Interestingly, I can't find Dr. Romero's cv or educational history. This suggests that his scholarly work, if any, was not impressive—and more importantly, is not the basis for his present employment and standing. He is, however, rather active in several administrative posts having to do with "student equity."
(When I hear "student equity," my first thought is to ask what the share price is...)
"Once a State has been established the problem of the ruling group or 'caste' is how to maintain their rule. While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a 'democratic' government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State — the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility) — must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens."
"Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. ...[T]his ... secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the 'intellectuals.' For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the 'opinion-molders' in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for [the] age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear."
-- Murray Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State"
We see this happening in two ways, as outlined by Kevin with the "White Man is Oppressive" narrative and the one coming out of the White House since, well, at least the turn of the last century, if not before, of "The Government Knows Best" and lately with "I won".
So to Marxadelphia's assertion that Critical Pedagogy was "lying bullshit" and "paranoia," I say, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
And I say, show me the data. Show me the evidence of it "being spread." Show me the evidence of it "coming soon to a shool near you." I'm curious as to why in this post you did not publish the list of "excellent" schools where this is being taught. Why not? What are the sources for verumserum and powerline that show teachers in school districts teaching with the influence of CP?
You claim that this is being taught at the U of M. Okay, that's fine but's it's just one theory in a sea of dozens. The school I went to used emphasized a Lasallian approach to education. The one thing I took away from that is to focus on the individual's learning needs. Show me concrete examples of teachers currently in the state of Minnesota (or anywhere else) that are teaching under the auspices of CP. I'm in the MN school system. We have so much on our plate to deal with that demonstrating to children that they are all oppressed doesn't even fucking come up in the conversation. No one talks of the community police being part of white oppression nor of white teachers keeping down non white students. Future instructors in this state are taught to adhere to the MDE standards which I have listed in the previous thread. Have you read them yet?
What this whole discussion does show is that you have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you don't live by your own words. You have told me, time and again, to use reasoning, facts, logic and critical thinking when making an argument. The assertions you are making combined with the sources you have provided show little if any of that. They are all based on a fervent emotion that has no foundation in reality. Actually, I'm being kind by saying that. One of your main sources for this is Katherine Fucking Kersten, for crying out loud, Kevin! That would be like me stating that because Maureen Dowd published a column stating that forced prayer in school is being taught at Regent University that we need to nuke everything.
You chide me for calling you paranoid and yet we have this...
They are coming to SCHOOLS NEAR YOU, and bringing it with them.
They are INFLICTING IT ON STUDENTS in your school systems
it is being spread.
it is part and parcel of Gramsci's plan to destroy Western culture from the inside. And it's working.
No, it's not. None of this is true, folks. It's propaganda...a great lie...designed to provoke an emotional response and ultimately, sell a product. Sadly, Kevin fell for it. Even more distressing, we've seen this many times throughout history. Teachers are always the ones they come after first. Why? I think you all know....I'm sure it won't be long until we see things like this again....
Let me be clear, Kevin. On this particular topic, you are not well. You've gone funny in the head and I think you need to do some serious reflection on your factual basis for these claims. If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to these words...
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.
Markadelphia, I realize that this is a complete waste of my time, but WHAT DO YOU THINK THE RAZA STUDIES PROGRAM IN THE TUSD IS? What was it that was described in "Why We Banned Legos"? Why on Earth should I assume either of these is an ANOMALY? I've watched test scores decline over my lifetime. I know that our schools are failing, and each generation that comes out produces another generation that falls further. You blame parents? They're the product of that system, too.
I've read your blatherings here for the last three years, and YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy, even as you (apparently) don't realize it. You may not be able to quote Paulo Friere chapter and verse, but you've absorbed his ideas and they come through in your writing. (You're "enslaved" because you have to buy power from one company? Really? The Corporations are keeping you Down, man?) No, Markadelphia, I'm not paranoid, I'm observant.
And bear in mind here, I'm not the one invoking Godwin's law.
Why on Earth should I assume either of these is an ANOMALY?
Because it clearly is, Kevin. You would see this if you spent any reasonable amount of time in a classroom. Do you want to know why test scores have declined? There are a number of reasons why this is happening. Much of it has to do with our culture changing for the worse and I suspect that we share common views on this fact.
YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy
No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
Let me show what you I do believe. Since the U of M came up in this discussion, here is a page you might find interesting.
These are the standards that one must live by if they want to receive a teaching license. This list is based on national standards that are employed around the country. Here is what is "spreading" around our schools. Let's take a look at few of them, shall we?
1.6 Use differing viewpoints, theories, "ways of knowing" and methods of inquiry in his/her teaching of subject matter concepts.
1.7 Evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness for representing particular ideas and concepts.
1.9 Develop and use curricula that encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.
3. Q. Develop a learning community in which individual differences are respected.
4. E. Nurture the development of students' critical thinking, independent problem solving, and performance capabilities.
4. F. Demonstrate flexibility and reciprocity in the teaching process as necessary for adapting instruction to student responses, ideas, and needs.
5. D. Know how to help people work productively and cooperatively with each other in complex social settings.
5. J. Recognize the relationship of intrinsic motivation to students' life-long growth and learning.
9. F. Understand the value of critical thinking and self-direct learning as a habit of the mind.
10. K. Identify and use community resources to foster student learning.
Combine these with the MDE standards I listed in the other link.These are just a few that I picked that are in DIRECT CONFLICT with what you assert is "coming soon" and "spreading" to our schools. This is how "critical" pedagogy is truly defined. If you want to have a rational debate that includes actual data about why test scores are going down, I'm more than willing. Until that time, I suggest that you--all of you--reflect on 1.9 in the above list for a very big clue as to why the folks at verumserum, powerline, and Katherine Kersten are actually upset.
No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
Point of clarification (one that I cannot believe I am making to a supposed teacher): your claiming that you do not believe in something does not necessarily preclude you from embodying it. As to your beliefs, I have no particular inclination to believe you or your claims, especially given your history of flagrantly and whimsically redefining words on the fly to try and support your own particular arguments... as you are doing in this exact instance. For example, the definition of the word "embody" is as follows:
"to give a concrete form to; express, personify, or exemplify in concrete form; to provide with a body; incarnate; make corporeal"
Likewise, the definition of "personify" is as follows:
"to attribute human nature or character to (an inanimate object or an abstraction), as in speech or writing; to represent (a thing or abstraction) in the form of a person"
Your belief in something, or lack thereof, is completely immaterial to the proposition that you represent the nature of "critical pedagogy" nearly every single damned time you post a comment here at TSM. On the internet, it is difficult to separate 'actions' from 'words', but your comments over the past however-many-years of commenting here more than adequately prove Kevin's statement 100% true, and your "rebuttal" is nothing more than you exposing your ignorance of the English language, while simultaneously providing no defense whatsoever.
Granted, I do not believe that you are an English teacher, but for any educator of children, your lacking grasp on our primary language is pathetically disappointing... but your willful and malicious abuse of it is just disgusting.
(Motherflyingfrakker - I write up a nice long comment, log in to comment it, and it vaporizes. I hate this software.)
... So you can ignore it, and demand that you join the system or else have no standing to challenge it. While at the same time admitting to "some problems", but without addressing how to fix them.
Show me the evidence of it "being spread."
He just did. The education department near me teaches it as well.
Show me the evidence of it "coming soon to a shool near you."
'Im curious as to why in this post you did not publish the list of "excellent" schools where this is being taught. Why not? What are the sources for verumserum and powerline that show teachers in school districts teaching with the influence of CP?
So only if you can publish every ones does it matter?
Even if we accepted that from you, if we *did* publish it, you would dismiss it, or run away.
You claim that this is being taught at the U of M. Okay, that's fine but's it's just one theory in a sea of dozens.
And so you contradict yourself, and prove what would happen.
"That's fine but it's just one theory...." It's one theory that you subscribe to, apparently in ignorance.
Which was the point of Kevin's post - not only is it spreading, but it's not spreading obviously, but below the surface. Without specifically being named in most schools. You've imbued it in your own thinking.
One of your main sources for this is Katherine Fucking Kersten, for crying out loud, Kevin! That would be like me stating that because Maureen Dowd
No, it wouldn't. Your inability to form a comparison is probably why your SAT scores suffered.
The question isn't who the "source" was, who brought it to attention but....
Get ready...
IS THE SOURCE CORRECT?
THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.
The reason we don't take Dowd seriously is that she's often wrong. Or uses something that's tangentially right as a basis for an argument that's totally off-base. Like you just did.
But even if Dowd was your source, if she LINKED TO PROOF (which in this case you admit that you've EXPERIENCED, and you've conceded sure, exists), then using Dowd AS A SOURCE doesn't matter. If Dowd were to write a column and talk about how Baradar is being waterboarded and tortured (which appears to be true), and provide links and proof, then her rampant silliness is beside the point.
But you can't get past SOURCES. You don't understand logic, or critical thinking, don't think to lecture us on it. It's all who about told you - or told us - to you. Rush! BAD! WRONG! BECK! WRONG! BAD! BAD!
Michael Moore? Oh, my god, what a genius, didn't you know that Cuban had wonderful health care?
... You can't address the ideas that we're discussing, so you have to attack the messenger. Because it'sall you know.
None of this is true, folks. It's propaganda...a great lie..
EVEN AS YOU ADMIT THAT IT IS TRUE.
It's gotta be loud in your head, it really has to be. You might disagree with Kevin's CONCLUSION (but before that you'd have to be ABLE to follow Gramsci's ideas and proposals and debate THEM). But you've self-refuted again. You keep claiming because Kevin saw it at Kersten's, it's not true, but yes, you've personally seen it, and it does exist and it does happen, but after all, it's one of a whole bunch of theories, and teachers are too overworked and underpaid to be successful at indoctrinating children...
And then claim Kevin is insane, even though you've just supported his argument.
Do you want to know why test scores have declined?
Then. Fix. It.
If you can make that statement, then you can fix it.
But you don't know. But you can point to some damn interesting things - Kevin already has. Including the literacy rate from 1940, 1950, and 1965.
I can tell you that it's dropped as we've poured money wholesale into the professional teaching system.
But you were busy denying what the QOTD said, denying the existence of the facts, and accusing Kevin of being a depraved cat shaver for saying so.
Kevin: YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy Marx: No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
It's exactly how. you. behave.
We're primary sources to that. Exactly. That's how you behave. If you really don't believe it, you're acting incorrectly - instead of continuing to embody that philosophy, you should be changing how you act.
