My greatest failure as a parent was allowing my children to attend public schools. They are both wonderful adults and I owe that to the fact that their mother and I made the necessary course corrections to counter the BS they were being taught. Our educational system is the primary reason we have entered the age of entitlement. God help us.............
I have two boys, and my fear is that I will not be able to teach them everything they will need for a ROBUST education while homeschooling. But regardless of my own fears, if I can teach them math and the English language, and I teach them a love of learning and a respect for truth, then they will have enough. I hope.
BAH! That comment didn't do any justice to how I actually feel.
When the State comes in and demands that I turn over my children, as their "education" is inadequate, on that day they'll be crossing the line. I don't think I need to write what it would mean, should that happen.
But more to the point, how in the hell did we ever get to the place where I'm forced to consider ways to defend my family from the State because I don't want them taught Socialism?
Way back when my eldest son was about seven years old he asked me, "Daddy, what is the government?" I responded after a few seconds thought. "The government is a giant octopus with extremely long tenacles that are always trying to get into your pockets".
A day or so later he tells me he told his teacher what I told him and that she got very upset with him. I then told him to tell the teacher your dad gave you more information about the government. "Tell her the government also places it's tenacles around the neck of those who do not obey the government".
He told his teacher the new information and I became a "rogue parent" in her eyes. My wife and I attended all school functions and were always sneered at my the 'propagandists'.
Moving to a state with "right to homeschool" - check.
Private schools nearby if need be - check.
Small elementary school in which we can become heavily involved - check.
We have many options for the education of our kids, and we are paying attention to what gets taught. If need be, we'll pull the kids out of school and teach them ourselves.
Not every parent has those options, but every parent should do what they can to make sure their kids are properly educated.
A word on the adjective "critical," as used here. It does not mean the same as, for example, "critical thinking."
This is a standard adjective that can be appended to the title of any field of research (for example, critical ethnography). It indicates, as in this case, that the main role of the researcher is to criticize existing institutions and lay bare their roots in oppression. Practitioners are encouraged to blur the line between dispassionate research and full-throated activism.
Now, that by itself would not necessarily be a bad thing—if the institutions under attack were actually tyrannical. The problem is that critical theory's premises are taken lock, stock, and barrel from various mutant half-breeds of Marxism. This guarantees that critical theorists will attack precisely those institutions that are most valuable, even while they neglect the truly monstrous.
It gets very tiring rebutting these poltroons in my grad school classes, let me tell you.
It's a good thing I have the day off today. What a load of lying bullshit. And further proof of ridiculous paranoia. As usual, you start with your belief and then succumb to confirmation bias.
Kevin, do you want to know what the academic standards are in Minnesota? Check the source.
Take your time and read the standards. All of them. After that, if you still have objections...based on actual facts, we can talk. Using Katherine Kersten as a fucking source is laughable and especially disappointing for someone like you whom I consider to be intelligent.
Make no mistake-I have no problem with complaints about our nation's education system. There are plenty of faults to be found. I also have no problem at all with home schooling. Class sizes are too large anyway. And I certainly have no problem with harsh criticism of teachers and their policies. I have stated several times on this blog that many teachers are lazy and tenure should re-formatted if not ejected from the capsule all together.
The beginning of this post reminds me of the Steve Carrell line from "Bruce Almighty."
Is your child in DIRE JEOPARDY????!!!?? Find out more after the game...
These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever. They don't even accurately address the actual problems. In essence, they sum up an emotional reaction--one that typifies the right these days--comprised solely of hate, anger and fear combined with a complete lack of factual foundation.
"These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever."
Kevin might not say it but I will: Resign. A zero (your absence from the school) sure beats the existing negative (your presence in the classroom).
Of course, I am estimating your value in the classroom on the basis of your posts here at TSM. Maybe they give the wrong picture. Maybe you actually _are_ a good teacher.
And maybe unicorn farts smell like roses. I hear tell anything is possible.
"If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way."
Bullshit, Markadelphia. The FACTS are that "Critical Pedagogy" IS being taught to future teachers, and people like Ayers are its source. The fact is that the majority of our schools are FAILING to instruct students on the fundamentals, and instead focusing on PRECISELY what is described in that piece.
And the FACT is, you serve as a perfect, unthinking example of the result of this decades-long attack on the public education system, and I thank you for it. I could not ASK for a better one.
My little sister (poor thing is a Milwaukee Public Schools teacher - trying to escape) had to read a bunch of course material on this subject at UWM for her Masters Degree while in the program that involves her teaching in MPS at the same time. That would be a major US university's education program and a major US city's education system working together to further this concept.
Troll, you're full of shit as usual, but won't let us stop you. Kevin, it's about time for you to start taking Thomas Sowell's advice and just start deleting his idiocy before we're all subjected to it.
As usual, you start with your belief and then succumb to confirmation bias.
As usual, Mark kant reed.
I certainly have no problem with harsh criticism of teachers and their policies.
Unless, you know, you criticize teachers or their policies.
These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever. They don't even accurately address the actual problems.
You just disagreed with yourself. Again.
If they don't serve a "purpose" - and that's very arguable - then they shouldn't be presenting "concrete solutions". (Plus, even to take what you meant to say, they don't *HAVE* to. I can say the system is broken, and not worth fixing, and not have to give you a fix to have a valid opinion.)
So obviously they do have a purpose. Even you admit it. Even you admit to massive problems - but then you excoriate (I'll wait while you look that up) us when we point them out, and insist that that's not the problem.
So in that case, explain to us what IS the problem and how did we get here?
And yes, Mark, Critical Pedagogy is taught in the .edu courses I'm familiar with.
Again, you're objecting to the facts, and trying to have your own.
"If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way."
--Mastiff, November, 2009
Well, then.
If you've got the ability to give quotes, you won't mind going back and citing the "quote" of DJ's that you claimed the other day.
Typical Marxy. When someone points out something damaging to your ideology, stop looking as soon as you find a source you don't like and invoke the Genetic Fallacy.
Too bad he didn't follow the links back to the original Teacher Education Redesign Initiative document produced by the University of Minnesota. (The link is to Google's HTML translation of the UoM's MS Word document. The original document is linked at the top of the page.) If he had, he wouldn't have looked like a fool by demonstrating his own confirmation bias. (Aww, who am I kidding? He demonstrates this with nearly every single post!)
Marxy, that link you posted was to standards shown to PARENTS about what their CHILDREN are supposedly being taught. This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
For example:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."
…and…
"Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following: · myth of meritocracy in the United States · historical connections between scientific racism, intelligence testing, and assumptions of fixed mental capacity · alternative explanations for mobility (and lack of it) · history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values · history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology"
Typical Marxy. When someone points out something damaging to your ideology, stop looking as soon as you find a source you don't like and invoke the Genetic Fallacy.
Too bad he didn't follow the links back to the original Teacher Education Redesign Initiative document produced by the University of Minnesota. (The link is to Google's HTML translation of the UoM's MS Word document. The original document is linked at the top of the page.) If he had, he wouldn't have looked like a fool by demonstrating his own confirmation bias. (Aww, who am I kidding? He demonstrates this with nearly every single post!)
Marxy, that link you posted was to standards shown to PARENTS about what their CHILDREN are supposedly being taught. This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
For example:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."
…and…
"Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following: · myth of meritocracy in the United States · historical connections between scientific racism, intelligence testing, and assumptions of fixed mental capacity · alternative explanations for mobility (and lack of it) · history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values · history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology"
Echo's a new "service". That uses the Haloscan engine. But is totally different. .... Hey, just teling you what the support says.
Apparently, they bought Haloscan... but not the servers it was running on. And when the servers started having issues, they had to swap onto Echo before it was ready. (Even though it was a year and half behind schedule.) You know how that goes.
So apparently, the plan was to take some basic Haloscan code, turn it into a "social network" (being the latest buzzword) and get miiiiiiillions in VC. (Apparently, the last part is proving rather problematic).
I understand the concerns about the education system, and I've seen a few examples with my own children, but as far as I'm concerned, their education does not stop when the school bell rings. My wife and I are pretty confident that so far, we are by far the primary influence in their lives. (I'm sure that may all change once they hit their teen years, but then I'll have to sweat their peers rather than their teachers). I have no problem explaining to my children when their teachers are wrong and explaining why. If I ever feel as though it's getting out of control, then I reserve the right to homeschool.
Kevin S., you would be correct in pointing out that your family is the primary agency of socialization in your child's life. The other ones would be schools, community, peer group and the mass media. By far, the family is the most influential and one of the main reasons why we are seeing a failure to educate the youth of our nation is the breakdown of this primary agency of socialization. To put it simply, many parents suck.
J***s F***ing C****t. Marxy, Kevin S said. "I understand the concerns about the education system, and I've seen a few examples with my own children, but as far as I'm concerned, their education does not stop when the school bell rings."
He did not talk about socializing his children.
Schools do not exist to "Socialize" children. Schools exist to educate children. Schools serve no other purpose. They exist to educate.
Our schools have been failing at an increasing rate to meet this primary function thanks to educational curriculae which concentrate on nonsense like "Socializing".
KEVIN. I understand why you keep Marxy here. That comment hijacking was so clumsy as to have been amusing. Or, at least it would have been amusing, had it been in jest. Which it was obviously not. At the very least, with someone like Marxy to sound off, we'll never be at a loss as to understanding the true intentions of the hard Left.
Yes, Kevin, I followed the links. And yes, I read all that you have provided. The simple fact is that you are wrong. This is not what teachers are being taught in schools nor is it what they ultimately teach. This is Glenn Beck land, my friend, and I think it's really sad and a fucking shame.
In MN, we teach to the standards provided to us by MDE. This is how we are taught to instruct. Have YOU gone and read them yet? Here is an example of one.:
IV Historical Skills
A. Historical Inquiry The student will analyze historical evidence and draw conclusions
1. Students will understand the use of secondary sources to provide background and insights on historical events, and that secondary sources might reflect author's bias.
