The teacher said, "Well, we're not as concerned about their knowing the exact answer as how they feel about that answer."
Excellent. And when that teacher goes to the hospital to get an important operation, she can rest assured that the surgeon may not know the exact way to carry out the procedure, but he feels darn good about it.
one pictures a roomful of sinister 'mister burns's, 50 or 100 years ago, hatching their diabolical plot for...i dunno..."world domination", let's say. step 2 or 3 would *have to be* "dumb down the population". aaannnd, recent elections and this spate of 'out-of-skool' stories have pretty much proved this objective has been realized.
what might the next step be? *I* don't have an answer to this, but 1) there's no doubt the ruination of the schools has been deliberate and 2) IIRC, comrade bezmezov (sp?) *did* have an answer to that question. of course, that doesn't count, since he was being interviewed by a right-wing organization, and ever'body KNOWS they's crazy. hell, we larnt it in skool!!
"one pictures a roomful of sinister 'mister burns's, 50 or 100 years ago"
Oddly enough, John Taylor Gatto proposes just such a history of the educational system. I don't know whether he's right or not, not having studied that era myself, but it's interesting at least.
The Birchers were fucking crazy. Just because you are anti-Communist does not make you sane. I'm just saying that comrade Bezmenov could just as easily been a dis-information op as a legitimate turn-coat (and THAT is an odd turn of phrase).
Anyway, is someone going to really argue that the election of any of the last 3 Presidents proves the country is collectively dumber than when it elected Harding?
yeah, i'll say it. harding was a genial, mostly-incompetent ohio crook, no question about it. but - as opposed to our last 4 shining examples of presidential retardedness - he was only MOSTLY incompetent. he knew enough to get the hell out of the country's way when it was important. consider if you will the recession of 1921. as recessions go, it was pretty bad, but...you don't read much about it these days. know why?
because as opposed to the idiot bush and the profoundly stupid moron obama, harding knew enough to **leave things the hell alone**. no bailout packages; no billions for bankers...he just let the weak businesses fall away and die, and be replaced by newer, better blood. 18 months later, we welcomed in the roaring '20's. (which, oddly enough, DIDN'T feature "unending 15% unemployment". probably just a coincidence.)
Well from the history I've read, there are a few people who attribute Harding's win to his looks and charm (as that was the first Presidential election following enfranchisement of all women). THAT sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? Making that emotional connection with the electorate.
Harding was somewhat like LBJ - not wanting to go into the general election with a monster scandal hanging over his head. Or, maybe that was less his choice and more the choice of the smoke-filled room operators of the day. Either way, Coolidge was a huge improvement (as well as my personal hero of Presidential modesty). Ironically, Wilson and Hoover were both much smarter than the Presidents in between - and we know what that was worth.
I know I was called out in the other EDU thread to respond to these posts but, honestly, it's really pointless. The edict has been given: All schools suck everywhere because they are being run by touchy-feely liberals who are indoctrinating students into a Marxist agenda. When you are ready to discuss the actual reasons why we have these problems (as well as the actual problems as well and not this WOC shit), I'm available. I'll bookmark this thread and see if anyone is willing to go off the collective Cult message and have a substanitive discussion.
Oh, and this...
So, what do we do ab out it? I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to think the only option we have is pitchforks, torches, and ropes.
When you are ready to discuss the actual reasons why we have these problems... I'm available. I'll bookmark this thread and see if anyone is willing to go off the collective Cult message and have a substanitive discussion.
Aha.
So you'll start then? You'll stop redefining words, making up your own, denying obvious facts, ad-homming those who report facts, and actually deal with the real issue?
Oh, wait, no, we're repeating the "Cult message". So in other words, if we'll let you lecture us, you'll be happy to do it.
Gee, I'm sure we're all ready to do that.
Why did Stanford - the experts at your worldview in education - fail miserably, and the backward neanderthals that insisted on the "old ways" suceed?
Oh, right, that's "Cult", and it's not the "real problem", and you can tell us all about it.
Except you can't. Right here, Mark. Same problem. Here's someone who *suceeded according to your system* and yet didn't learn.
Funny thing, we all disagree in ways about the problem, and the fixes. Only one of us refuses to admit there's a real problem, and insists that we're at war with Eastasia and always have been.
As amusing as it is to jump down Mark's throat every time he shows up, it's getting tiresome to read.
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
Or would you rather keep up with the chest-thumping?
I'm hoping that's sarcasm, Mastiff, because I can't honestly understand why you'd even suggest Marky has anything worth saying. He's no longer so much a troll here as a fucking disease. The mental rot associated with continuing to read his fallacy-driven brain diarrhea lost having at least the hope that you were communicating with someone who was willing to try thinking. Mark has actually managed to degenerate in his ramblings from being the regular provider of digging-himself-into-a-hole post turds to something resembling an automated response system of vitriol and ignorance.
Chest-thumping? No. If anything could be said in terms of not responding to Mark as such, it would be that it's an insult to the English language to try and communicate with such an ass. If anything, it's a question of asking UJ why he continues to bother - and he's given his answer.
As amusing as it is to jump down Mark's throat every time he shows up, it's getting tiresome to read.
There's a "X" up there on the right, top corner. Click it.
If you don't, then let's just ponder why you're asking *me* to let Mark spew his memetic virus here.
You're not asking him to leave.
Seriously. Think about your own logic in that.
I've told Mark before. He will not win by default. It's all he knows how to do. He can't win with facts, logic, history. All he's got is emotion, hatred, and attempting to have more endurance.
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
With Mark? 3 years say "No".
What have you been paying attention to? You say you're tired of it, but you seem not to know what the record is. (Ironic, given the post subject.) Or would you rather keep up with the chest-thumping?
Compared to your alternative? Yes.
Go somewhere else if countering Mark's meme bothers you. Go to Mark's place if you would.
I don't care. But you will not succeed in insulting me and attempting to bully me with your chest beating.
Mark exemplifies the problems we're facing, and I deal with him in the manner I best feel deals with it, and counters his meme.
I'm not opposed to rational discussion with Mark. He is. As to agreements, and working forward, well, hell, again, you need to get him to stick to definitions of words, stop inventing words and terms and concepts, putting words in people's mouths, and kneejerk bigoted reactions.
You don't want to see responses to Mark's regular? Then leave. Don't open the comments. You want to work on his critical pegadogy bullshit, and insist that it's only how we feel about things, and all opinions are equal, and there are no objective facts? Then you're a big a problem as he is.
Mastiff, I like the cut of your jib, by and large, and please take this with the spirit intended, but 3 years hath Markadelphia failed to engage in any sort of discussion in anything approaching good faith.
UJ isn't chest thumping, he's doing warm up exercises against a punching bag. All Markadelphia has to do is stop being the punching bag. To further strain this, the ball is in Markadelphia's court, and if he wants a different response, he really should stop running it back for a safety and declaring it a homerun!
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
To be honest, no, I don't consider it possible. I wish I could think it was.
But I must ask: When you are "trying to fix it" with someone who...
