and instituted by the school district.
>Therefore, whatever curriculum is chosen by the district,
>it MUST be one which delivers the expected benefits that
>the school board dictated in its policies.
[...]
>So, I am saying that the people who own the district should be
>able to dictate what the quality of their children's education
>should be. And it should be the duty of the administrator to
>dedide the applicable curriculum that will deliver that quality.
I agree with this. Certainly tax payers have rights (and
as you say, obligations). They have the right to demand
quality, safe schools, adequate school supplies, etc. etc.
I hope that people do apply my previous arguments on
curriculum to apply too broadly (as they were only regarding
academic content).
>but the process of governance needs to be changed so that these
>same members can have a way of affecting education and effecting
>a positive change in it.
A good sentence to add to the curriculum, illustrating
the difference between the verbs "affect" and "effect"
(normally a noun).
>Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself.
>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be.
Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
Robert Singleton
In article <5bs0qk$4...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Gene Royer <gg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>Now, let me open another can of worms:
>
>If we say that the ENDS of public education (which was your question)
>are those things for which the school was established in the first
>place, then can we really say that school safety and comfort are ENDS
>of public education?
>
>I mean, did the founding fathers get together and say, "Hey, let's
>build us a school house over yonder so that our kids can be safe and
>warm?"
>
>If we use the term ENDS, then of course there must be MEANS. A MEANS
>is anything the school either uses, does, or provides toward
>accomplishment of the ENDS. Therefore, safety and comfort (and good
>equipment)--although very important issues--are simply
> *important* means toward our ends.
>Think about it.
Ahhh. I don't mean for this to be touchy-feely me-too post,
but very good point. I'll have to think more about this.
I've never really understood the purpose of a local school
board. Is it your contention, then, that their purpose is
to establish and define the ENDS for public education? Can
you give a concrete example?
Robert Singleton
In article <32E1C4...@rmii.com>, sockeye <soc...@rmii.com> wrote:
>Robert Singleton wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> It is my contention that parents should not possess much
>> formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
>> believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
>> set the curriculum in public schools.
>has to pick that somebody.
In the case of science, it just isn't quite that complicated.
Science should be taught in the science class room. What is science?
Well, it's what scientists do. Do scientists do creationism?
Well, no they don't.
>
>The "educators" ARE the "special interest group... that seek[s] to
>manipulate public school curriculum",
Oh please. I just don't buy that type of deconstructionist
argument.
> Look, if it helps to make it
>clear, let me remind you the Christian Right worked hard and
>successfully in the 1980's to get their candidates elected to local
>school boards. Many of the things you decry - teaching creationism, for
>example - are a direct result of governments placing control over
>curriculum into the hands of school boards,
This is a good point. The system will only work as well as
those who run it. However, I still don't quite share your
alarmist vision. Or rather, I put less trust in the "common
man" than in the specialist (which might be why I'm no fan of
the jury system). I'm not advocating giving local school
boards more power, but less. I'm instead advocating giving
the federal government more control (please, no "tyranny"
allusions here, I just don't buy that line either).
>Let me illustrate my point with a relevant concrete example.
>Should an individual who believes in a literal interpretation
>of the Bible be forced to profess theories *he does not believe?
>I am not a Christian, but ... "Congress shall make no law ...
>prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]".
I think you might have missed my point. I specifically said
that little Johnny should not be taught what to *believe* in
the science class room, but rather he should be taught what
scientists believe. He and his parents are free to believe
what they want, but they should not be free to misrepresent
what science is and is not in the name of publicly mandated
education.
>Schools can actually REQUIRE the reading of certain books, and
>can require the readers to interpret the content in an approved manner,
>and can grant or withhold civil liberties(permission to use the
>bathroom, or leave school grounds, for example), on the basis of that
>interpretation. You want fewer of these folks to have MORE power? Are
>you out of your mind?
I really don't understand this American obsession with the
alleged evils of Big Government. Take a look at Europe. It's
because of Big Government that Europeans get six weeks of
vacation per year. We Americans typically get a piddling
two weeks. Europeans don't have to worry about their health
care, their schools are typically very good and equitably
funded, and all because of Big Government. If it persists,
this national trend of demonizeing the federal government
is going to render us a fractured and splintered has-been
of a superpower.
>I hope that you will realize that those who wish
>to control our presses and those who wish to control our schools
>are the same kind of people, and deserve to be treated with the
>same contempt.
fnord.
lo...@usit.net
bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) wrote:
>So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
>reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
>me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
>of education. Do the private citizens who actually pay for
>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
>is primarily funded at the local (city) level (this funding
>structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
>with American education).
>As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
>It is my contention that parents should not possess much
>formal input into the curriculum of public education.
This can get into the discussion of who has rights over their
children. As for me I chose to H/school my children because
when my children where in Public School,,, I got tired of listening
to what they learn that day.
Things like smoky bear,
don't distroy the earth,
man is an enemy to the earth,
recycle,
When I would ask them about reading, writing, etc....
I could see no response. I figure if my children where going to read
and write,,, I would have to do it.
>I believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
>set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
>don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
>possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
>is not suitable subject matter in physics?
I suspose that the children, (in most cases) will go to the same
schools that their parents did. In many cases will have some of the
same teachers.
If the parents haven't learn anything from them,,,, what makes you
think that the child will learn anything?
>Community objections, however, to public school curriculum
>typically do not occur from topics as innocuous as diffraction.
>Controversy arises over subject matter that challenges our
>view of ourselves, such as evolution or _The Catcher in the Rye_.
Subject matter that challenges our view of ourselves? What place has
this in education? This seems more of an indoctrination. You teach a
child how to read, write, and spell, (something I wished I were better
at) then that child can figure out how he thinks of himself.
You take computors, for example, we spend lots of money to buy
computors for the class rooms. BUT this is not education. This is
training. Something you learn after you get the education.
>Therefore,
>since virtually no biologists take creationism seriously
another reason I am homeschooling.
>(which is not to say that most biologists are atheists,
>since evolution and religion do not have to be in conflict),
>creationism cannot be taught in the *science* classroom,
if they are not in conflict,,, then there should be no reason
that creation shouldn't be taught.
John
lo...@usit.net
Alberto C Moreira
In article <5bskc6$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) wrote:
>I think you might have missed my point. I specifically said
>that little Johnny should not be taught what to *believe* in
>the science class room, but rather he should be taught what
>scientists believe. He and his parents are free to believe
>what they want, but they should not be free to misrepresent
>what science is and is not in the name of publicly mandated
>education.
A scientist that doesn't realize and accept that much of what we
"know" today in science is no more than theory, is an utterly
arrogant one. Given that, science in general must be approached
from the standpoint that "everything behaves as if...", rather than
going forward and saying "it is, because science proves it".
A lot of knowledge we have, even that which seems to rest on
pretty solid and undisputable grounds, is no more than a convenient
theory that explains facts well and allows us to build gadgets that
make our lives easier.
In my mind, not acknowledging the limitations of science is the first
step towards misrepresentation.
Alberto.
Gene Royer
My two cents is not worth much here, but I applaud the homeschooling
efforts of parents who make that choice. I have seven granddaughters
(all beautiful, thank you). Some are Homeschooled and some are in the
public. My feelings are that if the Public school is not giving the
child what the parent feels it should have, then the parent should take
up the task and do it themselves.
The optimum would be for the system to be operated in such a manner and
with such good praise as to make that change unnecessary. I certainly
don't have the answers, but most board members are parents (like the
rest of us) and they also know *what they don't like* about education.
They just need to find out a way to fix it.
Gene Royer: Author: SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 2000, The Things Staff
Didn't Tell You At Orienttion. (Brockton 1996)
Crawford Kilian
Robert Singleton quotes an earlier poster and asks:
>Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself.
>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be.
Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
CK:
I argue that the end of public education is to equip young people with both
the knowledge and the attitudes they need to take on the role of
citizen-proprietors of a democracy in an unpredictable future.
This doesn't mean "preparing them for the 21st century," as if it were a
known destination for which they needed particular immunizations, but
preparing them for damn near anything. In my book 2020 Visions: The Futures
of Canadian Education (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1995), I call it
teaching for chaos.
While the knowledge component is important, the attitudes are even more so.
Students should emerge from school better-prepared to keep learning than when
they entered, and confident that they can learn fast in response to the
unexpected. They should be able to compare their 21st-century experiences
with those of their ancestors back to prehistory, and act wisely in the light
of their knowledge. And they should be prepared to take charge of their
society rather than passively allowing "experts" to tell them what to do.
An education system that simply imposes current adult anxieties on children
doesn't do anyone much good. Whatever is exercising us in the 1990s is going
to be painfully old-fashioned in a few years... though if the history of
education criticism over the last century is any guide, the adults of 2025
will be lamenting the state of education and calling for a return to the high
standards of the 1990s--when the adults were themselves in school.
Crawford Kilian
Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com
Philip Cain
gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
>In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>...
>>It is my contention that parents should not possess much
>>formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
>>believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
>>set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
>>don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
>>possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
>>is not suitable subject matter in physics?
>>
>...
>Gene Royer writes:
>...
>However, taxpayers--through their elected school board members--do have
>the right AND THE OBLIGATION to say what is to be obtained by the child
>because of *any* curriculum that is selected and instituted by the
>school district. Therefore, whatever curriculum is chosen by the
>district, it MUST be one which delivers the expected benefits that the
>school board dictated in its policies.
>...
In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism, I'd like to
suggest that there are some realities we cannot (nor should we want
to) change. They are:
1. Teaching is the realm of teachers, just as medicine is the realm of
doctors. No one can know how to teach better than teachers, so we must
depend on the judgement of teachers on teaching, just as we depend on
doctors for medicine or lawyers for law.
2. Pre-college schools are governed locally - that is, at the
community level. In form at least, the people of each community have
the opportunity to set any number of operational standards for their
schools. In spite of the objections of individuals, we must take it
that every school has the quality it wants. By that I mean that no
matter the quality, the people, by definition, agree to it. If the
school has gone to ruin (in anyone's opinion) then the community has
agreed, by its sufferance, that it should be so. All of the arguments
that say that change is impossible cannot be true by definition. In
spite of the truth that it may be impossible for some enlightened
individuals to make change, it is the community and only that which
drives overall conditions.
3. The parents, and those who stand in loco parentis, have the primary
responsibility for the success of their children.
Given all of that, there are some important and unanswered questions:
A. How can anyone, or the community generally, not being teachers,
measure the quality of the teachers on hand? Without such a
measurement, the community can have only a muddled voice in driving
school policy.
B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
These questions are really variations of one another. How does anyone
evaluate education? Teachers, if self-governing, can apply a wide
variety of 'standards'. Are they all desireable? Some school boards
can and do waste resources on competitive sports programs at the
expense of scholarship. How can society be assured that they will
still meet some minimum standard? An individual parent may pull a
child from a public school (and should have that right) but what
determines that the alternative education has value?
We cannot change the three realities (except in our imaginations) so
Sherri Miller
A>Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
For starters, how about proper verb tenses?
>>>>>>> Unregistered PowrMAIL v1.00 for PowerBBS. <<<<<<<
Victor Smith
On 19 Jan 1997 18:31:56 GMT, gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
> Do the private citizens who actually pay for
>>>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
>>>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
>>>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
>>>is primarily funded at the local (city) level
Am I wrong or is this whole thread off topic for this group? If your
home schooling why get thrown into a fit by a man who's whole world
view is upset every 20 years or less (chaos, super-string, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)? As for science being what
scientist say it is what about Einstein on the uncertainty principle?
Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current? Any economist on economics
as a science? Political Science HA! Anybody seen the benefits of cold
fusion lately? Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
to helping each other educate our children. Victor
Gene Royer
In <5bu88d$o...@nntp.interaccess.com> phil...@orelle.com (Philip Cain)
writes:
Gene Royer writes:
Philip is correct, IMHO.
One thing about utopianism. It is easy and fun to talk about but
impossible to achieve.
Teachers--just like everyone else in life--should be subject to
performance/competency evaluation. IMHO, a *teacher certification*
does not do that, but that's another discussion altogether.
However, in order for the citizens who pay the taxes (and the salaries)
to have confidence in their teachers' ability to teach, there must be a
standard against which *teachers* can be equitbly judged. To do
otherwise would be grossly unfair. --And, in fact, that is precisely
what is taking place in America today. How humiliating and frustrating
that must be.
There is a solution (not an easy one to swallow) but it must begin at a
much higher level than in the instructional corps itself.
Gene Royer
Sam Finlay
Robert Singleton wrote:
>
<snip>
> So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
> reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
> me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
> *public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
> one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
> oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
> structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
> with American education).
>
> As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
> formal input into the curriculum of public education.
>
> Community objections, however, to public school curriculum
> typically do not occur from topics as innocuous as diffraction.
> Controversy arises over subject matter that challenges our
> view of ourselves, such as evolution or _The Catcher in the
> watchful of special interest groups that seek the manipulate
> public school curriculum, even if we ourselves happen to
> belong to some of those groups. The best way to insulate
> against this is to place control where it belongs, with
> curriculum standards).
>
> evolution be taught as viable competing theories, one just
> as accepted as the other?
>
> must be operationally defined as being what scientists
> themselves do).
Robert,
As a homeschooler, I find the above somewhat off the mark.
You seem to be advocating an elite education. If so fine,
I'm all for it. The problem is that such an education is
not possible for all students. Some students just won't
"get it", some simply can't get it & only a few will benefit.
Many parents will object to the content of some classes.
This is not restricted to religious parents either, secular
"left wing" parents find many things taught in public school
objectionable. These same parents are asked to fund
schools that they fundamentally disagree with. In the real
world they will object strenously & vote to lessen their
tax load. Sorry, but this is the way things work.
It's the problem w/ the whole concept of public school. How can
you expect for people to pay for something & then be told,
shut up & we'll decide what's right for your kid?
I assume you've heard of John Gatto's book; Dumbing Us Down?
If not, I suggest you pick up a copy. He believes that only
an open & free market will work for education. The coercion
that our kids are currently exposed to in Public Schools
only hurts their learning. They dig in their intellectual heels
& refuse to learn anything. Doubt me? Look at how many people
believe such scientifically "valid" concepts such as horoscopes
spiritual mediums, crystal therapy, etc. Care to make odds against
these people not being educated in the aproved manner by public
schools? Face it. The command & control structure of our public
schools is a failure. If it did provide an elite education, you'd have a
point. It doesn't. And given the lack of consensus in the USA about what
constitutes a good education it couldn't possibly.It's time to try
something completely different.
Sam
sockeye
Philip Cain wrote:
>
> gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
>
> >In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
> >bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
> >...
> >>formal input into the curriculum of public education.
> In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism [...]
>
> 2. Pre-college schools are governed locally
Geez, you offer me so many targets for rebuttal, it's hard to pick just
one, but I like this one. Tell me - if school are 'governed locally',
what are state Departments of Education for? Just figureheads? And what
if the local government decides to close the public schools, or to
abolish compulsory education, or permit unrestricted homeschooling?
The rules that count are ALL at the State and Federal level. 'Local
control' through school boards and PTAs is a sop to the sheep who
swallow the lies, and a popularity contest for petty politicians. Gives
those old High School class presidents and homecoming queens something
to do in their declining years, y'know.
=Eric
Ed Klages
Sherri Miller wrote:
>
> A>Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
>
> For starters, how about proper verb tenses?
Or even better, how about knowing the difference between tense and
number?
-- Ed Klages
Crawford Kilian
soc...@rmii.com,Internet writes:
Tell me - if school are 'governed locally',
what are state Departments of Education for? Just figureheads? And what
if the local government decides to close the public schools, or to
abolish compulsory education, or permit unrestricted homeschooling?
The rules that count are ALL at the State and Federal level. 'Local
control' through school boards and PTAs is a sop to the sheep who
swallow the lies, and a popularity contest for petty politicians. Gives
those old High School class presidents and homecoming queens something
to do in their declining years, y'know.
CK:
The same is generally true of Canadian public schools, and all the more so
since the Ontario government abolished most of the provincial school boards
just the other day. Henceforth all school funding, and virtually all control,
will reside in the provincial government. (In Canada education is strictly a
provincial responsibility; Ottawa does indirectly subsidize post-secondary
education and some special programs like French immersion, but we have no
national standards in education.)
Historically, local boards did indeed govern; they had to the power to tax,
and used it. State or provincial governments set minimum standards and (in
many cases, like British Columbia) provided appointed superintendents who
ensured boards did not "close the public schools" or otherwise short-change
their students and taxpayers.
As "minimum standards" began to rise beyond the financial abilities of many
boards, they began to yield their powers to state/provincial governments in
exchange for greater funding. However, as long as local taxpayers were
covering some sizable part of the school budget, they could exercise control
through their trustees.
This control has now largely vanished. Here in BC it began to disappear in
the early 1980s when the provincial government took local
commercial-industrial taxes and folded them into the provincial share of
school budgets. This left boards with no one to tax but residential property
owners--not a popular idea in the recession of that era.
In most Canadian school districts, boards now have some modest discretion in
just how they may spend the budget granted them by their provincial masters.
But in the present era of funding cuts, that means boards simply do their
masters' dirty work and take flak that by rights their masters deserve.
As a former school trustee (though I was never a high-school class
president), I regret this but I understand it. Education has become too
expensive for even the richest community to support single-handedly. But with
centralization of funding we also get increasing unresponsiveness to local
needs and concerns... and therefore a worsening of the present alienation of
many people from their schools.
Perhaps trustees are "petty politicians," but the ones I've known have been
remarkably thoughtful and hard-working men and women, willing to put up with
considerable abuse and frustration. They and those who support local control
are anything but "sheep" and very far from credulous swallowers of lies. My
own two-year hitch as a trustee was an education in itself, as well as a lot
of fun (and sometimes damn frightening). The age of the local school trustee
may have passed, but I don't think we are automatically better off as a
result.
Crawford Kilian
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com
author, 2020 Visions: The Futures of Canadian Education
Ray Clark
sockeye <soc...@rmii.com> wrote:
>can require the readers to interpret the content in an approved manner,
>and can grant or withhold civil liberties(permission to use the
>bathroom, or leave school grounds, for example), on the basis of that
>interpretation.
In the first grade I was punished for doing an assignment
ahead of everyone else. I was made to stay after school and not
allowed to use the toilet. I had to sit in my desk until I wet my
pants and only then was I allowed to walk home. This was very
traumatic for me as a 6 year old, and it still angers me alot today!!!
I hated school got bad grades and dropped out in my junior
year as I felt I would not be able to graduate with my class.
I went to college 8 years later and loved it, my grades were
excellent. I am now working as an RN in emergency, and intensive
coronary care.
There were many other things I hated about school as I was
growing up and I'm not about to let MY kids be subjected to any of it.
I became what I am today despite the socialization with my schoolmates
not because of it!
Philip Cain
sockeye <soc...@rmii.com> wrote:
> Geez, you offer me so many targets for rebuttal, it's hard to pick just
>one, but I like this one. Tell me - if school are 'governed locally',
>what are state Departments of Education for? Just figureheads? And what
>if the local government decides to close the public schools, or to
>abolish compulsory education, or permit unrestricted homeschooling?
Those are good questions, Sock. Why don't you help us out by doing a
little research on them and reporting back here to us. I think we'd
all like to know.
BTW, in Illinois, the state has a school fund which I think covers
about 10 percent of all the moneys spent on primary and secondary
education which is otherwise funded locally. The state also licenses
teachers, but isn't too strict about it. Illinois also runs a number
of colleges and universities, which I excluded from my notes.
And there's another thing, but it's an Illinois thing and probably not
common elsewhere. Here in Illinois we have, for our amusement, this
sort of bear-baiting contest in which the mayor of Chicago is the bear
and the governor et al. in the state capitol are the dogs.
On the state's side are laws that allow state government to take over
parts of local government and run them directly from the capitol (just
the thing I believe that you fear the most, Sock).
Well they did that with the Chicago Public Schools. For years the
state wrote the short list of candidates for the CPS board and from
which the mayor was 'allowed' to make the final choice. The state also
controlled all the CPS money.