2. Students will indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
3. Students will compare and contrast primary sources to analyze first hand accounts of historical events and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
"Using Katherine Kersten as a fucking source is laughable and especially disappointing for someone like you whom I consider to be intelligent." (emphasis added)
"This is Glenn Beck land, my friend, and I think it's really sad and a fucking shame."
Member what Sarah said about this style of argument a while back?
4. Students will review primary and secondary sources and compare and contrast their perspectives to shape their persentation of information relevant to their research topic.
5. Students will understand the historical context of their research topic and how it was influenced by, or influenced other historical events.
6. Students will evaluate alternative interpretations of their research topic and defend of change their analysis by citing evidence from primary and secondary sources.
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT. Our state prides itself on learner centered intstruction. In fact, many states now teach to the standard and grade based on the studen't understanding of that standard. This standard is also typical of how we, as instructors, are taught to value critical thinking. I can assure you that instructors who do not adhere to this model will not be teachers for long. I've seen it happen several times.
So, no, Kevin, our classrooms are not filled with Marxist/domestic terrorists brainwashing our children. That idea is yet another nauseating example of someone (KK et al) trying to sell a newspaper to a very easily manipulated group of people. Clearly, she has never been near an actual classroom. Nor have the authors of your links. Sadly, it seems, neither have you. I suggest going to one for a few days to see how horribly wrong you are and perhaps at that point we can have a reasonable discussion about the ACTUAL problems we face in terms of education.
Yes, Kevin, I followed the links. And yes, I read all that you have provided. The simple fact is that you are wrong.
Ed already dealt with this, and you didn't deal with what he said:
ED: This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
What did you talk about?
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT.
At no point did you in any way disprove the report of critical pedagogy. Either you don't understand the original article (Which I'd be willing to bet money on) AND/or you're refusing to accept what it means.
You've waved your hands and said "LOOKAPONY!"
It's almost like... you've done this before.
"That idea is yet another nauseating example of someone (KK et al) trying to sell a newspaper to a very easily manipulated group of people."
"I suggest going to one for a few days to see how horribly wrong you are and perhaps at that point we can have a reasonable discussion about the ACTUAL problems we face in terms of education."
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am and how stupid you are."
At no point did you in any way disprove the report of critical pedagogy.
I gave it the credence it was due which was to ignore its assertions which are grounded in nonsensical fear mongering.
Unix, adhering to standards is how teachers are taught in EDU programs especially in light of high stakes assessment. Being taught how to center the learning around the student is another focal point in how teachers are taught. From here, we get into instructional strategies that have to be innovative if one is to achieve any sort of success in the year 2010. An example of how Kevin could address an actual problem in our country's education system would be to ponder the following:
Mr. Smith has been teaching History for 30 years. His preferred method of instruction is lecture. In the last 10 years or so, he has noticed that his ESL student population has increased and test scores have gone down. He refuses to adjust his pedagogy much to the complaints of many students who have difficulty understanding him. In addition, several other students (non-ESL) have trouble focusing for his 90 minute block and wonder if some group work or audio-visual learning could be beefed up in to the lessons. Mr. Smith takes issue with these suggestions and insist that his students learn the way he learned. After all, his first few years of teaching, the students learned this way without issue. Mr. Smith has tenure.
You are the administrator...how can this issue be resolved?
Granted, this is a somewhat simplified version of a problem I see all the time but the basics remain. Situations like this are why we have students who aren't learning. The issues with pedagogy are not that instructors are being ordered to teach in the manner outlined in this ludicrous link. Instuctors aren't adapting to our changing culture and school districts are filled with small minded thinkers who quite honestly don't understand the youth of America at all.
"Pedagogy is defined as ‘the art or profession of teaching’."
"Sixteen of the top educational schools[teacher training schools] in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system."
Thus, most recently in Minnesota the agenda of radical teacher education came to light; The University of Minnesota redesigns teachers. Here is what the Univ. of Minnesota’s new teacher certification program requires:
Students [that is, teachers in training] are required to adopt “race, culture, class and gender” identity politics in order to be recommended for a teaching license.
Students [teachers in training] must accept that teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” is a major reason for many minority students performing poorly in Minnesota schools.
All prospective teachers have to meet 14 “outcomes”, as well as “assessment” methods to assure they had achieved the outcomes. The first outcome is typical: “Future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, hetero-normativity, and internalized oppression.”
Future teachers are required to subscribe to the prescribed ideology, “Every faculty member at our university that trains our teachers must comprehend and commit to the centrality of race, class, culture, and gender issues in teaching and learning, and then frame their teaching and course foci accordingly.”
From Kevin's original post:
"A quick Google on "critical pedagogy" brings up this link from the University of Denver School of Education." [i.e., teacher training]
From the portion I quoted from UoM's own document:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression." "Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following:"
(split because Echo is as good at math as Marxy: Apparently 2,822 is > 5,000 characters)
From Marxy's post:
"The student will analyze historical evidence and draw conclusions
1. Students will…
2. Students will…
3. Students will…
4. Students will…
5. Students will…
6. Students will…
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT."
I sense a common theme in YOUR comments: STUDENTS. Oddly, it's different than the theme in everyone else's posts and comments, as well as the ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS which prompted this thread: TEACHERS.
In other words, "Hey Look! A STUDENT/pony!" (SR#4)
Weren't you supposed to be proving me wrong about your ability to recognize what we write?
2. Students will indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
This is how we are taught to instruct."
Waitaminit.... isn't this precisely what you either declined to bother to do, or possibly weren't competent to do, concerning the sourcing of the recent AGW skepticism, Mr. History Teacher?
You know, Grumpy, I think he did evaluate the sources for "credibility and bias." He just measured them against his own ideology instead of time tested methods of scientific inquiry.
Not at all, GOF. I think all sources of AGW should be examined for credibility and bias. And, again, I'm not certain they are right. It's been my experience that theories evolve and change over time which is why I won't say with 100 percent certainty that AGW is valid. What I am wondering about is why a group of scientists (here) are nearly 100 percent certain that it is NOT happening. Shouldn't the same level of scrutiny be given to those skeptics as well? Example:
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute
included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.
We then go to a link which is a right wing blog. Within that blog is a link to another right wing blog (Powerline) which frames the U of M story, citing Mpls Star Tribune right wing columnist Katherine Kersten. Kersten was brought on board the Strib to boost sales and appeal to a certain demographic---yours. The U of M is one of many colleges in our state that has an EDU department. I wouldn't call them the "foremost" university for educating teachers. Interestingly, we see an ad for National University and obtaining a MA in Teaching and/or a NBCT certificate at the top of the Powerline blog.
We then go to a report, the likes of which I have never seen or heard of at all. I haven't heard any colleagues talk about this nor have I heard school districts around the seven county metro displaying this prominently as the FUTURE OF TEACHER EDUCATION or "WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS." Trying desperately to not land our shuttle on the OverReacto Planet, we see that Kevin has his quick google search, the first entry of which leads us to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy
Looks pretty basic to me. It's just another theory in a sea of theories regarding how teachers should teach their children. Seeing it in this context, I do recall some people talking about this here or there but most instructors I know are more focused on the gigantic pile of issues that confront them every day. The fact that this has been built up to be Godzilla destroying the townsfolk is laughable and predictable, considering that Kersten is the source.
Now, I have explained to you how I learned to be a teacher in the above comments. If you want to know how teachers are supposed to intstruct students, read the MDE web site. They are the ones that issue the licenses, not the U of M.
"…right wing blog… right wing blog… [right wing] demographic…"
Define "fallacy", as in Genetic fallacy. Even in your longer "explanation" you still stopped BEFORE you got to the ORIGINAL. SOURCE. DOCUMENTS. which proved that the statements made by the "right wing blog(s)" were, in fact, TRUE!!! I pointed this out several times already, and STILL you do it. You really don't get the reading comprehension thing, do you Vizinni? You just keep piling on the waste of time evidence.
"They are the ones that issue the licenses, not the U of M."
Okay, I checked on the licensing requirements. They're in a Word document titled Application Instructions and Checklist available here. Here's the money quote:
"Verification of a state-approved preparation program is required for applicants who have completed an approved college/university-based teacher or administrative licensure program. The applicant must have a Verification of Completion of State-Approved Licensure Program form completed by the certification officer or registrar at the college/university at which the preparation program was completed."
The prospective teachers MUST graduate from the teacher education programs, which includes UoM. Put another way, the University of Minnesota gets their say on who (among their own students) gets to become a teacher BEFORE the MDE even gets to see their license application.
Let's cut right through the BS shall we? Marko, do you or do you not agree with these tenets that Kevin posted as the basic ones of Critical Pedagogy Theory?
Some of the basic tenants of critical pedagogy are:
(My comments in parentheses)
ALL education is inherently political. (If it is we are truly screwed. Parents tend to get irate when their children are used as political pawns to advance an agenda)
A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education(Sounds good, but justice and equality means different things to different people. My idea of justice and equality would include instruction in the use of firearms)
Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression.(Maybe, so what. What does this really have to do with education.)
The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering(No it's not. Full stop)
Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures(What do they mean by blame? Does this mean that students should not be corrected for their mistakes or does it mean that failures should be ignored and the student allowed to continue with their mistake)
Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences(Don't really disagree with this one. It isn't the business of schools to judge students background. Hard to tell since this one is rather poorly worded.)
Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression(No it's not)
Education must promote emancipatory change (Nope!)
Also, do other educators agree that these are desirable?
Next:
Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system.
Is the above sentence is true or false. Evidence please.
Not at all, GOF. I think all sources of AGW should be examined for credibility and bias. And, again, I'm not certain they are right.