- defines fully half of Congress and the US electorate (everyone to the right of Nelson and Stupak) as extremists who have no valid positions, in other words who defines "moderate" as wherever they happen to be and "extreme" solely by distance from that position,
- has a many times longer history of moved goalposts, strawmen and deliberately ignored questions than of actually discussing issues, and most importantly
- has made it clear by his reaction to current law that it doesn't matter what compromises you make or why you make them, if the end result doesn't agree 100% with his position he'll advocate ignoring it, not obeying it, and not enforcing it,
...I can't help but wonder, what possible point can there be to "fixing the problem" with such a person? They've already proven to you that they cannot be trusted to honor any agreement they make, have they not?
P.S. Russell, was that a contest to see how many bits of different metaphors you could cram into a single paragraph? If it was, dayum, well done.
Marxadopia gets what he comes here for, thus he has no grounds for complaint or surprise that he gets it. To not oppose his blitherings is to give him credibility that he hasn't earned. He will not win by default.
Personally, I have hope (but no way to test) that others might learn from his idiocy and be educated thereby. That hope is grounded in the observable fact that no one comes here to defend him.
And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
Well, after this long line of horse manure, I think you have the answer to your question, Mastiff. Since you seem willing to engage in a substanitive discussion regarding the problems facing education today, let's find some common ground on which we agree and go from there. If anyone else wants to join in, you are more than welcome. Remember, the actual problems...not "All schools suck everywhere because they are being run by touchy-feely liberals who are indoctrinating students into a Marxist agenda."
Mastiff. Since you seem willing to engage in a substanitive discussion regarding the problems facing education today, let's find some common ground on which we agree and go from there.
For the peanut gallery, I'm doing this mainly to get it on the record, for those interested. (Refer to Kevin's standard reason for half of his blog posts.) Those who think this is a fool's errand should kindly point and laugh from the sidelines.
So. In a nutshell, my view of the problems:
* Many students are in college who should not be in college. A large fraction of these are simply unprepared, a sizable chunk of whom would have been ill-suited for college in any event; of the rest, those who are able to handle college, their particular aptitude would be better served elsewhere. As it is, we seem to have made it a rite of passage to sacrifice four years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars, for the sake of a piece of paper.
My views on this have become more radical since I entered graduate school, and truly understood that my college career was little more than an extension of high-school. My understanding of political science (my major) was not much more developed after undergrad as it was when I started. Worse, my experiences as a TA have been horrifying. Very, very few students at my mid-tier state university know how to write well. Many don't know how to spell, even when using word processors! And the classes we offer them are the worst sort of watered-down treacle. It amounts to academic fraud, in some points.
The typical rebuttal to this argument is that college is not a vocational school, and is meant to broaden the mind. My response to this is that first, this judgment is made without concern for the cost of such broadening, versus its actual effectiveness; and second, the students' minds would already be plenty broad except that—
* Most schools tend to beat the love of learning out of students. For full arguments, refer to John Taylor Gatto, who makes the point at length. Suffice to say that students seem to break into four classes: those who would be voracious learners no matter what obstacles are placed in their path; those who would not care regardless; those who would otherwise love learning, except for the deadening, soul-crushing format of the Prussian-style school system (of whom there are far too many); and the rare, blessed few who would have spent their lives in darkness, were it not for the intervention of a single, providential teacher who somehow kindled a spark.
* Schools group by age, when they should be grouping by ability and maturity. This is especially so given the Lord-of-the-Flies aspect of school, in which those students who excel are persecuted for it. More generally, for all that schools see their task as teaching character, they forget that children in school learn most of all from each other. Usually, the tone of a class is set by the worst among them.
*This also leads to wasted resources and talent. Teachers are forced to aim for around the second-lowest quintile among their students. This leaves the most desperate cases to struggle anyway, and the exceptional students to languish. If you don't think this has a measurable cost, just go to Slashdot and read the comments the next time an article dealing with education shows up.
*Finally for now, and I think I have mentioned this before, but students are never given truly long-term projects to work on. Because of the disjointed structure of the school-year curriculum, students often leave college having never in their lives worked on any single project for longer than two months—or, more realistically, three weeks (given last-minute cramming). This serves them poorly in the real world.
Note that there's not a single "ideological" argument here—though I certainly have concerns on that front, the above applies nearly as much to private schools and religious schools. It's a structural argument, dealing with the entire format of the modern educational project.
Actually, I agree with this, though not for the reasons Mark thinks.
Mark, you have shown repeatedly that You Do Not Even UNDERSTAND Our Arguments, let alone actually respond to them directly and logically. Over the last 6 months I've noticed that you're slipping more and more into arguing SOLELY with that burning straw man in your head, and not actually with us.
It seems like you're sliding completely into demonization mode ("The Cult", "Just Like Al Qaeda", "Racist", "Dying Man", "Pathological", "Tribe", etc.) where your mental image of us is almost exactly like how the Nazi's portrayed the Jews in their propaganda. It really is pointless to argue with such paranoid delusions. We can only point them out for what they are.
Here's the story I tell every now and then about the education system.
My mother helped create the ESL program at St. Pete JC back in the late '60's. This program was set up to teach foreign students English language skills. At that time the accepted norm for college students was 70% comprehention and 50% retention (I think - it's been more then 40 years, Mom's gone and I'm a OF.)
Anyhow the program was a sceaming success with the foreign students(most of whom were from the Middle East), except that as time went by more and more local high school graduates had to be assigned to course because their scores on the incoming placement tests were so low.
Of course this was back when colleges gave every incoming student a placement test to see if they were capable of matriculating through college level courses.
And THAT'S how long this mess has been going on, Mark.
just checked - Miss 8 knows the correct answers to:
1) is the sun a star?
2) does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?
3) is the moon a planet?
4) does the earth revolve around the moon or does the moon revolve around the earth?
Hate to be pedantic, but I trust she said "no" to 3.
I've never heard of the natural satellites of the planets of our solar system referred to as planets themselves. Then again, I am a product of the public education system. Or did our solar system not lose Pluto as a planet but actually gained 139 planets?
The work "Planet" is from the Greek meaning a wanderer - i.e. it looks like a star but "wanders" around the sky. Depending on which dictionary you consult, the moon can be either a planet or a satellite - it isn't illuminated by producing light itself but reflects sunlight - hence a planet. However, it does not have the Sun at the locus of its primary orbit so it's a satellite ... pay your money, take your pick. >};o)
Phil: The Moon hasn't been considered a planet since ancient times. In order to be a planet, a body must first revolve around the Sun. Since the Moon revolves around Earth, it fails that most basic test. This is according to the scientific definition of the word, i.e. how the word is used by astronomers.
The Moon hasn't been considered a planet since ancient times.
Until comparatively recently, when the argument has been made that the earth/moon system is a binary planetary system. If you consider earth and moon two planets orbiting a common center, then yes, the moon is a planet. If you don't, then it isn't. It all depends on where you draw the line between "satellite" and "sister planet". I think the majority of those who know or care about the debate at all have decided it's a satellite, because its tidal drag is insufficient to cause the same face of the earth to always face it.
I dunno; I remember reading somewhere that the Moon's interaction with the Earth was entirely /wrong/ in comparison to other satellites and their primaries. Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth. The end result was that while satellites may be moons, the Moon was not, technically, a satellite.
I'd have to look it up again, to be honest. I may even be misremembering it, so take with a grain of salt.
Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth.