But your comments here the past week have proven that it's exactly what you actually believe. Maybe you've successfully convinced yourself of another truth - but that's your problem. You're wrong. If you really think this isn't how you're behaving, you're wrong. Because it is.
And for nothing else, if you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't be simultaneously denying it and attacking those who point it out.
...
The course is intended as an adventure for refining and extending the skills and art of "critical thinking." (...Aronowitz/Giroux, 1985, ...)
(hey, wait, that sounds familiar...)
Google Giroux....:
"Henry Giroux, one of today's leading critical pedagogy scholars, "
Hmmmm.
Students will:
1. read selected resources and develop an ethos for the course.
2. examine and analyze the sociological "dimensions" of selected issues, examine pro and con positions, and discuss/respond to their concerns as they impact our profession. (References: Anyon 1980, Aronowitz/Giroux 1985, Berger/Lackmann 1967, Lasch 1979, Martin 1992, Nieto 1992, Shapiro/Purpel 1993); (Reflective, Decision Makers, Lifelong Learners, Culturally Sensitive; ISLLIC 1 C 12, 2 C 6); (PRAXIS Standard 1.E.1, 1.E.2);
3. students will interview a student and examine specific relationships and the effect they have on learning and living.
4. be encouraged to study course content phenomenologically. How does experience inform our understanding of what is critical?
(wait.. phen.. what? Hey, a word *I* don't know... lessee...
phenomenologically:
A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.
Gee.. that sounds.. FAMILIAR.)
The syllabus?
Week 2 of 16:Theme: introduction to Critical PedagogyExamining the discourse of Critical Theory.
Linoge, classic Nixonian. You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally. And wrongfully so, I might add. I've given you the list of standards that are REQUIRED for licensure. Taking a class in critical pedagogy is not part of that requirement. I've also given all of you a list of standards that every teacher in this state must adhere to regarding the learning of the students. These standards are also in direct conflict with CP. And yet you continue to believe what you believe...very sad.
Unix, are you saying tha you disagree with 1.9? If so, I'd like to hear why.
Larry, yes they do. Again, I ask...show me the data that supports Kevin's claims. Thus far, his data simpy isn't valid. Let's see the list of "excellent" universities, the statements on school districts web sites around the country that support CP, your comparison of CP with the standards for licensure I have listed above, and the "spreading" of this philosophy.
Linoge, classic Nixonian. You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally.
Liar.
You based an entire comment on your flawed understanding a word. I corrected you on that word - using facts (do you even know what "facts" mean?). If you consider that to be a "personal attack", then, once again, your understanding of the definitions of words is blatantly and obviously erroneous. Then again, given your flawed position to start with, it does not surprise me that you take it "personally" when someone points out that you were wrong, with the facts to support that observation.
Additionally, you made a statement you quite obviously intended as a refutation of what Kevin proposed. That statement was a non-sequiteur - it had no basis on the discussion at hand, it had no bearing, and in terms of the context of the discussion, it had no meaning.
In short, your beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to what you embody, insofar as your actions may or may not accurately portray your beliefs (or what you claim to be your beliefs).
Coincidentally, the rest of your first paragraph is likewise irrelevant to my post - I demonstrated, factually, where you misunderstood a word being used in a conversation, and wrote an entirely pointless comment regarding your understanding of that word (an understanding, I would again point out, that flies in the face of the dictionary definition of the word). I do not care what classes you had to take, I do not care what certifications you had to pass, and I do not care what qualifications you claim to have. You misunderstood a word. You put forward an irrelevant argument. And now you are lying about my reaction to it here.
Your actions are the basis upon which someone can judge what you are embodying and what you are not, and speaking as a primary source regarding your behavior on this weblog for the course of the past few years, the list blockquoted in Kevin's post concerning critical pedagogy might as well be a checklist for the vast majority of your comments here. It does not matter what you believe, or think you believe. It does not matter what you were taught, or think you were taught. It does not matter what you think you are doing.
All that matters is what you are doing - as Kevin says "does it work?"
In this case, does the hypothesis of "Markaphasia embodies critical pedagogy" work? However-the-hell many years of your comments here indicate "YES".
You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally.
Because the SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION IS YOU.
You said - you - "*I* DO NOT...". You made yourself the subject, and thereby it's hardly NIXONIAN TO STAY ON TOPIC.
Unusual for you, yes, but not sinister and certainly not "Nixonian".
Unix, are you saying tha you disagree with 1.9? If so, I'd like to hear why.
You can't even stay on topic! Much less within the English language? You don't want to hear why, you want to throw out requirements - which you'll note I just shredded - we're not one of the universities on the list, and YET IT TURNS OUT CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IS BEING TAUGHT.
Of Latino heritage despite his Anglo-sounding name, Ward was all for more thoroughly integrating the contributions of Mexican-Americans into U.S. history. But once he started teaching, he became concerned about the program's focus on victimization.
"They really wanted to identify the victimizer, which was the dominant group — in this case white America — and they wanted students to have a revolution against upper-class white America," says Ward, who now works as a state auditor.
"They had a clear message that political departments in the U.S. are arms of the dominant culture designed to keep minorities in the ghetto and to keep them downtrodden. They're teaching on the taxpayers' dime that police officers and teachers are trying to keep them down. What a perverse message to teach these kids."
C'mon, U-J, that's just another perspective, right?
I can't speak as to the assertion that this stuff is picking up steam, but the college I was educated at — a super-expensive, top tier liberal arts school — was absolutely steeped in this stuff. In every class that dealt with history, psychology, literature, and sociology, we were encouraged to view events through the lenses of victimization, racial power dynamics, and cultural relativism. For example, atrocities and outrages in third world countries were explained away or justified on the basis of insufficient compassion, understanding, or positive intervention on the part of Western nations (e.g genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation). Meanwhile, impersonal economic actions or political sausagemaking in the first world (such as failures raise the minimum wage or crack down on welfare abuse) were violently attacked as examples of deliberate assaults on the oppressed.
I don't think Kevin et al. are suggesting that some sinister force is marching in (with high-capacity bullet-hose assault weapons spray firing from the hip, no doubt) and forcing professors against their will to teach this stuff; it's just that the academic culture is slowly and subtly changing to accommodate and accept it. This is just the way academia works. It moves in waves and cycles, with particular theories becoming more published, noticed, and ultimately accepted. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the new one, because most college professors I've known are very open to these ideas. If you've read A conflict of Visions (or Kevin's review of it, perhaps), it's really easy to understand this debate in Sowellian terms.
atrocities and outrages in third world countries were explained away or justified on the basis of insufficient compassion, understanding, or positive intervention on the part of Western nations (e.g genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation). Meanwhile, impersonal economic actions or political sausagemaking in the first world (such as failures raise the minimum wage or crack down on welfare abuse) were violently attacked as examples of deliberate assaults on the oppressed.
Ironically (if not surprisingly) this is one of the most racist viewpoints I've ever encountered. Makes it so only first-world whitey is responsible for his actions; those other people just don't know any better without our help.
Linoge, alright...we're going to do that now? The word game? You know what I meant...stop being a baby. You know very well that Kevin's sources are thin and that's being kind. You also know that there is a difference between having an opinion that corporations run the world and being a Marxist. Make up whatever you want about me...it just shows how weak your points are...
Unix, 1.9 is on topic. Try to link that with your post regarding Foundations of Education. I believe in you 8-)
that political departments in the U.S. are arms of the dominant culture designed to keep minorities in the ghetto and to keep them downtrodden.
This bears no resemblence to reality whatsoever. This is not what is being taught in schools. We encourage children of all ages that in this country that we are lucky. We can do anything we set our mind to as long as we are intrinsically motivated. Any instructor, K-12, who teaches this should be fired immediately if they don't have tenure. If they do, they would ripped a new one by their team and told to encourage, not discourage kids.
I'm not certain if any of your read this link but I've been talking about it over on my blog.
The quote from it is pretty much dead on in terms of this discussion:
Mr. Mack was selling Cadillacs in Arizona, his political career seemingly over, when Mr. Obama was elected. Disheartened by the results, he wrote a 50-page booklet branding the federal government “the greatest threat we face.” The booklet argued that only local sheriffs supported by citizen militias could save the nation from “utter despotism.” He titled his booklet “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope,” offered it for sale on his Web site and returned to selling cars.
But last February he was invited to appear on “Infowars,” the Internet radio program hosted by Alex Jones, a well-known figure in the Patriot movement. Then Mr. Mack went on “The Power Hour,” another Internet radio program popular in the Patriot movement.
After those appearances, Mr. Mack said, he was inundated with invitations to speak to Tea Parties and Patriot groups. Demand was so great, he said, that he quit selling cars. Then Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, invited him to New York to appear on his podcast.
Do you ever get tired of lying, Mark, or is it simply such a deeply-ingrained part of your psyche that you do not even notice when you do it?
I made up nothing - I pointed out, factually, where you misunderstood standard American English words, and made arguments that had absolutely no bearing or basis on the argument at hand (as you continue to do - corporations and Marxism have nothing to do with Kevin's statement that you embody Critical Pedagogy). Furthermore, all of those observations I made were backed up with sources, as I linked to and quoted in the comment itself.
My "points" are that of the dictionary - if you consider those to be "weak", then what, exactly, are you doing teaching?
I do not know what you meant. I have no way of knowing what you meant. All I know is what you wrote. And what you wrote indicated a basic, elemental misunderstanding of the vocabulary at play, logic, and how to engage in an argument. These are not new shortcomings on your part - in fact, they are all systemic, repeatable, observable problems with nearly every comment thread you have ever participated in, especially now that we are exposing your characteristic inability to admit error. In reality, this little conversational sidebar has been a convenient microcosm showing more than a few of the items that have plagued you since your very beginning here.
Now, if you can admit to your erroneous understanding of "embody", and come up with a better rebuttal to Kevin's observation that you embody Critical Pedagogy than simply "Nu-uh!", then more power to you, and let us hear it. However, be forewarned - you are working against threeish years of your own words that indicate Kevin is right, nothing you have said previously has even been relevant to the observation, and your apparent inability to stay on-topic really needs to be tended to. At this point, you are staring up at us from a crevasse of your own making, and stomping your feet and gnashing your teeth at being at the bottom of it. "Tapping into your inner rage" indeed...
He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.
People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate?
“People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.”
And that's just what we have here. Tap into your inner rage...make up a bunch of shit....exagerate a few things...and, since you already have a built in audience, presto! You are in like flynn.