Well, the CPS failed. Three years ago it was a bankrupt system that
was graduating illiterates from hight school. The reaction of the
state was to throw up its hands and quit, giving absolute authority
and the whole mess to mayor Daley. (Don't forget the bear fight here.
The state was not so embarrased that it couldn't use the problem as
fuel for the fight.) Daley appointed a man named Paul Vallas to do the
job and Vallas is now going through the system like Sherman to the
sea.
The CPS now has a AAA bond rating and more than 20 schools have been
taken over by a flying squad of fixers from Vallas's organization.
That and a view dozen other changes and new ideas (including a whole
new way of educating teachers) and Chicago has turned from a black
hole to a bright star, still rising. Vallas is writing his own ticket
and the state is keeping out of it.
Now the kicker is this, Sock, so listen carefully.
_It_was_all_done_locally.
But that's politics. And along with teachers, parents and school
boards, these are the realities that neither you nor I can ever
change.
Philip
Philip Cain
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com (Crawford Kilian) wrote:
>Robert Singleton quotes an earlier poster and asks:
>>Curriculum is a MEANS to and END--not an ends in itself.
>>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be.
>RS:
>Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
>CK:
>I argue that the end of public education is to equip young people with both
>the knowledge and the attitudes they need to take on the role of
>citizen-proprietors of a democracy in an unpredictable future.
Is there a different goal for non-public education or could your
statement be just as valid if the word "public" were left out?
Philip Cain
sockeye
John T. Klausner wrote:
>
> In <32E43D...@rmii.com> sockeye <soc...@rmii.com> writes:
> >
>
>
> [...] work is generally supervised so that state minimums are
> met [...]
This is still State control. Look at the law that 'permits'
homeschooling. You will see that the State has granted authority to
homeschool and may revoke it if it wishes. They may have made
homeschooling an option for the local system, but permission is theirs
to grant or revoke. You happen to be living in a time and place where
they had more to gain or less to lose by granting permission than by
withholding it.
=Eric
Laurel Halbany
dha...@hal-pc.org (David L. Hanson) wrote:
>Of course, private citizens are paying for government education and in a
>democracy neither the "king" nor the government bureaucrat nor the government
>school educationist is supposed to spend that tax money independently of
>"We the People". What you propose is just another form of tryanny. We are
>just supposed to hand over our money to government school educationists and
>then keep quiet as they operate morally, spiritually, and academically corrupt
>cesspools.
Well, not quite. We're a representative democracy, not a direct
democracy, for starters. While we should have control over where our
tax monies go, we also do not have the right to violate the
Constitution or others' rights in determining how that money will be
used.
>There are many biologists who do take the Bible and creation seriously.
>And the ones who don't are just plain wrong.
There is a difference between taking the Bible and Christian
creationism seriously, and holding that to be scientific fact.
Teaching Biblical beliefs as fact is teaching the tenets of a
religion.
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Halbany
myt...@agora.rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/users/mythago/
John T. Klausner
>> 2. Pre-college schools are governed locally
> Geez, you offer me so many targets for rebuttal, it's hard to
pick just
>one, but I like this one. Tell me - if school are 'governed locally',
>what are state Departments of Education for? Just figureheads? And
what
>if the local government decides to close the public schools, or to
>abolish compulsory education, or permit unrestricted homeschooling?
> The rules that count are ALL at the State and Federal level.
'Local
>control' through school boards and PTAs is a sop to the sheep who
>swallow the lies, and a popularity contest for petty politicians.
Gives
>those old High School class presidents and homecoming queens something
>to do in their declining years, y'know.
>
>=Eric
Ummmm....our school (Public type) has a homeschooling program. I'm not
sure about "unrestricted" - parents are periodically met with by a paid
teacher, and work is generally supervised so that state minimums are
met, but the program is home schooling and conducted by the parents.
Out of a rousting 385 enrolled students, 65 are in the homeschooling
program. If every parent wanted to homeschool, I can't see that it
would be a problem. I agree that a local school board couldn't
eliminate compulsory education, but if the local populace was in favor
of home schooling, or even no schooling, it would probably be possible
to define things in such a way as to be possible.
SueK
Steven Nicoloso
Philip Cain wrote:
> In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism, I'd like to
> suggest that there are some realities we cannot (nor should we want
> to) change. They are:
> 1. Teaching is the realm of teachers, just as medicine is the realm of
> doctors. No one can know how to teach better than teachers, so we must
> depend on the judgement of teachers on teaching, just as we depend on
> doctors for medicine or lawyers for law.
In the main, this is pure balderdash. I'm reminded of the little label
on the back of cereals and other foods that says something like:
"Information on fat and cholestrol content is provided for those, who,
ON THE ADVICE OF THEIR PHYSICIAN, are monitoring their intake of ..."
What bloody idiot requires the advice of a physician to know he/she
should limit their intake of fat and cholestrol??? If I need brain
surgery, I go to a doctor; if I need advice on controlling my
cholestrol, lay literature, the public media, and common sense should
suffice. If I have a really bad cold, I choose a multi-symptom OTC
medicine; If I have a minor cough, I'll choose a simple cough
suppressant. Common sense alone is sufficient for _most_ of my health
problems.
WRT law: ever heard of small claims court? Point being that law
is not purely the domain of the law profession -- simpler cases can
be undertaken by ordinary citizens.
Teaching is the realm of all learners; teachers are simply those who
are paid to do it. The proof of successful learning IS the ability
to teach it to others, and the ability to go on and learn more on
one's own. I in no way wish to diminish the role of teachers, nor
take away from the honor (and greater pay) that is due them. But I
do take issue with any notion that all, or even a majority, of life's
learning does, or even ought to, come under the tutelage of a
professional educator.
The most important and fastest rate of learning occurs prior to
a child's entry into the school system -- learning that is facilitated,
by and large, not by professional teachers. Moreover, learning
continues on throughout life, long after we've taken our leave
of professional teachers in high school and college.
> 2. Pre-college schools are governed locally - that is, at the
> community level. In form at least, the people of each community have
> the opportunity to set any number of operational standards for their
> schools. In spite of the objections of individuals, we must take it
> that every school has the quality it wants. By that I mean that no
> matter the quality, the people, by definition, agree to it. If the
> school has gone to ruin (in anyone's opinion) then the community has
> agreed, by its sufferance, that it should be so. All of the arguments
> that say that change is impossible cannot be true by definition. In
> spite of the truth that it may be impossible for some enlightened
> individuals to make change, it is the community and only that which
> drives overall conditions.
Generally agreed, although I would replace all terms "community" with
"majority of community." Nevertheless, I should have at least an
acknowledged right to direct (absolutely if I wish) the eduation of
my children. If the "majority of the community" does not meet my
standards, ie. I am in the minority, then I should have the right to
pull my children out of the "community-run" school and educate them
in the school of my choice or at home.
> 3. The parents, and those who stand in loco parentis, have the primary
> responsibility for the success of their children.
I think I am agreeing with you, but I would place the ultimate
responsibility for success upon the children (future adults)
themselves. Bad parenting or bad school experiences can be a
(possibly severe) handicap to success, but not an _excuse_ for
the lack thereof.
> Given all of that, there are some important and unanswered questions:
>
> A. How can anyone, or the community generally, not being teachers,
> measure the quality of the teachers on hand? Without such a
> measurement, the community can have only a muddled voice in driving
> school policy.
> B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
> to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
I cannot answer how we can assure these ends, and am personally
convinced that the best we can do is assure the success of "more"
rather than "fewer" students. I'm not personally convinced that
we need concern ourselves with the requirements of success in the
society -- the free market tends to take care of that on its own.
The measuring sticks for success, however, seem to me to be
rather obvious: (choose any combination)
1) the pervasiveness of literacy,
2) the attractiveness of a particular locale to high tech or high
skill industry placement,
3) standardized test scores,
4) crime rates,
5) suicide rates,
etc., etc.
What I'm saying is that: "The proof is in the pudding, not in the
process." It may be difficult to assure, a priori, the success of
any particular educational system or program. The proof of success or
failure will ultimately be found in how well its graduates do.
<snip>
Kind regards,
Steve
--
Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
"DSP -- Applied to Communications"
Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA
"...a three hour tour, a three hour tour!"
J. Clarke
Victor Smith <vict...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<32e4bbd6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On 19 Jan 1997 18:31:56 GMT, gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
>
> > Do the private citizens who actually pay for
> >>>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
> >>>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
> >>>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
> >>>is primarily funded at the local (city) level
> Am I wrong or is this whole thread off topic for this group? If your
> home schooling why get thrown into a fit by a man who's whole world
> view is upset every 20 years or less (chaos, super-string, general
> relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)?
Huh? Chaos is just a way of dealing with previously intractable problems.
It is not a major revision of physical theory. Super-string is an attempt
at a unified field, so far the most successful, but again nothing
revolutionary in it. General relativity and quantum mechanics were
revolutionary, however they both happened within a few years of each other,
and that was before most of the people participating in this newsgroup were
borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has been for
more than 50 years.
> As for science being what
> scientist say it is what about Einstein on the uncertainty principle?
Science is not what "scientist" says it is, it is what "scientists" in the
collective say it is. To pick out one scientist who posed an invalid
hypothesis and say that this has some relevance to the validity of science
indicates a gross misunderstanding of science.
> Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current?
When did either of those engineers become elevated to the level of a
"scientist"?
> Any economist on economics
> as a science?
Only economists believe that economics is a science.
> Political Science HA!
Which is science in the same sense that a "Domestic Engineer" is an
engineer.
> Anybody seen the benefits of cold
> fusion lately?
What does cold fusion have to do with science? It was a publicity stunt.
> Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
> children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
> soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
> to helping each other educate our children. Victor
Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the planet.
Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal which
one CANNOT learn from reading books.
--John
J. Clarke
lo...@usit.net wrote in article <5bt9j2$api$1...@news.usit.net>...
> bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) wrote:
>
> >So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
> >reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
> >me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
> >one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
> >oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
> >structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
> >with American education).
>
> >As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
> >formal input into the curriculum of public education.
>
> children. As for me I chose to H/school my children because
> when my children where in Public School,,, I got tired of listening
> to what they learn that day.
> Things like smoky bear,
> don't distroy the earth,
> man is an enemy to the earth,
> recycle,
> When I would ask them about reading, writing, etc....
> I could see no response. I figure if my children where going to read
> and write,,, I would have to do it.
Excuse me, but what's wrong with Smoky Bear? Are you saying that we should
all go out and start forest fires? What's wrong with "don't destroy the
earth"? Are you in favor of destroying the earth? What's wrong with
"recycle"? Why waste good materials? You favor filling up landfills with
empty cans and bottles when they can be made into new cans and bottles?
Now if they were really taught "Man is an enemy of the earth" I agree,
that's going a bit far.
Did you ask the _teacher_ what was going on in the classroom? Or just make
assumptions because your kids didn't tell you "Oh, yes, daddy, they taught
me to read the word 'cat' today"? Funny thing, but I was taught to read
using phonics and if anybody had asked me about being taught to read while
the process was going on, I would not have been able to give them any kind
of answer, because I wasn't really consciously aware that that was what I
was being taught. Just suddenly one day all those symbols around me had
meaning that they had not had the day before.
>
>
> >I believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
> >set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
> >don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
> >possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
> >is not suitable subject matter in physics?
>
> I suspose that the children, (in most cases) will go to the same
> schools that their parents did. In many cases will have some of the
> same teachers.
> If the parents haven't learn anything from them,,,, what makes you
> think that the child will learn anything?
Not knowing how a microwave oven works is not the same as not learning
anything. But still, a person who doesn't know a good deal of physics (a
good deal more than it is practical to teach in a public school) isn't
really qualified to decide what parts of physics should be taught in those
schools.
> >Community objections, however, to public school curriculum
> >typically do not occur from topics as innocuous as diffraction.
> >Controversy arises over subject matter that challenges our
> >view of ourselves, such as evolution or _The Catcher in the Rye_.
>
> Subject matter that challenges our view of ourselves? What place has
> this in education? This seems more of an indoctrination. You teach a
> child how to read, write, and spell, (something I wished I were better
> at) then that child can figure out how he thinks of himself.
Yes, he can figure out how he thinks for himself. But you don't help him
by "protecting" him from these ideas.
>
> You take computors, for example, we spend lots of money to buy
> computors for the class rooms. BUT this is not education. This is
> training. Something you learn after you get the education.
Huh? Teaching a student to use a computer is "training", which is only
done after the student receives "education"? Would you be kind enough to
define "education"? Or is "readin, writin', and 'rithmetic" your idea of
"education"? Then what does MIT do? I guess it's just a training facility
or indoctrination center.
>
> >Therefore,
> >since virtually no biologists take creationism seriously
>
> another reason I am homeschooling.
Why, so that you can teach your kids that biologists take creation
seriously? Why would you want them to believe something that is not true?
If you want them to believe in creation, fine. But you are doing them a
major disservice and incidentally denigrating the omnipotence of God if you
are teaching them that it is an accepted scientific theory.
> >(which is not to say that most biologists are atheists,
> >since evolution and religion do not have to be in conflict),
> >creationism cannot be taught in the *science* classroom,
>
> if they are not in conflict,,, then there should be no reason
> that creation shouldn't be taught.
Why? Lack of conflict does not mean that religion is science.
>
>
> John
> lo...@usit.net
>
>
>
Julie A.Pascal
>
> > Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
> > children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
> > soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
> > to helping each other educate our children. Victor
>
> Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
> educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the planet.
> Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal which
> one CANNOT learn from reading books.
What do you do about those gaping holes in your education? Do you
complain that someone else didn't have the foresight to assign that
planned course of reading or do you simply go get the books?
j.pascal
>
> --John
>
Julie A.Pascal
sockeye wrote:
>
> John T. Klausner wrote:
> >
> > [...] work is generally supervised so that state minimums are
> > met [...]
>
> This is still State control. Look at the law that 'permits'
> homeschooling. You will see that the State has granted authority to
> homeschool and may revoke it if it wishes. They may have made
> homeschooling an option for the local system, but permission is theirs
> to grant or revoke. You happen to be living in a time and place where
> they had more to gain or less to lose by granting permission than by
> withholding it.
>
> =Eric
Not quite so. That the State has laws that "permit" home schooing
does not _prove_ that they have the Constitutional authority
to "grant or revoke" a parent's right to home school.
A law doesn't have to pass constitutional muster before comming
into effect so the fact that it exists doesn't prove anything
about the actual authority of the State.
j.pascal
furg...@swbell.net
> >>... The board's job is to decide what those ENDS are to be. >Interesting point. So what is the ends of public education?
> >
> Gene Royer writes:
>
> Good question.
>
> Well, the ENDS of public education should be those things for which the
> school district was originally established. As I mentioned in a
> previous post: What are the attitudes, the abilities (skills) and the
> understandings
> we want our children to obtain because of the school's existence and
> its influence in their lives. That is a broad definition, but there is
> plenty of room for further delineation.
>
> Those values might vary widely from district to district because of a
> variance in community values. For example a rural district might
> desire that those benefits (Ends) be such that would "help keep the
> young people here
> at home after graduation", rather than sending the majority of them
> off to the big city and thereby deminishing the population growth of
> the town. A metropolitan or inner-city district might have an entirely
> different ...o
Broadly speaking then, the Ends of public education is social
engineering?!
Sharon D. O'Toole
Obviously many people are unaware that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the
idea of evolution; one of the premier evolutionists, de Chardin, was a Catholic
priest. This is taught in the Catholic schools as fact. Many reconcile it to
the idea that "God's week" would be a lot longer than the seven days of 24 hours
of "mere" humans.
Crawford Kilian
furg...@swbell.net,Internet writes:
Broadly speaking then, the Ends of public education is social
engineering?!
CK:
"Social engineering" is a term of opprobrium for many persons, and perhaps
with reason. It connotes a meddlesome attempt by our betters to make us
behave properly even if it's not in our interest to do so.
I think it might be fairer to say that school boards try to deliver the kind
of education that voters find politically desirable. If a group with little
political power (say, American blacks or Hispanics in the 1950s) receives
poor education services, its likeliest recourse is to gain political power
and then vote in trustees and legislators who will deliver better schools...
"better" as the powerful group defines the term.
Any group is going to support schools that offer its children the maximum
social mobility, especially if the group is relatively poor and barred from
more rewarding occupations. A rising group is not going to endorse policies
that put its children at a disadvantage, even though those policies may seem
perfectly natural -- even necessary -- to groups that have always enjoyed
benefits from those policies.
So middle-class white beneficiaries of the school policies of the 1950s and
60s perceive a decline in "standards." Those "standards" had served to
discourage blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from pursuing education and
escaping the underclass. New policies attempt to encourage such minorities to
stay in school and to consider middle-class occupations as realistic goals.
The process becomes self-sustaining as minority members actually do enter
those occupations and gain still more political power as well as income.
So boards will try to frame policies that reflect changing political
realities. Groups with declining poltical power may see this as a threat or
as "social engineering"; but it is really no different from the policies that
gave preferred status to middle-class white kids half a century ago.
Crawford Kilian
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com
Mike Schneider
phil...@orelle.com (Philip Cain) wrote:
> gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
> >In <5bres7$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
> >bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
> >>believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
> >>set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
> >>don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
> >>possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
> >>is not suitable subject matter in physics?
> >>
what others have said.
The problem is that many "teachers" I've had didn't know either, and were
trying to teach it.
> In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism, I'd like to
> suggest that there are some realities we cannot (nor should we want
> to) change. They are:
>
> 1. Teaching is the realm of teachers, just as medicine is the realm of
> doctors. No one can know how to teach better than teachers, so we must
> depend on the judgement of teachers on teaching, just as we depend on
> doctors for medicine or lawyers for law.
>
Yes. This is exactly why I'm so opposed to every Tom, Dick, and Harry
helping out with the teaching. Not everone can or should teach, and this
goes for many "trained" teachers. There are just too many people out
there calling themselves teachers when they are not teachers.
> 2. Pre-college schools are governed locally - that is, at the
> community level. In form at least, the people of each community have
> the opportunity to set any number of operational standards for their
> schools. In spite of the objections of individuals, we must take it
> that every school has the quality it wants. By that I mean that no
> matter the quality, the people, by definition, agree to it. If the
> school has gone to ruin (in anyone's opinion) then the community has
> agreed, by its sufferance, that it should be so. All of the arguments
> that say that change is impossible cannot be true by definition. In
> spite of the truth that it may be impossible for some enlightened
> individuals to make change, it is the community and only that which
> drives overall conditions.
>
As long as the people who are actually getting the education have a voice
through their parents or guardian. In other words, all the retired
people, who don't give a hoot about the educational system, can't vote for
zero money appropriated to schools.
> 3. The parents, and those who stand in loco parentis, have the primary
> responsibility for the success of their children.
>
> Given all of that, there are some important and unanswered questions:
>
> A. How can anyone, or the community generally, not being teachers,
> measure the quality of the teachers on hand? Without such a
> measurement, the community can have only a muddled voice in driving
> school policy.
>
In the same sense, how is the quality of the students' work measured?
Without such a measurement, the community can have only a muddled voice in
driving school policy.
> B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
> to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
>
This has to do with quality assurance/quality control. Other parts of
industry have implemented these procedures/standards. What happens when
your toaster has a defect? You send it back, right? You don't know
anything about a toaster, yet you were able to detect a flaw. Yet
somehow, just because we don't know about education or teaching we
suddenly can't be a judge as to whether the teachers are doing their
jobs. I feel this is ludicrous, people know when things don't work right,
regardless if they know how it works. The education system is no
different.
> These questions are really variations of one another. How does anyone
> evaluate education? Teachers, if self-governing, can apply a wide
> variety of 'standards'. Are they all desireable? Some school boards
> can and do waste resources on competitive sports programs at the
> expense of scholarship. How can society be assured that they will
> still meet some minimum standard? An individual parent may pull a
> child from a public school (and should have that right) but what
> determines that the alternative education has value?
>
Determine some quality standards. Develop tests for the standards. Test
that the stanards are being met. Develop recourse if they are not being
met.