I don't know precisely how eccentric the moon's orbit is, nor how that affects what is defined as a "planet" as opposed to a "satellite". I'm pretty sure the moon's orbital eccentricity is less than Pluto's by several orders of magnitude... but then again, they recently decided Pluto wasn't a planet either, even though it doesn't orbit anything except the Sun. So that may not be helpful.
The way that the International Astronomical Union determines whether something is a moon is the location of the center of gravity (the 'barycenter") of the two bodies. If the barycenter is inside one of the bodies, then the other body is a satellite or moon. If it's outside either body, then they constitute a double planet system.
In terms of 2 and 4, strictly speaking it's not a question of which body orbits which, but, again, the location of the barycenter. The Sun and Earth both orbit around the barycenter of the solar system which happens to be located inside of the Sun (but not in its center!).
Thanks, I wondered what the standard was. Of course, I knew it wasn't a question of "which orbits which", because it doesn't take all that large a "smaller body" to create a distinct, measurable difference between system barycenter and the center of mass of the "larger body."
Okay, so that one makes sense. IIRC, Earth/Moon system barycenter is somewhere around mantle depth, right?
And here I was working on response critiquing Aristotle's Categories and how we run into problems with trying to classify everything into neat little groupings :)
"I dunno; I remember reading somewhere that the Moon's interaction with the Earth was entirely /wrong/ in comparison to other satellites and their primaries. Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth."
Any satellite in a prograde orbit with an orbital period greater than the rotational period of its primary will be dragged outward by tidal effects. Satellites with smaller orbital periods will be dragged inward. All of the Galilean moons of Jupiter experience the drag outward, as does our Moon.
I believe I've said it before, but it bears repeating. My children's education does not end when the school bell rings. I make a point of being the primary influence and information resource in their lives.
anybody else but me notice that the topic of this thread went from "in short, the only thing preventing them from getting a high-quality neducation was the educational system itself" to "every old higgledy-piggledy thing under the sun (which ISN'T a planet!)(yes it IS!!!)" the instant the commie troll checked in? and the important, highly relevant topic just....melted away, like a snow cone in the sun?
almost as if that was - i dunno - as if that was his GOAL???? as if it were a tactic written down in a handbook somewhere?
that's why i ignore the troll, and refuse to engage it. but hey - that's just me.
well, look at his record over the past...whatever many years, JI. you'll find a reasoned, articulate discourse going on, and then....the guy pops in, says something idiotic/bizarre/ALWAYS inflammatory, and then pops out. reasoned, articulate discourse grinds to a halt; everyone draws their sword and charges after the impudent imterloper, who then blithely refuses to engage them. he just taunts them with more bullshit; never NEVER answers a direct question; absolutely REFUSES to acknowledge any points that destroy his childish little 'argument', and it goes on & on & ON. for...3 years now, is it?
face it gang. the guy dominates this blog, and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding. "jump, rightwinger!" "roll over, redneck!" "chase the ball, reactionary imperialist running dog!" even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM. (see the comment thread on the next post) so who's really in charge here?
would occam's razor explain how one single, not-particularly-bright, admittedly unhinged commenter can **capture** and utterly OWN a blog dedicated to a philosophy he opposes?
He certainly had nothing to do with my rabbit-holing on the moon question, and you seemed to think that a tangent (whereas it was from the article and the comment giving rise to mine).
"would occam's razor explain how one single, not-particularly-bright, admittedly unhinged commenter can **capture** and utterly OWN a blog dedicated to a philosophy he opposes?"
Yes, it does explain it, if he is as I diagnosed him long ago, to wit, a textbook-perfect example of someone who is afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This affliction is the cause of his being driven like a rented mule by an utter inability to admit serious error, it is the cause of his being immune to shame or embarrassment, and it is the cause of his denial, not only of said affliction, but of said behaviors. The diagnosis is so spot-on that even a layman can see it; no psychological training is necessary.
If you'll notice, my response is usually (but not always) to address his disorder, rather than his argument. It's like playing whack-a-mole; easy but repetitious.
The bottom line is still this; he will not win by default and he will not gain credibility through not being opposed. He does such good work for our side.
"face it gang. the guy dominates this blog, and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding. "jump, rightwinger!" "roll over, redneck!" "chase the ball, reactionary imperialist running dog!" even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM. (see the comment thread on the next post) so who's really in charge here? "
Whoa, slow down there for a minute, trigger, and let's take a look at what's going on.
"the guy dominates this blog"
No, what he does do is stir up a response in the comments. Kevin's used his bleatings as a jumping off point, but never has Markadelphia dominated the blog.
"and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding"
*Raises an eyebrow* I cannot state other people's motivations, but I respond for a couple of different reasons: a) it amuses me to bat around the chew toy, b) I've heard that particular idea somewhere else, and I wanted to explore the idea for my own edification, c) Some nonsense simply cannot stand on it's own without being countered, and since I know Kevin doesn't going around dumping things he doesn't like into a memory hole, the response will stick around, therefore it is worth more of my time to respond here than elsewhere that has no such assumption.
If the majority of the response to him were mere name calling a void of any actual semantic content, you would have a point. But since the more frequent responders use an array of data combined with sound arguments to counter chosen statements, it's hardly a conditioned response.
"even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM"
Some people do. I'm guessing his blathering about a certain topic amuses them. I think if he actually stayed away from here, those that really need to read his ramblings would saunter over to his blog. I certainly wouldn't miss his 12 standard responses to any topic.
"who's really in charge here?"
Anyone that mindfully engages with anything posted or commented. Don't confuse a willingness to refute nonsense as being the same as lacking free will.
The problem is not that I don't understand your arguments. The problem is that your arguments are rooted in a deep seeded and single minded error filled belief.
Okay, then if I take you at your word...
You understand the arguments concerning the rule of law, and equality under the law. If I take that as given, my only other choice is to conclude that you don't consider such things important.
In other words, you're comfortable with despotism, so long as it's your despot. Right?
I pointed out to the teacher that her title alone had 5 words, 2 were "The", 1 was "And" and the rest were misspelled. She was horrified at my suggestion she should have used a red pen to correct (or at least point out) misspellings - because "All that red ink will *KILL* her self-esteem!"
No Ma'am. What will kill her self-esteem is being allowed to go through school thinking spelling doesn't matter, then being treated like a MORON for the rest of her life because she cannot spell.
I have more -- many, many more -- examples, but the point is simple: Schools stopped being about "education" a long time ago.
My 2 daughters survived the same school system and have excelled in college and in life - because I refused to abdicate my responsibility to educate them.
Red-colored ink, by the by, is steadily gaining Frowned Upon status, to hear it from some professors I know (yes, professors--as in college-level). Apparently it's too intimidating and demoralizing, even if the written criticism is positive, so if you feel you MUST correct a student's error*, please choose a more soothing color to do so.
*The word "error" is currently under review, and is likely to be phased out in favor of "non-standard application of language" by 2011. Please observe discretion in its use until then.
>>then being treated like a MORON for the rest of her life because she cannot spell.
Don't worry. That will be "fixed" as the generation that can't spell or apply objective criteria to their evaluations displaces the generation that can.
That'll be payday for the advocates of such a "system" of thought.
Forcing the bits to anything other than random sequence is nothing but patriarchial rigidity. In doing do, you are squashing their uniqueness, dampening their creativity and crushing their self esteem. Each sequence should be free to choose its own semantic meaning free from your ordinal oppression.