We start with Kevin who is pissed off that test scores are going down and children aren't being educated as they should be. This is true and he should be angry. I am as well. Then we add in his hatred of the government and his hyper paranoia and sensitivity that anything....even a sliver to the left of his hard right or classic liberal position...is Marxist. He then seeks out information (confirmation bias) that will be a vehicle for his hatred. This is where he loses rationality which is quite sad because there are actual reasons why test scores are going down...reasons that he could address on this blog and perhaps assist in moving towards significant change....especially in his area of expertise: science.
Enter the "car salesmen" like Mack. They have something to sell and Kevin is all too willing to completely embrace it....chuck reason and logic out the window....and offer no facts whatsoever to show that instructors in K-12 school districts are "infecting" students and "spreading" CP. His fear, anger, and rage clouds his judgment...so much so that he can't see the real intention of the used car salesmen (in addition to making money)...wreck all critical thinking that goes on in education so the only provider of information is them.
And all of the things that he rants about happening due to the left actually come to pass at the hands of friends....truly stunning.
even a sliver to the left of his hard right or classic liberal position
That is a remarkably dim statement there M. Hard right isn't anywhere near classic liberal. You just don't get that though, do you?
Now, compare this post to the one on your blog about the tea-partiers. Do you begin to grasp the similarities - they're there if you but look.
Back to Gramsci again Kevin? This fellow will surely go down in history as the most influential man in Western Culture in more than a 1000 years. To a small degree I agree with Markadelphia - this is one of many theories of education. It is a crackpot one no doubt - but then what leftist dogma isn't? But I don't see evidence of growth - hell sixteen (not particularly impressive) schools 40 years after the peak of leftism in the U.S., 20 some years after the fall of communism in the West?
I remember La Raza from when I was in HS in the 70s. It was just as stupid, out of place and non mainstream then. The old radicals carved out a little niche that they still hold onto - big whoop. That does NOT explain the overall decline in education that has taken place since the 50s/early-60s. Nor do I buy into any Gramsci-rooted plot to destroy Western Civ, any more than I buy into Truther, Birther or ChemTrailer folderol.
Everyone has a favorite bogeyman in education. Once it was New Math, then whole language followed by that self-esteem stupidity. A true conservative would argue for the tried and true (all the way back to teaching Latin), but the graduate system of our universities demand new and novel ideas or you just aren't a PhD. So a lot of bad ideas end up getting floated into a lot of areas; education is not immune, and may be more susceptible than others for a number of reasons.
He then seeks out information (confirmation bias) that will be a vehicle for his hatred. This is where he loses rationality which is quite sad because there are actual reasons why test scores are going down...reasons that he could address on this blog and perhaps assist in moving towards significant change....especially in his area of expertise: science.
He's linked to something incredibly telling already, and you first denied it, then ignored it.
Literacy rates *dropped* after "professional education" took hold. Literacy rates were steady from colonial times up to the 1940s, when they started to drop.
Gee, what changed there?
What of your philosophy explains that?
This is true and he should be angry.
Coming from the same person who claimed there he and I have no standing to discuss the educational system and it's results. Pick one, again, you're arguing with yourself. And losing.
Tap into your inner rage...make up a bunch of shit....exagerate a few things...and, since you already have a built in audience, presto! You are in like flynn.
Lessee. S-CHIP, WMD inspections of Iraq.. Ah, fuckit. You're too stupid to realize how bad you sound.
Bloody hell, you've already admitted you didn't know what the critical pedagogy was when you were taking it.
1.9 is on topic. Try to link that with your post regarding Foundations of Education. I believe in you
And you didn't address what I said.
Nor did you address the cut and paste from the educational school where I am. Which is teaching "critical pedagogy" as a fundamental building block.
No, time for you to start cutting and running. I'm sure "Life" will kick in shortly, in order for you to justify for yourself how badly you've argued your side.
And that's even aside from what you're dismissing as crazy - you don't even start to understand the Federal Reserve.
You won't even admit that the mortgage market is heavily regulated. Don't try and talk to me about the Fed. There's no pony over there, I'm not looking. You laid down challenges, they were answered, and now you're ignoring them. And you owe Linoge, among others, a direct apology for your slanders. He stayed on topic, you tried to (as is your wont - we're used to this, it's why DJ has your "Standard Responses" up - you follow a pretty regular gameplan) avoid and accuse HIM of bad thoughts.
Your failure to apologize for your transgressions demonstrates more about you than you realize.
Mark, what the hell does some pamphlet selling car dealer have to do with the topic at hand? You must be a truly awful teacher. You can't even stay on topic.
Just to throw fuel on the fire, when I was in College in NYC in the 70's I had to take several sociology courses, I was an engineering major at the time. Each one was filled with radical left, I love Fidel and Che professors who also blamed all the ills of the world on Whites. I was personally responsible for slavery in the US. When I said my family did not come here from Scotland until the 1900's I was told I was white and so I was responsible. And the professors back then were all white. Where did they go to school? Columbia U school of education mostly.
I teach at the university level at a pretty good state school and it is sickening how uneducated the students are, but they are so ready to scream that it is unfair, whatever the it is. If you want a perfect cartoon of what the current state of education is see this link:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1280
Oh in addition it started a lot further back - look at the education phiosophy of John Dewey in the 1920's. Professional education programs in Colleges have basically ruined education in the US.
"Oh in addition it started a lot further back - look at the education phiosophy of John Dewey in the 1920's."
"You can't make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."
-John Dewey
After scouring the intertubes, the best I can find is a quote from Stormer's "None Dare Call It Education" who is quoting Rosalie Gordon who said "You can't make socialists out of individualists." as a summary of Dewey's obsession with the group and group activity. But I can't find a source to that, either.
The Dewey quote may be bunk.
Of course, he did say this:
"I believe that the teacher's business is simply to determine on the basis of larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child.
I believe that all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help."
"I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.
believe, therefore, that the true centre of correlation of the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities."
"I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform."
"My Pedagogic Creed" by John Dewey
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
CP isn't a cause, it's a symptom. There are many such programs, most steaming from the Frankfurt School (see any program with the word 'Critical' or 'Studies' in them). The fact that this sort of nonsense is accepted, at all much less accepted with open arms in some circles, is a sign that the immune system is weak. Indeed, it seems as if the profession of teaching acts an incubator for this rot, instead of providing a defense.
Whether or not this is germane to the subject, I have another point of contention with racial oppression. Historical context. It is difficult to find any single group that has not either perpetuated or fallen victim to racial oppression in relatively recent history. I'm not referencing long history, but within the span of this nation, which is, I believe, a viable measure of time when referring to the ruling class of this nation.
Yes, black people have been treated horribly, regarded as property, and killed out of hand within the history of this nation.
Irish immigrants and their decendants have been oppressed by the ruling class of this nation, to the point of racial hatred, within the history of this nation.
Likewise, in varying degrees and locales, Poles, Jews, Catholics, Italians, Mexicans, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, people of various Nordic countries, Cubans, Communists, Greeks, Russians, El Salvadorans, Indians (I grew up on a reservation in Montana, and find the term 'Native Americans' does no justice to these people, hence I use the shorter term); the list continues ad nauseum.
What I find offensive is the practice of victimization. When the Irish were being oppressed in New England, upon their arrival from overseas, were they vocal about it? Yes, I imagine so. We are a vocal people. Were they unhappy and angry? Yes. Do their decendents currently cry out for reparations? No. They engaged in self-serving ends and felt they were well justified in and of themselves. They fought for their position in society, and now that it is assured, they rest upon the knowlege that they did what was necessary to survive. They feel no need to liberate the oppressors, or try to wrap their selfish ends in noble causes. The Irish are not victims. They saw a challenge, and overcame it. In doing so, they earned their position in society. It is my hope that someday, the current ideology of 'being a victim' will fade, and be replaced again with self-actualization. Its difficult to pull one's self out of a hole when using one's hands to point fingers at the one who pushed you into it.
...and find the term 'Native Americans' does no justice to these people...
I don't claim any tiniest admixture of American tribal blood, but reading of history etc. suggests to me that the only name that would "do justice" to them would be to refer to them individually by their tribal names. For example, if memory serves the various Lakota allies were not the friends of the Comanche by any measure. To treat them as monolithic ignores the history of both, not to mention ignoring the fact that in most American tribal languages the word for "stranger" and the word for "enemy" were the same word.
For a reasonably accurate historical context without all the information tracking involved in using tribal names, I prefer the term the Canadians use: "First Nations".
Long time lurker here. This conversation fascinates me for many reasons; not the least of which is that I'm 36 and have recently returned to college to finish my degree. I've been shocked at the degree to which doctrine is the central theme to virtually every course I'm enrolled in (with mathematics being the sole exception).
This is slightly OT but here's a recent story that, if true, will only add fuel to the fire:
"School Used Student Laptop Webcams to Spy On Them At School and Home"
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a school district after a student was disciplined by the school for his behavior at home. The principal used a screenshot from the kid's laptop as "evidence" of his wrongdoing.
Very good point, GOF, and well taken. Each tribe has its own distinct history and there is no cohesive term for any of them. However, my point was more in regards to the euphemistic nature of 'Native American.' If I am going to address the myriad tribes by a single term, I simply do not wish to wrap it in extra syllables. However, First Nations does address both the plurality and sovereignty issues, and does seem to be a more accurate term. This has, of course, become a totally separate conversation. If Markadelphia can speak in non-sequitors, so can I.
Perhaps we can agree there are a lot of problems in education. What is more damaging than CP, are the vast number of snakeoil salesmen ready to offer quick fixes to the complex problems in education. As for declining test scores, perhaps we should be cautious before believing declension narratives. Look at graduation rates then and now, what subjects were being taught then and now and then show me actual test scores from then and now and I'll believe it.
The CP thing is a trend, a horrible one, and I'm not convinced it's widespread. There are bigger problems in education. Here are a few:
Mediocre teachers--given the job requirements, pay scale, and prestige of being a teacher in a public school are we surprised that the best and brightest aren't attracted? Those of you on the "failing schools" bandwagon should quit your jobs and go become wonderful teachers and if you're unwilling start thinking about why you're unwilling.
Crap flavor of the month teaching philosophies--ask any long time teacher and they will tell you about the BS programs that have came and went during their time teaching.
Bloated administrations that suck funding away from classrooms and buy the snakeoil salemen's "fixes." And far too many education "experts" and "Saturday Morning teachers" who've never actually taught.
Spoiled, undisciplined students with no work ethic who are supported by doting parents. Look at why kids are failing and you will see many times that they simply aren't doing any work. And learning is work.