> We cannot change the three realities (except in our imaginations) so
> how do we make them work together?
>
Quality assurance/quality control programs.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Mike Schneider http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/g396/schne042/
Julie A.Pascal
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
> <32E671...@pascal.org>...
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > >
> > > Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
> > > educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the
> planet.
> > > Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> > > planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal
> which
> > > one CANNOT learn from reading books.
> >
> > What do you do about those gaping holes in your education? Do you
> > complain that someone else didn't have the foresight to assign that
> > planned course of reading or do you simply go get the books?
>
> Which books?
>
The books that would have comprised a "set of planned readings" to
fill those gaps you mentioned.
As for the "great deal which one CANNOT learn from reading books." I'd
say that a student who isn't confined to a classroom for the greater
part of their life has a better chance of learning those things.
Particularily if they've always expected to have to search out
information and information _sources_ (ie. people) to find out what
they need and want to know.
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
James W Walden wrote:
>
> Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.science: 23-Jan-97 Re: School
> Control (was Re:.. by "Julie A.Pascal"@pascal.
> > The books that would have comprised a "set of planned readings" to
> > fill those gaps you mentioned.
>
> I think you missed the point which is that the child does not know which
> books to go and get.
The question concerned what a person did _now_ as an adult to fill the
gaps left by what was probably a traditional classroom education.
> The librarians may or may not be helpful (I remember
> a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the adult
> sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful on
> technical or particularly specific matters in general.
Anyone may or may not be helpful. (And rules about not accessing "adult"
sections of the library (for Physics books!) should be challenged
until they are done away with. Personally, I doubt that's the type
of "adult" book in question.) What is sad is being limited to the
"unhelpful" rather than free to go find someone who _can_ help.
> Finding the place
> to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all those
> thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what you
> need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
> understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even mention
> (and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
And...what? This is an insurmountable problem? (Actually Physics and
other textbooks are easily available to home educators. I'd feel really
stupid if I had to ask my sister, who is a Physics major, if I should
follow the recommended sequence or not. Frankly, I'd expect my kids to
know to start at the "beginning" even if I didn't tell them so.)
Actually
I see a great deal of benifit from "popular accounts" of Science.
Wouldn't
this help a student clarify their interest in a feild of science? I
think
it would give them an invaluable overview to keep them going while they
trudge through the preliminary material.
> Figuring out what's both important and readable in a field can be quite
> difficult (and is frequently beyond the competence of the child's teachers,
> librarians, and parents) and will always require large amounts of time
> and effort spent in reading the things that aren't particularly important
> or readable. This is why the student needs more than to be set loose in
> the library.
I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library is
_ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
Don't forget that a child "set loose" in a library has no need to
continue
reading something that proves to be unreadable or unimportant. Yes,
that
may translate to "anything uninteresting" but what does a child _retain_
if they aren't interested anyway?
> While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
> necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more seriously
> than children generally are (and so can get the child in the door to talk
> with people do have the knowledge) and they usually have greater powers of
> transportation (either having a car or having the money) that are often
> necessary to meet those peopple.
This is beyond me...totally. Children aren't taken seriously so, even
though the adults aren't really helpful, children shouldn't be taken
seriously?
Home schooled children, by all accounts, participate often in "adult"
activities. This doesn't always happen smoothly. Adults are used to
not seeing young people or interacting with them. All the kids are
locked up in schools all day! Home educated children sometimes
come up against such "unenlightened" attitudes and that is discussed
on the home school newsgroups. But most often adults are only too
thrilled to meet any young person who is _interested_.
How would you react to a student, from any educational background, who
showed a real passion for Physics? (Even if they had previously only
read _every_ Science biography in the library. :-)
> James Walden (http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu:8001/~walden)
j.pascal
J. Clarke
>
> >
> > > Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
> > > children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
> > > soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
> > > to helping each other educate our children. Victor
> >
> > educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the
planet.
> > Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> > planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal
which
> > one CANNOT learn from reading books.
>
> What do you do about those gaping holes in your education? Do you
> complain that someone else didn't have the foresight to assign that
> planned course of reading or do you simply go get the books?
Which books?
>
>
> j.pascal
> >
> > --John
> >
>
>
J. Clarke
> fill those gaps you mentioned.
And which books are those? Hint--if one knew what books to read in order
to fill gaps in one's education, one would not have such gaps. This is one
of the roles of a good teacher.
> As for the "great deal which one CANNOT learn from reading books." I'd
> say that a student who isn't confined to a classroom for the greater
> part of their life has a better chance of learning those things.
I would agree with the notion that one should not be confined to a
classroom. This is far different from the notion that teaching a child to
read and then turning him loose unsupervised in a library will result in
his becoming educated.
> Particularily if they've always expected to have to search out
> information and information _sources_ (ie. people) to find out what
> they need and want to know.
Information and information sources do not teach one to fly an airplane,
sail a boat, throw a football, or saw a straight line. All of those take
practice, practice, and more practice.
There is a vast difference between reading about something and actually
doing it.
>
> j.pascal
>
>
Herman Rubin
In article <01bc0899$4d2944e0$9ed148a6@default>,
J. Clarke <jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Victor Smith <vict...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><32e4bbd6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
.....................
>Huh? Chaos is just a way of dealing with previously intractable problems.
>It is not a major revision of physical theory. Super-string is an attempt
>at a unified field, so far the most successful, but again nothing
>revolutionary in it. General relativity and quantum mechanics were
>revolutionary, however they both happened within a few years of each other,
>and that was before most of the people participating in this newsgroup were
>borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has been for
>more than 50 years.
I do not keep up that well in physics, but I would put this as a great
exaggeration, at least. Even 40 years ago, the elementary particle
"zoo" had no unification; the quarks had not been dreamed of.
Attempts were still being made to push the Einstein version of unification
of gravity and electromagnetism, since abandoned. There is much more.
>> As for science being what
>> scientist say it is what about Einstein on the uncertainty principle?
>Science is not what "scientist" says it is, it is what "scientists" in the
>collective say it is. To pick out one scientist who posed an invalid
>hypothesis and say that this has some relevance to the validity of science
>indicates a gross misunderstanding of science.
The extent that science is successful is the extent to which it provides
a good model for nature.
.....................
>> Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
>> children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
>> soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
>> to helping each other educate our children. Victor
>Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
>educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the planet.
> Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
>planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal which
>one CANNOT learn from reading books.
I learned much more from the library than from school. I did not learn
nearly as much as I should have. And those schools were better than the
current ones.
--
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, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (317)494-6054 FAX: (317)494-0558
Herman Rubin
In article <59502558....@hubcap.mlnet.com>,
Crawford Kilian <cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com> wrote:
>furg...@swbell.net,Internet writes:
>Broadly speaking then, the Ends of public education is social
>engineering?!
>CK:
>"Social engineering" is a term of opprobrium for many persons, and perhaps
>with reason. It connotes a meddlesome attempt by our betters to make us
>behave properly even if it's not in our interest to do so.
I disagree with your wording. It is an attempt by those with a particular
agenda, which they usually believe to be the TRUTHf, to force it on others.
................
>So middle-class white beneficiaries of the school policies of the 1950s and
>60s perceive a decline in "standards." Those "standards" had served to
>discourage blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from pursuing education and
>escaping the underclass. New policies attempt to encourage such minorities to
>stay in school and to consider middle-class occupations as realistic goals.
>The process becomes self-sustaining as minority members actually do enter
>those occupations and gain still more political power as well as income.
There is only one way to do this, and the "successful" minority groups
have done so. That is to insist that those who teach their children not
only meet the "standards", but raise them.
Lowering the standards for a certificate of any kind should be grounds
for compensation to all who could have met the old standards. It will
take something like this to get the schools to abandon their dumbing
down; I suspect that they will take the easy way out if the idea of real
accountability is put in, and remove the financial advantages of the
public schools.
James W Walden
Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.science: 23-Jan-97 Re: School
Control (was Re:.. by "Julie A.Pascal"@pascal.
> > Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
> > <32E671...@pascal.org>...
> > > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > > educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the
> > planet.
> > > > Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> > > > planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal
> > which
> > > > one CANNOT learn from reading books.
> > >
> > > complain that someone else didn't have the foresight to assign that
> > > planned course of reading or do you simply go get the books?
> >
> > Which books?
>
> The books that would have comprised a "set of planned readings" to
> fill those gaps you mentioned.
I think you missed the point which is that the child does not know which
books to go and get. The librarians may or may not be helpful (I remember
a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the adult
sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful on
technical or particularly specific matters in general. Finding the place
to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all those
thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what you
need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even mention
(and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
Figuring out what's both important and readable in a field can be quite
difficult (and is frequently beyond the competence of the child's teachers,
librarians, and parents) and will always require large amounts of time
and effort spent in reading the things that aren't particularly important
or readable. This is why the student needs more than to be set loose in
the library. While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more seriously
than children generally are (and so can get the child in the door to talk
with people do have the knowledge) and they usually have greater powers of
transportation (either having a car or having the money) that are often
necessary to meet those peopple.
Herman Rubin
In article <32E671...@pascal.org>, Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>> > Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
>> > children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
>> > soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
>> > to helping each other educate our children. Victor
>> Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
>> educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the planet.
>> Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
>> planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal which
>> one CANNOT learn from reading books.
>What do you do about those gaping holes in your education? Do you
>complain that someone else didn't have the foresight to assign that
>planned course of reading or do you simply go get the books?
I did not have gaping holes, but it would have been much better if
there had been someone who could have directed me so I could have
learned far more.
But the schools did not make any attempt to do so, and are even worse
in that direction now.
Don Pettengill
J. Clarke (jcl...@ibm.net) wrote:
: Huh? Teaching a student to use a computer is "training", which is only
: done after the student receives "education"? Would you be kind enough to
: define "education"? Or is "readin, writin', and 'rithmetic" your idea of
: "education"? Then what does MIT do? I guess it's just a training facility
: or indoctrination center.
That is silly. At MIT, they PROGRAM computers; they BUILD computers;
they USE computers for advanced research which would otherwise be
impossible.
With limited exceptions, computers in schools are glorified typewriters
and painting machines, adding NOTHING to the learning process.
In some physics labs I once tried to get some of the students to do data
analysis otherwise impractical by hand, on a spreadsheet. That would
have been a good use of computers for actaully learning something.
Guess what? NO ONE knew how to use a spreadsheet. And here I mean,
figre out what calculations you want to try, and program it in, and
evaluate the results. Hell, forget about the programming - NO ONE knew
how to enter the straight line data and run a linear regression to get
slope and intercept, to compare the result with their eyeball graphs.
Hell again, forget about the computers ... most kids had scientific
calculators with every whiz-bang feature known to man, including
regression, polar <-> rectangular coordinate conversions, and much more.
But they most commonly didn't even know the features were there, or less
commonly knew about them but not what they meant or how to use them, or
most often of all - *thought* they knew how to use 'em, but didn't
(example: entering angles in degrees while the calc. is set to radian
or grad mode).
Hell once more, forget about the scientific stuff - I never yet met a
student able to proficiently use even a four-function calculator - able
to keep enough significant digits in the final answer (after going to
and from paper a few times), or spot an outlandish error (miskey) in a
final "answer".
The usefulness of such "technology" in the schools is vastly overrated.
donp
--
________________________________________________________________________
Don Pettengill E-mail: do...@cv.hp.com
Hewlett Packard IJBU, 3U-P4 Telephone: (541)715-5369
1040 North Circle Boulevard Fax: (541)715-3306
Corvallis, Oregon 97330-4200
________________________________________________________________________
J. Clarke
Steven Nicoloso <nico...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote in article
<32E672...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu>...
> Philip Cain wrote:
>
> > In an effort to avoid wandering off into utopianism, I'd like to
> > suggest that there are some realities we cannot (nor should we want
> > to) change. They are:
>
> > 1. Teaching is the realm of teachers, just as medicine is the realm of
> > doctors. No one can know how to teach better than teachers, so we must
> > depend on the judgement of teachers on teaching, just as we depend on
> > doctors for medicine or lawyers for law.
>
> In the main, this is pure balderdash. I'm reminded of the little label
> on the back of cereals and other foods that says something like:
> "Information on fat and cholestrol content is provided for those, who,
> ON THE ADVICE OF THEIR PHYSICIAN, are monitoring their intake of ..."
> What bloody idiot requires the advice of a physician to know he/she
> should limit their intake of fat and cholestrol??? If I need brain
> surgery, I go to a doctor; if I need advice on controlling my
> cholestrol, lay literature, the public media, and common sense should
> suffice.
What makes you think you need to control your cholesterol? Common sense,
the public media, and lay literature do _not_ tell you your serum
cholesterol level. And if you don't know both what it is and what it
should be then you don't even know if you have a problem. How do you know
your cholesterol level is not too _low_ and that your efforts to "reduce
cholesterol" are not in fact harming you?
> If I have a really bad cold, I choose a multi-symptom OTC
> medicine; If I have a minor cough, I'll choose a simple cough
> suppressant. Common sense alone is sufficient for _most_ of my health
> problems.
Actually, it's more luck. One of these days you may find that that "really
bad cold" is in fact something lethal. The hard way.
>
> WRT law: ever heard of small claims court? Point being that law
> is not purely the domain of the law profession -- simpler cases can
> be undertaken by ordinary citizens.
If they're that simple, they're pretty pointless these days.
Don Pettengill
Mike Schneider (schn...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: >
: This has to do with quality assurance/quality control. Other parts of
: industry have implemented these procedures/standards. What happens when
: your toaster has a defect? You send it back, right? You don't know
: anything about a toaster, yet you were able to detect a flaw. Yet
: somehow, just because we don't know about education or teaching we
: suddenly can't be a judge as to whether the teachers are doing their
: jobs. I feel this is ludicrous, people know when things don't work right,
: regardless if they know how it works. The education system is no
: different.
Yes it is. Because Government runs it, there is NO legal obligation of
the government school to educate any individual. The toaster analogy
would be a toaster with NO warranty at all - if it does not work, you
are out of luck and your money is gone. And you will still have to buy
another one ... from the same manufacturer ...
: > We cannot change the three realities (except in our imaginations) so
: > how do we make them work together?
: >
: Quality assurance/quality control programs.
Quality programs are instituted because in the long run a company makes
more money with them than without them. But if a company were, like the
government, granted the privilege of providing goods with NO warranty
and which the buyer is legally obligated to purchase, then what would
happen to any "quality program", do you think? What would be its point?
The ultimate guarantors of quality in education are competition, and
choice. "Quality Program" solutions are band aids that serve only
to enrich quality consultants and employ education administrators.
J. Clarke
Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
<32E826...@pascal.org>...
> James W Walden wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.science: 23-Jan-97 Re: School
> > Control (was Re:.. by "Julie A.Pascal"@pascal.
>
> > > The books that would have comprised a "set of planned readings" to
> > > fill those gaps you mentioned.
> >
> > I think you missed the point which is that the child does not know
which
> > books to go and get.
>
> The question concerned what a person did _now_ as an adult to fill the
> gaps left by what was probably a traditional classroom education.
Your question, perhaps, but that is to me at least a transparent attempt to
divert the issue from the matter of educating children to the matter of my
personal habits.
> > The librarians may or may not be helpful (I remember
> > a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the
adult
> > sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful
on
> > technical or particularly specific matters in general.
>
> Anyone may or may not be helpful. (And rules about not accessing "adult"
> sections of the library (for Physics books!) should be challenged
> until they are done away with. Personally, I doubt that's the type
> of "adult" book in question.) What is sad is being limited to the
> "unhelpful" rather than free to go find someone who _can_ help.
>
> > Finding the place
> > to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all
those
> > thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what
you
> > need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
> > understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even
mention
> > (and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
>
> And...what? This is an insurmountable problem? (Actually Physics and
> other textbooks are easily available to home educators. I'd feel really
> stupid if I had to ask my sister, who is a Physics major, if I should
> follow the recommended sequence or not. Frankly, I'd expect my kids to
> know to start at the "beginning" even if I didn't tell them so.)
> Actually
> I see a great deal of benifit from "popular accounts" of Science.
> Wouldn't
> this help a student clarify their interest in a feild of science? I
> think
> it would give them an invaluable overview to keep them going while they
> trudge through the preliminary material.
Again, you're missing the point. No, it is not an insurmountable problem.
But a child turned loose in a library with know knowledge of physics and no
academic skills beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic is unlikely to
surmount it. In point of fact, if the books are "easily available to home
educators" but not from the library, then turning the kid loose in the
library will not expose him to those particular books at all.
> > Figuring out what's both important and readable in a field can be quite
> > difficult (and is frequently beyond the competence of the child's
teachers,
> > librarians, and parents) and will always require large amounts of time
> > and effort spent in reading the things that aren't particularly
important
> > or readable. This is why the student needs more than to be set loose
in
> > the library.
>
> I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library is
> _ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
> Don't forget that a child "set loose" in a library has no need to
> continue
> reading something that proves to be unreadable or unimportant. Yes,
> that
> may translate to "anything uninteresting" but what does a child _retain_
> if they aren't interested anyway?
How the Hell does a child know what is "important"?
>
> > While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
> > necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more
seriously
> > than children generally are (and so can get the child in the door to
talk
> > with people do have the knowledge) and they usually have greater powers
of
> > transportation (either having a car or having the money) that are often
> > necessary to meet those peopple.
>
> This is beyond me...totally. Children aren't taken seriously so, even
> though the adults aren't really helpful, children shouldn't be taken
> seriously?
Whether children SHOULD be taken seriously is irrelevant. What is
important is that they AREN'T. If you want to tilt at windmills be my
guest, but the smart money's on the windmill.
>
> Home schooled children, by all accounts, participate often in "adult"
> activities. This doesn't always happen smoothly. Adults are used to
> not seeing young people or interacting with them. All the kids are
> locked up in schools all day! Home educated children sometimes
> come up against such "unenlightened" attitudes and that is discussed
> on the home school newsgroups. But most often adults are only too
> thrilled to meet any young person who is _interested_.
>
> How would you react to a student, from any educational background, who
> showed a real passion for Physics? (Even if they had previously only
> read _every_ Science biography in the library. :-)
>
> > James Walden (http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu:8001/~walden)
>
> j.pascal
>
>
>
J. Clarke
Herman Rubin <hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<5cb5l8$2s...@b.stat.purdue.edu>...
> In article <01bc0899$4d2944e0$9ed148a6@default>,
>
>
> .....................
>
> >Huh? Chaos is just a way of dealing with previously intractable
problems.
> >It is not a major revision of physical theory. Super-string is an
attempt
> >at a unified field, so far the most successful, but again nothing
> >revolutionary in it. General relativity and quantum mechanics were
> >revolutionary, however they both happened within a few years of each
other,
> >and that was before most of the people participating in this newsgroup
were
> >borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has been
for
> >more than 50 years.
>
> I do not keep up that well in physics, but I would put this as a great
> exaggeration, at least. Even 40 years ago, the elementary particle
> "zoo" had no unification; the quarks had not been dreamed of.
You seem to be confusing verification of a theory with a "major revision".
The existence of quarks was predicted by quantum theory and verified by
experiment. When the experiment verifies the theoretical calculation, then
there is no "major revision" required.
Also, as of 1956 there were many known particles. More have been
discovered since. And I'm not sure what you mean by "no unification".
There is still no "unification". It looks like quarks have subparticles.
This is also not a "major revision". Just a calculation.
> Attempts were still being made to push the Einstein version of
unification
> of gravity and electromagnetism, since abandoned. There is much more.
So what? I really don't see your point. The fact that a particular
hypothesis has been abandoned does not mean that there was some kind of
"major revision". There are hypotheses now being evaluated which will fall
by the wayside. There will always be such hypotheses. That is how science
works. It is only when a hypothesis is elevated to theory and revises the
existing theory in a significant way that a "major revision" occurs. The
last one of those in physics, I believe, was quantum mechanics, the major
elements of which were in place in 1937, when Professor Edwin C. Kemble
published his text entitled "The Fundamental Principles of Quantum
Mechanics With Elementary Applications". The copyright was renewed on that
text in 1958, 20 years later, and it is still a usable text in 1997. There
have been no significant changes to the theory since that time, just
calculations and experiments. The current attempts at finding a unified
field theory are not "major revisions" in that they remain hypotheses. If
one of them ever leads to an experimental verification, then another "major
revision" might come about.