When was the last time, (if any!) that the Commissar Markadelphia has argued in defense of any positive assertion of his own, unrelated to the premise that "The Readers of Kevin's site/holders of similiar viewpoint are wrong, no matter what"?
When was the last time, (if any!) that the Commissar Markadelphia has argued in defense of any positive assertion of his own,
I think you can find cases of that. With some big asterisks on that statement. Mark will argue in favor of things, but you cannot get him to actually give hard rules. He always ends up with "well, we'll figure that out" or "we'll decide that" or something similar.
But when there's some subjective or flexible rule in his crosshairs, it's absolutely unheard of and insane and malpractice to do that... but yet he cannot give even rudimentary guidelines.
But I think that you can find cases where Mark has in the past, at least (in his way, minus facts and failing to use sources and evidence and facts CORRECTLY). But it has been a while.
As I said, I think it's breaking through to him, that we "knew the right questions to ask" and as a result, pegged Obama within a fare-thee-well, where he didn't. But he doesn't have the tools to evaluate and learn from it, because remember, no viewpoint is wrong. (Unless it belongs to the Christian White Male Cult of Feminine Atheists).
Rather than deal with all of the threading up there, I'll respond down here since geekwitha45 asked an interesting question. If you look at the exchange above between me and Unix, I refer to an EDU thread awhile back in which I linked to the Minnesota State Standards. If you recall, I did defend those standards as being the framework for pedagogy in my state. I also added that reflection not critical pedagogy was a large part of my approach to instructing.
Unix made the following claim above:
And yet, they're what you pointed me to with your "Standards".
Let's take a look at the MN Science Standards as it relates to the topic in this thread.
This pretty much jibes with how science is taught every day around our school district as well others. Take a moment and read through the standards and benchmarks. What do any of you think?
On page 26 we see quite clearly that knowing the nature of the Sun is part of our standards of learning. This is an example for 8th grade. Page 34 is for 9-12. Are these acceptable standards for any of you?
Now, do they actually learn this stuff? And is it taught to standards?
http://www.startribune.com/local/99283559.html
Educators and officials emphasize that American students need to excel in science to compete in a global economy.
"We have been emphasizing the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)," Seagren said. "This provides us an opportunity to judge how well our students are doing in that discipline. We know that more of our students need to have more of a science background."
The scores have improved over the years but they are still not where they should be...hovering at 50 percent. But do these tests accurately gauge learning? I'm not sure they do. One of the big issues of EDU has always been standardized tests. I've always thought they are not accurate measures of learning and subscribe to Gardner's MI theory. Thus, I adjust my assessments accordingly. I've given examples of these in other threads which would be other times when I have defended positive assertions of my own.
As to these scores being lower than they should be, there are a variety of reasons. Teachers aren't very reflective and continue to teach the way they want to teach. They don't vary their instructional strategies. Parents are completely checked out of the process...willingly or unwillingly. I've noted before that since it is very hard to fire teachers, many are checked out themselves...spending class surfing the internet or being just plain lazy. It takes a lot of energy to teach and some aren't willing to go the extra mile to invest the time. These instructors should be fired and you'll get no argument from me if you want to lay some of the blame at the feet of the unions.
Of course none of this nor any of Kevin's EDU posts seriously examine the massive influence of the mass media (the 5th agency of socializaton) that we have today. To put it simply, a child today gets more excited about growing up to be Justin Bieber or Terrel Owens than a scientist. They are inundated every day with images of "success" from the media that do no include knowlege of the Sun. So....who owns the mass media? More importantly, what if the parents (primary agency of socialization) are also heavily influenced by the mass media? In my opinion, they become the Michael Jordan Generation which is a LARGE part of our problem.
One other thing to consider...it's not about "old ways" or "new ways"...it's about what works. Somtimes the old ways are, in reality, the new ways. If you recall an older thread, I noted that DJ's desire for a return to the age of MiniMaths would be most welcome by me. In fact, I loathe the entire concept of new math so I think we are in agreement there. MiniMaths are fine examples of the instructional strategy known as Problem Based Learning. They also appeal to the verbal-linguistic learner and hint of Gardner.
Rather than deal with all of the threading up there, I'll respond down here since geekwitha45 asked an interesting question.
Right there is an indication of your ability to discuss. "Rather than deal... I'll respond down here". But you're ignoring a lot, as usual. You claim to merely have moved the reply, but in reality, you've dodged a lot of things that were open and asked of you.
If you look at the exchange above between me and Unix, I refer to an EDU thread awhile back in which I linked to the Minnesota State Standards. If you recall, I did defend those standards as being the framework for pedagogy in my state. I also added that reflection not critical pedagogy was a large part of my approach to instructing.
I don't recall that, but the link you gave me then wasn't the same one you just linked to. Which means that the conversation we did have is not necessarily related to this one.
Unix made the following claim above:
And yet, they're what you pointed me to with your "Standards".
The other link you made, the over all, yes. I'll find it and start posting the critical pedagogy - well, that would be most of it. but I'll make a sampling of it.
But that was another link. You've conflated 2 different links, and thus are complicating and confusing the situation - not clarifying or working towards common ground.
This pretty much jibes with how science is taught every day around our school district as well others. Take a moment and read through the standards and benchmarks. What do any of you think?
Not bad, all in all. You could learn a lot if you studied them more.
But, here's the big but.....
Obviously they're not working. Well, that's unfair. They were just adopted in May. They haven't had a chance yet. By the way, they're a result of "NCLB" - are you saying that's good now?
The older 2003 standards (in effect until this school year) are... nowhere near as rigorous or as detailed.
On page 26 we see quite clearly that knowing the nature of the Sun is part of our standards of learning. This is an example for 8th grade. Page 34 is for 9-12. Are these acceptable standards for any of you?
Those standards, isolated from the others you linked to, I don't see anything objectionable in a quick skim.
But let us get back to the topic at hand. You present these as evidence that "SEE! THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS DOING GOOD!" I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
There's a disconnect there. You can't grasp that. The school systems get massive amounts of money - and for that we have less and less to show for it yearly.
But do these tests accurately gauge learning? I'm not sure they do.
If you're making the claim that the schools are doing well, then make that, and try and back that up. But in the meantime, on average, those tests do a pretty decent job of tracking the results, IMO.
Of course none of this nor any of Kevin's EDU posts seriously examine the massive influence of the mass media
Wait, this would be the same "mass media" that in other threads you sneer when *we* talk about it's influence?
Even so, overall, that's not the issue. It's a small part of the problem. Just as with the Stanford experiment, the same kids, exposed to the same mass media, but who were instructed and held to a rigid standard, excelled. The kids who weren't, didn't. Where you don't find slavish devotion to the critical pedagogy you don't find those problems. Catholic schools have the same mass media to contend with, yet they have far better results. Private schools always have better results - and often, cost less when the total costs are totalled.
One other thing to consider...it's not about "old ways" or "new ways"...it's about what works.
Which is a fine sentiment. But you've been fighting that concept HARD for years here now. You're all hat, no cattle when it comes to that. Again, see what you had to say about the Stanford Education failure. What worked? What didn't? What do you promote?