These are just a few of the problems. I generally like what you have to say, Kevin. But "Gramsci's plan" sounds like fear mongering (almost like the "blood in the streets" fallacies that gun banners used against ccw). I wholeheartedly agree that CP is bad and we should fight against it, but let's not blame all of education's problems on it. The problems in education are complex and removing one horrible practice won't fix them (although it would help).
I'm not sure where it was asserted that CP was the root of all the problems with the school system. No one here argues that if CP was removed that the public school system would function well. The whole "it's complex" thing is a tautology if there ever was one. Of course it's complex, the real world is. Any time we discuss issues we are summarizing, we do not have the time or the ability to analyze every single facet of the issue. The question at hand is simple "Is CP having a negative effect on the students in the government schools?" Just because we're focusing on one of the many bad things with the school system doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of the problems, it just means we are discussing one particular problem.
except it really is complex and the arm chair education experts tend to forget about it. you're wrong about the question at hand--the OP was a little more extreme: "destroying western culture"--my point is that if you are summarizing and offering an end of life as we know it sermon to it that you ought to acknowledge the real issues instead of exaggerating others. because most of the time, it does mean your ignoring the rest of the problems.
jsid-1266526230-80theirritablearchitect at Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:50:30 +0000
"...GIVE ME DATA, GIVE ME DATA, GIVE ME DATA!..."
And you haven't a clue as to why that is a sack-of-shit argument, do ya, teacherboy?
But I don't see evidence of growth - hell sixteen (not particularly impressive) schools 40 years after the peak of leftism in the U.S., 20 some years after the fall of communism in the West?
Right. What a relief that someone else sees this...even if it is in a small way agreeing with me.
That does NOT explain the overall decline in education that has taken place since the 50s/early-60s. Nor do I buy into any Gramsci-rooted plot to destroy Western Civ, any more than I buy into Truther, Birther or ChemTrailer folderol.
It doesn't explain the decline. There are certainly a myriad of factors that have contributed. And your inclusion with the truthers, birthers and chemtrailers is quite appropriate.
But "Gramsci's plan" sounds like fear mongering (almost like the "blood in the streets" fallacies that gun banners used against ccw).
Correct. That's exactly what it is and a perfect comparison when you consider that none of the predictions of gun control advocates have every come true.
Mediocre teachers-
I'd go even farther than that. How about horrible teachers? First of all, if you are going to gripe about pay, stop fucking being a teacher. The last thing education needs is more money. What we need is for teachers to stop thinking of themselves as underpaid intrusctors and start thinking of themselves as overpaid missionaries. We need people to invest their time and have the patience to manage the complexities of diverse learners. It's a question of intrinsic motivation which is one of the main reasons why test scores are falling. We live in an extrinsic society. "I won't do this unless a get a cookie" are how many students have been taught to learn...by their parents as well as their teachers. It's awful.
I want to also throw in that tenure is bullshit and that's not because I don't have it. If offered, I probably won't take it. Of course, that may get me into trouble with the union but oh well...it wouldn't be the first time.
Those of you on the "failing schools" bandwagon should quit your jobs and go become wonderful teachers and if you're unwilling start thinking about why you're unwilling.
Amen.
Crap flavor of the month teaching philosophies
No shit. School administrators see something that worked in New York and think it will work in MN or somewhere else. What they also don't get is that it takes a certain kind of person to connect with young people of multiple generations. Sadly, many instructors suffer from the conviciton of their own vanity and think they're good with students. Many are not. So they dress up their incompetence in these silly philosophies and think that everything will be fine.
Bloated administrations that suck funding away
Again, we don't need money. We need serious engagement from the community, parents, and the media. We need people to give their time and expertise...and actually giving a shit about it. Of course, that will mean changing our entire culture which seems to be on a perpetual quest for new holidays and leisure time.
Spoiled, undisciplined students with no work ethic who are supported by doting parents.
Or lazy parents who tell their kids if they play basketball three times a week, then someday they will be "lucky" and be in the NBA...making millions of dollars. So, who cares about school, right? This is what our culture is all about now: The Michael Jordan Generation. It's not about honest work or even finding work that you would do if no one paid you. It's about buying into the pyramid scam that you just have to be lucky and then you will have riches. Of course, once you have those riches, you can sit around and play WOW all day, eat Cheetos, and fiddle (like way too many people) while our country falls apart.
What a relief that someone else sees this...even if it is in a small way agreeing with me.
I say that guardedly because I need to remind you that even when I am criticizing Kevin's argument, it doesn't mean you have my whole-hearted support. You have been to known to make that kind of mistake, though of late you appear to be a bit more aware. Don't make me regret saying that.
Nevermind my claims for wanting data, let me skip all of that and pretend it never happened.
Sadly, many instructors suffer from the conviciton of their own vanity and think they're good with students.
Don't overdose on the irony supplements.
So they dress up their incompetence in these silly philosophies and think that everything will be fine.
No, they demand MORE MONEY. And more control. And less oversight. The more they fail, the more they gain.
That's what your inability to synthesize a whole idea, to see the forest and the trees hides from you.
That's what we're talking about. The educational system as it's currently constituted, with the CLAIMED GOALS IT HAS, has utterly failed. Which means that 1) The stated goals aren't the real goals or 2) it's incapable of meeting the goals. (Conceivably, 3) the goals are unreachable, despite the fact historically they have been met.)
In no case do you understand the situation.
Of course, once you have those riches, you can sit around and play WOW all day, eat Cheetos, and fiddle (like way too many people) while our country falls apart.
Even as your insistence on adhering to failing philosophies makes the "falling apart" even more likely.
But - even aside from that.
Playing WoW all day and having enough food to eat. That's not "rich?" How rich do you insist people become? Or how poor do you insist that they become before they're sanctified? Why would you look down on someone who has - through his own means, not handouts - the wealth to sit all day and merely consume?
It's an ugly bigotry under your hood, Mark, that's for damn sure.
And someone who I care about very much was complaining at christmas about "The Rich". Why did they need "so much", why did they have to have "all this money and try and make more" it just made no sense.
The person complaining?
Owns 3 houses and a quarter share of a farm with another.
One is on a river connected to the ocean.
One is on a 50 acre farm.
One is 5400 square feet.
The quarter share is on a 200 acre farm, with approximately 600 more acres in nearby tracts.
Owns 2 boats, 1 34 footer, and 1 14 footer.
4 Kayaks. (2 to keep at the river).
And he damn sure doesn't think _he's_ rich.
But by any _worldwide_ average of wealth and possession, he's rolling in the dough.
That person you look down on, happy to play games all day and eat "Cheetos" is fabulously wealthy if they can do that...
If you could learn to actually synthesize information, you'd start to understand that.
Maybe I should tell you _my_ ethnic background, since it appears it _might_ change my opinion - since you claim (and defend the philosophy that) facts change with the diversity of background....
Besides, if you agree with the majority of the tea partiers' views, you're white anyway even if you aren't. Remember Chris Matthews?
"All of them, every single one of them is white."
Obviously that includes Lloyd Marcus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=812am1zg0Jg
Ken Gladney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjMF3y1ytQ
and Katrina Pierson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bNpNU4ls
Oh, and that black guy you can see over Katrina's left shoulder? He doesn't actually exist. Like Katrina, Ken and Lloyd, he is an "unperson", MS-NBC has spoken.
But then the left had already decided that conservatives are white racists even when they're not anyway, as in their treatment of this man:
As usual, Mark misses the forest for the trees. To go back to an earlier quote of his: He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades. Notice Mark is willing to dismiss them as "paranoids" - *without addressing their issues*. Just like he'll call racist, or us "anti-academic".
So let's bring up some _discussion_ of the Fed, shall we?
http://tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=082709A
From 1776 to 1912 (136 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, increased by 11% ... A loaf of bread for Thomas Jefferson cost the same as a loaf of bread for Lincoln 50 years later and again the same for J.P. Morgan 50 years after that. The United States Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. The stated purpose of the Fed, by the definition taken from its own website, is to "conduct the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices."... After the Fed's creation, from 1913 to 2008 (95 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, decreased by 95%. A dollar could buy 95% fewer goods in 2008 than in 1913. ... In other words, the value of the dollar remained extremely stable for 150 years, the Fed was created in order to "stabilize the value of the dollar," and the result has been a 95% devaluation of the dollar in less than 100 years following its creation.
Back to Mark: People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate? “People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.
Yep. Ordinary people who are *questioning what they are being told*.
Correctly in (at least) several of those cases, as it turns out.
"Death Panels?" Yep. Exactly. You might object to the name, preferring something like the "Bipartisan Incorporated Almagated Compassionate Rational Health Care Commitee".
But the *concept* is the same, and exactly correct in the critique. Not "paranoid".
Global Warming? Dealt with well here already. Definately proven to BE at least an attempted fraud, despite what the climate is doing.
Birth Certificate? Well, it's a mooted point now.
But that's what happens when you find out the powers-that-be aren't doing their
job and/or are lying. You start to doubt all sorts of things. (Especially when nobody will bother to, you know, actually check on obvious things.)
While I can appreciate the depth of your research and am certain of the validity of your reasoning, you are wasting your efforts on the 'Liberals'.
I taught school for 13 years and quit because I could no longer be a part of a system run by left-wingers who were more interested in being politically correct than they were in enforcing discipline and learning.
As the old saying goes,"Never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".
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/why-i-keep-marxadelphia-around.html (60 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Marxy argued: "Where is the evidence in schools that CP is being adopted at the K-12 level? Show me some data beyond theoretical papers."
I would say that's a resounding answer. Good job Kevin!
I found an interesting follow-up interview of dear Dr. Augustine Romero in a Latino magazine. Check out all the key words:
http://www.latinopm.com/Latino-Perspectives-Magazine/March-2008/A-Revolutionary-Educator/
Interestingly, I can't find Dr. Romero's cv or educational history. This suggests that his scholarly work, if any, was not impressive—and more importantly, is not the basis for his present employment and standing. He is, however, rather active in several administrative posts having to do with "student equity."
(When I hear "student equity," my first thought is to ask what the share price is...)
Ah, yes, the "we got rich by oppressing people who have nothing and taking it from them" theory of wealth.
"Once a State has been established the problem of the ruling group or 'caste' is how to maintain their rule. While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a 'democratic' government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State — the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility) — must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens."
"Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. ...[T]his ... secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the 'intellectuals.' For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the 'opinion-molders' in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for [the] age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear."
-- Murray Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State"
We see this happening in two ways, as outlined by Kevin with the "White Man is Oppressive" narrative and the one coming out of the White House since, well, at least the turn of the last century, if not before, of "The Government Knows Best" and lately with "I won".