> >> As for science being what
> >> scientist say it is what about Einstein on the uncertainty principle?
>
> >Science is not what "scientist" says it is, it is what "scientists" in
the
> >collective say it is. To pick out one scientist who posed an invalid
> >hypothesis and say that this has some relevance to the validity of
science
> >indicates a gross misunderstanding of science.
>
> The extent that science is successful is the extent to which it provides
> a good model for nature.
Which has what relevance? Scientists are the people who test the model to
determine the extent to which it corresponds to nature. Einstein's
opinions on the uncertainty principle did not pass that test, according to
other scientists. If scientists do not determine what constitutes science,
then who does?
> .....................
>
> >> Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
> >> children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
> >> soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
> >> to helping each other educate our children. Victor
>
> >Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
> >educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the
planet.
> > Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> >planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal
which
> >one CANNOT learn from reading books.
>
> I learned much more from the library than from school. I did not learn
> nearly as much as I should have. And those schools were better than the
> current ones.
You make my point. You didn't learn as much from being turned loose in a
library as you should have either. Turning a kid loose in a library is not
a method which ensures that he will obtain an adequate education. The
characteristics of the public schools, good, bad, or indifferent, do not
alter that fact. There is no dichotomy here--the choice is not "turn the
kid loose in a library or send him to the public schools". There are many,
many other options.
J. Clarke
Don Pettengill <do...@cv.hp.com> wrote in article
<5cbh9j$c...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>...
> J. Clarke (jcl...@ibm.net) wrote:
>
> : Huh? Teaching a student to use a computer is "training", which is only
> : done after the student receives "education"? Would you be kind enough
to
> : define "education"? Or is "readin, writin', and 'rithmetic" your idea
of
> : "education"? Then what does MIT do? I guess it's just a training
facility
> : or indoctrination center.
>
> That is silly. At MIT, they PROGRAM computers; they BUILD computers;
> they USE computers for advanced research which would otherwise be
> impossible.
Precisely my point. And if you had waited to see what the person to whom I
was responding had to say about it, perhaps you would have discovered that.
> With limited exceptions, computers in schools are glorified typewriters
> and painting machines, adding NOTHING to the learning process.
I don't disagree with that, but it's really not the point.
> In some physics labs I once tried to get some of the students to do data
> analysis otherwise impractical by hand, on a spreadsheet. That would
> have been a good use of computers for actaully learning something.
> Guess what? NO ONE knew how to use a spreadsheet. And here I mean,
> figre out what calculations you want to try, and program it in, and
> evaluate the results. Hell, forget about the programming - NO ONE knew
> how to enter the straight line data and run a linear regression to get
> slope and intercept, to compare the result with their eyeball graphs.
Was the problem that they didn't know how to use a spreadsheet or that they
didn't know how to do a linear regression? In the one case, it would seem
to me that this is an argument for students being taught how to use
computers in a systematic way, which you can't do without computers, while
in the other, it's an argument for changes in the math curriculum, which is
a whole separate ball of wax.
> Hell again, forget about the computers ... most kids had scientific
> calculators with every whiz-bang feature known to man, including
> regression, polar <-> rectangular coordinate conversions, and much more.
> But they most commonly didn't even know the features were there, or less
> commonly knew about them but not what they meant or how to use them, or
> most often of all - *thought* they knew how to use 'em, but didn't
> (example: entering angles in degrees while the calc. is set to radian
> or grad mode).
Which again has what relevance? Would you say that teaching these students
to properly use these calculators would be "education" or "training"? And
would you say that they should not be taught to do this in the schools? If
not, then where, since by your own example they clearly do not pick it up
on their own.
> Hell once more, forget about the scientific stuff - I never yet met a
> student able to proficiently use even a four-function calculator - able
> to keep enough significant digits in the final answer (after going to
> and from paper a few times), or spot an outlandish error (miskey) in a
> final "answer".
Seems to me that someone needs to teach the students to do this.
> The usefulness of such "technology" in the schools is vastly overrated.
I do not disagree with this, however that does not appear to me to be the
point which my earlier respondent was attempting to make.
What do you believe the schools should teach? Should they teach reading,
writing, and arithmetic and stop there, or should they do more?
Steven Nicoloso
>
> When did either of those engineers become elevated to the level of a
> "scientist"?
I knew it. I'm just at a lower level than you. Oh boo hoo... I
feel so inferior... Now with all due respect (which you don't seem
to have for engineers), the clear delineation between pure science
and applied science (engineering if you wish), is a completely
artificial distinction, and one I believe was not well recognized in
the time of Edison or Tesla.
Edison, I'll admit, was probably more of an entrepreneur than
a scientist. (Which is definitely "beneath" both of us :-)
But your submission that engineers are somehow at a lower
"level" than scientists is quite offensive. Departments of
engineering grant the same letters as departments of physics.
So wherethehell does the superiority complex come from?
<sigh> In the end, I suppose we all think that we're the most
important. . .
An engineer and durn proud of it,
Wil & Sharon Milan
I think this thread is becoming hostile over things which don't warrant
such hostility.
I also get a bit leery when anyone (pro or con) speaks of "science" as
if it can be considered a homogenous thing. If you work in the sciences
(as I have) then you know that science is a very wide-ranging
enterprise, an amalgam of observations, theories, methods, and skills
which help us learn more about the physical world.
For that reason I believe that to claim there's a sharp, closely drawn
line between science and engineering is, in my view, to see a bright
line where none exists. In practice engineering is an integral part of
science and science is an integral part of most forms of engineering. In
many fields of endeavor to separate the two would be virtually
impossible. In the fields in which I've worked -- astronomy, chemistry,
oceanography, computer science -- the distinction between the scientist
and the engineer is often non-existent.
In astronomy, for instance, Galileo, William Herschel, E.E. Barnard and
many others are known as much for their advances in telescope and
instrument engineering as for any astronomy they did -- so were they
scientists or engineers? Likewise Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, Bell
Labs engineers who won the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their
discovery of the cosmic background radiation. At best one could say that
sometimes one wears one hat, sometimes another, but to say that someone
can only be one or the other (such as to say that Tesla cannot be
considerd a scientist) is to attempt to draw a sharp distinction where
none exists. I'm not even sure why one would want to foster the
impression of such sharp distinctions, to be quite honest.
That's not to say that there are not pure examples of each, of course.
Many engineers do engineering unrelated to scientific research, and many
scientists, such as some theoretical physicists, do pure science and
nothing one might call engineering. But from such "pure" engineerint to
"pure" science is a smooth continuum with no bright line dividing all
those on one side from all those on the other.
I was also a bit astonished at the statement that "Physics is, in fact,
pretty stable at the moment, and has been for more than 50 years." Seems
to me that physics (particularly astrophysics, which I know a little
better) has undergone tremendous changes and advances in the last 50
years. But I suppose it depends on what one means by "stable"; it's true
we still think the Earth goes around the Sun and F=ma still works. :)
Wil Milan
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Victor Smith <vict...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <32e4bbd6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> > On 19 Jan 1997 18:31:56 GMT, gg...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Royer) wrote:
> >
> > > Do the private citizens who actually pay for
> > >>>*public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
> > >>>one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
> > >>>oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
> > >>>is primarily funded at the local (city) level
> > Am I wrong or is this whole thread off topic for this group? If your
> > home schooling why get thrown into a fit by a man who's whole world
> > view is upset every 20 years or less (chaos, super-string, general
> > relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)?
>
> Huh? Chaos is just a way of dealing with previously intractable problems.
> It is not a major revision of physical theory. Super-string is an attempt
> at a unified field, so far the most successful, but again nothing
> revolutionary in it. General relativity and quantum mechanics were
> revolutionary, however they both happened within a few years of each other,
> and that was before most of the people participating in this newsgroup were
> borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has been for
> more than 50 years.
>
> > As for science being what
> > scientist say it is what about Einstein on the uncertainty principle?
>
> Science is not what "scientist" says it is, it is what "scientists" in the
> collective say it is. To pick out one scientist who posed an invalid
> hypothesis and say that this has some relevance to the validity of science
> indicates a gross misunderstanding of science.
>
> > Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current?
>
> When did either of those engineers become elevated to the level of a
> "scientist"?
>
> > Any economist on economics
> > as a science?
>
> Only economists believe that economics is a science.
>
> > Political Science HA!
>
> Which is science in the same sense that a "Domestic Engineer" is an
> engineer.
>
> > Anybody seen the benefits of cold
> > fusion lately?
>
> What does cold fusion have to do with science? It was a publicity stunt.
>
> > Most in this forum are struggling to educate younger
> > children if you teach them to read and give them access to a library
> > soon they'll know more than you anyway. Just ask them. Lets get back
> > to helping each other educate our children. Victor
>
> Turning a kid loose in a library does not mean that he will become well
> educated. If it did, I'd be one of the best educated people on the planet.
> Instead, I every day find gaping holes in my education that a set of
> planned readings would have filled. But there is also a great deal which
> one CANNOT learn from reading books.
>
> --John
>
Heath
I have no idea what everyone is so worried about. Just turn your
precious children over to the school system and let them mold them in
their predetermined image. After all, they are the "experts" in
education, values, morals, health, behavior.....and anything else they
decide that parents aren't really qualified to impart to their own
children. At least that is the impression they give. However, We as
parents are asked to be partners with them in our children's education;
that is as long as we are the junior partner, the silent partner, the go
along with everything the teacher wants to do partner.
No, we parents just need to get out of the way and let the system mold
our children for us. I mean, (as is obvious after talking with
teachers,) we parents are to blame for all the current and past
educational failures. We must be, because we are told that teachers are
vigilant, tireless, courageous, self-sacrificing, dedicated workers.
Likewise, the school boards and administrations have nothing but the
best interest of our children at heart. Therefore, since they are not
responsible for the poor educational state of the students it must be
the parents fault (you know, all those religious values and things
getting in the way). SHAME! Shame on us poor ignorant parents. Let's
go and fall on our knees at the feet of our teachers and school
administrators and beg their forgiveness. How dare we think that we
should have input into the things and ways the school teaches, just
because we are our children's parents. Their ways are above ours, we
cannot attain to them, neither can we comprehend them.
No my fellow parents, we must get out of the way and allow the school
system to mold our children, unfettered by us, in the states best
interest. Let us resolve to contribute to the educational system only
our money, never our ideals.
================================================
Children are the product of their parents
Heath-
================================================
Philip Cain
schn...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike Schneider) wrote:
>phil...@orelle.com (Philip Cain) wrote:
>> B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
>> to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
>>
>This has to do with quality assurance/quality control. Other parts of
>industry have implemented these procedures/standards. What happens when
>your toaster has a defect? You send it back, right? You don't know
>anything about a toaster, yet you were able to detect a flaw. Yet
>somehow, just because we don't know about education or teaching we
>suddenly can't be a judge as to whether the teachers are doing their
>jobs. I feel this is ludicrous, people know when things don't work right,
>regardless if they know how it works. The education system is no
>different.
The problem with your approach is that a child is not a toaster.
By the time we can see clearly that Johnny can't read it may be too
late for Johnny. You can't send the child back or throw the child out
and once the child becomes a teenager, the opportunity to learn that
is provided by the child's brain is gone.
Oh, Johnny can still learn to read or count or write, but he will
never be quite as good as he could have been had he been taught
properly as a child. So Johnny, and the rest of us, are stuck with a
bad product for 50 years or so, until Johnny passes to his final
reward.
Johnny, his parents, and all of society pay an enormous cost for
Johnny's bad education. As best we can, we have to know beforehand
that Johnny's teachers are qualified and of high quality.
I agree with you that we don't have to be teachers to see or detect
bad education. But I'm not motivated by the fact of bad education. I
am moved by its consequences.
I have heard very good teachers say, as if inspired, this truth about
teaching: "I make the future."
They are right, God help us!
Philip Cain
Julie A.Pascal
> >
> > The question concerned what a person did _now_ as an adult to fill the
> > gaps left by what was probably a traditional classroom education.
>
> Your question, perhaps, but that is to me at least a transparent attempt to
> divert the issue from the matter of educating children to the matter of my
> personal habits.
I'm sorry. That wasn't my intent for bringing it up, really. Mostly
I wanted to point out that education doesn't end in childhood. It's not
absolutely critical to cover _everything_ during the "school years."
(...)
> Again, you're missing the point. No, it is not an insurmountable problem.
> But a child turned loose in a library with know knowledge of physics and no
> academic skills beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic is unlikely to
> surmount it. In point of fact, if the books are "easily available to home
> educators" but not from the library, then turning the kid loose in the
> library will not expose him to those particular books at all.
Perhaps not. But frankly, all children are not in need of becomming
physicists. But I don't think the question was ever whether turning
children
loose in the library was _best_. But children _will_ learn that way.
And they'll learn a lot.
(...)
> > I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library is
> > _ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
> > Don't forget that a child "set loose" in a library has no need to
> > continue
> > reading something that proves to be unreadable or unimportant. Yes,
> > that
> > may translate to "anything uninteresting" but what does a child _retain_
> > if they aren't interested anyway?
>
> How the Hell does a child know what is "important"?
How do you? I could "assign" any number of "important" subjects to
my children, make them memorize it, give them at test, and at 30
they'll probably remember about as much as I do.
And I do give kids a little credit in knowing what is _not_ important.
The _good_ about the library "thing" is that children love to learn and
they will devour anything and everything that catches their interest. I
don't think anyone has said they won't miss anything "important" but
then traditionally schooled children miss "important" things as well.
And...since learning doesn't end at "graduation" they will always have
the ability to find out those important things later. Good research
skills and self motivation can only help.
_Even_if_ children are simply let loose in the library... Home school
is usually more than that. Even unschoolers do more than that. They
certainly wouldn't _limit_ themselves to the library.
(...)
> > > While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
> > > necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more
> seriously
> > > than children generally are
(...)
> > This is beyond me...totally. Children aren't taken seriously so, even
> > though the adults aren't really helpful, children shouldn't be taken
> > seriously?
>
> Whether children SHOULD be taken seriously is irrelevant. What is
> important is that they AREN'T. If you want to tilt at windmills be my
> guest, but the smart money's on the windmill.
So explain to me the "relevance" of the fact that children are not
taken seriously.
Children are not taken seriously therefore we should...what?
I understand that this fact would effect practical issues about access
to resources (though I think it may be less than you think) but what
does it have to do with the _necessity_ for directed education, as
opposed to "letting a child loose."
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
James W Walden wrote:
(...)
> My advice, as a physicist, is to ask your sister or another physicist to
> review those texts. Most scientists I know are apalled at the quality of
> pre-university level textbooks (Feynman has a very amusing yet scary
> account of how he reviewed science textbooks for the state of California
> and how so few of them were accurate or even scientific.) By the way,
> by being a home educator and getting those texts, you are supporting my
> point by helping your children instead of turning them loose in the
> library. I strongly support home schooling and generally appreciate your
> posts, but I also strongly believe that some form of guidance is essential
> for the student to make the most of his or her learning process.
I've never tried to say that guidance doesn't help. I believe I
made a point of saying that turning a child loose without guidance
was not _ideal_. The form that guidance may take will vary from
parent to parent and from child to child. Turning a child loose in
the library is really the extreme from what someone or other suggested
which was that only elite proffessionals should have input into
curriculum
requirements.
If we start with a child's interests and encourage them and make
ourselves available to point the way if they get stuck, the _child_
will propell their own educations. Assignments may seem like the
way to be sure nothing is missed, but the very real danger exists that
"assignments" will become drudgery to be avoided or at the least
completed for the sake of getting them over with.
The "Education Standards" and "who should control the schools" really
misses the individuality of students. What one student needs is not
what another student needs.
I will take the advice about having my sister evaluate any Physics
text books, (Who knows, I may end up with her old ones. :-) It is
a good thing that home schoolers are not limited by the selections
of state committees.
(...)
> I'm very interesting in education and home education and remembering my
> experiences as a youngster, I would be quite happy to help a student who
> I felt was interested in physics by giving them the structure of the field,
> an ordered reading list, and an offer to answer their questions in the
> future. I've had the opportunity to help young students before and I've
> always enjoyed it. However, most of my colleagues haven't and many are
> not interested, and it's not obvious from a phone directory who to approach.
>
> I will note that the web is a wonderful tool for self learning (and not
> just for children). It often provides quite biographies of professors
> with their contact information and there is a wealth of information about
> almost any subject out there which is much more easily searchable than
> a library. FAQs like the physics one often offer good places to start
> learning about a field and often refer you to the good books in a field.
Jaelle
>I think you missed the point which is that the child does not know which
>books to go and get. The librarians may or may not be helpful (I remember
>a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the adult
>sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful on
>technical or particularly specific matters in general. Finding the place
>to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all those
>thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what you
>need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
>understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even mention
>(and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
Haven't you ever pursued a course of study on your own? My kids have
never had trouble figuring out where to start--they start at the point
where they understand the material and follow where it leads. If they
pull a book out and can't understand it, they find an easier one. I do
it, too! Learning new material is not the least bit mysterious--you
start at some point where you understand what's being said, then make
sure you pick up the new vocabulary as you go, and find some way to
make the subject concrete in your mind (like building models,
perhaps.) You use it. I suppose, learning physics, you might have to
scare up a particle accelerator at some point, but most elementary and
high-school level subjects require little in the way of special
equipment.
My kids operate on the "Oh Wow!" principle. See who can grow the
biggest crystals, learn to make hydrogen and then scare the pants off
the neighborhood kids blowing up balloons (I mean, with a match)
filled with it. Science, to my kids, was a wonderful way to impress
friends...
>
>Figuring out what's both important and readable in a field can be quite
>difficult (and is frequently beyond the competence of the child's teachers,
>librarians, and parents) and will always require large amounts of time
>and effort spent in reading the things that aren't particularly important
>or readable.
Funny you should think it's so hard. We just read stuff that answers
the questions we formulate as we go. Isn't that all knowledge is? A
search for answers?
This is why the student needs more than to be set loose in
>the library. While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
>necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more seriously
>than children generally are (and so can get the child in the door to talk
>with people do have the knowledge) and they usually have greater powers of
>transportation (either having a car or having the money) that are often
>necessary to meet those peopple.
>
My son was a lot better at getting people to help him than I was.
People were so suprised that he'd even ask that they'd help him just
to see what would happen. He bummed glassware and chemicals from the
school district warehouse, noble gasses from neon shops, test
equipment from auto repair shops and tv repair shops. He built a
lighning ball from a pickle jar with a flyback transformer and a
vacuum pump he hauled home from a body shop. He used neon and argon to
make it nifty colors. He worked out the high voltage stuff from
"RadioElectronics Magazine."
--
Jaelle
J. Clarke
Steven Nicoloso <nico...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote in article
<32EA5C...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu>...
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Victor Smith <vict...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> > > Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current?
> >
> > When did either of those engineers become elevated to the level of a
> > "scientist"?
>
> I knew it. I'm just at a lower level than you.
Lower level than who? If you're talking to _me_ I'm an engineer. I'm not
on the same level as Einstein or Newton, and I doubt that you are, either.
> Oh boo hoo... I
> feel so inferior...
Too bad. Perhaps you might seek help for that.
> Now with all due respect (which you don't seem
> to have for engineers), the clear delineation between pure science
> and applied science (engineering if you wish), is a completely
> artificial distinction, and one I believe was not well recognized in
> the time of Edison or Tesla.
Actually, it was quite well recognized. And the distinction is not
artificial at all. Science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge.
Engineering is the systematic pursuit of an optimal product. Science uses
engineering as a tool, engineering uses science as a tool. But they aren't
the same. And I have a great deal of respect for engineers, being that I
am one and probably have been longer than you.
> Edison, I'll admit, was probably more of an entrepreneur than
> a scientist. (Which is definitely "beneath" both of us :-)
Why is being an entrepreneur "beneath" anyone?