And yet stories on HotAir or Townhall that linked directly to the London Times, the Telegraph or the Guardian never got examined to see if the sources were credible. Even had you not trusted those newspapers you could have googled the sources listed on the original IPCC report. They would have led you to.... a journalist... an environmental activist. A remarkable shortage of actual climate scientists.
Talk is cheap, Mark. You can say all you want that you think _______, but when it came right down to it you declined to examine sources you disagreed with to see if they were right, and you declined to examine sources you agreed with to see if they were wrong. You just said so, right up there in this very thread.
So it *does* exist. You realize (rhetorically speaking) you've just refuted everything you've said prior to this. Either you were wrong then, or you are wrong now.
regarding how teachers should teach their children.
How about "The children in their classroom?" Amazingly, after 2 days, you've actually changed your entire tune - but without admitting your earlier mistakes - and are not minimizing the impact, and....
Seeing it in this context, I do recall some people talking about this here or there but
admitting that you have personal experience with it, despite your earlier dismissal of it's existence.
You haven't even started to think how this looks, do you? (Again, rhetorical, it's obvious that you don't.
most instructors I know are more focused on the gigantic pile of issues that confront them every day.
So it exists, and the original story is true, but the teachers are just too overworked to indoctrinate properly?
...
To quote Ed in the other thread, this shows more about you than us.
The fact that this has been built up to be Godzilla destroying the townsfolk is laughable and predictable, considering that Kersten is the source.
EVEN THOUGH YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT KERSTEN IS RIGHT AND YOU HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT.
And you are calling it "laughable" - despite it being true. Because of who reported it.
... What does this mean for anything you report?
Ed, did you check ALL of the license requirements and ALL of the different licenses? And both St. Thomas and St. Mary's (in addition to many others in the state) are MDE approved programs. Both are private schools. MDE also approves licenses for out of state universities. Many of my colleagues are from all over the country.
do you or do you not agree with these tenets that Kevin posted as the basic ones of Critical Pedagogy Theory?
No, I don't. And neither does..well...any teacher I know. I suppose teachers do not judge student's beliefs based on life experiences but that would mean, for example, that I shouldn't judge someone who thinks that homosexuals are going to burn in hell and should not be allowed equal rights. In fact, I had a student once who told me that he "hated fags" and wished they would be locked up for committing criminal acts. What could I say? Nothing. And that's how it should be.
Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system.
Is the above sentence is true or false. Evidence please.
Well, I didn't make the assertion...the folks at verum serum did. And, gosh what a shock, no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What are the names of the sixteen schools? How was it decided who were the "top" educational schools? Other than the U of M, where is the documentation to link CP to these universities? 16 out of how many? 100? I'd need to see their data before I could make a statement that this was "true" or "false."
The U of M is #21. Are any of these CP adherents? I think it's up to verum serum, powerline, and Katherine Kersten to prove this is the case.
What I find very interesting is, once again, we see a statement like this, with no factual backup whatsoever, accepted as fact by a group of scientists. Logic, critical thinking, and reasoning, indeed...
GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid. That means that we are looking at a 10 percent chance that it is wrong. I haven't declined to look at any unbiased source. The problem is that many here---not sure about you---think that any source that does NOT think climate change is a hoax is biased and should be discounted. This is the ol' "I don't like this so it must be liberal" meme which is quite tiresome. Show me a climate scientist's page that disagrees with AGW (and, of course, is not being funded by FOX News or the like) and I'd be more than happy to review it.
Mark, have you looked at the recent statements of Dr. Phil Jones, the inventor of the hockey-stick graph, who has finally admitted that the temperature change since 1995 is not actually statistically significant? See here:
As much as I hate to do so, I have to agree with Markadelphia on this much - sixteen schools of education? How many accredited colleges are there turning out teachers? Now, if all sixteen are graduate schools, turning out professors who will in turn produce accreditable teachers, that would be one thing. But I note that there is no list, no further qualification, just an asserted number. That shouldn't pass the sniff test.
For an alternative explanation of why our schools are failing, I suggest Peter Drucker. I recall him citing the failure of schools because they were given multiple (not necessarily compatible) goals - beyond merely educating children.
Mark, those are - or could be - interesting numbers about AGW.
I suggest you take a long, hard look at this and recalculate:
http://i.imgur.com/Jv12e.png
Mark, have you looked at the recent statements of Dr. Phil Jones, the inventor of the hockey-stick graph,
You've got him confused. That was Mann. Penn State. (Who's being investigated now for his academic honesty).
And he's what really blew this wide open, when he finally admitted some of his algorithm - and it turned out that any data put into it - including World Series Scores... turned into a "Hockey Stick."
I decided to go back to the article and check to see if that point was brought up there. It was. Here's what the author of that article has to say:
"The Renaissance Group mentioned in the post, is the source of the reference to the 16 top educational schools. The Renaisance Group is a consortium of American colleges who focus on Teacher Education programs.
A close look at the membership list on the RG website shows that aside from being excellent colleges and universities there is one common denominator—most of the schools have an added emphasis on Instructor Reform—Ayer’s area of expertise.
The Renaissance Group’s underlying message is a “rebirth of our nation’s schools… through the preparation of qualified educators.” Given Ayers prominence at the conference, that, at the least, implies agreement with his views.
As his major theme is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony (domination). Thus he reasons that the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.”
Pure Critical Pedagogy applied.
The University of Minnesota linked in my post is not part of the consortium, and further illustrates that many other colleges and Universities are heavily involved in promoting Critical Pedagogy’s Marxist assumptions."
Black Hills State University California State University, Fresno Emporia State University Frostburg State University Glenville State College Kean University Kennesaw State University Kentucky State University Longwood University MidAmerica Nazarene University Middle Tennessee State University Minnesota State University Mankato National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Northwest Missouri State University Saint Cloud State University Sonoma State University Southeast Missouri State University Tennessee State University The University of Toledo University of Central Missouri University of North Carolina Wilmington Valdosta State University Western Illinois University Western Kentucky University Western New Mexico University Western Washington University
Then there's this little gem quoted in the same comment:
"Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) “INTASC is an initiative of currently more than 35 states and professional organizations working to develop and implement standards for beginning teacher licensure. The goal [is] of having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006″…
INTASC and Social Transformation
“The notion of teachers as transformative intellectuals who engage in critical examination of self and society and action upon and within the society begs the question of whether a critical pedagogy is a realistic expectation of beginning teachers. If yes, then the subsequent question is whether standards, specifically the INTASC Core Principles, support such ideals in the pedagogy of beginning teachers. We contend that a critical pedagogy is a viable pedagogy for beginning teachers. Moreover, we argue the INTASC Core Principles can support a critical approach to teaching. Therefore, together, the two can build a strong foundation for beginning teachers that gives clear pragmatic expectations and a sound theoretical and philosophical perspective for beginning teaching that reflects social transformation.”"
I also found this gem of an exchange a little further down:
Matt:Typical anti-intellectualism by you loony right-wingers. You have no idea what you are even talking about, you ignorance is obvious to any education scholar or student and I hope you know we are all laughing at you. Go to college you moron.
Adobe Walls:Oh wow the eloquence of this argument I’m devastated. Did they tell you going to college would cure being a moron?
Thanks Ed, I missed that when I perused the article (and I admit to not reading it in the detail I probably should have).
Now, to the meat. In California the list includes two of the State Universities that produce teachers - Fresno which is a mild surprise and Sonoma which is no surprise at all. My alma mater (San Bernardino), which is held in very high regard for the teachers it produces (don't ask me why) is absent (thankfully). What it does NOT include is the UC system which produces the professors who will be teaching the teachers. No Berserkely, no Santa Cruz, no Riverside (where the Econ dept is/was famously leftist). That is a very interesting bit of data. I would really have expected this, to be legitimately regarded as a threat, to be centered in the prof-factories as opposed to the secondary institutes that actually produce teachers. If I was planning the great conspiracy to sap our national essence, I would start where my every output would be magnified (i.e. professors rather than teachers).
Honestly, to make a dent just in California you'd need a list of sixteen schools of education (and there are at least that many). Out of the hundreds, if not a thousand or more, colleges across the country - and clearly missing the most important - this really sounds like a tempest in a teapot. I imagine I could swing a dead cat in any meeting of the NEA and hit more leftists than this list suggests. I mean honestly, this is NOT the sixteen most influential education programs in the country - with only modest disrespect to the august institutions that ARE actually teaching this CP crap.
The problem is that many here---not sure about you---think that any source that does NOT think climate change is a hoax is biased and should be discounted.
Obviously. Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones? Where is the evidence in schools that CP is being adopted at the K-12 level? Show me some data beyond theoretical papers.
It's quite clear what is going on here. Anyone care to take a guess as to why KK "exposed" this "horror?"
Mastiff, yes. And that's why I'm not willing to say that theory is certainly valid. What do you think of Ronald Bailey's current position on global warming?
Juris, correct! American education is a mile wide and an inch deep...which is one reason why countries like China do better on test scores. Drucker was quite an interesting character.
Ed, do you honestly think that this list can be defined as "excellent" colleges? I can say with a fair amount of certainty that St. Cloud University would not be considered an elite organization dedicated to high level pedagogy.
Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones?
So you wouldn't have a problem with say, teaching that strongly was anti-abortion, since not all the children would become "anti-abortion drones"?
Sorry, Mark, you're failing so badly even you know it now. You started off laughing it off, saying it didn't exist, now you've admitted not only have you experienced it, but are trying to avoid the truth of what's happening, and where, and trying to minimize it - it doesn't matter if there "aren't many", the point is that it's too many if any - and you're trying to still say you were right in all your contradictory statements.
Show me some data beyond theoretical papers.
When we do that, you scream and wail that we "don't know" since we're not in the system and we're not allowed to judge it.
"Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones?"