So to Marxadelphia's assertion that Critical Pedagogy was "lying bullshit" and "paranoia," I say, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
And I say, show me the data. Show me the evidence of it "being spread." Show me the evidence of it "coming soon to a shool near you." I'm curious as to why in this post you did not publish the list of "excellent" schools where this is being taught. Why not? What are the sources for verumserum and powerline that show teachers in school districts teaching with the influence of CP?
You claim that this is being taught at the U of M. Okay, that's fine but's it's just one theory in a sea of dozens. The school I went to used emphasized a Lasallian approach to education. The one thing I took away from that is to focus on the individual's learning needs. Show me concrete examples of teachers currently in the state of Minnesota (or anywhere else) that are teaching under the auspices of CP. I'm in the MN school system. We have so much on our plate to deal with that demonstrating to children that they are all oppressed doesn't even fucking come up in the conversation. No one talks of the community police being part of white oppression nor of white teachers keeping down non white students. Future instructors in this state are taught to adhere to the MDE standards which I have listed in the previous thread. Have you read them yet?
What this whole discussion does show is that you have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you don't live by your own words. You have told me, time and again, to use reasoning, facts, logic and critical thinking when making an argument. The assertions you are making combined with the sources you have provided show little if any of that. They are all based on a fervent emotion that has no foundation in reality. Actually, I'm being kind by saying that. One of your main sources for this is Katherine Fucking Kersten, for crying out loud, Kevin! That would be like me stating that because Maureen Dowd published a column stating that forced prayer in school is being taught at Regent University that we need to nuke everything.
You chide me for calling you paranoid and yet we have this...
They are coming to SCHOOLS NEAR YOU, and bringing it with them.
They are INFLICTING IT ON STUDENTS in your school systems
it is being spread.
it is part and parcel of Gramsci's plan to destroy Western culture from the inside. And it's working.
No, it's not. None of this is true, folks. It's propaganda...a great lie...designed to provoke an emotional response and ultimately, sell a product. Sadly, Kevin fell for it. Even more distressing, we've seen this many times throughout history. Teachers are always the ones they come after first. Why? I think you all know....I'm sure it won't be long until we see things like this again....
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds11.jpg
Let me be clear, Kevin. On this particular topic, you are not well. You've gone funny in the head and I think you need to do some serious reflection on your factual basis for these claims. If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to these words...
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.
Markadelphia, I realize that this is a complete waste of my time, but WHAT DO YOU THINK THE RAZA STUDIES PROGRAM IN THE TUSD IS? What was it that was described in "Why We Banned Legos"? Why on Earth should I assume either of these is an ANOMALY? I've watched test scores decline over my lifetime. I know that our schools are failing, and each generation that comes out produces another generation that falls further. You blame parents? They're the product of that system, too.
I've read your blatherings here for the last three years, and YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy, even as you (apparently) don't realize it. You may not be able to quote Paulo Friere chapter and verse, but you've absorbed his ideas and they come through in your writing. (You're "enslaved" because you have to buy power from one company? Really? The Corporations are keeping you Down, man?) No, Markadelphia, I'm not paranoid, I'm observant.
And bear in mind here, I'm not the one invoking Godwin's law.
Why on Earth should I assume either of these is an ANOMALY?
Because it clearly is, Kevin. You would see this if you spent any reasonable amount of time in a classroom. Do you want to know why test scores have declined? There are a number of reasons why this is happening. Much of it has to do with our culture changing for the worse and I suspect that we share common views on this fact.
YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy
No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
Let me show what you I do believe. Since the U of M came up in this discussion, here is a page you might find interesting.
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ppg/coopteachers/Clinical/Standards/
These are the standards that one must live by if they want to receive a teaching license. This list is based on national standards that are employed around the country. Here is what is "spreading" around our schools. Let's take a look at few of them, shall we?
1.6 Use differing viewpoints, theories, "ways of knowing" and methods of inquiry in his/her teaching of subject matter concepts.
1.7 Evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness for representing particular ideas and concepts.
1.9 Develop and use curricula that encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.
3. Q. Develop a learning community in which individual differences are respected.
4. E. Nurture the development of students' critical thinking, independent problem solving, and performance capabilities.
4. F. Demonstrate flexibility and reciprocity in the teaching process as necessary for adapting instruction to student responses, ideas, and needs.
5. D. Know how to help people work productively and cooperatively with each other in complex social settings.
5. J. Recognize the relationship of intrinsic motivation to students' life-long growth and learning.
9. F. Understand the value of critical thinking and self-direct learning as a habit of the mind.
10. K. Identify and use community resources to foster student learning.
Combine these with the MDE standards I listed in the other link.These are just a few that I picked that are in DIRECT CONFLICT with what you assert is "coming soon" and "spreading" to our schools. This is how "critical" pedagogy is truly defined. If you want to have a rational debate that includes actual data about why test scores are going down, I'm more than willing. Until that time, I suggest that you--all of you--reflect on 1.9 in the above list for a very big clue as to why the folks at verumserum, powerline, and Katherine Kersten are actually upset.
YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy
No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
Point of clarification (one that I cannot believe I am making to a supposed teacher): your claiming that you do not believe in something does not necessarily preclude you from embodying it. As to your beliefs, I have no particular inclination to believe you or your claims, especially given your history of flagrantly and whimsically redefining words on the fly to try and support your own particular arguments... as you are doing in this exact instance. For example, the definition of the word "embody" is as follows:
"to give a concrete form to; express, personify, or exemplify in concrete form; to provide with a body; incarnate; make corporeal"
Likewise, the definition of "personify" is as follows:
"to attribute human nature or character to (an inanimate object or an abstraction), as in speech or writing; to represent (a thing or abstraction) in the form of a person"
Your belief in something, or lack thereof, is completely immaterial to the proposition that you represent the nature of "critical pedagogy" nearly every single damned time you post a comment here at TSM. On the internet, it is difficult to separate 'actions' from 'words', but your comments over the past however-many-years of commenting here more than adequately prove Kevin's statement 100% true, and your "rebuttal" is nothing more than you exposing your ignorance of the English language, while simultaneously providing no defense whatsoever.
Granted, I do not believe that you are an English teacher, but for any educator of children, your lacking grasp on our primary language is pathetically disappointing... but your willful and malicious abuse of it is just disgusting.
(Motherflyingfrakker - I write up a nice long comment, log in to comment it, and it vaporizes. I hate this software.)
.... This commenting software is a piece of shit.
(this is a test)
And I say, show me the data.
... So you can ignore it, and demand that you join the system or else have no standing to challenge it. While at the same time admitting to "some problems", but without addressing how to fix them.
Show me the evidence of it "being spread."
He just did. The education department near me teaches it as well.
Show me the evidence of it "coming soon to a shool near you."
He-LLO. Primary Source.
'Im curious as to why in this post you did not publish the list of "excellent" schools where this is being taught. Why not? What are the sources for verumserum and powerline that show teachers in school districts teaching with the influence of CP?
So only if you can publish every ones does it matter?
Even if we accepted that from you, if we *did* publish it, you would dismiss it, or run away.
You claim that this is being taught at the U of M. Okay, that's fine but's it's just one theory in a sea of dozens.
And so you contradict yourself, and prove what would happen.
"That's fine but it's just one theory...." It's one theory that you subscribe to, apparently in ignorance.
Which was the point of Kevin's post - not only is it spreading, but it's not spreading obviously, but below the surface. Without specifically being named in most schools. You've imbued it in your own thinking.
One of your main sources for this is Katherine Fucking Kersten, for crying out loud, Kevin! That would be like me stating that because Maureen Dowd
No, it wouldn't. Your inability to form a comparison is probably why your SAT scores suffered.
The question isn't who the "source" was, who brought it to attention but....
Get ready...
IS THE SOURCE CORRECT?
THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.
The reason we don't take Dowd seriously is that she's often wrong. Or uses something that's tangentially right as a basis for an argument that's totally off-base. Like you just did.
But even if Dowd was your source, if she LINKED TO PROOF (which in this case you admit that you've EXPERIENCED, and you've conceded sure, exists), then using Dowd AS A SOURCE doesn't matter. If Dowd were to write a column and talk about how Baradar is being waterboarded and tortured (which appears to be true), and provide links and proof, then her rampant silliness is beside the point.
But you can't get past SOURCES. You don't understand logic, or critical thinking, don't think to lecture us on it. It's all who about told you - or told us - to you. Rush! BAD! WRONG! BECK! WRONG! BAD! BAD!
Michael Moore? Oh, my god, what a genius, didn't you know that Cuban had wonderful health care?
... You can't address the ideas that we're discussing, so you have to attack the messenger. Because it'sall you know.
None of this is true, folks. It's propaganda...a great lie..
EVEN AS YOU ADMIT THAT IT IS TRUE.
It's gotta be loud in your head, it really has to be. You might disagree with Kevin's CONCLUSION (but before that you'd have to be ABLE to follow Gramsci's ideas and proposals and debate THEM). But you've self-refuted again. You keep claiming because Kevin saw it at Kersten's, it's not true, but yes, you've personally seen it, and it does exist and it does happen, but after all, it's one of a whole bunch of theories, and teachers are too overworked and underpaid to be successful at indoctrinating children...
And then claim Kevin is insane, even though you've just supported his argument.
Do you want to know why test scores have declined?
Then. Fix. It.
If you can make that statement, then you can fix it.
But you don't know. But you can point to some damn interesting things - Kevin already has. Including the literacy rate from 1940, 1950, and 1965.
I can tell you that it's dropped as we've poured money wholesale into the professional teaching system.
But you were busy denying what the QOTD said, denying the existence of the facts, and accusing Kevin of being a depraved cat shaver for saying so.
Kevin: YOU EMBODY the CP philosophy
Marx: No, I don't. It's not something even remotely close to what I believe.
It's exactly how. you. behave.
We're primary sources to that. Exactly. That's how you behave. If you really don't believe it, you're acting incorrectly - instead of continuing to embody that philosophy, you should be changing how you act.
But your comments here the past week have proven that it's exactly what you actually believe. Maybe you've successfully convinced yourself of another truth - but that's your problem. You're wrong. If you really think this isn't how you're behaving, you're wrong. Because it is.
And for nothing else, if you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't be simultaneously denying it and attacking those who point it out.
Facts exist, regardless of your ability (or willingness) to believe them.
By the way...
From the College of Education's web site...
FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
Semester Hours: 3
...