> But your submission that engineers are somehow at a lower
> "level" than scientists is quite offensive.
A bit defensive are we?
> Departments of
> engineering grant the same letters as departments of physics.
So do departments of basket weaving.
> So wherethehell does the superiority complex come from?
What superiority complex? Are you perhaps suggesting that I am a scientist
and feel superior to engineers? Well then you blew it and you really
should learn something about the people you are trying to flame.
> <sigh> In the end, I suppose we all think that we're the most
> important. . .
Actually, to an engineer, the product is most important.
> An engineer and durn proud of it,
> Steve
When you develop enough pride to put some profanity around that "proud"
then perhaps you'll no longer feel jealous of scientists.
>
> --
> Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
> "DSP -- Applied to Communications"
> Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
> VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Aha. A grad student. Explains much.
J. Clarke
Wil & Sharon Milan <mi...@airdigital.com> wrote in article
<32EA7E...@airdigital.com>...
> I think this thread is becoming hostile over things which don't warrant
> such hostility.
I'll agree with that.
> I also get a bit leery when anyone (pro or con) speaks of "science" as
> if it can be considered a homogenous thing. If you work in the sciences
> (as I have) then you know that science is a very wide-ranging
> enterprise, an amalgam of observations, theories, methods, and skills
> which help us learn more about the physical world.
Science is a homogeneous thing. The systematic pursuit of knowledge. The
fact that it has produced complex results doesn't alter that fact.
> For that reason I believe that to claim there's a sharp, closely drawn
> line between science and engineering is, in my view, to see a bright
> line where none exists.
Of course it exists. Engineering is the pursuit of optimal products and
processes. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It is the ends which make
the distinction. Engineering uses the scientific method and the theories
developed by scientists as a tool. Scientists use engineering as a tool.
But they are not the same.
> In practice engineering is an integral part of
> science and science is an integral part of most forms of engineering.
But they are not the same.
> In
> many fields of endeavor to separate the two would be virtually
> impossible. In the fields in which I've worked -- astronomy, chemistry,
> oceanography, computer science -- the distinction between the scientist
> and the engineer is often non-existent.
Only because you haven't really looked for it.
>
> In astronomy, for instance, Galileo, William Herschel, E.E. Barnard and
> many others are known as much for their advances in telescope and
> instrument engineering as for any astronomy they did -- so were they
> scientists or engineers?
When they were developing instruments they were doing engineering. When
they were looking through them they were doing science. A person can be
both engineer and scientist, just as a person can be both a doctor and a
lawyer. Doesn't make engineering into science any more than it makes
medicine into law.
> Likewise Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, Bell
> Labs engineers who won the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their
> discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
Classic example of engineers doing engineering using the scientific method,
who stumbled into a serendipitous result.
> At best one could say that
> sometimes one wears one hat, sometimes another, but to say that someone
> can only be one or the other (such as to say that Tesla cannot be
> considerd a scientist) is to attempt to draw a sharp distinction where
> none exists.
So tell me what great contribution Tesla made to physics.
> I'm not even sure why one would want to foster the
> impression of such sharp distinctions, to be quite honest.
Because there is a distinction to be made. Changes in engineering methods
do not necessarily reflect changes in the underlying scientific theories.
> That's not to say that there are not pure examples of each, of course.
> Many engineers do engineering unrelated to scientific research, and many
> scientists, such as some theoretical physicists, do pure science and
> nothing one might call engineering. But from such "pure" engineerint to
> "pure" science is a smooth continuum with no bright line dividing all
> those on one side from all those on the other.
Of course there's a bright line. If one is developing a better product
then one is doing engineering. If one is systematically and by application
of the scientific method trying to learn something that was previously
unknown, one is doing science.
>
> I was also a bit astonished at the statement that "Physics is, in fact,
> pretty stable at the moment, and has been for more than 50 years." Seems
> to me that physics (particularly astrophysics, which I know a little
> better) has undergone tremendous changes and advances in the last 50
> years. But I suppose it depends on what one means by "stable"; it's true
> we still think the Earth goes around the Sun and F=ma still works.
Nope. Astrophysics hasn't undergone "tremendous changes and advances in the
last 50 years". They have all been rather small and incremental. It has
been a period of building on general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Those were "tremendous changes". Incidentally, F=ma does _not_ work in
astrophysics.
James W Walden
Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.home-school.misc: 25-Jan-97 Re:
School Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
> for
> > >more than 50 years.
> >
> > exaggeration, at least. Even 40 years ago, the elementary particle
> > "zoo" had no unification; the quarks had not been dreamed of.
>
> You seem to be confusing verification of a theory with a "major revision".
> The existence of quarks was predicted by quantum theory and verified by
> experiment. When the experiment verifies the theoretical calculation, then
> there is no "major revision" required.
Quarks are not a prediction of quantum theory. The concept of quarks arose
out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3) symmetry but
for the most part were considered a useful mathematical concept and not as
anything real until Feynman explained the results of deep inelastic
scattering experiments with partons (quarks and gluons). Quantum
chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, wasn't created until
around 1970. The electroweak theory is also a product of the last
forty years (in 1956, I think they were still using Fermi's four-point
interaction theory of the weak force). The Standard Model, depending
on both of these theories as it does, of course also later. So forty
years ago, particle physics was a mass of unexplained details and only
the electromagnetic force was explained. Today we're struggling to
find some place where the Standard Model is wrong and having no luck.
James W Walden
Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.home-school.misc: 26-Jan-97 Re:
School Control (was Re:.. by Jae...@ois.lemuria.com
> <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >I think you missed the point which is that the child does not know which
> >books to go and get. The librarians may or may not be helpful (I remember
> >a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the adult
> >sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful on
> >technical or particularly specific matters in general. Finding the place
> >to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all those
> >thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what you
> >need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
> >understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even mention
> >(and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
>
> Haven't you ever pursued a course of study on your own? My kids have
> never had trouble figuring out where to start--they start at the point
> where they understand the material and follow where it leads. If they
> pull a book out and can't understand it, they find an easier one. I do
> it, too! Learning new material is not the least bit mysterious--you
> start at some point where you understand what's being said, then make
> sure you pick up the new vocabulary as you go, and find some way to
> make the subject concrete in your mind (like building models,
> perhaps.)
Again, the point is being missed. You can pick up books until you find
one that you can understand and learn what's in that book. However, this
method is the problem that I and the orignal poster are addressing because
it does leave you with holes in your knowledge (and worse, you're often
not aware of them). We're not arguing that you can't learn on your own,
but that you will miss important areas of knowledge because there's too
much out there to find without some help in providing direction.
Wil & Sharon Milan
I agree there's a difference in principle and often in practice between
science and engineering. But I was responding to your post in which you
asked who had "elevated" (your term) Edison and Tesla from engineers to
scientists. The obvious implications I took from your statements were
(1) that a scientist is somehow "higher" than an engineer (ergo an
engineer must be "elevated" to reach the level of a scientist), and (2)
that a person must be pegged as either one or the other. I responded
because the latter is not borne out by reality and the former strikes me
as specious elitism. Perhaps that's not what you meant. But in any case
I'll leave it as your opinion and you're entitled to it.
But I do have two corrections to make:
- You astonished me with your statement that "F=ma does not work in
astrophysics." I should go back and tell all my professors and textbook
writers, all of whom use this basic Newtonian force/acceleration
equation all the time. Won't they be surprised. I presume you're
referring to cases (such as quantum events) where classic Newtonian
mechanics do not apply, but I presume you also realize that most
everyday calculations F=ma works just as well now as it ever did.
Perhaps we're playing with semantics about the meaning and scope of
"astrophysics."
- Re Penzias and Wilson being engineers "who stumbled into a
serendipitous result": Let's look at this for a minute, because it
illustrates what I was trying to communicate.
Arno Penzias earned M.S. and Ph.D degrees in Physics, then went to work
as a research engineer at Bell Labs. While working on the design of a
new antenna found an unaccountable source of radio noise and much
subsequent research pinned it to be the cosmic background noise, the
most solid corroborating evidence yet found of the big-bang theory. So
he was trained as a scientist, did scientific and engineering research,
and got a Nobel Prize for his contribution to science. So is he to be
pegged as a scientist or an engineer? Was he doing "higher" work some of
the time and "lower" work others?
The idea that science is "the search for knowledge" and engineering is
not, that's what I find a fallacious bright line. New knowledge gained
in engineering research (as was the case with Penzias and Wilson) is new
knowledge, and in this case was just as rewarded with a Nobel Prize, as
knowledge gained by one who calls himself a scientist instead of an
engineer.
Just curious: Despite minor disagreements, we seem to have some common
interests. What kind of work do you do?
James W Walden
Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.home-school.misc: 25-Jan-97 Re:
School Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
> > > a thread here about libraries which would not let children access the
> adult
> > > sections until they were 16-18) and are likely not going to be helpful
> on
> > > technical or particularly specific matters in general.
> >
> > sections of the library (for Physics books!) should be challenged
> > until they are done away with. Personally, I doubt that's the type
> > of "adult" book in question.) What is sad is being limited to the
> > "unhelpful" rather than free to go find someone who _can_ help.
I agree that that was probably not the intention of the rulings, but they
did prevent children from accessing any books outside of the childrens'
sections.
> > > Finding the place
> > > to start learning physics for example can be quite difficult in all
> those
> > > thousands of books, many of which are either popular accounts, not what
> you
> > > need to really learn the field, and many others of which require an
> > > understanding of earlier material that they frequently don't even
> mention
> > > (and they rarely mention texts to read beforehand which would be best).
> >
> > And...what? This is an insurmountable problem? (Actually Physics and
> > other textbooks are easily available to home educators. I'd feel really
> > stupid if I had to ask my sister, who is a Physics major, if I should
> > follow the recommended sequence or not. Frankly, I'd expect my kids to
> > know to start at the "beginning" even if I didn't tell them so.)
My advice, as a physicist, is to ask your sister or another physicist to
review those texts. Most scientists I know are apalled at the quality of
pre-university level textbooks (Feynman has a very amusing yet scary
account of how he reviewed science textbooks for the state of California
and how so few of them were accurate or even scientific.) By the way,
by being a home educator and getting those texts, you are supporting my
point by helping your children instead of turning them loose in the
library. I strongly support home schooling and generally appreciate your
posts, but I also strongly believe that some form of guidance is essential
for the student to make the most of his or her learning process.
> > Actually
> > I see a great deal of benifit from "popular accounts" of Science.
> > Wouldn't
> > this help a student clarify their interest in a feild of science? I
> > think
> > it would give them an invaluable overview to keep them going while they
> > trudge through the preliminary material.
Popular accounts are very good for learning whether you want to be
interested in a scientific field. Most of them are not very good
overviews though and
generally lack the mathematics and the references that would make them good
starting points for other than inspirational reasons.
> > > While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
> > > necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more
> seriously
> > > than children generally are (and so can get the child in the door to
> talk
> > > with people do have the knowledge) and they usually have greater powers
> of
> > > transportation (either having a car or having the money) that are often
> > > necessary to meet those peopple.
> >
> > This is beyond me...totally. Children aren't taken seriously so, even
> > though the adults aren't really helpful, children shouldn't be taken
> > seriously?
I did not say that children shouldn't be taken seriously. Reread the part
that you quoted above and you'll see that I said nothing of the sort. What
I did say was that since they aren't taken seriously, an adult's help can
be invaluable in getting to talk to people who have the knowledge that the
child wants.
> > How would you react to a student, from any educational background, who
> > showed a real passion for Physics? (Even if they had previously only
> > read _every_ Science biography in the library. :-)
I'm very interesting in education and home education and remembering my
experiences as a youngster, I would be quite happy to help a student who
I felt was interested in physics by giving them the structure of the field,
an ordered reading list, and an offer to answer their questions in the
future. I've had the opportunity to help young students before and I've
always enjoyed it. However, most of my colleagues haven't and many are
not interested, and it's not obvious from a phone directory who to approach.
I will note that the web is a wonderful tool for self learning (and not
just for children). It often provides quite biographies of professors
with their contact information and there is a wealth of information about
almost any subject out there which is much more easily searchable than
a library. FAQs like the physics one often offer good places to start
learning about a field and often refer you to the good books in a field.
Wil & Sharon Milan
James W Walden wrote:
>
> Quarks are not a prediction of quantum theory. The concept of quarks arose
> out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3) symmetry but
> the electromagnetic force was explained. Today we're struggling to
> find some place where the Standard Model is wrong and having no luck.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post.
Wil Milan
Shane Rhoton
Robert Singleton wrote:
>
> My questions regarding education standards seem to have
> generated quite a thread; but unfortunately, it has
> de-generated into an argument over slavery and Christianity.
> I am therefore starting this new thread.
>
> I think the bottom line from my first post on Education
> Standards, is that there are no nationally mandated standards
> per se (but rather recommendations); however, state standards
> typically do exist, most of which are rather uniform from
> state to state. I've looked at a few of the state standards,
> and they aren't bad at all. I should clarify that these are
> curriculum standards, and not grading standards (there seems
> to have been some confusion on this point). I should also
> note one extreme deficiency: there was no mention whatsoever
> of a foreign language requirement (which IMO is inexcusable).
>
> So now, after this preamble, let's get down to work. After
> reading the responses to my original questions, it seems to
> me that the issue of standards is really one of the control
> of education. Do the private citizens who actually pay for
> *public* education have the right to set the curriculum? If
> one answers yes to this, then he or she will undoubtedly
> oppose national (and probably state) standards, as education
> structure is, in my opinion, one of the central problems
> with American education).
>
> As for me, I would answer "no" to the previous question.
> It is my contention that parents should not possess much
> formal input into the curriculum of public education. I
> believe that educators, scientists, writers etc. should
> set the curriculum in public schools. Since most people
> don't know how their microwave ovens works, how could they
> possibly be qualified to decide if wave-diffraction is or
> is not suitable subject matter in physics? The bottom
> line here is that too much democracy is lethal (it was
> democracy, after all, that killed Socrates).
>
> Community objections, however, to public school curriculum
> typically do not occur from topics as innocuous as diffraction.
> Controversy arises over subject matter that challenges our
> view of ourselves, such as evolution or _The Catcher in the
> Rye_. And I would argue that as a nation we should be very
> watchful of special interest groups that seek the manipulate
> public school curriculum, even if we ourselves happen to
> belong to some of those groups. The best way to insulate
> against this is to place control where it belongs, with
> the educators themselves (and to enforce state and national
> curriculum standards).
>
> Let me illustrate my point with a relevant concrete example.
> Should a community be able to mandate that creationism and
> evolution be taught as viable competing theories, one just
> as accepted as the other?
>
> Scientists themselves decide what is science (i.e. science
> must be operationally defined as being what scientists
> themselves do). If public schools are to teach science at
> all, then they should teach what scientists are doing and
> thinking, even if this conflicts with certain community
> standards. In the science class room, students should not
> be told what to believe, but rather, they should be *informed*
> about the activities and beliefs of scientists. Therefore,
> since virtually no biologists take creationism seriously
> (which is not to say that most biologists are atheists,
> since evolution and religion do not have to be in conflict),
> creationism cannot be taught in the *science* classroom,
> regardless of the sentiments of the local community.
>
> The issues are more complicated regarding private and
> home schooling, and I hope to start another thread on
> these matters.
>
> --
> Robert Singleton work: (206) 543-9640
> Department of Physics fax : (206) 685-0635
> University of Washington office: B416 Phys & Astronomy Bldg.
> Box 351560 bo...@terrapin.phys.washington.edu
Mr. Singleton,
Look at where our puplic places of education are, and at the products of
that education, and see where what you propose has gotten us. With this
system (at least one very much like it) we have a mess!
I agree with Mr. Hanson's reply to your post. Also, the Bible is very
clear on who is responsible for the growth and developement of our kids
and it does not say that the "educators, scientists, writers etc." are
the ones who are responsible for that. Furthermore, since, in public
education, the educators... have such an impact on the opinions and
thinking of our young people I, like many others refuse to accept your
plan.
K.R.
Steven Nicoloso
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Steven Nicoloso wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > > Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current?
> > >
> > > When did either of those engineers become elevated to the
> > > level of a "scientist"?
> >
>
> Lower level than who? If you're talking to _me_ I'm an engineer.
> I'm not on the same level as Einstein or Newton, and I doubt that
> you are, either.
Einstein and Newton were distinguished by the quality of their
contributions -- not necessarily by their vocations.
So you're an engineer --> then are you denigrating your own role?
I may have misunderstood your use of the term "level," and if so
please help me to understand. . .
> Why is being an entrepreneur "beneath" anyone?
Tongue-in-cheek obviously implied by smiley face >> :-) <<
> > But your submission that engineers are somehow at a lower
> > "level" than scientists is quite offensive.
>
> A bit defensive are we?
As I noted via private email, the only notion that I'm defending is
that our training or vocation does not necessarily place us on
different "levels." We all, engineers, scientists, poets, philosophers,
and trash collectors MAY have something to contribute, and the value
or "level" of this contribution is not necessarily a product of our
chosen field of endeavor. Tesla and Edison may not have been on the
same level as Einstein or Maxwell, but I would submit that they
contributed at a higher "level" than countless other contemporary
scientists. Point being: the mere fact that one is (generically) a
scientist does not put one on a higher "level" than Tesla or Edison.
> > Departments of
> > engineering grant the same letters as departments of physics.
>
> So do departments of basket weaving.
So you ARE saying that a PhD in physics somehow represents a
HIGHER level of learning or a greater potential to contribue
than a PhD in engineering???
Kind sir, YOU were the one who used the term "level." Please defend
your use of the term, or retract/clarify it.
> > Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
> > "DSP -- Applied to Communications"
> > Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
> > VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA
>
> Aha. A grad student. Explains much.
>
> > "...a three hour tour, a three hour tour!"
There's that superiority complex again. . . <puzzled>
Regards and not meaning to pick nits,
Steve
--
Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
"DSP -- Applied to Communications"
Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Stephanie Manning
"J. Clarke" <jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>And which books are those? Hint--if one knew what books to read in order
>to fill gaps in one's education, one would not have such gaps. This is one
>of the roles of a good teacher.
Good question . . . and point. While waiting to discover which books
to read, you might enjoy The Great Books series.
http://www.ilinks.net/~lnoles/grtbks.html
J. Clarke
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.
Wil & Sharon Milan <mi...@airdigital.com> wrote in article
> I agree there's a difference in principle and often in practice between
> science and engineering. But I was responding to your post in which you
> asked who had "elevated" (your term) Edison and Tesla from engineers to
> scientists. The obvious implications I took from your statements were
> (1) that a scientist is somehow "higher" than an engineer (ergo an
> engineer must be "elevated" to reach the level of a scientist), and (2)
> that a person must be pegged as either one or the other. I responded
> because the latter is not borne out by reality and the former strikes me
> as specious elitism. Perhaps that's not what you meant. But in any case
> I'll leave it as your opinion and you're entitled to it.
>
> But I do have two corrections to make:
>
> - You astonished me with your statement that "F=ma does not work in
> astrophysics." I should go back and tell all my professors and textbook
> writers, all of whom use this basic Newtonian force/acceleration
> equation all the time. Won't they be surprised. I presume you're
> referring to cases (such as quantum events) where classic Newtonian
> mechanics do not apply, but I presume you also realize that most
> everyday calculations F=ma works just as well now as it ever did.
> Perhaps we're playing with semantics about the meaning and scope of
> "astrophysics."
You might want to look into something called "general relativity" with
which most practitioners of astrophysics are quite familiar.
> - Re Penzias and Wilson being engineers "who stumbled into a
> serendipitous result": Let's look at this for a minute, because it
> illustrates what I was trying to communicate.
>
> Arno Penzias earned M.S. and Ph.D degrees in Physics, then went to work
> as a research engineer at Bell Labs. While working on the design of a
> new antenna found an unaccountable source of radio noise and much
> subsequent research pinned it to be the cosmic background noise, the
> most solid corroborating evidence yet found of the big-bang theory. So
> he was trained as a scientist, did scientific and engineering research,
> and got a Nobel Prize for his contribution to science. So is he to be
> pegged as a scientist or an engineer? Was he doing "higher" work some of
> the time and "lower" work others?