And yes, Mark, you've got three years of history at this site, where you don't do "what works". You throw out something you've not researched, and then you refuse to admit error. A week to define "verbatim" when it was obvious you were misusing it. Over a year now, refusal to admit that more people watch nightly news than listen to Rush Limbaugh. (Contrary to your flat insistence that it was the truth.) Ed, DJ, Sarah, they've got their pet peeves that are identical. That's not "about what works" when you can't admit when you're wrong. There's no way for you to know what's working, when you insist that your way is the only way.
History matters. If you've changed your mind, that's good. But it does not absolve you of prior bad acts, and just like above, when you (perhaps inadvertently) started talking about a different document than had been previously discussed, and repeated my comments on a wholly nother document, you have a history of doing that, because you don't know how to actually think through a process. Or you haven't. Perhaps you learned in the last few days. It's possible. I'm just not putting any money on it.
"If you recall an older thread, I noted that DJ's desire for a return to the age of MiniMaths would be most welcome by me. In fact, I loathe the entire concept of new math so I think we are in agreement there. MiniMaths are fine examples of the instructional strategy known as Problem Based Learning. They also appeal to the verbal-linguistic learner and hint of Gardner."
Until I read this sentence, I had never heard of "MiniMaths".
Kevin included an education joke that he'd used before, part of which was:
"Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?"
I began first grade in the fall of 1959. A similar problem from my fifth grade textbook (1963 - 1964) would have been (for example):
"A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. He pays a federal tax rate of 20 percent and a state tax rate of 5 percent on his gross profit. What is his net profit?"
Yes, the problems we solved were that serious. We were taught the real uses of arithmetic as we learned how to perform it.
The experience I wrote about was the shock of what was called "new math" in the sixth grade. Kevin's example of the 1970's was:
"Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.
The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."
The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M."
Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?"
Yes, this is representative of my experience, but for me, it occurred in 1964. No, I do not exaggerate, not even slightly.
So, I Googled "MiniMaths". It appears that "MiniMaths" is a methodology and aids thereto for teaching arithmetic concepts TO PRESCHOOLERS UP TO ABOUT AGE FIVE.
No, I have no desire for "a return to the age of MiniMaths". I never knew such an age. My concern addressed the needs of more than just preschoolers.
I have a desire for a return to the notion that children of all ages should be taught the arithmetic and mathematical skills they will need and benefit by as adults, in particular the practical application of arithmetic in everyday life as a routine skill, to be used as needed, and never to be feared.
I have a desire for an exit from the practice wherein children are taught that how they feel about a mathematical result is more important that whether or not said result is correct. To those who believe such idiocy is good practice, I offer a simple question: Suppose the teenager at the cash register in Walmart gives you incorrect change because he cannot count up what the register tells him. Which do you think is more important: that he gives you the correct change, or that he feels good about giving you the incorrect change?
Perhaps we are in agreement on this subject, but I don't know to what degree. I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would. THAT is what I would like to see a return to.
DJ, sorry, I think of Mini Maths and story problems as the same thing. I used Mini Maths in grade school in the 1970s in WI and some instructors still use them today. My mother is a principal of 30 years in a school district there so I'll see them pop up when I visit. They have simple problems on a small sheet of paper on one side and two story problems, similar to the ones above, on the other. So, I was speaking of your example of story problems.
One other thing, when I said new math...I meant NCTM math, not the fad from the 60s. I can happily report that even the new new math is being phased out as well and we see many states (CA) returning to traditional methods of instructing math which I hope you will be happy about.
Unix, let me see if we can try this another way. My goal (and hope for all teachers) is that they pass on enduring understandings to their students. If there are instructional strategies that fail to do this or fail to pass on basic knowledge to students, then they need to be discarded. This would include critical pedagogy. This would also include strategies that pay no attention to differentiation. Truly reflective practioners will do this and, sadly, we have too few which is one of the major problems.
I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
But do you honestly agree that standardized tests are accurate measures of learning? I would urge you to delve further into the pros and cons of this debate. And do you also understand that comparing our students to China's, for example, has one very obvious flaw? What is it?
It's a small part of the problem.
I completely disagree. Unix, do you have the occasion to spend time with the youth of today? Notice, I am asking a question before jumping to a conclusion and comment further.
"DJ, sorry, I think of Mini Maths and story problems as the same thing. ... So, I was speaking of your example of story problems."
I understood you. Again, I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would. That suspicion is based on much more than your comments here. I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable and I support a return to those standards.
And, on another note, do you see the difference in the response you get when your comments are not simply those of a shit disturber? We've been trying to teach you this for more than three years now. Have you seen the light a bit at last?
I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
But do you honestly agree that standardized tests are accurate measures of learning? I would urge you to delve further into the pros and cons of this debate. And do you also understand that comparing our students to China's, for example, has one very obvious flaw? What is it?
Yes. Standardized tests are accurate measures of learning and knowledge. Note that that does not mean they are perfect, nor do they cover all facets. But for what they measure, they are accurate. This is where thef fact you do not understand measurement, accuracy, and precision comes in.I can infer what you mean, but that's prone to misunderstanding.
And as to comparing to China, well, let's just say if you'll stop telling us what the Chinese Government without verification claims about various things you like. But I meant more India and Pakistan, personally.
It's a small part of the problem.
I completely disagree. Unix, do you have the occasion to spend time with the youth of today? Notice, I am asking a question before jumping to a conclusion and comment further.
Let me be clear; that you paused and asked is good. But it's an answer that I've given many times before.
I spend 10+ hours a day on campus at a public university. So yes, I spent lots of time with the "youth of today".
And it's one thing to disagree - it's a point where we could, reasonably, disagree. Except I said why it was a small issue. I said that. You didn't deal with the examples, and the context.
.
I say it's small because of those things - it doesn't affect some schools. Now, if you're going to claim that it is, well, that's a fine point to argue. But you've got to back it up. I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
we see many states (CA) returning to traditional methods of instructing math which I hope you will be happy about
That is wonderful to the extent it is true. But don't you HAVE to consider how many children were condemned to a substandard education in the pursuit of a pedagogical hobgoblin? And how do we make damn sure we don't do that again?
tar baby sit, and don't say nothin' (that makes any sense). so brer rabbit, he asks, "is you deaf? cause if you is, i kin holler". tar bbay sit, and don't say nothin' (that makes any sense.)
aftewr awhile, brer rabbit loses his temper at the tar bbay. "i'll learn you to set there and not say nothin' that makes any sense!" so he smite the tar baby a mighty blow wid his strong right hand. his sfis' stuck, an' he can't pull loose. "if you don't let me loose, i'll whomp you again", brer rabbit warned. tar baby sit, and....well, you know. and with that, he fire off a nice left hook, and *that* stuck, TOO!! then he tried head-butting the tar baby, and got stuck; then he tried kicking the tar baby, and got stuck....
yeah, you're right, guys. the troll doesn't dominate this blog. he just wins each & every argument, because he's find hisseff a whole BLOGfull of brer rabbits to ensnare. you're 0-for-3 yeras, now playing by the rules he sets. arguing with a troll who's made it clear he won't engage in good faith; who plays by alinskyesque rules of debate; who twirls you around like his own personal marionettes. good luck with that.
No, he doesn't. He simply doesn't acknowledge that he loses any argument. He is unreachable, incurable, and fundamentally, demonstrably dishonest to a degree one seldom ever encounters.