I doubt it. But it's entirely reasonable to think that the percentages will be FAR higher by making that a requirement to graduate. (If you select for X, you tend to get X.)
"Where is the evidence in schools that CP is being adopted at the K-12 level?"
"Ed, do you honestly think that this list can be defined as "excellent" colleges?"
I don't know. I'm not familiar with most colleges. Then again, I'm not the one who made the claim. All I did was follow the trail to where the list was (something you should have been able to do yourself instead of simply denying that such a list existed), and copy it for you here.
I do notice that this list is 26 schools long, therefore it can include 10 less than excellent colleges (such as, per your assessment, St. Cloud) and still have 16 "excellent" colleges.
GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid. That means that we are looking at a 10 percent chance that it is wrong. I haven't declined to look at any unbiased source.
You haven't? Then how have you missed all this that those 'biased, lying right-wing smear sites' immediately linked to (meaning it was the first link off site)?
"Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation..." with the reference (Rowell and Moore, 2000). Any idea who Rowell and Moore are? Do you care?
"Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, Global Review of Forest Fires, WWE/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66pp."
So.... this "peer reviewed science" that is "90% certain" is actually the work of two advocacy groups, the WWF and the IUCN?
Written by who?
Rowell, A.
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=1321&v=192
"Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years' experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF."
And P.F. Moore:
http://www.ifmeg.com/CV/Dr%20Peter%20Moore.pdf
"Policy Analyst & Forest Fire Management Specialist"
Gee, where are the peer reviewed climate scientists who found out that "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation"?
It's called sourcing, Mark. And it's pretty sad that you, who are so proud of teaching students to "indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias" are apparently not competent to do this.
GOF, I think somewhere along the line I made a mistake in communication. I have no problem with any critical thinking in regards to any of these sources. In fact, I hope to see more of it. I'd like to see a large group of unbiased (that means not paid off by FoxNews) scientists take a look at climate change with a fine tooth comb. From one of your links above
There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
Honestly, that's not good enough for me. Think about what we knew about the Moon in the 1960s and what we know now. The same can be said for climate change. So, I do agree with you regarding having sensible doubts about AGW. Where we part ways is the confirmation bias that goes on with Glenn Beck et al. They aren't interested in science. They are interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves, and perpetuating the cult of "We are Never Wrong" and "Destroy the Left."
Speaking of destroying the left and back to the topic at hand, that's all this CP hysteria really is...another Goebbelsesque propaganda technique to increase the numbers of the rugged "individualist" cult. I use the term individualist as it is quite clear that this is becoming a collective.
Hold on there, I missed that there was a list. Ed graciously corrected my error.
Now, it isn't a very impressive list, nor does it appear representative of the truly leading schools of education. Nor am I inclined to anything that leans even a little conspiratorial (except of course when the NBA deprives the Lakers of the championship). I keed. Even the great AGW scam isn't a conspiracy to me.
All that said, I have no objection to holding CP up to scrutiny and ridicule, even in the small foothold it has. What I won't support is going off on a witch-hunt because a few schools teach an absurdity - the market-place of ideas will sort this out as chaff.
Nor am I inclined to anything that leans even a little conspiratorial.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said it was successful. It's one of those memes that just won't go away because it's so beautiful to those who believe that they should have more than they've got, and the reason for it must be that someone else is preventing them from having it.
Basically, it appeals to the poorer part of human nature.
. . . the market-place of ideas will sort this out as chaff.
There is where we disagree. You think it'll fade. It appear to me to be spreading, and I've already said why such ideas are appealing. How many children need to be exposed to these ideas for them to be socially destructive?
I'm going to quote Paul Rahe again, paraphrasing Montesquieu:
(Montesquieu) comes up with a political typology into republics, monarchies and despotisms, and monarchies are governments where you have a king, but his power is limited in one fashion or another - usually by a nobility. Despotism is unlimited power, and these operate on the basis of psychological principles. What drives a despotism is terror. What drives a monarchy is the sense of honor, the love of honor that elicits a certain kind of behavior from people. What's required in a republic is virtue. That's hard to achieve, because you have to train people in virtue and it doesn't come naturally or easy to us to prefer the public interest over the private interest.
You will admit, Juris, will you not, that CP is about as far from training for public virtue as you can get? Again, how many does it take? Isn't the Cloward-Piven strategy one of collapsing the present system by demanding everthing of it that can be demanded, and then insisting on more, because it owes you?
That meme predates Gramsci by only a few millenia: Thou shall not covet... Excellent example that human nature is not the mutable lump of clay that the modernists/progressives posit.
You think it is spreading, yet the evidence in your source is that it is identified with 16 not particularly distinguished schools of education. Look, I opted out of the public system for my son, so I'm not unsympathetic to discussion of how bad that system is. This is a small element IMO, and not one that I see as growing - unless there is other evidence beyond your source.
Of course CP is not amenable to the development of public virtue. If this were more demonstrably wide-spread, and were concurrent to the failures in education (I think it is lagging slightly), then I would find your argument more persuasive. However, education in this country was already in trouble BEFORE Freire, which means this might be contributory but not primary.
Where we part ways is the confirmation bias that goes on with Glenn Beck et al. They aren't interested in science. They are interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves, and perpetuating the cult of "We are Never Wrong" and "Destroy the Left.
You always throw up "Glenn Beck et al", and gripe about them being "interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves"... as if that's not a major priority of every reporter, commentator and politician in the US, regardless of where they fall in the political spectrum. You "refuse to listen to the lying agenda of Fox News", but at the same time I somehow never hear you gripe about "the lying agenda of MS-NBC", and in fact I once saw you use a deliberately fabricated piece of "news" from MS-NBC as the centerpiece of an argument you once made on your own blog.
I have no problem with any critical thinking in regards to any of these sources. In fact, I hope to see more of it
And yet you "couldn't" find any of the dozen or so links I gave you because you weren't willing to follow sources from Hot Air to get to them. Nor do you seem to find it incongruous or troubling that the "unbiased, objective" sources you've been getting your news from unaccountably failed to report any of this. Or if they did, judging by your responses, they reported it as examples of "the lying agenda of Fox News".
And while you have no interest in hearing anyone "paid off by Fox News", even after finding out that the IPCC's "peer reviewed science" includes things like a paper by a freelance reporter and a forest fire expert with no connection whatsoever to climate, who were "paid off" by the WWF and the IUCN, you still consider AGW "90% likely to be correct" and consider anyone who says it's a con game, even with unequivocal evidence that it's a con game, to be a "right wing nut" and dismiss them out of hand.
How.... unbiased of you.
And you wonder why people find it disturbing that someone who proudly claims to teach students critical and analytical thinking and how to examine sources for bias can do no better than this?
DJ, I'm not sure any of the standard responses really covers continuing to use discredited sources. (Does Marxy still believe in Lamarkianism?)
Certainly, he routinely throws out sources he doesn't like without even bothering to check if what they're saying is actually true, and ignoring supporting links. ("And, gosh what a shock, no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What are the names of the sixteen schools? How was it decided who were the "top" educational schools? Other than the U of M, where is the documentation to link CP to these universities? 16 out of how many? 100?")
Continuing to assert the truth of something that we have shown to be wrong, and continuing to ignore the truth of something that we have shown to be right, are the repeated behaviors of his that I summarized as his Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
If memory serves me correctly, it was Kevin himself who came up with the name for this one. Appropriate, ain't it?
I have hammered on him many times concerning this failure. He will not learn what is correct because he cannot unlearn what is not correct. Such involves the admission of significant error, and he CANNOT admit significant error.
Yes, he's promised me a sequel to Corporate Abuse. I can hardly wait. Apparently he's forgotten that in the build up to the original I laughingly said that being a good capitalist I would sell him the rope to hang himself.
Maybe you can get him to hire you to pull the lever on the trap door as well :-$ .
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/critical-pedagogy.html (76 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
My greatest failure as a parent was allowing my children to attend public schools. They are both wonderful adults and I owe that to the fact that their mother and I made the necessary course corrections to counter the BS they were being taught. Our educational system is the primary reason we have entered the age of entitlement. God help us.............
I have two boys, and my fear is that I will not be able to teach them everything they will need for a ROBUST education while homeschooling. But regardless of my own fears, if I can teach them math and the English language, and I teach them a love of learning and a respect for truth, then they will have enough. I hope.
BAH! That comment didn't do any justice to how I actually feel.
When the State comes in and demands that I turn over my children, as their "education" is inadequate, on that day they'll be crossing the line. I don't think I need to write what it would mean, should that happen.
But more to the point, how in the hell did we ever get to the place where I'm forced to consider ways to defend my family from the State because I don't want them taught Socialism?
BAH!
You're not alone, Mr. Hunt.
Way back when my eldest son was about seven years old he asked me, "Daddy, what is the government?" I responded after a few seconds thought. "The government is a giant octopus with extremely long tenacles that are always trying to get into your pockets".
A day or so later he tells me he told his teacher what I told him and that she got very upset with him. I then told him to tell the teacher your dad gave you more information about the government. "Tell her the government also places it's tenacles around the neck of those who do not obey the government".
He told his teacher the new information and I became a "rogue parent" in her eyes. My wife and I attended all school functions and were always sneered at my the 'propagandists'.
Many of us with school-age children already know.
Moving to a state with "right to homeschool" - check.
Private schools nearby if need be - check.
Small elementary school in which we can become heavily involved - check.
We have many options for the education of our kids, and we are paying attention to what gets taught. If need be, we'll pull the kids out of school and teach them ourselves.
Not every parent has those options, but every parent should do what they can to make sure their kids are properly educated.
A word on the adjective "critical," as used here. It does not mean the same as, for example, "critical thinking."