Doesn't matter what the degree was in. You're too hung up on pieces of
paper. Reeves Calloway, to take one example, is a damned fine engineer (GM
farms work out to him) with a degree in music.
You said it yourself. He was working on the design of a new antenna.
Found a source of noise that he couldn't identify within the lab, so he
went looking for it. At the time he was looking for a source of noise, not
trying to discover the cosmic background radiation. Turns out that he made
a major discovery in physics, but that is not what he was _trying_ to do.
As to this "higher and lower" crap, buzz off and grow up.
>
> The idea that science is "the search for knowledge" and engineering is
> not, that's what I find a fallacious bright line. New knowledge gained
> in engineering research (as was the case with Penzias and Wilson) is new
> knowledge, and in this case was just as rewarded with a Nobel Prize, as
> knowledge gained by one who calls himself a scientist instead of an
> engineer.
So what? He was _looking_ for a better antenna. He _found_ something
else. This is called serendipity. Science is a tool of engineering, but
not the only tool of engineering. Engineering is a tool of science but not
the only tool of science. They are not the same any more than a hammer is
carpentry. If one gets a Nobel prize for some of the science one was using
to do engineering, well that's good, but it doesn't mean that one was not
doing engineering, any more than getting a prize for the artistic merit of
the wheels on one's Indy car means that one was not doing automobile
racing.
> Just curious: Despite minor disagreements, we seem to have some common
> interests. What kind of work do you do?
I've done a variety of things. Parachute design, flight mechanics, project
work on propellers, software development, little bit of teaching. Mostly
retired these days.
J. Clarke
James W Walden <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<0mutCl200...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
> Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.home-school.misc: 25-Jan-97 Re:
> School Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
> > > >borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has
been
> > for
> > > >more than 50 years.
> > >
> > > I do not keep up that well in physics, but I would put this as a
great
> > > exaggeration, at least. Even 40 years ago, the elementary particle
> > > "zoo" had no unification; the quarks had not been dreamed of.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing verification of a theory with a "major
revision".
> > The existence of quarks was predicted by quantum theory and verified by
> > experiment. When the experiment verifies the theoretical calculation,
then
> > there is no "major revision" required.
>
> Quarks are not a prediction of quantum theory. The concept of quarks
arose
> out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3) symmetry
but
> for the most part were considered a useful mathematical concept and not
as
> anything real until Feynman explained the results of deep inelastic
> scattering experiments with partons (quarks and gluons).
First off, if SU(3) symmetry is not a part of quantum theory, then what is
it? Second off, what is the "major revision" that resulted? Did we dump
general relativity or something?
> Quantum
> chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, wasn't created until
> around 1970.
So? How is this a "major revision"? Are you contending that the strong
force was previously unknown? This is refinement, not "major revision".
> The electroweak theory is also a product of the last
> forty years (in 1956, I think they were still using Fermi's four-point
> interaction theory of the weak force).
So? Is this again "major revision"? Hint--take "Principia Mathematica" as
an exemplar of a "major revision". Then tell me that by that standard any
of the items you have listed are "major".
> The Standard Model, depending
> on both of these theories as it does, of course also later.
And in what way is the Standard Model a _MAJOR_ revision of thinking?
> So forty
> years ago, particle physics was a mass of unexplained details and only
> the electromagnetic force was explained.
I believe that that will be news to one Albert Einstein.
> Today we're struggling to
> find some place where the Standard Model is wrong and having no luck.
So gee, now you're saying that physics is stable? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE
YOU ARGUING WITH ME?
Don Pettengill
J. Clarke (jcl...@ibm.net) wrote:
: Was the problem that they didn't know how to use a spreadsheet or that they
: didn't know how to do a linear regression? In the one case, it would seem
They did not even know what a linear regression was.
: to me that this is an argument for students being taught how to use
: computers in a systematic way, which you can't do without computers, while
: in the other, it's an argument for changes in the math curriculum, which is
: a whole separate ball of wax.
I agree that the math curriculum is completely broken.
: > Hell again, forget about the computers ... most kids had scientific
: > calculators with every whiz-bang feature known to man, including
: > regression, polar <-> rectangular coordinate conversions, and much more.
: > But they most commonly didn't even know the features were there, or less
: > commonly knew about them but not what they meant or how to use them, or
: > most often of all - *thought* they knew how to use 'em, but didn't
: > (example: entering angles in degrees while the calc. is set to radian
: > or grad mode).
: Which again has what relevance? Would you say that teaching these students
: to properly use these calculators would be "education" or "training"? And
That is not the point!!!! IF they understood enough mathematics to
discern when the calculator was giving them nonsense, I would be happy
to show them how to use it. But getting the wrong signs (is cosine 95
negative or positive?) and the wrong magnitudes (is tan 89.9 deg big or
small?) and even in algebra persistently repeating elementary errors
(sqrt(A+B) = sqrt(A) + sqrt(B) ???) left no where useful to start.
Under that circumstance, the calculators are a positive hindrance - not
a help.
Let's face it, given the manual, and a knowledge of mathematics, it's
not hard to learn how to use a calculator. Only when the math is
gobbledygook is it really hard to see why the calculator is wrong. My
elementary school kids get 2+3x8 = 48 on their calulator. They write
the answer down and it is marked correct. Of what use is that? It's
positively harmful!
: would you say that they should not be taught to do this in the schools? If
: not, then where, since by your own example they clearly do not pick it up
: on their own.
Teaching them to calculate without a knowledge of what the calculations
mean, is the antithesis of education. Unfortunately it seems to SOP.
: > Hell once more, forget about the scientific stuff - I never yet met a
: > student able to proficiently use even a four-function calculator - able
: > to keep enough significant digits in the final answer (after going to
: > and from paper a few times), or spot an outlandish error (miskey) in a
: > final "answer".
: Seems to me that someone needs to teach the students to do this.
Seems to me that the students produce only up to what is expected of
them.
: What do you believe the schools should teach? Should they teach reading,
: writing, and arithmetic and stop there, or should they do more?
Well, possibly then, we agree - MUCH more. The question is, more of
WHAT?!?!? The curriculum is already a mile wide and an inch deep, but
teaching "more" always seems to be in the direction of adding more and
more different things, none of which will ever be covered in any depth.
Except as training for secretarial schools, much of the "technology"
added is of little use or benefit to actual education. It does not have
to be that way, but it usually is.
With the deficiencies in the basic sciences, mathematics, English (and
so on) so very evident, and getting too little attention, the last thing
we need is yet more "NEW" "INNOVATIVE" programs to bog down the teaching
staff - or waste the time of the student.
Herman Rubin
In article <01bc0c7d$0126da20$b7d148a6@default>,
J. Clarke <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>James W Walden <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
><0mutCl200...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
>> Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.home-school.misc: 25-Jan-97 Re:
>> School Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
<> > > >borne. Physics is, in fact, pretty stable at the moment, and has
>been
<> > for
<> > > >more than 50 years.
<> > > I do not keep up that well in physics, but I would put this as a
>great
<> > > exaggeration, at least. Even 40 years ago, the elementary particle
<> > > "zoo" had no unification; the quarks had not been dreamed of.
<> > You seem to be confusing verification of a theory with a "major
>revision".
<> > The existence of quarks was predicted by quantum theory and verified by
<> > experiment. When the experiment verifies the theoretical calculation,
>then
<> > there is no "major revision" required.
>> Quarks are not a prediction of quantum theory. The concept of quarks
>arose
>> out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3) symmetry
>but
>> for the most part were considered a useful mathematical concept and not
>as
>> anything real until Feynman explained the results of deep inelastic
>> scattering experiments with partons (quarks and gluons).
>First off, if SU(3) symmetry is not a part of quantum theory, then what is
>it? Second off, what is the "major revision" that resulted? Did we dump
>general relativity or something?
It became part of quantum mechanics the moment it was introduced.
But until then, there was nothing in quantum mechanics which would lead
one to suspect it. Just as similarities and regularities among the
known elements confirmed the idea that Mendeleev had about similar
elements belonging to a group to surface, the regularities in the
particle zoo confirmed what Neeman and Gell-Mann came up with using
representations of SU(3).
And there are physicists coming up with ideas about the structure
of quarks; if any of those work, we will again change the fundamental
particles. But quantum mechanics will not change basically because
of changes in the model.
Wil & Sharon Milan
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> As to this "higher and lower" crap, buzz off and grow up.
*You* were the one who brought up the curious idea that a scientist is
somehow "higher" than an engineer.
But in any case if the dialog has descended to this level then I think
useful discussion is at an end. I have no interest in responding in
kind. Good day.
Wil Milan
J. Clarke
Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
<32E9DB...@pascal.org>...
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
>
> > >
> > > The question concerned what a person did _now_ as an adult to fill
the
> > > gaps left by what was probably a traditional classroom education.
> >
> > Your question, perhaps, but that is to me at least a transparent
attempt to
> > divert the issue from the matter of educating children to the matter of
my
> > personal habits.
>
> I'm sorry. That wasn't my intent for bringing it up, really. Mostly
> I wanted to point out that education doesn't end in childhood. It's not
> absolutely critical to cover _everything_ during the "school years."
No, it is not essential. But that is the period during which people have
the most time available to devote to education, before they start having to
devote time to earning money and tending children and maintaining the house
and whatnot.
>
> (...)
> > Again, you're missing the point. No, it is not an insurmountable
problem.
> > But a child turned loose in a library with know knowledge of physics
and no
> > academic skills beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic is unlikely to
> > surmount it. In point of fact, if the books are "easily available to
home
> > educators" but not from the library, then turning the kid loose in the
> > library will not expose him to those particular books at all.
>
> Perhaps not. But frankly, all children are not in need of becomming
> physicists. But I don't think the question was ever whether turning
> children
> loose in the library was _best_. But children _will_ learn that way.
> And they'll learn a lot.
No, all children are not in need of becoming physicists. But they are in
need of knowing that there is something called "physics" and what it is and
how it works and a little of what it tells us. And if the first book they
pick up in the physics section of the library is, say, "The Fundamental
Principles of Quantum Mechanics With Elementary Applications" they are
probably going to decide immediately that there is nothing of interest in
that section of the library.
What they'll end up is a fair academic knowledge of stuff that interests
them, probably with considerable specialization in some area, and with
absolutely no knowledge in other areas that they found to be "boe-rING" but
which may be of considerable future importance to them.
Yes, it's better than nothing, but the same claim can be made of the public
schools. It is certainly not _good_.
>
> (...)
> > > I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library is
> > > _ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
>
>
> > > Don't forget that a child "set loose" in a library has no need to
> > > continue
> > > reading something that proves to be unreadable or unimportant. Yes,
> > > that
> > > may translate to "anything uninteresting" but what does a child
_retain_
> > > if they aren't interested anyway?
> >
> > How the Hell does a child know what is "important"?
>
> How do you? I could "assign" any number of "important" subjects to
> my children, make them memorize it, give them at test, and at 30
> they'll probably remember about as much as I do.
I know what is important because I have used it in the thirtysomething
years of life that I have lived that the child has not, discharging the
various duties and responsibilities that the child may not even be aware
_exist_. And so have you. If you don't have any knowledge of the subject
at 30 then it probably isn't truly important. But could you, at 10, have
predicted what you need to know at 30?
> And I do give kids a little credit in knowing what is _not_ important.
How do they know this?
> The _good_ about the library "thing" is that children love to learn and
> they will devour anything and everything that catches their interest. I
> don't think anyone has said they won't miss anything "important" but
> then traditionally schooled children miss "important" things as well.
> And...since learning doesn't end at "graduation" they will always have
> the ability to find out those important things later. Good research
> skills and self motivation can only help.
Yes, they'll have time to find out those important things later, in the
spare time left over from working two jobs and raising their own children.
> _Even_if_ children are simply let loose in the library... Home school
> is usually more than that. Even unschoolers do more than that. They
> certainly wouldn't _limit_ themselves to the library.
So what? What does the methodology used by homeschoolers or "unschoolers"
have to do with the notion that teaching a child to read, write, and do
arithmetic, then turning that child loose in the libary and doing nothing
else is a valid method of education?
>
> (...)
> > > > While the parents or other helpful adults may not have the
> > > > necessary knowledge, they do have the powers of being taken more
> > seriously
> > > > than children generally are
> (...)
>
> > > This is beyond me...totally. Children aren't taken seriously so,
even
> > > though the adults aren't really helpful, children shouldn't be taken
> > > seriously?
> >
> > Whether children SHOULD be taken seriously is irrelevant. What is
> > important is that they AREN'T. If you want to tilt at windmills be my
> > guest, but the smart money's on the windmill.
>
> So explain to me the "relevance" of the fact that children are not
> taken seriously.
How can someone who is not being taken seriously get a straight answer?
>
> Children are not taken seriously therefore we should...what?
Have adults involved in their education.
> I understand that this fact would effect practical issues about access
> to resources (though I think it may be less than you think) but what
> does it have to do with the _necessity_ for directed education, as
> opposed to "letting a child loose."
Bingo. Access to resources.
> j.pascal
Herman Rubin
In article <5cis45$1...@frog.inetworld.net>,
>>And which books are those? Hint--if one knew what books to read in order
>>to fill gaps in one's education, one would not have such gaps. This is one
>>of the roles of a good teacher.
>Good question . . . and point. While waiting to discover which books
>to read, you might enjoy The Great Books series.
As a mathematician, I state that the real basics of mathematics are left
untaught because the teachers themselves can no longer learn them.
I would not be surprised if this held for most other subjects. Nor
cam the students find these books on their own, and they might not be
in the library.
Julie A.Pascal
Jaelle wrote:
>
> If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere. There are few
> fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
> a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
> still extremely sophisticated. Kids who are left to their own devices
> are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
> --
> Jaelle
In a separate post I said (quite badly actually) that separating
areas of study into "subjects" was unnatural.
What I was trying to get at was exactly what Jaelle has said.
"Subjects" overlap. They interact and affect each other. It
is only in a classroom where "Math" and "Science" or even "Sociology"
have a wall of separation built between them. Some things have
more in common than others, but nothing exists exclusive from
the rest.
Separating knowledge into unrelated "subjects" seems to me
to be an excellent way of ensuring that children are _not_
able to determine what is important. How can they when everything
is taken out of context?
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> --
> Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
> automatic mailers.
>
> Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
> > Perhaps not. But frankly, all children are not in need of becomming
> > physicists. But I don't think the question was ever whether turning
> > children
> > loose in the library was _best_. But children _will_ learn that way.
> > And they'll learn a lot.
>
> No, all children are not in need of becoming physicists. But they are in
> need of knowing that there is something called "physics" and what it is and
> how it works and a little of what it tells us. And if the first book they
> pick up in the physics section of the library is, say, "The Fundamental
> Principles of Quantum Mechanics With Elementary Applications" they are
> probably going to decide immediately that there is nothing of interest in
> that section of the library.
This is ridiculous. But it is understandable. If you judge home
school methods by the prevailing attitudes of students who have
been trained by a traditional classroom to avoid learning and otherwise
look for reasons to give up the results will be inaccurate, to say
the least.
So, you think that a child would "probably" give up because of the
first book they pick up in the Library? Why should they?
> What they'll end up is a fair academic knowledge of stuff that interests
> them, probably with considerable specialization in some area, and with
> absolutely no knowledge in other areas that they found to be "boe-rING" but
> which may be of considerable future importance to them.
The separation of "Subjects" isn't natural. It's a function of
the necessity of classroom education itself. Also, without
the constant reminder from peers that anything academic is "boe-rING"
they will at least approach new "subjects" with an open mind.
> Yes, it's better than nothing, but the same claim can be made of the public
> schools. It is certainly not _good_.
It's better than a traditional peer-dominated classroom because
a child's love of learning will not be systematically destroyed.
I said...
> > > > I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library is
> > > > _ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
> >
(...)
> > How do you? I could "assign" any number of "important" subjects to
> > my children, make them memorize it, give them at test, and at 30
> > they'll probably remember about as much as I do.
>
> I know what is important because I have used it in the thirtysomething
> years of life that I have lived that the child has not, discharging the
> various duties and responsibilities that the child may not even be aware
> _exist_. And so have you. If you don't have any knowledge of the subject
> at 30 then it probably isn't truly important. But could you, at 10, have
> predicted what you need to know at 30?
How can I predict what I need to know at 60?
> So what? What does the methodology used by homeschoolers or "unschoolers"
> have to do with the notion that teaching a child to read, write, and do
> arithmetic, then turning that child loose in the libary and doing nothing
> else is a valid method of education?
It has to do with assuring you that it is very unlikely that
home schooled children will be limited to the library.
On the other hand, if natural curiosity has not been destroyed
teaching a child to read, write and do arithmetic and then making
sure they have access to a good library is likely a very valid
method of education.
> > So explain to me the "relevance" of the fact that children are not
> > taken seriously.
>
> How can someone who is not being taken seriously get a straight answer?
Please read some of the posts where parents have testified to
the experience their children have had with being taken seriously.
Some adults are jerks, but I will not dictate my life because of
them. (Or shelter my children by taking them out of the real
world.)
Perhaps dealing with adults, jerks or otherwise, is an invaluable
aspect of socialization. I'd rather have my children develop
some assertiveness in the search for information than convince
myself that something important is gained by making them sell
cookies door to door or any of the other stupid ways we set our
kids up for rejection.
> > Children are not taken seriously therefore we should...what?
>
> Have adults involved in their education.
There is a difference between "involved" and "in charge." No
one has said adults should not be involved.
j.pascal
Mike Schneider
Steven Nicoloso <nico...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu> wrote:
> As I noted via private email, the only notion that I'm defending is
> that our training or vocation does not necessarily place us on
> different "levels." We all, engineers, scientists, poets, philosophers,
> and trash collectors MAY have something to contribute, and the value
> or "level" of this contribution is not necessarily a product of our
> chosen field of endeavor. Tesla and Edison may not have been on the
> same level as Einstein or Maxwell, but I would submit that they
> contributed at a higher "level" than countless other contemporary
> scientists. Point being: the mere fact that one is (generically) a
> scientist does not put one on a higher "level" than Tesla or Edison.
>
I have the displeasure of working with a PhD chemist who is a complete
moron. I also have the pleasure of working with a exceptional PhD
biochemist. However, in general, it seems that the most effective and
competent scientists that I've had the pleasure of working with have all
had engineering education.
In other words, you need science to be a scientist (or an engineer), but
to be a good scientist, engineering helps a lot. This is just my
observation, I'm not looking for a flame war.
BTW, I always thought Tesla was more of a scientist than an engineer. Or
maybe he was a scientist who used engineering. Which is what I am right
now.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Mike Schneider http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/g396/schne042/
Mike Schneider
phil...@orelle.com (Philip Cain) wrote:
> schn...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike Schneider) wrote:
> >phil...@orelle.com (Philip Cain) wrote:
> >> B. How can the society as a whole be assured that the education given
> >> to children will meet requirements for the success of the society?
> >>
> >This has to do with quality assurance/quality control. Other parts of
> >industry have implemented these procedures/standards. What happens when
> >your toaster has a defect? You send it back, right? You don't know
> >anything about a toaster, yet you were able to detect a flaw. Yet
> >somehow, just because we don't know about education or teaching we
> >suddenly can't be a judge as to whether the teachers are doing their
> >jobs. I feel this is ludicrous, people know when things don't work right,
> >regardless if they know how it works. The education system is no
> >different.
>
> The problem with your approach is that a child is not a toaster.
>
> By the time we can see clearly that Johnny can't read it may be too
> late for Johnny. You can't send the child back or throw the child out
> and once the child becomes a teenager, the opportunity to learn that
> is provided by the child's brain is gone.
>
So why wouldn't quality control/assurance work to catch Johnny not being
able to read? Standards would have to be met for the student to advance
to the next level.
> Oh, Johnny can still learn to read or count or write, but he will
> never be quite as good as he could have been had he been taught
> properly as a child. So Johnny, and the rest of us, are stuck with a
> bad product for 50 years or so, until Johnny passes to his final
> reward.