Now, consider all the people who read the comments here without commenting themselves. What do you suppose THEY think about who wins? THEY are the real targets of the whole effort. Note again that NO ONE comes to his defense here. That is why I have said, for a long time, that he does such GOOD work for our side.
And he drives traffic here, not to mention the posts he's inspired (see left sidebar.) If you don't want to read his drivel, there's an "X" up there in the corner.
"After a few minutes of explanation, I sat and reflected about Jeff [a guy who's clearly misreading what the Bible teaches about The Antichrist, or is that Paul?] and how much he reminded me of others in my life. In this reflection and the period of time since then, I have reached a conclusion: I will no longer be referring to the GOP as the "Cult" any longer. In addition, I'm going to make every effort to analyze what they say without being derisive. This, of course, does not mean I won't be critical or wonder where their reasons and facts are for a particular argument. It does mean that I am done personally attacking or labeling people that are on the right. I will also be relying more heavily on what they say as opposed to my interpretation of it. If they wish to continue to do that with me, it will be ignored and I will respond with impersonal comments. This will also hold true for any comments I have on TSM as well, although I think the transition will be more difficult over there."
I have really mixed feelings about this post. First, he equates this guy's crackpot theory (which I strongly disagree with and would tear apart pretty quickly) with the entire right, then claims that he's not going to demonize the right anymore. But he just did.
Second, if he actually follows through with this, it would be excellent progress. I welcome it!
Third, his claimed reason for backing off strikes me as awfully conveeeeeenient timing, coming only one day after I openly called him out on how ugly his caricature of us really is. Especially since he kept his old tactics going right up until the appearance of that post (and still mixes them in, though more subtly in that very same post).
"... his claimed reason for backing off strikes me as awfully conveeeeeenient timing ..."
Hmmm ...
I can't help but speculate. "What if" is a big part of an engineer's life, not just his career.
Mind you, I welcome the progress too, presuming it's real, but I can't help wondering. Do you s'pose he's setting the stage for not being hammered quite so hard when the left side of the aisle in Congress gets hammered in November? Consider this comment of his, posted only three days ago:
"There is no doubt that President Obama has made mistakes--a couple of big ones certainly. I've always maintained that he is not perfect..."
You'll find that statement in his comments of this post:
If you go back and search through my comments, you will see that I have made similar statements about President Obama in the past. He has also spoken of himself in the same way.
Honestly, I've been thinking about this for the last couple of weeks. The incident at the block party really drove it home, I guess. My first reaction was to call him a lunatic but then I realized that much of the anger we see these days is driven by people's personal frustration with their lives or, if you are a functionalist, anomie. His rants--most of which I did not list in my original post--sucked every amount of snark and obnoxious vitriol out of me after some period of reflection. In some ways, so did this thread.
So, it really has nothing to do with the election in the fall which is clearly going to contain losses from the Dem column. How many that will be remains to be seen. We have some more primaries to go through and I think you will agree, DJ, that much can happen in the 10 odd weeks we have until Nov 2nd.
Mastiff, if it's OK with you, I'm going to comment on your ideas on my blog. Very interesting points indeed and worthy of longer posts than simple comments here.
I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
I think that when people reach the university level they are on a different plane of learning than at the K-12 level. These are people that made a conscious choice to get a higher education. The test scores of which we speak are from public education, 3-13, right? Year round, I am with people in this age range. The mass media has an enormous influence on them. Interestingly, I have a friend named Eric and he is an evangelical pastor...a staunch conservative. We have loads of fun debating but one area on which we agree is that the mass media have radically shifted the priorities of young people in this country. They don't care about knowledge regarding the Solar System. They do care about Call of Duty and becoming the next Vinnie Chase (for you Entourage fans). His answer, of course, is Jesus Christ. I think that's a good start but I'm biased.
The difference of what you speak is more than likely the parents. So many are simply checked out and very driven by extrinsic motivation.
But don't you HAVE to consider how many children were condemned to a substandard education in the pursuit of a pedagogical hobgoblin? And how do we make damn sure we don't do that again?
I'll consider it but in this day and age of high stakes testing, a renewed call with vigor for national standards, and teachers being fired for poor performance (finally), we may have begun to see the light. I'm only going to say this once just to get it out of my system: some of the unions need to go fuck themselves. I've seen far too many wonderful instructors villified because they wouldn't go along with the small minded group think. I've been in trouble myself but that's largely due to that same small minded thinking.
What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers.
What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers.
I think you misunderstand if you think the criticism is primarily pointed at personnel. It is only to the extent that teachers either believe in the failed pedagogy, or, are aware of its failings but continue to teach it anyway.
But above all, the point is that we are fucking over generation after generation of children with an educational system that has abandoned what DID work in favor of what DOESN'T. It really doesn't matter the motive, noble or nefarious, it is that this system has no facility for self-correction.
Sadly, that is the case. But then again, your site is more heavily trafficked than mine by at least 10 to 1. I suppose I could do more work to promote it but I'm not sure I really want a group, say from the Democratic Underground posting on my site. I'd like to see some more left of center regulars as you have more right of center here but it's not a big deal. More than likely, I'm going to lose readers if I am less incendiary. Ah well...
"What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers."
It seems to me that THE central issue of education is, "Are the children learning as much as possible? And is what they are learning accurate?" Furthermore, it seems that the purpose for education is to teach children facts (accurate) and the thinking skills (reading, writing, math, logic, how to find information on their own, and yes, morals) to make the most of their capabilities so they can accurately understand and interact with the world around them.
Teachers—and ideology taught to teachers—which promote self-esteem at the expense of learning directly undermine that central purpose. Therefore, that direct relationship between this ideology and the central purpose of education would necessarily put it at the top of the list of concerns. That doesn't mean it's the only thing at the top of the list. Inaccurate and/or incomplete textbooks would be another issue right up there. The point is that it cannot be ignored.
Take a look at the link Sarah provided in the comments to "Even I Didn't Think It Was This Bad" about the students who hadn't even heard of Al Qaeda. They have self-esteem just oozing out of every pore. Yet they couldn't think their way out of a wet tissue paper bag. They have clearly learned what they've been taught very well.
I saw that and I agree but for different reasons I think. Do you remember John Lennon's comment that The Beatles were more popular than Christ? Well, Justin Bieber is more popular than school. Kids can have a ton of arrogance. By and large, they think that they know everything about....well....everything. In particular, they view people older than 30 as being completely worthless and out of touch. Most of the time I can connect with kids but I watch my colleagues struggle all the time. Part of this is because some of my colleagues are somewhat small minded and...ahem...dorks.
The point is that learning isn't "cool." Of course, this has always been the case with the many generations of youth but Mastiff's point above (which I will be talking about on my blog) regarding all the fun being drubbed out of learning is true. This is why I favor multiple instructional strategies based on differentiation. I think you will agree that there are a plethora of ways to teach facts and thinking skills. This comes from learner centered instrustion which should not be mistaken for this self esteem learning of which you speak. This requires teachers not to be lazy. And therein lies the problem.
Again, I submit this self esteem learning is the exception rather than the rule. There simply isn't any time for it during the course of learning. Of course, that doesn't mean that teachers shouldn't be encouraging and act like robots. Students do need to be championed for the achievements and challenged to learn from their mistakes.
"I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable and I support a return to those standards."