The course is intended as an adventure for refining and extending the skills and art of "critical thinking." (...Aronowitz/Giroux, 1985, ...)
(hey, wait, that sounds familiar...)
Google Giroux....:
"Henry Giroux, one of today's leading critical pedagogy scholars, "
Hmmmm.
Students will:
1. read selected resources and develop an ethos for the course.
2. examine and analyze the sociological "dimensions" of selected issues, examine pro and con positions, and discuss/respond to their concerns as they impact our profession. (References: Anyon 1980, Aronowitz/Giroux 1985, Berger/Lackmann 1967, Lasch 1979, Martin 1992, Nieto 1992, Shapiro/Purpel 1993); (Reflective, Decision Makers, Lifelong Learners, Culturally Sensitive; ISLLIC 1 C 12, 2 C 6); (PRAXIS Standard 1.E.1, 1.E.2);
3. students will interview a student and examine specific relationships and the effect they have on learning and living.
4. be encouraged to study course content phenomenologically. How does experience inform our understanding of what is critical?
(wait.. phen.. what? Hey, a word *I* don't know... lessee...
phenomenologically:
A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.
Gee.. that sounds.. FAMILIAR.)
The syllabus?
Week 2 of 16:Theme: introduction to Critical PedagogyExamining the discourse of Critical Theory.
Linoge, classic Nixonian. You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally. And wrongfully so, I might add. I've given you the list of standards that are REQUIRED for licensure. Taking a class in critical pedagogy is not part of that requirement. I've also given all of you a list of standards that every teacher in this state must adhere to regarding the learning of the students. These standards are also in direct conflict with CP. And yet you continue to believe what you believe...very sad.
Unix, are you saying tha you disagree with 1.9? If so, I'd like to hear why.
Larry, yes they do. Again, I ask...show me the data that supports Kevin's claims. Thus far, his data simpy isn't valid. Let's see the list of "excellent" universities, the statements on school districts web sites around the country that support CP, your comparison of CP with the standards for licensure I have listed above, and the "spreading" of this philosophy.
Linoge, classic Nixonian. You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally.
Liar.
You based an entire comment on your flawed understanding a word. I corrected you on that word - using facts (do you even know what "facts" mean?). If you consider that to be a "personal attack", then, once again, your understanding of the definitions of words is blatantly and obviously erroneous. Then again, given your flawed position to start with, it does not surprise me that you take it "personally" when someone points out that you were wrong, with the facts to support that observation.
Additionally, you made a statement you quite obviously intended as a refutation of what Kevin proposed. That statement was a non-sequiteur - it had no basis on the discussion at hand, it had no bearing, and in terms of the context of the discussion, it had no meaning.
In short, your beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to what you embody, insofar as your actions may or may not accurately portray your beliefs (or what you claim to be your beliefs).
Coincidentally, the rest of your first paragraph is likewise irrelevant to my post - I demonstrated, factually, where you misunderstood a word being used in a conversation, and wrote an entirely pointless comment regarding your understanding of that word (an understanding, I would again point out, that flies in the face of the dictionary definition of the word). I do not care what classes you had to take, I do not care what certifications you had to pass, and I do not care what qualifications you claim to have. You misunderstood a word. You put forward an irrelevant argument. And now you are lying about my reaction to it here.
Your actions are the basis upon which someone can judge what you are embodying and what you are not, and speaking as a primary source regarding your behavior on this weblog for the course of the past few years, the list blockquoted in Kevin's post concerning critical pedagogy might as well be a checklist for the vast majority of your comments here. It does not matter what you believe, or think you believe. It does not matter what you were taught, or think you were taught. It does not matter what you think you are doing.
All that matters is what you are doing - as Kevin says "does it work?"
In this case, does the hypothesis of "Markaphasia embodies critical pedagogy" work? However-the-hell many years of your comments here indicate "YES".
You can't refute me on the facts so you attack me personally.
Because the SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION IS YOU.
You said - you - "*I* DO NOT...". You made yourself the subject, and thereby it's hardly NIXONIAN TO STAY ON TOPIC.
Unusual for you, yes, but not sinister and certainly not "Nixonian".
Unix, are you saying tha you disagree with 1.9? If so, I'd like to hear why.
You can't even stay on topic! Much less within the English language? You don't want to hear why, you want to throw out requirements - which you'll note I just shredded - we're not one of the universities on the list, and YET IT TURNS OUT CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IS BEING TAUGHT.
Thus, it's "spreading".
It would be gracious to admit your errors.
As I said, he's too perfect an example of the Left in this country not to let him continue to illuminate their failings.
Game, set, match to Unix-Jedi...
Hell I was going to invoke the mercy rule.
But, what the hell:
1.9 Develop and use curricula that encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.
No. I don't agree with that. The "diverse" ideas is irrelevant. The question I want schools to teach children is evaluating ideas against reality.
We've seen the perversion of the word "Diversity" to mean "whatever someone of a protected class thinks - regardless of facts".
If it's meant - as in my experience - in that way, no, that's not a good goal, milestone, and is the opposite of what should be being taught.
Of Latino heritage despite his Anglo-sounding name, Ward was all for more thoroughly integrating the contributions of Mexican-Americans into U.S. history. But once he started teaching, he became concerned about the program's focus on victimization.
"They really wanted to identify the victimizer, which was the dominant group — in this case white America — and they wanted students to have a revolution against upper-class white America," says Ward, who now works as a state auditor.
"They had a clear message that political departments in the U.S. are arms of the dominant culture designed to keep minorities in the ghetto and to keep them downtrodden. They're teaching on the taxpayers' dime that police officers and teachers are trying to keep them down. What a perverse message to teach these kids."
C'mon, U-J, that's just another perspective, right?
It's all about the diversity!
We've got to hear from all the victim groups!
I can't speak as to the assertion that this stuff is picking up steam, but the college I was educated at — a super-expensive, top tier liberal arts school — was absolutely steeped in this stuff. In every class that dealt with history, psychology, literature, and sociology, we were encouraged to view events through the lenses of victimization, racial power dynamics, and cultural relativism. For example, atrocities and outrages in third world countries were explained away or justified on the basis of insufficient compassion, understanding, or positive intervention on the part of Western nations (e.g genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation). Meanwhile, impersonal economic actions or political sausagemaking in the first world (such as failures raise the minimum wage or crack down on welfare abuse) were violently attacked as examples of deliberate assaults on the oppressed.
I don't think Kevin et al. are suggesting that some sinister force is marching in (with high-capacity bullet-hose assault weapons spray firing from the hip, no doubt) and forcing professors against their will to teach this stuff; it's just that the academic culture is slowly and subtly changing to accommodate and accept it. This is just the way academia works. It moves in waves and cycles, with particular theories becoming more published, noticed, and ultimately accepted. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the new one, because most college professors I've known are very open to these ideas. If you've read A conflict of Visions (or Kevin's review of it, perhaps), it's really easy to understand this debate in Sowellian terms.
atrocities and outrages in third world countries were explained away or justified on the basis of insufficient compassion, understanding, or positive intervention on the part of Western nations (e.g genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation). Meanwhile, impersonal economic actions or political sausagemaking in the first world (such as failures raise the minimum wage or crack down on welfare abuse) were violently attacked as examples of deliberate assaults on the oppressed.
Ironically (if not surprisingly) this is one of the most racist viewpoints I've ever encountered. Makes it so only first-world whitey is responsible for his actions; those other people just don't know any better without our help.
Linoge, alright...we're going to do that now? The word game? You know what I meant...stop being a baby. You know very well that Kevin's sources are thin and that's being kind. You also know that there is a difference between having an opinion that corporations run the world and being a Marxist. Make up whatever you want about me...it just shows how weak your points are...
Unix, 1.9 is on topic. Try to link that with your post regarding Foundations of Education. I believe in you 8-)
that political departments in the U.S. are arms of the dominant culture designed to keep minorities in the ghetto and to keep them downtrodden.
This bears no resemblence to reality whatsoever. This is not what is being taught in schools. We encourage children of all ages that in this country that we are lucky. We can do anything we set our mind to as long as we are intrinsically motivated. Any instructor, K-12, who teaches this should be fired immediately if they don't have tenure. If they do, they would ripped a new one by their team and told to encourage, not discourage kids.
I'm not certain if any of your read this link but I've been talking about it over on my blog.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?pagewanted=1&hp
The quote from it is pretty much dead on in terms of this discussion:
Mr. Mack was selling Cadillacs in Arizona, his political career seemingly over, when Mr. Obama was elected. Disheartened by the results, he wrote a 50-page booklet branding the federal government “the greatest threat we face.” The booklet argued that only local sheriffs supported by citizen militias could save the nation from “utter despotism.” He titled his booklet “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope,” offered it for sale on his Web site and returned to selling cars.
But last February he was invited to appear on “Infowars,” the Internet radio program hosted by Alex Jones, a well-known figure in the Patriot movement. Then Mr. Mack went on “The Power Hour,” another Internet radio program popular in the Patriot movement.
After those appearances, Mr. Mack said, he was inundated with invitations to speak to Tea Parties and Patriot groups. Demand was so great, he said, that he quit selling cars. Then Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, invited him to New York to appear on his podcast.
Do you ever get tired of lying, Mark, or is it simply such a deeply-ingrained part of your psyche that you do not even notice when you do it?
I made up nothing - I pointed out, factually, where you misunderstood standard American English words, and made arguments that had absolutely no bearing or basis on the argument at hand (as you continue to do - corporations and Marxism have nothing to do with Kevin's statement that you embody Critical Pedagogy). Furthermore, all of those observations I made were backed up with sources, as I linked to and quoted in the comment itself.
My "points" are that of the dictionary - if you consider those to be "weak", then what, exactly, are you doing teaching?
I do not know what you meant. I have no way of knowing what you meant. All I know is what you wrote. And what you wrote indicated a basic, elemental misunderstanding of the vocabulary at play, logic, and how to engage in an argument. These are not new shortcomings on your part - in fact, they are all systemic, repeatable, observable problems with nearly every comment thread you have ever participated in, especially now that we are exposing your characteristic inability to admit error. In reality, this little conversational sidebar has been a convenient microcosm showing more than a few of the items that have plagued you since your very beginning here.
Now, if you can admit to your erroneous understanding of "embody", and come up with a better rebuttal to Kevin's observation that you embody Critical Pedagogy than simply "Nu-uh!", then more power to you, and let us hear it. However, be forewarned - you are working against threeish years of your own words that indicate Kevin is right, nothing you have said previously has even been relevant to the observation, and your apparent inability to stay on-topic really needs to be tended to. At this point, you are staring up at us from a crevasse of your own making, and stomping your feet and gnashing your teeth at being at the bottom of it. "Tapping into your inner rage" indeed...