This is a standard adjective that can be appended to the title of any field of research (for example, critical ethnography). It indicates, as in this case, that the main role of the researcher is to criticize existing institutions and lay bare their roots in oppression. Practitioners are encouraged to blur the line between dispassionate research and full-throated activism.
Now, that by itself would not necessarily be a bad thing—if the institutions under attack were actually tyrannical. The problem is that critical theory's premises are taken lock, stock, and barrel from various mutant half-breeds of Marxism. This guarantees that critical theorists will attack precisely those institutions that are most valuable, even while they neglect the truly monstrous.
It gets very tiring rebutting these poltroons in my grad school classes, let me tell you.
Yet another reason to homeschool.
It's a good thing I have the day off today. What a load of lying bullshit. And further proof of ridiculous paranoia. As usual, you start with your belief and then succumb to confirmation bias.
Kevin, do you want to know what the academic standards are in Minnesota? Check the source.
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/index.html
Take your time and read the standards. All of them. After that, if you still have objections...based on actual facts, we can talk. Using Katherine Kersten as a fucking source is laughable and especially disappointing for someone like you whom I consider to be intelligent.
Make no mistake-I have no problem with complaints about our nation's education system. There are plenty of faults to be found. I also have no problem at all with home schooling. Class sizes are too large anyway. And I certainly have no problem with harsh criticism of teachers and their policies. I have stated several times on this blog that many teachers are lazy and tenure should re-formatted if not ejected from the capsule all together.
The beginning of this post reminds me of the Steve Carrell line from "Bruce Almighty."
Is your child in DIRE JEOPARDY????!!!?? Find out more after the game...
These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever. They don't even accurately address the actual problems. In essence, they sum up an emotional reaction--one that typifies the right these days--comprised solely of hate, anger and fear combined with a complete lack of factual foundation.
Quite disappointing, coming from a "scientist."
One conrete solution, comin' up: Get our kids the hell away from people like you, and stop paying for you.
That concrete enough fer ye, son?
"There are plenty of faults to be found."
One would be that _you_ are a teacher.
"These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever."
Kevin might not say it but I will: Resign. A zero (your absence from the school) sure beats the existing negative (your presence in the classroom).
Of course, I am estimating your value in the classroom on the basis of your posts here at TSM. Maybe they give the wrong picture. Maybe you actually _are_ a good teacher.
And maybe unicorn farts smell like roses. I hear tell anything is possible.
Ah, M is here. Let the games, begin!
"If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way."
--Mastiff, November, 2009
"Complete lack of factual foundation"? Did you READ "The George Orwell Daycare Center"? Or "Balkinization"?
Did you follow the link to the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION site?
Bullshit, Markadelphia. The FACTS are that "Critical Pedagogy" IS being taught to future teachers, and people like Ayers are its source. The fact is that the majority of our schools are FAILING to instruct students on the fundamentals, and instead focusing on PRECISELY what is described in that piece.
And the FACT is, you serve as a perfect, unthinking example of the result of this decades-long attack on the public education system, and I thank you for it. I could not ASK for a better one.
My little sister (poor thing is a Milwaukee Public Schools teacher - trying to escape) had to read a bunch of course material on this subject at UWM for her Masters Degree while in the program that involves her teaching in MPS at the same time. That would be a major US university's education program and a major US city's education system working together to further this concept.
Troll, you're full of shit as usual, but won't let us stop you. Kevin, it's about time for you to start taking Thomas Sowell's advice and just start deleting his idiocy before we're all subjected to it.
Nope. Read Why I Do This.
I know, I know. It just seem to be teaching a pig to dance, IMHO.
As usual, you start with your belief and then succumb to confirmation bias.
As usual, Mark kant reed.
I certainly have no problem with harsh criticism of teachers and their policies.
Unless, you know, you criticize teachers or their policies.
These EDU posts, Kevin, serve no purpose nor present any sort of concrete solution whatsoever. They don't even accurately address the actual problems.
You just disagreed with yourself. Again.
If they don't serve a "purpose" - and that's very arguable - then they shouldn't be presenting "concrete solutions". (Plus, even to take what you meant to say, they don't *HAVE* to. I can say the system is broken, and not worth fixing, and not have to give you a fix to have a valid opinion.)
So obviously they do have a purpose. Even you admit it. Even you admit to massive problems - but then you excoriate (I'll wait while you look that up) us when we point them out, and insist that that's not the problem.
So in that case, explain to us what IS the problem and how did we get here?
And yes, Mark, Critical Pedagogy is taught in the .edu courses I'm familiar with.
Again, you're objecting to the facts, and trying to have your own.
"If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way."
--Mastiff, November, 2009
Well, then.
If you've got the ability to give quotes, you won't mind going back and citing the "quote" of DJ's that you claimed the other day.
Typical Marxy. When someone points out something damaging to your ideology, stop looking as soon as you find a source you don't like and invoke the Genetic Fallacy.
Too bad he didn't follow the links back to the original Teacher Education Redesign Initiative document produced by the University of Minnesota. (The link is to Google's HTML translation of the UoM's MS Word document. The original document is linked at the top of the page.) If he had, he wouldn't have looked like a fool by demonstrating his own confirmation bias. (Aww, who am I kidding? He demonstrates this with nearly every single post!)
Marxy, that link you posted was to standards shown to PARENTS about what their CHILDREN are supposedly being taught. This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
For example:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."
…and…
"Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following:
· myth of meritocracy in the United States
· historical connections between scientific racism, intelligence testing, and assumptions of fixed mental capacity
· alternative explanations for mobility (and lack of it)
· history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values
· history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology"
What the F___ is going on here?!? Echo has may comment(s) disappearing and reappearing randomly! >:o
Typical Marxy. When someone points out something damaging to your ideology, stop looking as soon as you find a source you don't like and invoke the Genetic Fallacy.
Too bad he didn't follow the links back to the original Teacher Education Redesign Initiative document produced by the University of Minnesota. (The link is to Google's HTML translation of the UoM's MS Word document. The original document is linked at the top of the page.) If he had, he wouldn't have looked like a fool by demonstrating his own confirmation bias. (Aww, who am I kidding? He demonstrates this with nearly every single post!)
Marxy, that link you posted was to standards shown to PARENTS about what their CHILDREN are supposedly being taught. This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
For example:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."
…and…
"Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following:
· myth of meritocracy in the United States
· historical connections between scientific racism, intelligence testing, and assumptions of fixed mental capacity
· alternative explanations for mobility (and lack of it)
· history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values
· history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology"
Well, it's official. The move to Echo hasn't improved on Haloscam's reliability.
Ed:
Echo's a new "service". That uses the Haloscan engine. But is totally different. .... Hey, just teling you what the support says.
Apparently, they bought Haloscan... but not the servers it was running on. And when the servers started having issues, they had to swap onto Echo before it was ready. (Even though it was a year and half behind schedule.) You know how that goes.
So apparently, the plan was to take some basic Haloscan code, turn it into a "social network" (being the latest buzzword) and get miiiiiiillions in VC. (Apparently, the last part is proving rather problematic).
Echo: Yesterday's Problems, Today!
And there's no path to export Echo comments to anything else. Import to, yes. Export from, no.
I understand the concerns about the education system, and I've seen a few examples with my own children, but as far as I'm concerned, their education does not stop when the school bell rings. My wife and I are pretty confident that so far, we are by far the primary influence in their lives. (I'm sure that may all change once they hit their teen years, but then I'll have to sweat their peers rather than their teachers). I have no problem explaining to my children when their teachers are wrong and explaining why. If I ever feel as though it's getting out of control, then I reserve the right to homeschool.
I can't post.
Alright, let's try this again...
Test.
Alright, let's try a quick comment...
Kevin S., you would be correct in pointing out that your family is the primary agency of socialization in your child's life. The other ones would be schools, community, peer group and the mass media. By far, the family is the most influential and one of the main reasons why we are seeing a failure to educate the youth of our nation is the breakdown of this primary agency of socialization. To put it simply, many parents suck.
J***s F***ing C****t. Marxy, Kevin S said. "I understand the concerns about the education system, and I've seen a few examples with my own children, but as far as I'm concerned, their education does not stop when the school bell rings."
He did not talk about socializing his children.
Schools do not exist to "Socialize" children. Schools exist to educate children. Schools serve no other purpose. They exist to educate.
Our schools have been failing at an increasing rate to meet this primary function thanks to educational curriculae which concentrate on nonsense like "Socializing".
KEVIN. I understand why you keep Marxy here. That comment hijacking was so clumsy as to have been amusing. Or, at least it would have been amusing, had it been in jest. Which it was obviously not. At the very least, with someone like Marxy to sound off, we'll never be at a loss as to understanding the true intentions of the hard Left.
Yes, Kevin, I followed the links. And yes, I read all that you have provided. The simple fact is that you are wrong. This is not what teachers are being taught in schools nor is it what they ultimately teach. This is Glenn Beck land, my friend, and I think it's really sad and a fucking shame.
In MN, we teach to the standards provided to us by MDE. This is how we are taught to instruct. Have YOU gone and read them yet? Here is an example of one.:
IV Historical Skills
A. Historical Inquiry
The student will analyze historical evidence and draw conclusions
1. Students will understand the use of secondary sources to provide background and insights on historical events, and that secondary sources might reflect author's bias.
2. Students will indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
3. Students will compare and contrast primary sources to analyze first hand accounts of historical events and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
"Using Katherine Kersten as a fucking source is laughable and especially disappointing for someone like you whom I consider to be intelligent." (emphasis added)
"This is Glenn Beck land, my friend, and I think it's really sad and a fucking shame."
Member what Sarah said about this style of argument a while back?
4. Students will review primary and secondary sources and compare and contrast their perspectives to shape their persentation of information relevant to their research topic.
5. Students will understand the historical context of their research topic and how it was influenced by, or influenced other historical events.
6. Students will evaluate alternative interpretations of their research topic and defend of change their analysis by citing evidence from primary and secondary sources.