When I was in school, learning was cool, and that was before anything was "cool".
The core problem, in my unhumble opinion, is that children don't know what they don't know, and yet, all too often, children are allowed, either intentionally or by default, to determine what they will learn. That is a recipe for ignorance, for being unprepared for the responsibilities of adulthood, and for dependence on gubmint.
Ignorance is not cool, and I would not suffer students to treat it so. This is, in great measure, the basis for my previous statement:
"Again, I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would."
I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
I think that when people reach the university level they are on a different plane of learning than at the K-12 level.
That's got nothing to do with what we were talking about. I was pointing you to primary educational cases where the playing field was level.
Catholic schools in NYC have the exact same mass media as the public schools, yet they outperform them embarrassingly.
Aspire (EPAC) had the exact same distribution as Stanford (Stanford New School) - and yet EPAC has excelled, and SNS is getting their charter yanked.
This is where - if you're serious about a dialog, don't disregard this, you've been told by how many people about this? - your lack of understanding of measurement comes in. Now, you can't get a true control group in this sort of science. You can only approximate. But you can get as close as possible, and EPAC and SNS are about as close as you're going to get in the real world.
Right there, that means your supposition that it's the media, and the culture's, fault needs a lot more support, since both schools had for all intents and purposes identical factors there. Thus that neutralizes that as a differing factor.
I'll agree with you that the media and culture are not helpful, but I don't see it as the determining factor.
We have loads of fun debating but one area on which we agree is that the mass media have radically shifted the priorities of young people in this country. They don't care about knowledge regarding the Solar System.
Mark... Students have never cared, as a whole, about some of the things we make them learn. That's why we have teachers. If they were self-motivated, we wouldn't need them.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
-- Hesiod ~ 750 BC
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. " - Attributed to Socrates by Plato, Circa 400 BC.
The difference of what you speak is more than likely the parents. So many are simply checked out and very driven by extrinsic motivation.
So all the motivated parent's kids ended up at EPAC, and none at SNS? That's highly unlikely, and would require substantiation if that's what you're saying.
Yes, motivated parents makes a huge difference in the specific - but overall, they average out. Now we're back to because of that, I'm saying culture's not the difference there - something else is. Culture is the same across both those schools, across Catholic schools in NYC and the NYC Public schools. Yet the results are widely variant.
Right there, that means your supposition that it's the media, and the culture's, fault needs a lot more support, since both schools had for all intents and purposes identical factors there. Thus that neutralizes that as a differing factor.I'll agree with you that the media and culture are not helpful, but I don't see it as the determining factor.
No, it's not the determining factor but it is a major one. The parents are honestly the major contributing factor. My reason for mentioning the differences between the university environment and the K-12 environment were the former is not compulsory. When you are in that sort of environment I think you will agree that the attitude towards learning is different as well as the development of the child.Young people at my level are there because they have to be...at your level they are there because they want to be. Another question, do you have kids, Unix?
I'm saying culture's not the difference there - something else is.
Well, that's true. As I have said all along, teachers are simply not doing a good job and need to be held more accountable. That's why I favor high stakes testing for social studies even it means having to deal with loathsome standardized testing.
Culture is the same across both those schools, across Catholic schools in NYC and the NYC Public schools. Yet the results are widely variant.
I disagree. There is a wide variety of difference between the culture of a Catholic school and a NYC public school. So, it stands to reason that mass media affects these varying cultures in a different way.
At the end of the day (and as I have said before), there are a multitude of instructional strategies beyond Aspire and SNS. Those that do not workd should be chucked. You should take stock in the fact that SNS won't be around long if they are failing to get even the basics done. President Obama has made it pretty clear that our nation's education system needs to be at a much higher standard.
President Obama has made it pretty clear that our nation's education system needs to be at a much higher standard.
Not to be obvious, but pretty much every politician has made the same mouth-noises since before Jimmy Carter gave us the Department of (Mis-)Education, and we keep going downhill.
"The parents are honestly the major contributing factor."
In order for that to be true, the schools cannot be the major contributing factor. In other words, the schools have a culture where students' failure to learn is considered acceptable.
Contrast that with what DJ said:
"I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable…"
Would parents' involvement still be "the major contributing factor" if school systems decided that students would be held back for another year if they did not learn what they were required to learn?
Would parents' involvement still be "the major contributing factor" if school systems decided that students would be held back for another year if they did not learn what they were required to learn?
Leaving aside the difference of opinion of what the "major factor" is, this is a good point that should be emphasized more to Mark, so he can understand why we're saying "nuke it from orbit."
Because this speaks to the heart of why I, for one, keep talking about the failed educational system.
If the students don't learn, that's one issue. It's got causes, and we can attempt to deal with that.
But the educational system is not doing its job and failing the students who do not learn. The students who aren't learning, are being promoted far past their accomplishments (and right now, dumped on the college system to try and rehabilitate in many cases.)
The question of why the students are failing to learn is one thing.
The question of why they're graduating from the system is quite another, and indicative of people failing to do their jobs, and hold them accountable.
And that's not a result of culture, media, or parents. Not really. It's just an abdication of responsibility, which one also should note, the schools are quick to claim and require for other reasons. Just not performance/results.
Ed and Unix, students should be held back or failed if they don't perform in our school districts. This is also true for the several states (WI, IA, IL, SD, ND, MO) that I have observed over the last few years. Actually, they aren't held back...they are simply failed and told they are going to have to get their GED in order to complete their schooling. I have seen this happen many times. I think you may be overstating the "passing on" idea but we should really take a look at some numbers.
But that's why we need multiple instructional strategies. Bringing in something from the film thread, The Blind Side demonstrates this quite well. Michael had the knowledge and the potential to learn more but the instructors needed to adjust their pedagogy. When they did, he excelled, was able to graduate, and became the success he is today.The instructors that take the time to do this (i.e. the non lazy ones) do a great job.
CAshane...briefly scanned the paper. I look into it more later but it reminds me of this quote from Manzi.
Our basic model of public schooling — accepting raw material in the form of five-year-olds, and then adding value through a series of processing steps to produce educated graduates 12 (or more) years later — reflects the vision of the old industrial economy. This worked well in an earlier era, but improvements that might have kept this model up to date have been stalled for decades. We now need a new vision for schools that looks a lot more like Silicon Valley than Detroit: decentralized, entrepreneurial, and flexible.
For a generation, many on the right have argued for school choice — especially through the use of vouchers — as the primary means of achieving this vision. Their approach, however, has been both too doctrinaire and too artificial. If school choice ever becomes more than tinker-toy demonstration projects, taxpayers will appropriately demand that a range of controls and requirements be imposed on the schools they are ultimately funding. At that point, what would be the difference between such "private" schools and "public" schools that were allowed greater flexibility in hiring, curriculum, and student acceptance, and had to compete for students in order to capture funding? Little beyond the label.
We should pursue the creation of a real marketplace among ever more deregulated publicly financed schools — a market in which funding follows students, and far broader discretion is permitted to those who actually teach and manage in our schools. There are real-world examples of such systems that work well today — both Sweden and the Netherlands, for instance, have implemented this kind of plan at the national level.
indicative of people failing to do their jobs, and hold them accountable.