>
Exactly my point. Would you check each piece of a car for quality before
putting it all together? Or, would you check the whole car and reject it
at the end?
By testing that certain standards are met before advancing to the next
level, we can hopefully prevent the student from throwing their whole life
away.
> Johnny, his parents, and all of society pay an enormous cost for
> Johnny's bad education. As best we can, we have to know beforehand
> that Johnny's teachers are qualified and of high quality.
>
Yes, the same is true for industry. A defective product that is rejected
before it gets to market is much less costly than one that is purchased
and then returned defective. Not to mention the liability the company has
from a defective product.
> I agree with you that we don't have to be teachers to see or detect
> bad education. But I'm not motivated by the fact of bad education. I
> am moved by its consequences.
>
Let me get this straight. You only care about bad education when it
effects you. That sounds a little selfish.
> I have heard very good teachers say, as if inspired, this truth about
> teaching: "I make the future."
>
Unfortunately, many are not making it any better.
> They are right, God help us!
>
We all make the future, but are we making it better, or worse.
Jaelle
>>
>> Haven't you ever pursued a course of study on your own? My kids have
>> never had trouble figuring out where to start--they start at the point
>> where they understand the material and follow where it leads. If they
>> pull a book out and can't understand it, they find an easier one. I do
>> it, too! Learning new material is not the least bit mysterious--you
>> start at some point where you understand what's being said, then make
>> sure you pick up the new vocabulary as you go, and find some way to
>> make the subject concrete in your mind (like building models,
>> perhaps.)
>
>Again, the point is being missed. You can pick up books until you find
>one that you can understand and learn what's in that book. However, this
>method is the problem that I and the orignal poster are addressing because
>it does leave you with holes in your knowledge (and worse, you're often
>not aware of them). We're not arguing that you can't learn on your own,
>but that you will miss important areas of knowledge because there's too
>much out there to find without some help in providing direction.
>
But who decides what's needed? Why not just fill the holes as they're
discovered? Who decides what order is best to learn something? Many
courses I've encountered seemed to start in the wrong place--they
tried to teach material at the beginning that required something from
the middle. I've never had a teacher that taught a book from beginning
to end. WE'VE never learned anything from just one book. When we
tackle a new subject, we go and get everything we can find on it, and
use them all! When I started learning C++ last winter, I found myself
skipping back and forth between no fewer than 7 different books,
because none of them explained everything adequately or in the right
order for ME. The library is a good place to learn things, not because
there are too many books, but because you can so easily discard a book
that's not working and grab another. There is never enough information
from one book or one person. That's what was so frustrating for us
about school. If the textbook or the teacher did not make sense, you
were out of luck. The "guidance" of a teacher or mentor or parent can
be stifling to an eccentric learner...
--
Jaelle
Jaelle
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:22:10 -0800, "Julie A.Pascal"
<ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>James W Walden wrote:
>
>I've never tried to say that guidance doesn't help. I believe I
>made a point of saying that turning a child loose without guidance
>was not _ideal_. The form that guidance may take will vary from
>parent to parent and from child to child. Turning a child loose in
>the library is really the extreme from what someone or other suggested
>which was that only elite proffessionals should have input into
>curriculum
>requirements.
>
There was an interesting little story in a Sunday supplement a year or
so back. It involved a man who grew up in an extremely isolated rural
area. His uncle and aunt didn't believe in sending a kid off to
school, so they taught him to read and from then on he worked on the
farm and in his uncle's hardware store. He liked reading and bought
books at yard sales all over the place, and, out of curiousity,
started following up the history of the time periods of the books he
was reading. When he was in his late twenties, he decided to apply at
a university (Tennessee or somplace like that) and they immediately
placed him in a graduate degree placement. He's now a full professor
there. I'd say that's pretty close to the "turning him loose in a
library" situation.
James W Walden
Excerpts from mail: 25-Jan-97 Re: School Control (was Re:.. by "Julie
A.Pascal"@pascal.
> ourselves available to point the way if they get stuck, the _child_
> will propell their own educations. Assignments may seem like the
> way to be sure nothing is missed, but the very real danger exists that
> "assignments" will become drudgery to be avoided or at the least
> completed for the sake of getting them over with.
I think we might agree for the most part. I do think that children need
to be shown certain areas of knowledge that they've missed or else they
won't realize that they exist or are interesting and so won't pursue them
on their own. While that's the fundament part of guidance, I also think
that providing structure can be very helpful depending on the area being
studied and the child doing the studying. My experience with students
is that their wants and needs in this area differ greatly so I can't say
that assignments are never necessary for any student, but I quite agree
that schools are tremendously overstructured and devoted towards pushing the
students as opposed to engaging their interests in general.
> The "Education Standards" and "who should control the schools" really
> misses the individuality of students. What one student needs is not
> what another student needs.
I quite agree and that's one of the strongest reasons that I support
home schooling.
John Leslie
James W Walden <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> You can pick up books until you find one that you can understand and
> learn what's in that book. However, this method is the problem that
> I and the orignal poster are addressing because it does leave you with
> holes in your knowledge (and worse, you're often not aware of them).
Does this not suggest that the most important thing to learn might
be how to _become_ aware of these holes in your knowledge?
--
John Leslie <jo...@jlc.net>
James W Walden
Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.science: 27-Jan-97 Re: School
Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
> arose
> > out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3) symmetry
> but
> > for the most part were considered a useful mathematical concept and not
> as
> > anything real until Feynman explained the results of deep inelastic
> > scattering experiments with partons (quarks and gluons).
>
> First off, if SU(3) symmetry is not a part of quantum theory, then what is
> it?
It's a part of group theory. The discovery that hadrons fit the pattern
of SU(3) symmetry is much like the discovery of the pattern of the Periodic
Table and hence has no dynamics (quantum mechanics or quantum field theory)
in it.
> Second off, what is the "major revision" that resulted? Did we dump
> general relativity or something?
The realization that neutrons and protons were not the fundamental
constituents of nuclei was quite a major change.
> > Quantum
> > chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, wasn't created until
> > around 1970.
>
> So? How is this a "major revision"? Are you contending that the strong
> force was previously unknown? This is refinement, not "major revision".
It's as major a revision as Einstein's revision of gravitation was.
Einstein knew that gravity existed (so did Newton, for that matter,
who wasn't the first to use the 1/r^2 force), but does that make
their explanations unimportant?
> > The electroweak theory is also a product of the last
> > forty years (in 1956, I think they were still using Fermi's four-point
> > interaction theory of the weak force).
>
> So? Is this again "major revision"? Hint--take "Principia Mathematica" as
> an exemplar of a "major revision". Then tell me that by that standard any
> of the items you have listed are "major".
Yes, no question about it. The electroweak theory was the first working
unified field theory, provided us with an understanding of the weak force
that is as improved over previous understandings as Newton's physics was
over Galileo's, and provided us with the important concept of spontaneous
symmetry breaking.
> > The Standard Model, depending
> > on both of these theories as it does, of course also later.
>
> And in what way is the Standard Model a _MAJOR_ revision of thinking?
The Standard Model is fairly comparable to the _Principia_ in that it
drew together previous understandings of physics and meshed them together
in a unified whole.
> > So forty
> > years ago, particle physics was a mass of unexplained details and only
> > the electromagnetic force was explained.
>
> I believe that that will be news to one Albert Einstein.
I'm sorry if that was unclear. I was referring to particle physics when I
talked about only the electromagnetic force was explained (gravity is too
weak to observe in the realm of particle physics).
> > Today we're struggling to
> > find some place where the Standard Model is wrong and having no luck.
>
> So gee, now you're saying that physics is stable? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE
> YOU ARGUING WITH ME?
No, if you had read what I wrote, you would realize that the Standard Model
is a product of the last 20 years and that particle physics experienced more
rapid change in the two or three decades following World War II as
gravitational physics experienced in the few decades after 1915.
James Walden
Marty Carts
********Thread bordering on inanity warning***********
Cc:ed to Steve and John.
All 4 newsgroups begrudgingly left in. I suppose m.e. could
be axed, but I believe this is topical. Comments on this
would be appreciated.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Steven Nicoloso <nico...@taiyang.mprg.ee.vt.edu>...
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > Victor Smith <vict...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> > > > Tesla on DC current? Edison on AC current?
> > > When did either of those engineers become elevated to the level of a
> > > "scientist"?
> > I knew it. [sarcasm tit-for-tat deleted]
> > Now with all due respect (which you don't seem
> > to have for engineers), the clear delineation between pure science
> > and applied science (engineering if you wish), is a completely
> > artificial distinction, and one I believe was not well recognized in
> > the time of Edison or Tesla.
> Actually, it was quite well recognized.
There's an interesting topic! Steve, John, would y'all care to 'fess up with
some substance to your positions in a retitled thread?
> And the distinction is not
> artificial at all. Science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge.
> Engineering is the systematic pursuit of an optimal product. Science uses
> engineering as a tool, engineering uses science as a tool. But they aren't
> the same. And I have a great deal of respect for engineers, being that I
> am one and probably have been longer than you.
I think that there's a disconnect in our respective definitions of "science",
both pure and applied, and "engineering".
I think the typical image of a "scientist" is one who pursues knowledge
with total disregard for the application of that knowledge, frequently
forgetting even to eat because of the rapture of the experience. The
typical image of an engineer is a grownup kid who used to sleep with
his Erector Set instead of his teddybear.
The dictionary, though, never mentions eating habits or Erector Sets
in defining either of these words. Hmmmm... It says:
Science-n. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws: *the mathematical sciences*. 2. systematic knowledge
of the physical or material world. 3. systematized knowledge in
general. 4. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained
by systematic study. 5. a particular branch of knowledge. 6. skill;
proficciency.
Engineering, n. 1. the art or science of making practical application
of the knowledge of pure sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology,
etc. 2. the action, work, or profession of an engineer. 3. skillful
or artful contrivance; maneuvering.
It seems to me that as given by my Random House _The_American_College_
_Dictionary_, 1970, science is pretty much a subset of engineering.
Certainly I can see nothing in the def. of science is contrary to any
principle of engineering. The reference to "pure sciences" doesn't
mean that pure sciences are distinct from engineering, but rather
suggests that there is a range of application in engineering where
one extreme might be called "pure" and the other "entrepreneurial".
So, my thought is that "pure science" and "applied engineering" might
better be thought of as polarities of the spectrum of the broad field
of "engineering", instead of two distinct things. This would be
similar to lemonade being either sweet or sour--these qualifiers are
useful, but certainly any lemonade is some of both.
> > Edison, I'll admit, was probably more of an entrepreneur than
> > a scientist. (Which is definitely "beneath" both of us :-)
Hee hee hee.
> Why is being an entrepreneur "beneath" anyone?
Steve was engaging in engineer-geek humor. (I got it, at least.)
> > But your submission that engineers are somehow at a lower
> > "level" than scientists is quite offensive.
> A bit defensive are we?
Well, you did say "...elevated to the level of..."; I also took
offense at this until I saw you clarify that you do not hold that
engineering ("applied", that is)is in any way lesser to pure
science. Indeed, I am cheered that now we can all rest contented,
based upon my investigations above, that pure science is but a
subset of engineering.
> > Departments of engineering grant the same letters as departments
> > of physics.
> So do departments of basket weaving.
> > So wherethehell does the superiority complex come from?
> What superiority complex? Are you perhaps suggesting that I am a scientist
> and feel superior to engineers? Well then you blew it and you really
> should learn something about the people you are trying to flame.
> > <sigh> In the end, I suppose we all think that we're the most
> > important. . .
> Actually, to an engineer, the product is most important.
Actually, to any engineer worth his salt, chocolate is most important.
> > An engineer and durn proud of it,
> > Steve
> When you develop enough pride to put some profanity around that "proud"
> then perhaps you'll no longer feel jealous of scientists.
I think Steve hails primarily from the misc.education.home-
school.CHRISTIAN newsgroup. As such, the inclusion of an emphasizer
which so pointedly *avoids* being a profanity would seem to denote not
a lack of pride in his vocation but rather the opposite, combined with
a sensitivity (although I imagine some might consider it insufficient)
to other Christians present.
> > Steve Nicoloso, Research Assistant
> > "DSP -- Applied to Communications"
> > Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG)
> > VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA
> Aha. A grad student. Explains much.
Sounds like an attempt at a cut, although I'ld hesitate to publically
try to interpret it. Perhaps Mr. Clarke can expound on it if it is
otherwise.________________Marty
[...]
Herman Rubin
In article <32ed5ca3...@news.zippo.com>,
Jaelle <jae...@ois.lemuria.com> wrote:
>>> Haven't you ever pursued a course of study on your own? My kids have
>>> never had trouble figuring out where to start--they start at the point
>>> where they understand the material and follow where it leads. If they
>>> pull a book out and can't understand it, they find an easier one. I do
>>> it, too! Learning new material is not the least bit mysterious--you
>>> start at some point where you understand what's being said, then make
>>> sure you pick up the new vocabulary as you go, and find some way to
>>> make the subject concrete in your mind (like building models,
>>> perhaps.)
>>Again, the point is being missed. You can pick up books until you find
>>one that you can understand and learn what's in that book. However, this
>>method is the problem that I and the original poster are addressing because
>>it does leave you with holes in your knowledge (and worse, you're often
>>not aware of them). We're not arguing that you can't learn on your own,
>>but that you will miss important areas of knowledge because there's too
>>much out there to find without some help in providing direction.
>But who decides what's needed?
Those who understand the structure of subject matter, who know which
previous needed to understand the concepts.
Why not just fill the holes as they're
>discovered? Who decides what order is best to learn something? Many
>courses I've encountered seemed to start in the wrong place--they
>tried to teach material at the beginning that required something from
>the middle.
As usual, the books are badly written. Most teach methods, or teach
results without the concepts, which are then stuck in later. The most
prevalent philosophy of learning concepts believes that concepts are
not learnable as such, but most be deduced from the results.
I've never had a teacher that taught a book from beginning
>to end. WE'VE never learned anything from just one book. When we
>tackle a new subject, we go and get everything we can find on it, and
>use them all! When I started learning C++ last winter, I found myself
>skipping back and forth between no fewer than 7 different books,
>because none of them explained everything adequately or in the right
>order for ME.
The programming books I have seen assume that only methods can be
learned, and do their best to see that to the user the computer is
only a black box.
But I do not believe that a good teacher will follow a book, in
any case. The book is for the details; ideas are rarely presented
well in books.
The library is a good place to learn things, not because
>there are too many books, but because you can so easily discard a book
>that's not working and grab another. There is never enough information
>from one book or one person. That's what was so frustrating for us
>about school. If the textbook or the teacher did not make sense, you
>were out of luck. The "guidance" of a teacher or mentor or parent can
>be stifling to an eccentric learner...
To give an example, someone goes into a library and reads a book about
transplant surgery. Now what is needed to understand that? It is not
just a matter of filling in a few holes; that may suffice for the one
who only wants a layman's understanding.
Many are taught statistical methods courses. If you have been started
in that way, I hope you never use them. You need at least a good
understanding of high school algebra, which can be given much earlied,
and a semester of probability and the mathematization of decision
making to understand it, and it is harder to acquire this after the
usual methods courses.
First grade teachers of reading need to understand the English language,
and first grade teachers of anything in mathematics need at least to
understand the structure of the integers. The prospect is highly
pessimistic that they can.
Julie A.Pascal
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> --
> Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
> automatic mailers.
>
> <5cqi3m$g...@news.vt.com>...
(...)
>
> You totally miss the point, which is par from the course on USENET. Or
> maybe you make it. You state that one should not read a boring book if one
> has no reason for wanting to know the contents. The child in question will
> agree with you. But unless the child already has an interest in physics
> (which he doesn't, because he doesn't know anything about it, because the
> first book he picked up which dealt with physics was the aforementioned
> title which bored him out of his gourd) he is not going to look through
> every physics book in the library trying to find one that doesn't bore him.
> This is one area in which an adult mentor is needed. To point the student
> at starting points that will feed his interest instead of killing it.
> >
> > Since they won't do it voluntarily, what do you think are the
> > consequences of forcing people to read boring books they have no use for?
>
> Who said anything about forcing people to read boring books they have no
> use for? But if the child is just running around the library without plan
> or purpose, then why should the child read _any_ physics book if the
> child's first look at physics does not cause him to develop some interest
> in physics?
>
This is the context where I feel the subject of "Subjects" is
important. _Nothing_ exists in isolation outside a classroom.
A child may be put off by that first Physics book but they will
not be able to avoid Physics in any case. Whatever first catches
their interest will lead to other things. A child interested in
people will eventually come across Physicists. A child interested
in technology will eventually come across Physics itself. Better
yet, it will probably be in context.
In "school" Physics isn't a required class anyway (exceptions?)
so it is easy enough for students in school to avoid.
I think there is also some confusion as to the source of
interest in this hypothetical senario. The love of learning
and the need to know don't come from the books, they come
from the students.
j.pascal
Julie A.Pascal
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> --
> Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
> automatic mailers.
>
> > Jaelle wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere. There are few
> > > fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
> > > a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
> > > still extremely sophisticated. Kids who are left to their own devices
> > > are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
> > > --
> > > Jaelle
> >
> > areas of study into "subjects" was unnatural.
> >
> > What I was trying to get at was exactly what Jaelle has said.
> >
> > "Subjects" overlap. They interact and affect each other. It
> > is only in a classroom where "Math" and "Science" or even "Sociology"
> > have a wall of separation built between them.
>
> math. The opposite also sometimes occurs. But that does not make them the
> same.
I didn't say they were the "same."
They affect each other. They do not exist in isolation.
Except perhaps, as Herman said, Mathematics. Someone starting in
Math may not be drawn to other areas of study but I can see almost
any other area of study involving Math at some point.
>
> > Some things have
> > more in common than others, but nothing exists exclusive from
> > the rest.
>
> A nice notion, but much oversimplified. The degrees of overlap are
> vanishingly small in many cases.
"Overlap" was a poor choice of words on my part. I did add the
statement "They interact and affect each other." Any study of history
deeper than date memorizing will show how science has affected history.
A study of the civil war (or any war) can lead to Math. Cannon
fire was accurate to how far? Miles I think. That takes Math.
(Or at least calculation.) Discovering America takes navigation.
Astronomy and calculation.
I liked the series (I saw it on PBS) called "Connections" where
the fellow took us all the way from linen underpants to nuclear
bombs. (Or something similarly unlikely.) The religious requirement
for prayer at certain intervals motivated Monks to develop
time keeping devices which led to...and on and on. Nothing exists
in isolation.
>
> > Separating knowledge into unrelated "subjects" seems to me
> > to be an excellent way of ensuring that children are _not_
> > able to determine what is important. How can they when everything
> > is taken out of context?
>
> How do you teach IN context without first teaching the context?
Try not taking it out of context to begin with.
j.pascal
Victor Smith
On 29 Jan 1997 08:33:52 -0500, hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
wrote:
>In article <32ed5ca3...@news.zippo.com>,
>Jaelle <jae...@ois.lemuria.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:51:52 -0500, James W Walden
>><jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> The most
>prevalent philosophy of learning concepts believes that concepts are
>not learnable as such, but most be deduced from the results.
>First grade teachers of reading need to understand the English language,
>and first grade teachers of anything in mathematics need at least to
>understand the structure of the integers. The prospect is highly
>pessimistic that they can.
If I follow you, than how can I learn to wipe my bum when its so hard
to see? Victor
J. Clarke
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.
Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
<32ED46...@pascal.org>...
> Jaelle wrote:
>
> >
> > If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere. There are few
> > fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
> > a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
> > still extremely sophisticated. Kids who are left to their own devices
> > are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
> > --
> > Jaelle
>
> In a separate post I said (quite badly actually) that separating
> areas of study into "subjects" was unnatural.
>
> What I was trying to get at was exactly what Jaelle has said.
>
> "Subjects" overlap. They interact and affect each other. It
> is only in a classroom where "Math" and "Science" or even "Sociology"
> have a wall of separation built between them.