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT. Our state prides itself on learner centered intstruction. In fact, many states now teach to the standard and grade based on the studen't understanding of that standard. This standard is also typical of how we, as instructors, are taught to value critical thinking. I can assure you that instructors who do not adhere to this model will not be teachers for long. I've seen it happen several times.
So, no, Kevin, our classrooms are not filled with Marxist/domestic terrorists brainwashing our children. That idea is yet another nauseating example of someone (KK et al) trying to sell a newspaper to a very easily manipulated group of people. Clearly, she has never been near an actual classroom. Nor have the authors of your links. Sadly, it seems, neither have you. I suggest going to one for a few days to see how horribly wrong you are and perhaps at that point we can have a reasonable discussion about the ACTUAL problems we face in terms of education.
Yes, Kevin, I followed the links. And yes, I read all that you have provided. The simple fact is that you are wrong.
Ed already dealt with this, and you didn't deal with what he said:
ED: This article is about what TEACHERS are being taught. That's a different set of standards. (Apples and Oranges, Vizinni)
What did you talk about?
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT.
At no point did you in any way disprove the report of critical pedagogy. Either you don't understand the original article (Which I'd be willing to bet money on) AND/or you're refusing to accept what it means.
You've waved your hands and said "LOOKAPONY!"
It's almost like... you've done this before.
"To put it simply, many parents suck."
"That idea is yet another nauseating example of someone (KK et al) trying to sell a newspaper to a very easily manipulated group of people."
"I suggest going to one for a few days to see how horribly wrong you are and perhaps at that point we can have a reasonable discussion about the ACTUAL problems we face in terms of education."
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am and how stupid you are."
Just like "your guy."
At no point did you in any way disprove the report of critical pedagogy.
I gave it the credence it was due which was to ignore its assertions which are grounded in nonsensical fear mongering.
Unix, adhering to standards is how teachers are taught in EDU programs especially in light of high stakes assessment. Being taught how to center the learning around the student is another focal point in how teachers are taught. From here, we get into instructional strategies that have to be innovative if one is to achieve any sort of success in the year 2010. An example of how Kevin could address an actual problem in our country's education system would be to ponder the following:
Mr. Smith has been teaching History for 30 years. His preferred method of instruction is lecture. In the last 10 years or so, he has noticed that his ESL student population has increased and test scores have gone down. He refuses to adjust his pedagogy much to the complaints of many students who have difficulty understanding him. In addition, several other students (non-ESL) have trouble focusing for his 90 minute block and wonder if some group work or audio-visual learning could be beefed up in to the lessons. Mr. Smith takes issue with these suggestions and insist that his students learn the way he learned. After all, his first few years of teaching, the students learned this way without issue. Mr. Smith has tenure.
You are the administrator...how can this issue be resolved?
Granted, this is a somewhat simplified version of a problem I see all the time but the basics remain. Situations like this are why we have students who aren't learning. The issues with pedagogy are not that instructors are being ordered to teach in the manner outlined in this ludicrous link. Instuctors aren't adapting to our changing culture and school districts are filled with small minded thinkers who quite honestly don't understand the youth of America at all.
From the article Kevin linked to:
"Pedagogy is defined as ‘the art or profession of teaching’."
"Sixteen of the top educational schools [teacher training schools] in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system."
Thus, most recently in Minnesota the agenda of radical teacher education came to light; The University of Minnesota redesigns teachers. Here is what the Univ. of Minnesota’s new teacher certification program requires:
Students [that is, teachers in training] are required to adopt “race, culture, class and gender” identity politics in order to be recommended for a teaching license.
Students [teachers in training] must accept that teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” is a major reason for many minority students performing poorly in Minnesota schools.
All prospective teachers have to meet 14 “outcomes”, as well as “assessment” methods to assure they had achieved the outcomes. The first outcome is typical: “Future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, hetero-normativity, and internalized oppression.”
Future teachers are required to subscribe to the prescribed ideology, “Every faculty member at our university that trains our teachers must comprehend and commit to the centrality of race, class, culture, and gender issues in teaching and learning, and then frame their teaching and course foci accordingly.”
From Kevin's original post:
"A quick Google on "critical pedagogy" brings up this link from the University of Denver School of Education." [i.e., teacher training]
From the portion I quoted from UoM's own document:
"Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."
"Our future teachers will be able to construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of this story of America, for what it illuminates and what it hides or distorts. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of, among other concepts and theories, the following:"
(split because Echo is as good at math as Marxy: Apparently 2,822 is > 5,000 characters)
From Marxy's post:
"The student will analyze historical evidence and draw conclusions
1. Students will…
2. Students will…
3. Students will…
4. Students will…
5. Students will…
6. Students will…
Sense a common theme here, Kevin? THE STUDENT."
I sense a common theme in YOUR comments: STUDENTS. Oddly, it's different than the theme in everyone else's posts and comments, as well as the ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS which prompted this thread: TEACHERS.
In other words, "Hey Look! A STUDENT/pony!" (SR#4)
Weren't you supposed to be proving me wrong about your ability to recognize what we write?
"IV Historical Skills
A. Historical Inquiry
2. Students will indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias.
This is how we are taught to instruct."
Waitaminit.... isn't this precisely what you either declined to bother to do, or possibly weren't competent to do, concerning the sourcing of the recent AGW skepticism, Mr. History Teacher?
What's wrong with this picture?
You know, Grumpy, I think he did evaluate the sources for "credibility and bias." He just measured them against his own ideology instead of time tested methods of scientific inquiry.
Not at all, GOF. I think all sources of AGW should be examined for credibility and bias. And, again, I'm not certain they are right. It's been my experience that theories evolve and change over time which is why I won't say with 100 percent certainty that AGW is valid. What I am wondering about is why a group of scientists (here) are nearly 100 percent certain that it is NOT happening. Shouldn't the same level of scrutiny be given to those skeptics as well? Example:
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute
included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific
Alright, Ed...see if you can walk through this with me....Kevin states
If you have school-age children, you MUST READ THIS. Excerpt:
We then go to a link which is a right wing blog. Within that blog is a link to another right wing blog (Powerline) which frames the U of M story, citing Mpls Star Tribune right wing columnist Katherine Kersten. Kersten was brought on board the Strib to boost sales and appeal to a certain demographic---yours. The U of M is one of many colleges in our state that has an EDU department. I wouldn't call them the "foremost" university for educating teachers. Interestingly, we see an ad for National University and obtaining a MA in Teaching and/or a NBCT certificate at the top of the Powerline blog.
We then go to a report, the likes of which I have never seen or heard of at all. I haven't heard any colleagues talk about this nor have I heard school districts around the seven county metro displaying this prominently as the FUTURE OF TEACHER EDUCATION or "WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS." Trying desperately to not land our shuttle on the OverReacto Planet, we see that Kevin has his quick google search, the first entry of which leads us to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy
Looks pretty basic to me. It's just another theory in a sea of theories regarding how teachers should teach their children. Seeing it in this context, I do recall some people talking about this here or there but most instructors I know are more focused on the gigantic pile of issues that confront them every day. The fact that this has been built up to be Godzilla destroying the townsfolk is laughable and predictable, considering that Kersten is the source.
Now, I have explained to you how I learned to be a teacher in the above comments. If you want to know how teachers are supposed to intstruct students, read the MDE web site. They are the ones that issue the licenses, not the U of M.
It's just another theory in a sea of theories regarding how teachers should teach their children.
That's not really a mountain as you claim; it's more of an elevated area - just like many others. Seen one, seen 'em all.
"…right wing blog… right wing blog… [right wing] demographic…"
Define "fallacy", as in Genetic fallacy. Even in your longer "explanation" you still stopped BEFORE you got to the ORIGINAL. SOURCE. DOCUMENTS. which proved that the statements made by the "right wing blog(s)" were, in fact, TRUE!!! I pointed this out several times already, and STILL you do it. You really don't get the reading comprehension thing, do you Vizinni? You just keep piling on the waste of time evidence.
"They are the ones that issue the licenses, not the U of M."
Okay, I checked on the licensing requirements. They're in a Word document titled Application Instructions and Checklist available here. Here's the money quote:
"Verification of a state-approved preparation program is required for applicants who have completed an approved college/university-based teacher or administrative licensure program. The applicant must have a Verification of Completion of State-Approved Licensure Program form completed by the certification officer or registrar at the college/university at which the preparation program was completed."
The prospective teachers MUST graduate from the teacher education programs, which includes UoM. Put another way, the University of Minnesota gets their say on who (among their own students) gets to become a teacher BEFORE the MDE even gets to see their license application.
Let's cut right through the BS shall we? Marko, do you or do you not agree with these tenets that Kevin posted as the basic ones of Critical Pedagogy Theory?
Some of the basic tenants of critical pedagogy are:
(My comments in parentheses)
ALL education is inherently political. (If it is we are truly screwed. Parents tend to get irate when their children are used as political pawns to advance an agenda)
A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education(Sounds good, but justice and equality means different things to different people. My idea of justice and equality would include instruction in the use of firearms)
Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression.(Maybe, so what. What does this really have to do with education.)
The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering(No it's not. Full stop)
Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures(What do they mean by blame? Does this mean that students should not be corrected for their mistakes or does it mean that failures should be ignored and the student allowed to continue with their mistake)
Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences(Don't really disagree with this one. It isn't the business of schools to judge students background. Hard to tell since this one is rather poorly worded.)
Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression(No it's not)
Education must promote emancipatory change (Nope!)
Also, do other educators agree that these are desirable?
Next:
Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system.
Is the above sentence is true or false. Evidence please.
Not at all, GOF. I think all sources of AGW should be examined for credibility and bias. And, again, I'm not certain they are right.