He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.
People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate?
“People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.”
And that's just what we have here. Tap into your inner rage...make up a bunch of shit....exagerate a few things...and, since you already have a built in audience, presto! You are in like flynn.
We start with Kevin who is pissed off that test scores are going down and children aren't being educated as they should be. This is true and he should be angry. I am as well. Then we add in his hatred of the government and his hyper paranoia and sensitivity that anything....even a sliver to the left of his hard right or classic liberal position...is Marxist. He then seeks out information (confirmation bias) that will be a vehicle for his hatred. This is where he loses rationality which is quite sad because there are actual reasons why test scores are going down...reasons that he could address on this blog and perhaps assist in moving towards significant change....especially in his area of expertise: science.
Enter the "car salesmen" like Mack. They have something to sell and Kevin is all too willing to completely embrace it....chuck reason and logic out the window....and offer no facts whatsoever to show that instructors in K-12 school districts are "infecting" students and "spreading" CP. His fear, anger, and rage clouds his judgment...so much so that he can't see the real intention of the used car salesmen (in addition to making money)...wreck all critical thinking that goes on in education so the only provider of information is them.
And all of the things that he rants about happening due to the left actually come to pass at the hands of friends....truly stunning.
even a sliver to the left of his hard right or classic liberal position
That is a remarkably dim statement there M. Hard right isn't anywhere near classic liberal. You just don't get that though, do you?
Now, compare this post to the one on your blog about the tea-partiers. Do you begin to grasp the similarities - they're there if you but look.
Back to Gramsci again Kevin? This fellow will surely go down in history as the most influential man in Western Culture in more than a 1000 years. To a small degree I agree with Markadelphia - this is one of many theories of education. It is a crackpot one no doubt - but then what leftist dogma isn't? But I don't see evidence of growth - hell sixteen (not particularly impressive) schools 40 years after the peak of leftism in the U.S., 20 some years after the fall of communism in the West?
I remember La Raza from when I was in HS in the 70s. It was just as stupid, out of place and non mainstream then. The old radicals carved out a little niche that they still hold onto - big whoop. That does NOT explain the overall decline in education that has taken place since the 50s/early-60s. Nor do I buy into any Gramsci-rooted plot to destroy Western Civ, any more than I buy into Truther, Birther or ChemTrailer folderol.
Everyone has a favorite bogeyman in education. Once it was New Math, then whole language followed by that self-esteem stupidity. A true conservative would argue for the tried and true (all the way back to teaching Latin), but the graduate system of our universities demand new and novel ideas or you just aren't a PhD. So a lot of bad ideas end up getting floated into a lot of areas; education is not immune, and may be more susceptible than others for a number of reasons.
This deserves its own post, and it shall have it! :)
He then seeks out information (confirmation bias) that will be a vehicle for his hatred. This is where he loses rationality which is quite sad because there are actual reasons why test scores are going down...reasons that he could address on this blog and perhaps assist in moving towards significant change....especially in his area of expertise: science.
He's linked to something incredibly telling already, and you first denied it, then ignored it.
Literacy rates *dropped* after "professional education" took hold. Literacy rates were steady from colonial times up to the 1940s, when they started to drop.
Gee, what changed there?
What of your philosophy explains that?
This is true and he should be angry.
Coming from the same person who claimed there he and I have no standing to discuss the educational system and it's results. Pick one, again, you're arguing with yourself. And losing.
Tap into your inner rage...make up a bunch of shit....exagerate a few things...and, since you already have a built in audience, presto! You are in like flynn.
Lessee. S-CHIP, WMD inspections of Iraq.. Ah, fuckit. You're too stupid to realize how bad you sound.
Bloody hell, you've already admitted you didn't know what the critical pedagogy was when you were taking it.
1.9 is on topic. Try to link that with your post regarding Foundations of Education. I believe in you
And you didn't address what I said.
Nor did you address the cut and paste from the educational school where I am. Which is teaching "critical pedagogy" as a fundamental building block.
No, time for you to start cutting and running. I'm sure "Life" will kick in shortly, in order for you to justify for yourself how badly you've argued your side.
And that's even aside from what you're dismissing as crazy - you don't even start to understand the Federal Reserve.
You won't even admit that the mortgage market is heavily regulated. Don't try and talk to me about the Fed. There's no pony over there, I'm not looking. You laid down challenges, they were answered, and now you're ignoring them. And you owe Linoge, among others, a direct apology for your slanders. He stayed on topic, you tried to (as is your wont - we're used to this, it's why DJ has your "Standard Responses" up - you follow a pretty regular gameplan) avoid and accuse HIM of bad thoughts.
Your failure to apologize for your transgressions demonstrates more about you than you realize.
Mark, what the hell does some pamphlet selling car dealer have to do with the topic at hand? You must be a truly awful teacher. You can't even stay on topic.
His only way of communicating appears to be non-sequiturs. It is like those guys from ST:tNG who could only talk in idioms... only stupider.
Just to throw fuel on the fire, when I was in College in NYC in the 70's I had to take several sociology courses, I was an engineering major at the time. Each one was filled with radical left, I love Fidel and Che professors who also blamed all the ills of the world on Whites. I was personally responsible for slavery in the US. When I said my family did not come here from Scotland until the 1900's I was told I was white and so I was responsible. And the professors back then were all white. Where did they go to school? Columbia U school of education mostly.
I teach at the university level at a pretty good state school and it is sickening how uneducated the students are, but they are so ready to scream that it is unfair, whatever the it is. If you want a perfect cartoon of what the current state of education is see this link:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1280
Oh in addition it started a lot further back - look at the education phiosophy of John Dewey in the 1920's. Professional education programs in Colleges have basically ruined education in the US.
That's been one of my points from the beginning, Rich. Thanks for your input.
"Oh in addition it started a lot further back - look at the education phiosophy of John Dewey in the 1920's."
"You can't make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."
-John Dewey
Bob: I've seen that (and quoted it) but do you have a source link? I'd really like to find one.
Me too.
After scouring the intertubes, the best I can find is a quote from Stormer's "None Dare Call It Education" who is quoting Rosalie Gordon who said "You can't make socialists out of individualists." as a summary of Dewey's obsession with the group and group activity. But I can't find a source to that, either.
The Dewey quote may be bunk.
Of course, he did say this:
"I believe that the teacher's business is simply to determine on the basis of larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child.
I believe that all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help."
"I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.
believe, therefore, that the true centre of correlation of the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities."
"I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform."
"My Pedagogic Creed" by John Dewey
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
CP isn't a cause, it's a symptom. There are many such programs, most steaming from the Frankfurt School (see any program with the word 'Critical' or 'Studies' in them). The fact that this sort of nonsense is accepted, at all much less accepted with open arms in some circles, is a sign that the immune system is weak. Indeed, it seems as if the profession of teaching acts an incubator for this rot, instead of providing a defense.
Whether or not this is germane to the subject, I have another point of contention with racial oppression. Historical context. It is difficult to find any single group that has not either perpetuated or fallen victim to racial oppression in relatively recent history. I'm not referencing long history, but within the span of this nation, which is, I believe, a viable measure of time when referring to the ruling class of this nation.
Yes, black people have been treated horribly, regarded as property, and killed out of hand within the history of this nation.
Irish immigrants and their decendants have been oppressed by the ruling class of this nation, to the point of racial hatred, within the history of this nation.
Likewise, in varying degrees and locales, Poles, Jews, Catholics, Italians, Mexicans, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, people of various Nordic countries, Cubans, Communists, Greeks, Russians, El Salvadorans, Indians (I grew up on a reservation in Montana, and find the term 'Native Americans' does no justice to these people, hence I use the shorter term); the list continues ad nauseum.
What I find offensive is the practice of victimization. When the Irish were being oppressed in New England, upon their arrival from overseas, were they vocal about it? Yes, I imagine so. We are a vocal people. Were they unhappy and angry? Yes. Do their decendents currently cry out for reparations? No. They engaged in self-serving ends and felt they were well justified in and of themselves. They fought for their position in society, and now that it is assured, they rest upon the knowlege that they did what was necessary to survive. They feel no need to liberate the oppressors, or try to wrap their selfish ends in noble causes. The Irish are not victims. They saw a challenge, and overcame it. In doing so, they earned their position in society. It is my hope that someday, the current ideology of 'being a victim' will fade, and be replaced again with self-actualization. Its difficult to pull one's self out of a hole when using one's hands to point fingers at the one who pushed you into it.
...and find the term 'Native Americans' does no justice to these people...
I don't claim any tiniest admixture of American tribal blood, but reading of history etc. suggests to me that the only name that would "do justice" to them would be to refer to them individually by their tribal names. For example, if memory serves the various Lakota allies were not the friends of the Comanche by any measure. To treat them as monolithic ignores the history of both, not to mention ignoring the fact that in most American tribal languages the word for "stranger" and the word for "enemy" were the same word.
For a reasonably accurate historical context without all the information tracking involved in using tribal names, I prefer the term the Canadians use: "First Nations".
Long time lurker here. This conversation fascinates me for many reasons; not the least of which is that I'm 36 and have recently returned to college to finish my degree. I've been shocked at the degree to which doctrine is the central theme to virtually every course I'm enrolled in (with mathematics being the sole exception).
This is slightly OT but here's a recent story that, if true, will only add fuel to the fire:
"School Used Student Laptop Webcams to Spy On Them At School and Home"
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a school district after a student was disciplined by the school for his behavior at home. The principal used a screenshot from the kid's laptop as "evidence" of his wrongdoing.
Very good point, GOF, and well taken. Each tribe has its own distinct history and there is no cohesive term for any of them. However, my point was more in regards to the euphemistic nature of 'Native American.' If I am going to address the myriad tribes by a single term, I simply do not wish to wrap it in extra syllables. However, First Nations does address both the plurality and sovereignty issues, and does seem to be a more accurate term. This has, of course, become a totally separate conversation. If Markadelphia can speak in non-sequitors, so can I.
"First Nations does address both the plurality and sovereignty issues, and does seem to be a more accurate term."
True. But what do you call an individual from that ethnic group? A "First National"? ;)
Perhaps we can agree there are a lot of problems in education. What is more damaging than CP, are the vast number of snakeoil salesmen ready to offer quick fixes to the complex problems in education. As for declining test scores, perhaps we should be cautious before believing declension narratives. Look at graduation rates then and now, what subjects were being taught then and now and then show me actual test scores from then and now and I'll believe it.