Sociology is supposed to _be_ a science. And yes, science is affected by
math. The opposite also sometimes occurs. But that does not make them the
same.
> Some things have
> more in common than others, but nothing exists exclusive from
> the rest.
A nice notion, but much oversimplified. The degrees of overlap are
vanishingly small in many cases.
> Separating knowledge into unrelated "subjects" seems to me
> to be an excellent way of ensuring that children are _not_
> able to determine what is important. How can they when everything
> is taken out of context?
How do you teach IN context without first teaching the context?
>
>
> j.pascal
>
>
>
J. Clarke
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.
Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
<32ED0B...@pascal.org>...
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to
defeat
> > automatic mailers.
> >
> > Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
>
> > > Perhaps not. But frankly, all children are not in need of becomming
> > > physicists. But I don't think the question was ever whether turning
> > > children
> > > loose in the library was _best_. But children _will_ learn that way.
> > > And they'll learn a lot.
> >
> > No, all children are not in need of becoming physicists. But they are
in
> > need of knowing that there is something called "physics" and what it is
and
> > how it works and a little of what it tells us. And if the first book
they
> > pick up in the physics section of the library is, say, "The Fundamental
> > Principles of Quantum Mechanics With Elementary Applications" they are
> > probably going to decide immediately that there is nothing of interest
in
> > that section of the library.
>
> This is ridiculous. But it is understandable. If you judge home
> school methods by the prevailing attitudes of students who have
> been trained by a traditional classroom to avoid learning and otherwise
> look for reasons to give up the results will be inaccurate, to say
> the least.
This is not "ridiculous" at all. Give a kid a boring book and he's going
to get bored. And if his first exposure to physics is a boring book, then
he's going to assume that all physics books are boring and without some
further incentive he's not going to pick up another physics book. Why
would anyone voluntarily read a boring book if they didn't have to and
didn't have a reason for wanting to know the contents?
>
> So, you think that a child would "probably" give up because of the
> first book they pick up in the Library? Why should they?
Because they were bored out of their gourd by the three paragraphs that
they understood?
> > What they'll end up is a fair academic knowledge of stuff that
interests
> > them, probably with considerable specialization in some area, and with
> > absolutely no knowledge in other areas that they found to be "boe-rING"
but
> > which may be of considerable future importance to them.
>
> The separation of "Subjects" isn't natural.
Who said anything about "subjects"?
> It's a function of
> the necessity of classroom education itself. Also, without
> the constant reminder from peers that anything academic is "boe-rING"
> they will at least approach new "subjects" with an open mind.
Why would there be no constant reminder from their peers? Are you going to
isolate them from other children now?
In any case, again, nobody but YOU said anything about "subjects".
Incidentally, if they don't think in terms of "subjects" they are never
going to find anything in a library.
>
> > Yes, it's better than nothing, but the same claim can be made of the
public
> > schools. It is certainly not _good_.
>
> It's better than a traditional peer-dominated classroom because
> a child's love of learning will not be systematically destroyed.
> I said...
That's your opinion.
> > > > > I doubt anyone whould say that setting a child loose in a library
is
> > > > > _ideal_ just that it is better than confining them to a desk.
> > >
>
> (...)
> > > How do you? I could "assign" any number of "important" subjects to
> > > my children, make them memorize it, give them at test, and at 30
> > > they'll probably remember about as much as I do.
> >
> > I know what is important because I have used it in the thirtysomething
> > years of life that I have lived that the child has not, discharging the
> > various duties and responsibilities that the child may not even be
aware
> > _exist_. And so have you. If you don't have any knowledge of the
subject
> > at 30 then it probably isn't truly important. But could you, at 10,
have
> > predicted what you need to know at 30?
>
> How can I predict what I need to know at 60?
Because what you _need_ to know at 60 should be pretty much the same as
what you needed to know at 30. Unless you are expecting a nuclear war or
something to happen which will change society so radically that the skills
necessary to live and work in it will change completely.
>
>
> > So what? What does the methodology used by homeschoolers or
"unschoolers"
> > have to do with the notion that teaching a child to read, write, and do
> > arithmetic, then turning that child loose in the libary and doing
nothing
> > else is a valid method of education?
>
> It has to do with assuring you that it is very unlikely that
> home schooled children will be limited to the library.
So what? We were discussing a pedagogical method, not the statistical
distribution of teaching methods among homeschoolers.
> On the other hand, if natural curiosity has not been destroyed
> teaching a child to read, write and do arithmetic and then making
> sure they have access to a good library is likely a very valid
> method of education.
Likely? One could say that just about anything is "likely a very valid
method of education". That doesn't make it so.
> > > So explain to me the "relevance" of the fact that children are not
> > > taken seriously.
> >
> > How can someone who is not being taken seriously get a straight answer?
>
> Please read some of the posts where parents have testified to
> the experience their children have had with being taken seriously.
> Some adults are jerks, but I will not dictate my life because of
> them. (Or shelter my children by taking them out of the real
> world.)
Or some children got lucky.
> Perhaps dealing with adults, jerks or otherwise, is an invaluable
> aspect of socialization.
Perhaps it is. But socialization has no relevance to education, and in any
case one is not going to become socialized sitting a library reading books.
> I'd rather have my children develop
> some assertiveness in the search for information than convince
> myself that something important is gained by making them sell
> cookies door to door or any of the other stupid ways we set our
> kids up for rejection.
And isn't dealing with rejection also important? Any successful salesman
will tell you it is. It's certainly as important as "socialization".
>
>
> > > Children are not taken seriously therefore we should...what?
> >
> > Have adults involved in their education.
>
> There is a difference between "involved" and "in charge." No
> one has said adults should not be involved.
The person who proposed that children should be turned loose in a library
and allowed to educate themselves implied this.
>
> j.pascal
>
--John
J. Clarke
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.
Jaelle <jae...@ois.lemuria.com> wrote in article
<32ed5aea...@news.zippo.com>...
> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:22:10 -0800, "Julie A.Pascal"
> <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>
> >James W Walden wrote:
> >
>
> >I've never tried to say that guidance doesn't help. I believe I
> >made a point of saying that turning a child loose without guidance
> >was not _ideal_. The form that guidance may take will vary from
> >parent to parent and from child to child. Turning a child loose in
> >the library is really the extreme from what someone or other suggested
> >which was that only elite proffessionals should have input into
> >curriculum
> >requirements.
> >
> There was an interesting little story in a Sunday supplement a year or
> so back. It involved a man who grew up in an extremely isolated rural
> area. His uncle and aunt didn't believe in sending a kid off to
> school, so they taught him to read and from then on he worked on the
> farm and in his uncle's hardware store. He liked reading and bought
> books at yard sales all over the place, and, out of curiousity,
> started following up the history of the time periods of the books he
> was reading. When he was in his late twenties, he decided to apply at
> a university (Tennessee or somplace like that) and they immediately
> placed him in a graduate degree placement. He's now a full professor
> there. I'd say that's pretty close to the "turning him loose in a
> library" situation.
So the educators who all you home-schoolers hate thought he was ready to
become one of them, and on this basis you claim that turning a kid loose in
a library is a good method of education. What's wrong with this picture?
> If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere.
Perhaps, but this example does not demonstrate that. It demonstrates that
he developed a lot of knowledge in a narrow field, just as I said.
> There are few
> fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
> a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
> still extremely sophisticated.
I see. So physics covers literature? Or does literature cover physics?
> Kids who are left to their own devices
> are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
Nope. They are quick at figuring out what they _want_. How do they know
what an adult is going to _need_?
> --
> Jaelle
>
J. Clarke
--
Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
automatic mailers.
John Leslie <jo...@handel.jlc.net> wrote in article
<5cmf20$g...@handel.jlc.net>...
> James W Walden <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You can pick up books until you find one that you can understand and
> > learn what's in that book. However, this method is the problem that
> > I and the orignal poster are addressing because it does leave you with
> > holes in your knowledge (and worse, you're often not aware of them).
>
> Does this not suggest that the most important thing to learn might
> be how to _become_ aware of these holes in your knowledge?
Care to suggest a methodology?
>
> --
> John Leslie <jo...@jlc.net>
>
Canimal
"J. Clarke" <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
<snip>
(context clue: below, j. is arguing that kids should NOT guide their own
learning, because they might bump into something hard or boring. I think
he hasn't thought this out very thoroughly.)
>This is not "ridiculous" at all. Give a kid a boring book and he's going
>to get bored. And if his first exposure to physics is a boring book, then
>he's going to assume that all physics books are boring and without some
>further incentive he's not going to pick up another physics book. Why
>would anyone voluntarily read a boring book if they didn't have to and
>didn't have a reason for wanting to know the contents?
One might reasonably ask why they should. Masochism, perhaps.
Since they won't do it voluntarily, what do you think are the
consequences of forcing people to read boring books they have no use for?
Do you know that most high school students are horrified at the thought
of learning physics, usually without any real idea of what they are
avoiding? Do you know that many, probably most high school students hate
not just physics, not just science, but anything that they
identify with learning? I suspect you do, actually. Does it suggest
anything to you?
<snip>
The Mahoneys
>
> This is not "ridiculous" at all. Give a kid a boring book and he's going
> to get bored. And if his first exposure to physics is a boring book,
then
> he's going to assume that all physics books are boring and without some
> further incentive he's not going to pick up another physics book. Why
> would anyone voluntarily read a boring book if they didn't have to and
> didn't have a reason for wanting to know the contents?
>
Have you never looked at the texts used for physics in school?! Talk about
some boring books! How do you think so many kids get turned off of so many
subjects? Please, if you can, name a textbook for me that you enjoyed
reading for leisure.
Unfortunately, when you're made to do something, the odds are higher that
you won't enjoy it, and if you don't enjoy it, you're sure not going to be
motivated to learn more. You'll cram, take the test, and then core dump.
I hated calculus in college, because I had to do it. About a year ago, I
borrowed a calc book from the library and actually had fun with it (!) It
was also much easier doing it on my own (I had barely retained any of it
from school) - probably because I wasn't concentrating on grades anymore.
-Candace Mahoney
Mike Schneider
"J. Clarke" <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
> <32ED0B...@pascal.org>...
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > This is ridiculous. But it is understandable. If you judge home
> > school methods by the prevailing attitudes of students who have
> > been trained by a traditional classroom to avoid learning and otherwise
> > look for reasons to give up the results will be inaccurate, to say
> > the least.
>
> This is not "ridiculous" at all. Give a kid a boring book and he's going
> to get bored. And if his first exposure to physics is a boring book, then
> he's going to assume that all physics books are boring and without some
> further incentive he's not going to pick up another physics book. Why
> would anyone voluntarily read a boring book if they didn't have to and
> didn't have a reason for wanting to know the contents?
>
school library for a half hour where we were supposed to pick out a book
to read that week. The library has thousands of books, how am I to know
what to pick. Someone suggested reading some "fiction", well that
narrowed it down to about half the books. Anyway, I pick a book nearly at
random - I hated it, it was increadably boring. I tried another, also
increadably boring. Nearly every book I randomly picked was awful. Put
me off from reading nearly the next 20 years.
...(snip)...
> >
> > So, you think that a child would "probably" give up because of the
> > first book they pick up in the Library? Why should they?
>
> Because they were bored out of their gourd by the three paragraphs that
> they understood?
>
boring. There are an incredible number of authors who are really poor
writers. By my "random" samples, I think more than 50% of all writers
shouldn't be writing.
J. Clarke
Canimal <see...@cos.spamsux.com> wrote in article
<5cqi3m$g...@news.vt.com>...
> "J. Clarke" <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> (context clue: below, j. is arguing that kids should NOT guide their own
> learning, because they might bump into something hard or boring. I think
> he hasn't thought this out very thoroughly.)
>
> >This is not "ridiculous" at all. Give a kid a boring book and he's
going
> >to get bored. And if his first exposure to physics is a boring book,
then
> >he's going to assume that all physics books are boring and without some
> >further incentive he's not going to pick up another physics book. Why
> >would anyone voluntarily read a boring book if they didn't have to and
> >didn't have a reason for wanting to know the contents?
>
> One might reasonably ask why they should. Masochism, perhaps.
You totally miss the point, which is par from the course on USENET. Or
maybe you make it. You state that one should not read a boring book if one
has no reason for wanting to know the contents. The child in question will
agree with you. But unless the child already has an interest in physics
(which he doesn't, because he doesn't know anything about it, because the
first book he picked up which dealt with physics was the aforementioned
title which bored him out of his gourd) he is not going to look through
every physics book in the library trying to find one that doesn't bore him.
This is one area in which an adult mentor is needed. To point the student
at starting points that will feed his interest instead of killing it.
>
> Since they won't do it voluntarily, what do you think are the
> consequences of forcing people to read boring books they have no use for?
Who said anything about forcing people to read boring books they have no
use for? But if the child is just running around the library without plan
or purpose, then why should the child read _any_ physics book if the
child's first look at physics does not cause him to develop some interest
in physics?
> Do you know that most high school students are horrified at the thought
> of learning physics, usually without any real idea of what they are
> avoiding?
So what? We were not discussing "most high school students". We were
discussing a hypothetical child who having been taught to read, write, and
do arithmetic, was turned loose in a library in the hope that this would
result in his "becoming educated".
> Do you know that many, probably most high school students hate
> not just physics, not just science, but anything that they
> identify with learning? I suspect you do, actually. Does it suggest
> anything to you?
Nothing that is relevant to the notion that turning a child loose in a
library with no guidance or supervision will result in his "becoming
educated".
>
> <snip>
>
> Matt
> can...@amber.vt.com
>
>
>
J. Clarke
James W Walden <jw...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<0mvawl200...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
> Excerpts from netnews.misc.education.science: 27-Jan-97 Re: School
> Control (was Re:.. by "J. Clarke"@ibm.net
> > > Quarks are not a prediction of quantum theory. The concept of quarks
> > arose
> > > out of the attempt to explain the hadron spectrum using SU(3)
symmetry
> > but
> > > for the most part were considered a useful mathematical concept and
not
> > as
> > > anything real until Feynman explained the results of deep inelastic
> > > scattering experiments with partons (quarks and gluons).
> >
> > First off, if SU(3) symmetry is not a part of quantum theory, then what
is
> > it?
>
> It's a part of group theory. The discovery that hadrons fit the pattern
> of SU(3) symmetry is much like the discovery of the pattern of the
Periodic
> Table and hence has no dynamics (quantum mechanics or quantum field
theory)
> in it.
I see. So it is a purely mathematical construct then. Sounds like _theory_
to me.
> > Second off, what is the "major revision" that resulted? Did we dump
> > general relativity or something?
>
> The realization that neutrons and protons were not the fundamental
> constituents of nuclei was quite a major change.
Depends on how you define "major". Compared to quantum mechanics or
electromagnetic theory, it seems pretty minor to me.
>
> > > Quantum
> > > chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, wasn't created until
> > > around 1970.
> >
> > So? How is this a "major revision"? Are you contending that the
strong
> > force was previously unknown? This is refinement, not "major
revision".
>
> It's as major a revision as Einstein's revision of gravitation was.
> Einstein knew that gravity existed (so did Newton, for that matter,
> who wasn't the first to use the 1/r^2 force), but does that make
> their explanations unimportant?
I'm sorry, but "important" and "major" are not synonyms. The discovery of
the laser is "important" but it is not a "major revision".
> > > The electroweak theory is also a product of the last
> > > forty years (in 1956, I think they were still using Fermi's
four-point
> > > interaction theory of the weak force).
> >
> > So? Is this again "major revision"? Hint--take "Principia
Mathematica" as
> > an exemplar of a "major revision". Then tell me that by that standard
any
> > of the items you have listed are "major".
>
> Yes, no question about it. The electroweak theory was the first working
> unified field theory, provided us with an understanding of the weak force
> that is as improved over previous understandings as Newton's physics was
> over Galileo's, and provided us with the important concept of spontaneous
> symmetry breaking.
>
> > > The Standard Model, depending
> > > on both of these theories as it does, of course also later.
> >
> > And in what way is the Standard Model a _MAJOR_ revision of thinking?
>
> The Standard Model is fairly comparable to the _Principia_ in that it
> drew together previous understandings of physics and meshed them together
> in a unified whole.
You ever _read_ Principia?
Jaelle
>So why wouldn't quality control/assurance work to catch Johnny not being
>able to read? Standards would have to be met for the student to advance
>to the next level.
>
We already have state standards in the schools--and most of the kids
can't read or write. So we apply those standards to our homeschooled
kids, who universally prove superior to the schooled kids already?
What are ya trying to do, ruin a good thing?
Herman Rubin
In article <01bc0e87$7bd40e80$5fd148a6@default>,
J. Clarke <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>--
>Send email to jcl...@ibm.net. The above address is incorrect to defeat
>automatic mailers.
>Julie A.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in article
><32ED46...@pascal.org>...
>> Jaelle wrote:
>> > If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere. There are few
>> > fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
>> > a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
>> > still extremely sophisticated. Kids who are left to their own devices
>> > are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
>> In a separate post I said (quite badly actually) that separating
>> areas of study into "subjects" was unnatural.
>> What I was trying to get at was exactly what Jaelle has said.
>> "Subjects" overlap. They interact and affect each other. It
>> is only in a classroom where "Math" and "Science" or even "Sociology"
>> have a wall of separation built between them.
>Sociology is supposed to _be_ a science. And yes, science is affected by
>math. The opposite also sometimes occurs. But that does not make them the
>same.
Science USES mathematics. To some extent, the mathematics studied is
driven by the uses desired in science. Mathematics, however, is self
contained.
>> Some things have
>> more in common than others, but nothing exists exclusive from
>> the rest.
>A nice notion, but much oversimplified. The degrees of overlap are
>vanishingly small in many cases.
Is there ever overlap? It is that one piece of knowledge is used in
another. It is application, not transfer.
>> Separating knowledge into unrelated "subjects" seems to me
>> to be an excellent way of ensuring that children are _not_
>> able to determine what is important. How can they when everything
>> is taken out of context?
>How do you teach IN context without first teaching the context?
There is the educationist viewpoint that concepts are only learned
as generalizations. This keeps the concepts from being learned.
Students, and even scholars, get misconceptions from having concepts
ONLY used in a limited manner. This is what happens from the so-called
integrated courses. The subjects get confused. Mathematics is not a
single subject, and some parts get applied in others.
Herman Rubin
In article <01bc0e86$d92f6620$5fd148a6@default>,
J. Clarke <&&&jcl...@ibm.net> wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it, IF the relevant material can be found. Someone
looking for histories of ancient time periods is quite likely to find
understandable material, and as there are conflicting accounts for just
about any time period, the progress in understanding it will be an
appreciable fraction of what a well-guided one would be.
>> If you follow an interest, it will lead you everywhere.
>Perhaps, but this example does not demonstrate that. It demonstrates that
>he developed a lot of knowledge in a narrow field, just as I said.
Even in a narrow field, this may not be the case. It would be very
difficult for someone to learn basic mathematics in the most libraries,
even with guidance. I know; I learned much, not much of it basic, from
the Chicago Public Library, which is quite good, and the John Crerar
Library, which is very strong in the sciences. Do not jump to the
conclusion that I did not learn anything else.
>> There are few
>> fields that don't cover almost all the ground considered necessary for
>> a well-rounded education, and those that are relatively narrow are
>> still extremely sophisticated.
>I see. So physics covers literature? Or does literature cover physics?
Which literature? As taught, literature is mainly philosophical
propaganda.
>> Kids who are left to their own devices
>> are very quick at figuring out what they need and how to get it.
>Nope. They are quick at figuring out what they _want_. How do they know
>what an adult is going to _need_?
How can they even figure out what they want? I was ready for what
mathematicians call basic mathematics, and would have jumped at it,
but it was not until I saw it later that I even knew it existed.
And I would have liked to learn physics first from a book assuming
the necessary mathematics for a high-level course, but I am doubt
that such books are at all easy to find; colleges do not use them.
I learned far more from the library than from school, and there was
not even fair guidance available. I could have used that guidance
years earlier. At best, the process is very inefficient.