And yet stories on HotAir or Townhall that linked directly to the London Times, the Telegraph or the Guardian never got examined to see if the sources were credible. Even had you not trusted those newspapers you could have googled the sources listed on the original IPCC report. They would have led you to.... a journalist... an environmental activist. A remarkable shortage of actual climate scientists.
Talk is cheap, Mark. You can say all you want that you think _______, but when it came right down to it you declined to examine sources you disagreed with to see if they were right, and you declined to examine sources you agreed with to see if they were wrong. You just said so, right up there in this very thread.
It's just another theory in a sea of theories
So it *does* exist. You realize (rhetorically speaking) you've just refuted everything you've said prior to this. Either you were wrong then, or you are wrong now.
regarding how teachers should teach their children.
How about "The children in their classroom?" Amazingly, after 2 days, you've actually changed your entire tune - but without admitting your earlier mistakes - and are not minimizing the impact, and....
Seeing it in this context, I do recall some people talking about this here or there but
admitting that you have personal experience with it, despite your earlier dismissal of it's existence.
You haven't even started to think how this looks, do you? (Again, rhetorical, it's obvious that you don't.
most instructors I know are more focused on the gigantic pile of issues that confront them every day.
So it exists, and the original story is true, but the teachers are just too overworked to indoctrinate properly?
...
To quote Ed in the other thread, this shows more about you than us.
The fact that this has been built up to be Godzilla destroying the townsfolk is laughable and predictable, considering that Kersten is the source.
EVEN THOUGH YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT KERSTEN IS RIGHT AND YOU HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT.
And you are calling it "laughable" - despite it being true. Because of who reported it.
... What does this mean for anything you report?
And you think you're the "only rational one here.
GOF -
Come on, closing their eyes and plugging their ears is what libs do when confronted with facts.
Ed, did you check ALL of the license requirements and ALL of the different licenses? And both St. Thomas and St. Mary's (in addition to many others in the state) are MDE approved programs. Both are private schools. MDE also approves licenses for out of state universities. Many of my colleagues are from all over the country.
do you or do you not agree with these tenets that Kevin posted as the basic ones of Critical Pedagogy Theory?
No, I don't. And neither does..well...any teacher I know. I suppose teachers do not judge student's beliefs based on life experiences but that would mean, for example, that I shouldn't judge someone who thinks that homosexuals are going to burn in hell and should not be allowed equal rights. In fact, I had a student once who told me that he "hated fags" and wished they would be locked up for committing criminal acts. What could I say? Nothing. And that's how it should be.
Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system.
Is the above sentence is true or false. Evidence please.
Well, I didn't make the assertion...the folks at verum serum did. And, gosh what a shock, no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What are the names of the sixteen schools? How was it decided who were the "top" educational schools? Other than the U of M, where is the documentation to link CP to these universities? 16 out of how many? 100? I'd need to see their data before I could make a statement that this was "true" or "false."
Here's a list from US News and World Report.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-education-schools/rankings/
The U of M is #21. Are any of these CP adherents? I think it's up to verum serum, powerline, and Katherine Kersten to prove this is the case.
What I find very interesting is, once again, we see a statement like this, with no factual backup whatsoever, accepted as fact by a group of scientists. Logic, critical thinking, and reasoning, indeed...
GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid. That means that we are looking at a 10 percent chance that it is wrong. I haven't declined to look at any unbiased source. The problem is that many here---not sure about you---think that any source that does NOT think climate change is a hoax is biased and should be discounted. This is the ol' "I don't like this so it must be liberal" meme which is quite tiresome. Show me a climate scientist's page that disagrees with AGW (and, of course, is not being funded by FOX News or the like) and I'd be more than happy to review it.
"Ed, did you check ALL of the license requirements and ALL of the different licenses?"
Where did anyone claim that ALL schools were teaching this crap? The claim is only THAT it is being taught and that its acceptance is growing.
Do you admit that it's being taught at U of M?
"I gave it the credence it was due which was to ignore its assertions ..."
Translation: I don't even know what he said because I'm not willing to even try to find out, but by golly he's wrong.
And you wanna be taken seriously ...
Y'see, that's what you are, a wannabe.
Wow, this is a train wreck.
Mark, have you looked at the recent statements of Dr. Phil Jones, the inventor of the hockey-stick graph, who has finally admitted that the temperature change since 1995 is not actually statistically significant? See here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR
I'm hoping you know what "statistically significant" means, and what that implies for AGW.
As much as I hate to do so, I have to agree with Markadelphia on this much - sixteen schools of education? How many accredited colleges are there turning out teachers? Now, if all sixteen are graduate schools, turning out professors who will in turn produce accreditable teachers, that would be one thing. But I note that there is no list, no further qualification, just an asserted number. That shouldn't pass the sniff test.
For an alternative explanation of why our schools are failing, I suggest Peter Drucker. I recall him citing the failure of schools because they were given multiple (not necessarily compatible) goals - beyond merely educating children.
Mark, those are - or could be - interesting numbers about AGW.
I suggest you take a long, hard look at this and recalculate:
http://i.imgur.com/Jv12e.png
Mastiff:
Mark, have you looked at the recent statements of Dr. Phil Jones, the inventor of the hockey-stick graph,
You've got him confused. That was Mann. Penn State. (Who's being investigated now for his academic honesty).
And he's what really blew this wide open, when he finally admitted some of his algorithm - and it turned out that any data put into it - including World Series Scores... turned into a "Hockey Stick."
juris,
I decided to go back to the article and check to see if that point was brought up there. It was. Here's what the author of that article has to say:
"The Renaissance Group mentioned in the post, is the source of the reference to the 16 top educational schools. The Renaisance Group is a consortium of American colleges who focus on Teacher Education programs.
A close look at the membership list on the RG website shows that aside from being excellent colleges and universities there is one common denominator—most of the schools have an added emphasis on Instructor Reform—Ayer’s area of expertise.
The Renaissance Group’s underlying message is a “rebirth of our nation’s schools… through the preparation of qualified educators.” Given Ayers prominence at the conference, that, at the least, implies agreement with his views.
As his major theme is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony (domination). Thus he reasons that the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.”
Pure Critical Pedagogy applied.
The University of Minnesota linked in my post is not part of the consortium, and further illustrates that many other colleges and Universities are heavily involved in promoting Critical Pedagogy’s Marxist assumptions."
Here's the list of schools from the Renaissance Group web site:
Black Hills State University
California State University, Fresno
Emporia State University
Frostburg State University
Glenville State College
Kean University
Kennesaw State University
Kentucky State University
Longwood University
MidAmerica Nazarene University
Middle Tennessee State University
Minnesota State University Mankato
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
Northwest Missouri State University
Saint Cloud State University
Sonoma State University
Southeast Missouri State University
Tennessee State University
The University of Toledo
University of Central Missouri
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Valdosta State University
Western Illinois University
Western Kentucky University
Western New Mexico University
Western Washington University
Then there's this little gem quoted in the same comment:
"Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
“INTASC is an initiative of currently more than 35 states and professional organizations working to develop and implement standards for beginning teacher licensure. The goal [is] of having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006″…
INTASC and Social Transformation
“The notion of teachers as transformative intellectuals who engage in critical examination of self and society and action upon and within the society begs the question of whether a critical pedagogy is a realistic expectation of beginning teachers. If yes, then the subsequent question is whether standards, specifically the INTASC Core Principles, support such ideals in the pedagogy of beginning teachers. We contend that a critical pedagogy is a viable pedagogy for beginning teachers. Moreover, we argue the INTASC Core Principles can support a critical approach to teaching. Therefore, together, the two can build a strong foundation for beginning teachers that gives clear pragmatic expectations and a sound theoretical and philosophical perspective for beginning teaching that reflects social transformation.”"
I also found this gem of an exchange a little further down:
Matt: Typical anti-intellectualism by you loony right-wingers. You have no idea what you are even talking about, you ignorance is obvious to any education scholar or student and I hope you know we are all laughing at you. Go to college you moron.
Adobe Walls: Oh wow the eloquence of this argument I’m devastated. Did they tell you going to college would cure being a moron?
8-)
Thanks Ed, I missed that when I perused the article (and I admit to not reading it in the detail I probably should have).
Now, to the meat. In California the list includes two of the State Universities that produce teachers - Fresno which is a mild surprise and Sonoma which is no surprise at all. My alma mater (San Bernardino), which is held in very high regard for the teachers it produces (don't ask me why) is absent (thankfully). What it does NOT include is the UC system which produces the professors who will be teaching the teachers. No Berserkely, no Santa Cruz, no Riverside (where the Econ dept is/was famously leftist). That is a very interesting bit of data. I would really have expected this, to be legitimately regarded as a threat, to be centered in the prof-factories as opposed to the secondary institutes that actually produce teachers. If I was planning the great conspiracy to sap our national essence, I would start where my every output would be magnified (i.e. professors rather than teachers).
Honestly, to make a dent just in California you'd need a list of sixteen schools of education (and there are at least that many). Out of the hundreds, if not a thousand or more, colleges across the country - and clearly missing the most important - this really sounds like a tempest in a teapot. I imagine I could swing a dead cat in any meeting of the NEA and hit more leftists than this list suggests. I mean honestly, this is NOT the sixteen most influential education programs in the country - with only modest disrespect to the august institutions that ARE actually teaching this CP crap.
GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid.
It's so clear.. that it doesn't say that.
That's your bullshit, not the IPCC 3rd report.
The problem is that many here---not sure about you---think that any source that does NOT think climate change is a hoax is biased and should be discounted.
Given the current available evidence, yes.
Do you admit that it's being taught at U of M?
Obviously. Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones? Where is the evidence in schools that CP is being adopted at the K-12 level? Show me some data beyond theoretical papers.
It's quite clear what is going on here. Anyone care to take a guess as to why KK "exposed" this "horror?"