The CP thing is a trend, a horrible one, and I'm not convinced it's widespread. There are bigger problems in education. Here are a few:
Mediocre teachers--given the job requirements, pay scale, and prestige of being a teacher in a public school are we surprised that the best and brightest aren't attracted? Those of you on the "failing schools" bandwagon should quit your jobs and go become wonderful teachers and if you're unwilling start thinking about why you're unwilling.
Crap flavor of the month teaching philosophies--ask any long time teacher and they will tell you about the BS programs that have came and went during their time teaching.
Bloated administrations that suck funding away from classrooms and buy the snakeoil salemen's "fixes." And far too many education "experts" and "Saturday Morning teachers" who've never actually taught.
Spoiled, undisciplined students with no work ethic who are supported by doting parents. Look at why kids are failing and you will see many times that they simply aren't doing any work. And learning is work.
These are just a few of the problems. I generally like what you have to say, Kevin. But "Gramsci's plan" sounds like fear mongering (almost like the "blood in the streets" fallacies that gun banners used against ccw). I wholeheartedly agree that CP is bad and we should fight against it, but let's not blame all of education's problems on it. The problems in education are complex and removing one horrible practice won't fix them (although it would help).
I'm not sure where it was asserted that CP was the root of all the problems with the school system. No one here argues that if CP was removed that the public school system would function well. The whole "it's complex" thing is a tautology if there ever was one. Of course it's complex, the real world is. Any time we discuss issues we are summarizing, we do not have the time or the ability to analyze every single facet of the issue. The question at hand is simple "Is CP having a negative effect on the students in the government schools?" Just because we're focusing on one of the many bad things with the school system doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of the problems, it just means we are discussing one particular problem.
except it really is complex and the arm chair education experts tend to forget about it. you're wrong about the question at hand--the OP was a little more extreme: "destroying western culture"--my point is that if you are summarizing and offering an end of life as we know it sermon to it that you ought to acknowledge the real issues instead of exaggerating others. because most of the time, it does mean your ignoring the rest of the problems.
"...GIVE ME DATA, GIVE ME DATA, GIVE ME DATA!..."
And you haven't a clue as to why that is a sack-of-shit argument, do ya, teacherboy?
But I don't see evidence of growth - hell sixteen (not particularly impressive) schools 40 years after the peak of leftism in the U.S., 20 some years after the fall of communism in the West?
Right. What a relief that someone else sees this...even if it is in a small way agreeing with me.
That does NOT explain the overall decline in education that has taken place since the 50s/early-60s. Nor do I buy into any Gramsci-rooted plot to destroy Western Civ, any more than I buy into Truther, Birther or ChemTrailer folderol.
It doesn't explain the decline. There are certainly a myriad of factors that have contributed. And your inclusion with the truthers, birthers and chemtrailers is quite appropriate.
But "Gramsci's plan" sounds like fear mongering (almost like the "blood in the streets" fallacies that gun banners used against ccw).
Correct. That's exactly what it is and a perfect comparison when you consider that none of the predictions of gun control advocates have every come true.
Mediocre teachers-
I'd go even farther than that. How about horrible teachers? First of all, if you are going to gripe about pay, stop fucking being a teacher. The last thing education needs is more money. What we need is for teachers to stop thinking of themselves as underpaid intrusctors and start thinking of themselves as overpaid missionaries. We need people to invest their time and have the patience to manage the complexities of diverse learners. It's a question of intrinsic motivation which is one of the main reasons why test scores are falling. We live in an extrinsic society. "I won't do this unless a get a cookie" are how many students have been taught to learn...by their parents as well as their teachers. It's awful.
I want to also throw in that tenure is bullshit and that's not because I don't have it. If offered, I probably won't take it. Of course, that may get me into trouble with the union but oh well...it wouldn't be the first time.
Those of you on the "failing schools" bandwagon should quit your jobs and go become wonderful teachers and if you're unwilling start thinking about why you're unwilling.
Amen.
Crap flavor of the month teaching philosophies
No shit. School administrators see something that worked in New York and think it will work in MN or somewhere else. What they also don't get is that it takes a certain kind of person to connect with young people of multiple generations. Sadly, many instructors suffer from the conviciton of their own vanity and think they're good with students. Many are not. So they dress up their incompetence in these silly philosophies and think that everything will be fine.
Bloated administrations that suck funding away
Again, we don't need money. We need serious engagement from the community, parents, and the media. We need people to give their time and expertise...and actually giving a shit about it. Of course, that will mean changing our entire culture which seems to be on a perpetual quest for new holidays and leisure time.
Spoiled, undisciplined students with no work ethic who are supported by doting parents.
Or lazy parents who tell their kids if they play basketball three times a week, then someday they will be "lucky" and be in the NBA...making millions of dollars. So, who cares about school, right? This is what our culture is all about now: The Michael Jordan Generation. It's not about honest work or even finding work that you would do if no one paid you. It's about buying into the pyramid scam that you just have to be lucky and then you will have riches. Of course, once you have those riches, you can sit around and play WOW all day, eat Cheetos, and fiddle (like way too many people) while our country falls apart.
What a relief that someone else sees this...even if it is in a small way agreeing with me.
I say that guardedly because I need to remind you that even when I am criticizing Kevin's argument, it doesn't mean you have my whole-hearted support. You have been to known to make that kind of mistake, though of late you appear to be a bit more aware. Don't make me regret saying that.
Right. What a relief that someone else sees this
Nevermind my claims for wanting data, let me skip all of that and pretend it never happened.
Sadly, many instructors suffer from the conviciton of their own vanity and think they're good with students.
Don't overdose on the irony supplements.
So they dress up their incompetence in these silly philosophies and think that everything will be fine.
No, they demand MORE MONEY. And more control. And less oversight. The more they fail, the more they gain.
That's what your inability to synthesize a whole idea, to see the forest and the trees hides from you.
That's what we're talking about. The educational system as it's currently constituted, with the CLAIMED GOALS IT HAS, has utterly failed. Which means that 1) The stated goals aren't the real goals or 2) it's incapable of meeting the goals. (Conceivably, 3) the goals are unreachable, despite the fact historically they have been met.)
In no case do you understand the situation.
Of course, once you have those riches, you can sit around and play WOW all day, eat Cheetos, and fiddle (like way too many people) while our country falls apart.
Even as your insistence on adhering to failing philosophies makes the "falling apart" even more likely.
But - even aside from that.
Playing WoW all day and having enough food to eat. That's not "rich?" How rich do you insist people become? Or how poor do you insist that they become before they're sanctified? Why would you look down on someone who has - through his own means, not handouts - the wealth to sit all day and merely consume?
It's an ugly bigotry under your hood, Mark, that's for damn sure.
And someone who I care about very much was complaining at christmas about "The Rich". Why did they need "so much", why did they have to have "all this money and try and make more" it just made no sense.
The person complaining?
Owns 3 houses and a quarter share of a farm with another.
One is on a river connected to the ocean.
One is on a 50 acre farm.
One is 5400 square feet.
The quarter share is on a 200 acre farm, with approximately 600 more acres in nearby tracts.
Owns 2 boats, 1 34 footer, and 1 14 footer.
4 Kayaks. (2 to keep at the river).
And he damn sure doesn't think _he's_ rich.
But by any _worldwide_ average of wealth and possession, he's rolling in the dough.
That person you look down on, happy to play games all day and eat "Cheetos" is fabulously wealthy if they can do that...
If you could learn to actually synthesize information, you'd start to understand that.
Maybe I should tell you _my_ ethnic background, since it appears it _might_ change my opinion - since you claim (and defend the philosophy that) facts change with the diversity of background....
Maybe I should tell you _my_ ethnic background
Why? You've heard how staggeringly white this place is. He already knows your ethnic background even if you don't.
Besides, if you agree with the majority of the tea partiers' views, you're white anyway even if you aren't. Remember Chris Matthews?
"All of them, every single one of them is white."
Obviously that includes Lloyd Marcus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=812am1zg0Jg
Ken Gladney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjMF3y1ytQ
and Katrina Pierson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bNpNU4ls
Oh, and that black guy you can see over Katrina's left shoulder? He doesn't actually exist. Like Katrina, Ken and Lloyd, he is an "unperson", MS-NBC has spoken.
But then the left had already decided that conservatives are white racists even when they're not anyway, as in their treatment of this man:
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PHXBeat/60504
in this piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
As usual, Mark misses the forest for the trees. To go back to an earlier quote of his:
He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.
Notice Mark is willing to dismiss them as "paranoids" - *without addressing their issues*. Just like he'll call racist, or us "anti-academic".
So let's bring up some _discussion_ of the Fed, shall we?
http://tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=082709A
From 1776 to 1912 (136 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, increased by 11% ... A loaf of bread for Thomas Jefferson cost the same as a loaf of bread for Lincoln 50 years later and again the same for J.P. Morgan 50 years after that.
The United States Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. The stated purpose of the Fed, by the definition taken from its own website, is to "conduct the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices."...
After the Fed's creation, from 1913 to 2008 (95 years), the value of the dollar, relative to the Consumer Price Index, decreased by 95%. A dollar could buy 95% fewer goods in 2008 than in 1913. ...
In other words, the value of the dollar remained extremely stable for 150 years, the Fed was created in order to "stabilize the value of the dollar," and the result has been a 95% devaluation of the dollar in less than 100 years following its creation.
Back to Mark:
People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate?
“People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.
Yep. Ordinary people who are *questioning what they are being told*.
Correctly in (at least) several of those cases, as it turns out.
"Death Panels?" Yep. Exactly. You might object to the name, preferring something like the "Bipartisan Incorporated Almagated Compassionate Rational Health Care Commitee".
But the *concept* is the same, and exactly correct in the critique. Not "paranoid".
Global Warming? Dealt with well here already. Definately proven to BE at least an attempted fraud, despite what the climate is doing.
Birth Certificate? Well, it's a mooted point now.
But that's what happens when you find out the powers-that-be aren't doing their
job and/or are lying. You start to doubt all sorts of things. (Especially when nobody will bother to, you know, actually check on obvious things.)
While I can appreciate the depth of your research and am certain of the validity of your reasoning, you are wasting your efforts on the 'Liberals'.
I taught school for 13 years and quit because I could no longer be a part of a system run by left-wingers who were more interested in being politically correct than they were in enforcing discipline and learning.
As the old saying goes,"Never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".
Who says I'm doing it for the "Liberals"?
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>