Mastiff, yes. And that's why I'm not willing to say that theory is certainly valid. What do you think of Ronald Bailey's current position on global warming?
http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/02/global-warming-not-worse-than
Juris, correct! American education is a mile wide and an inch deep...which is one reason why countries like China do better on test scores. Drucker was quite an interesting character.
Ed, do you honestly think that this list can be defined as "excellent" colleges? I can say with a fair amount of certainty that St. Cloud University would not be considered an elite organization dedicated to high level pedagogy.
Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones?
So you wouldn't have a problem with say, teaching that strongly was anti-abortion, since not all the children would become "anti-abortion drones"?
Sorry, Mark, you're failing so badly even you know it now. You started off laughing it off, saying it didn't exist, now you've admitted not only have you experienced it, but are trying to avoid the truth of what's happening, and where, and trying to minimize it - it doesn't matter if there "aren't many", the point is that it's too many if any - and you're trying to still say you were right in all your contradictory statements.
Show me some data beyond theoretical papers.
When we do that, you scream and wail that we "don't know" since we're not in the system and we're not allowed to judge it.
"Obviously."
Good! That's progress.
"Does that mean that all teachers that go through the U of M edu program are going to become CP drones?"
I doubt it. But it's entirely reasonable to think that the percentages will be FAR higher by making that a requirement to graduate. (If you select for X, you tend to get X.)
"Where is the evidence in schools that CP is being adopted at the K-12 level?"
What, The George Orwell Daycare Center wasn't enough? How about the other examples from Kevin's Education category, (like The Story of Stuff)?
"Ed, do you honestly think that this list can be defined as "excellent" colleges?"
I don't know. I'm not familiar with most colleges. Then again, I'm not the one who made the claim. All I did was follow the trail to where the list was (something you should have been able to do yourself instead of simply denying that such a list existed), and copy it for you here.
I do notice that this list is 26 schools long, therefore it can include 10 less than excellent colleges (such as, per your assessment, St. Cloud) and still have 16 "excellent" colleges.
GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid. That means that we are looking at a 10 percent chance that it is wrong. I haven't declined to look at any unbiased source.
You haven't? Then how have you missed all this that those 'biased, lying right-wing smear sites' immediately linked to (meaning it was the first link off site)?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283_pf.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/February-2010/May-Cooler-Heads-Prevail/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
Or if you had any actual interest in being sure of sources, you could have gone to the IPCC reports themselves and found gems like this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter13.pdf
"Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation..." with the reference (Rowell and Moore, 2000). Any idea who Rowell and Moore are? Do you care?
"Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, Global Review of Forest Fires, WWE/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66pp."
http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
So.... this "peer reviewed science" that is "90% certain" is actually the work of two advocacy groups, the WWF and the IUCN?
Written by who?
Rowell, A.
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=1321&v=192
"Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years' experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF."
And P.F. Moore:
http://www.ifmeg.com/CV/Dr%20Peter%20Moore.pdf
"Policy Analyst & Forest Fire Management Specialist"
Gee, where are the peer reviewed climate scientists who found out that "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation"?
It's called sourcing, Mark. And it's pretty sad that you, who are so proud of teaching students to "indentify the principal formats of published secondary source material and evaluate such sources for both credibility and bias" are apparently not competent to do this.
GOF, I think somewhere along the line I made a mistake in communication. I have no problem with any critical thinking in regards to any of these sources. In fact, I hope to see more of it. I'd like to see a large group of unbiased (that means not paid off by FoxNews) scientists take a look at climate change with a fine tooth comb. From one of your links above
There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
Honestly, that's not good enough for me. Think about what we knew about the Moon in the 1960s and what we know now. The same can be said for climate change. So, I do agree with you regarding having sensible doubts about AGW. Where we part ways is the confirmation bias that goes on with Glenn Beck et al. They aren't interested in science. They are interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves, and perpetuating the cult of "We are Never Wrong" and "Destroy the Left."
Speaking of destroying the left and back to the topic at hand, that's all this CP hysteria really is...another Goebbelsesque propaganda technique to increase the numbers of the rugged "individualist" cult. I use the term individualist as it is quite clear that this is becoming a collective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?hp
juris said
But I note that there is no list, no further qualification, just an asserted number. That shouldn't pass the sniff test.
The question is...why did it?
Hold on there, I missed that there was a list. Ed graciously corrected my error.
Now, it isn't a very impressive list, nor does it appear representative of the truly leading schools of education. Nor am I inclined to anything that leans even a little conspiratorial (except of course when the NBA deprives the Lakers of the championship). I keed. Even the great AGW scam isn't a conspiracy to me.
All that said, I have no objection to holding CP up to scrutiny and ridicule, even in the small foothold it has. What I won't support is going off on a witch-hunt because a few schools teach an absurdity - the market-place of ideas will sort this out as chaff.
Nor am I inclined to anything that leans even a little conspiratorial.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said it was successful. It's one of those memes that just won't go away because it's so beautiful to those who believe that they should have more than they've got, and the reason for it must be that someone else is preventing them from having it.
Basically, it appeals to the poorer part of human nature.
. . . the market-place of ideas will sort this out as chaff.
There is where we disagree. You think it'll fade. It appear to me to be spreading, and I've already said why such ideas are appealing. How many children need to be exposed to these ideas for them to be socially destructive?
I'm going to quote Paul Rahe again, paraphrasing Montesquieu:
(Montesquieu) comes up with a political typology into republics, monarchies and despotisms, and monarchies are governments where you have a king, but his power is limited in one fashion or another - usually by a nobility. Despotism is unlimited power, and these operate on the basis of psychological principles. What drives a despotism is terror. What drives a monarchy is the sense of honor, the love of honor that elicits a certain kind of behavior from people. What's required in a republic is virtue. That's hard to achieve, because you have to train people in virtue and it doesn't come naturally or easy to us to prefer the public interest over the private interest.
You will admit, Juris, will you not, that CP is about as far from training for public virtue as you can get? Again, how many does it take? Isn't the Cloward-Piven strategy one of collapsing the present system by demanding everthing of it that can be demanded, and then insisting on more, because it owes you?
That meme predates Gramsci by only a few millenia: Thou shall not covet... Excellent example that human nature is not the mutable lump of clay that the modernists/progressives posit.
You think it is spreading, yet the evidence in your source is that it is identified with 16 not particularly distinguished schools of education. Look, I opted out of the public system for my son, so I'm not unsympathetic to discussion of how bad that system is. This is a small element IMO, and not one that I see as growing - unless there is other evidence beyond your source.
Of course CP is not amenable to the development of public virtue. If this were more demonstrably wide-spread, and were concurrent to the failures in education (I think it is lagging slightly), then I would find your argument more persuasive. However, education in this country was already in trouble BEFORE Freire, which means this might be contributory but not primary.
Where we part ways is the confirmation bias that goes on with Glenn Beck et al. They aren't interested in science. They are interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves, and perpetuating the cult of "We are Never Wrong" and "Destroy the Left.
You always throw up "Glenn Beck et al", and gripe about them being "interested in ratings, site hits, selling themselves"... as if that's not a major priority of every reporter, commentator and politician in the US, regardless of where they fall in the political spectrum. You "refuse to listen to the lying agenda of Fox News", but at the same time I somehow never hear you gripe about "the lying agenda of MS-NBC", and in fact I once saw you use a deliberately fabricated piece of "news" from MS-NBC as the centerpiece of an argument you once made on your own blog.
I have no problem with any critical thinking in regards to any of these sources. In fact, I hope to see more of it
And yet you "couldn't" find any of the dozen or so links I gave you because you weren't willing to follow sources from Hot Air to get to them. Nor do you seem to find it incongruous or troubling that the "unbiased, objective" sources you've been getting your news from unaccountably failed to report any of this. Or if they did, judging by your responses, they reported it as examples of "the lying agenda of Fox News".
And while you have no interest in hearing anyone "paid off by Fox News", even after finding out that the IPCC's "peer reviewed science" includes things like a paper by a freelance reporter and a forest fire expert with no connection whatsoever to climate, who were "paid off" by the WWF and the IUCN, you still consider AGW "90% likely to be correct" and consider anyone who says it's a con game, even with unequivocal evidence that it's a con game, to be a "right wing nut" and dismiss them out of hand.
How.... unbiased of you.
And you wonder why people find it disturbing that someone who proudly claims to teach students critical and analytical thinking and how to examine sources for bias can do no better than this?
Not just that, but as a non-sequitur (Look! A pony!) he drags out a link to the (obviously unbiased and impartial) New York Times about the Tea Party.
Which of the Standard Responses was that, again?
This is Marxadelphia's post that Kevin is talking about.
DJ, I'm not sure any of the standard responses really covers continuing to use discredited sources. (Does Marxy still believe in Lamarkianism?)
Certainly, he routinely throws out sources he doesn't like without even bothering to check if what they're saying is actually true, and ignoring supporting links. ("And, gosh what a shock, no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What are the names of the sixteen schools? How was it decided who were the "top" educational schools? Other than the U of M, where is the documentation to link CP to these universities? 16 out of how many? 100?")
Continuing to assert the truth of something that we have shown to be wrong, and continuing to ignore the truth of something that we have shown to be right, are the repeated behaviors of his that I summarized as his Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
If memory serves me correctly, it was Kevin himself who came up with the name for this one. Appropriate, ain't it?
I have hammered on him many times concerning this failure. He will not learn what is correct because he cannot unlearn what is not correct. Such involves the admission of significant error, and he CANNOT admit significant error.
and he CANNOT admit significant error.
Yes, he's promised me a sequel to Corporate Abuse. I can hardly wait. Apparently he's forgotten that in the build up to the original I laughingly said that being a good capitalist I would sell him the rope to hang himself.
Maybe you can get him to hire you to pull the lever on the trap door as well :-$ .
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>