Completely agree. I suppose we disagree on why they are failing but no doubt they should be fired which is way too hard to do. This reminds of an instructor I recently met named Rick. He and I coached tennis together this summer. He told me he was a special ed teacher but wanted to teach social studies. I told him I heard of an opening for a civics teacher at a local high school and he laughed and shook his head. "Ill never get it," he said, "why bother? There will be 500 people applying for it." As I worked with him over the summer, I noticed that he became a teacher because he thought it would be easy and have summers off. He was very lazy in his approach to coaching tennis. On the hot days, he whined a lot and gave very little effort. I found out at one point that he was 28 and firmly in the entitlement mindset. He deserves the same type of life as Vinnie Chase (Entourage), right? No doubt, a product of Michael Jordan generation parents.
He was correct about one thing, though. He will never get that job because he didn't even try. I suspect that his approach to instruction is similar and it will be his students that all of us will be discussing...again....in a few years. Worse, they are students with disabilities and need extra attention.
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/2010/08/quote-of-day-edumacashun-edition.html (114 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"In short, the only thing preventing them from getting a high quality education was the Educational System itself."
So, what do we do ab out it? I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to think the only option we have is pitchforks, torches, and ropes.
The teacher said, "Well, we're not as concerned about their knowing the exact answer as how they feel about that answer."
Excellent. And when that teacher goes to the hospital to get an important operation, she can rest assured that the surgeon may not know the exact way to carry out the procedure, but he feels darn good about it.
And the prosecutor might not know what the law actually says, but he feels just fine about lining you up against a wall ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfqSTfTwJE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wHDn8LDks8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math_%28song%29
I'd suggest the problem goes back a long way.
one pictures a roomful of sinister 'mister burns's, 50 or 100 years ago, hatching their diabolical plot for...i dunno..."world domination", let's say. step 2 or 3 would *have to be* "dumb down the population". aaannnd, recent elections and this spate of 'out-of-skool' stories have pretty much proved this objective has been realized.
what might the next step be? *I* don't have an answer to this, but 1) there's no doubt the ruination of the schools has been deliberate and 2) IIRC, comrade bezmezov (sp?) *did* have an answer to that question. of course, that doesn't count, since he was being interviewed by a right-wing organization, and ever'body KNOWS they's crazy. hell, we larnt it in skool!!
"one pictures a roomful of sinister 'mister burns's, 50 or 100 years ago"
Oddly enough, John Taylor Gatto proposes just such a history of the educational system. I don't know whether he's right or not, not having studied that era myself, but it's interesting at least.
The Birchers were fucking crazy. Just because you are anti-Communist does not make you sane. I'm just saying that comrade Bezmenov could just as easily been a dis-information op as a legitimate turn-coat (and THAT is an odd turn of phrase).
Anyway, is someone going to really argue that the election of any of the last 3 Presidents proves the country is collectively dumber than when it elected Harding?
yeah, i'll say it. harding was a genial, mostly-incompetent ohio crook, no question about it. but - as opposed to our last 4 shining examples of presidential retardedness - he was only MOSTLY incompetent. he knew enough to get the hell out of the country's way when it was important. consider if you will the recession of 1921. as recessions go, it was pretty bad, but...you don't read much about it these days. know why?
because as opposed to the idiot bush and the profoundly stupid moron obama, harding knew enough to **leave things the hell alone**. no bailout packages; no billions for bankers...he just let the weak businesses fall away and die, and be replaced by newer, better blood. 18 months later, we welcomed in the roaring '20's. (which, oddly enough, DIDN'T feature "unending 15% unemployment". probably just a coincidence.)
Well from the history I've read, there are a few people who attribute Harding's win to his looks and charm (as that was the first Presidential election following enfranchisement of all women). THAT sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? Making that emotional connection with the electorate.
Harding was somewhat like LBJ - not wanting to go into the general election with a monster scandal hanging over his head. Or, maybe that was less his choice and more the choice of the smoke-filled room operators of the day. Either way, Coolidge was a huge improvement (as well as my personal hero of Presidential modesty). Ironically, Wilson and Hoover were both much smarter than the Presidents in between - and we know what that was worth.
I know I was called out in the other EDU thread to respond to these posts but, honestly, it's really pointless. The edict has been given: All schools suck everywhere because they are being run by touchy-feely liberals who are indoctrinating students into a Marxist agenda. When you are ready to discuss the actual reasons why we have these problems (as well as the actual problems as well and not this WOC shit), I'm available. I'll bookmark this thread and see if anyone is willing to go off the collective Cult message and have a substanitive discussion.
Oh, and this...
So, what do we do ab out it? I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to think the only option we have is pitchforks, torches, and ropes.
JLAQ!
When you are ready to discuss the actual reasons why we have these problems... I'm available. I'll bookmark this thread and see if anyone is willing to go off the collective Cult message and have a substanitive discussion.
Aha.
So you'll start then? You'll stop redefining words, making up your own, denying obvious facts, ad-homming those who report facts, and actually deal with the real issue?
Oh, wait, no, we're repeating the "Cult message". So in other words, if we'll let you lecture us, you'll be happy to do it.
Gee, I'm sure we're all ready to do that.
Why did Stanford - the experts at your worldview in education - fail miserably, and the backward neanderthals that insisted on the "old ways" suceed?
Oh, right, that's "Cult", and it's not the "real problem", and you can tell us all about it.
Except you can't. Right here, Mark. Same problem. Here's someone who *suceeded according to your system* and yet didn't learn.
Funny thing, we all disagree in ways about the problem, and the fixes. Only one of us refuses to admit there's a real problem, and insists that we're at war with Eastasia and always have been.
Almost like a Cult.
UJ,
As amusing as it is to jump down Mark's throat every time he shows up, it's getting tiresome to read.
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
Or would you rather keep up with the chest-thumping?
I'm hoping that's sarcasm, Mastiff, because I can't honestly understand why you'd even suggest Marky has anything worth saying. He's no longer so much a troll here as a fucking disease. The mental rot associated with continuing to read his fallacy-driven brain diarrhea lost having at least the hope that you were communicating with someone who was willing to try thinking. Mark has actually managed to degenerate in his ramblings from being the regular provider of digging-himself-into-a-hole post turds to something resembling an automated response system of vitriol and ignorance.
Chest-thumping? No. If anything could be said in terms of not responding to Mark as such, it would be that it's an insult to the English language to try and communicate with such an ass. If anything, it's a question of asking UJ why he continues to bother - and he's given his answer.
Mastiff:
As amusing as it is to jump down Mark's throat every time he shows up, it's getting tiresome to read.
There's a "X" up there on the right, top corner. Click it.
If you don't, then let's just ponder why you're asking *me* to let Mark spew his memetic virus here.
You're not asking him to leave.
Seriously. Think about your own logic in that.
I've told Mark before. He will not win by default. It's all he knows how to do. He can't win with facts, logic, history. All he's got is emotion, hatred, and attempting to have more endurance.
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
With Mark? 3 years say "No".
What have you been paying attention to? You say you're tired of it, but you seem not to know what the record is. (Ironic, given the post subject.)
Or would you rather keep up with the chest-thumping?
Compared to your alternative? Yes.
Go somewhere else if countering Mark's meme bothers you. Go to Mark's place if you would.
I don't care. But you will not succeed in insulting me and attempting to bully me with your chest beating.
Mark exemplifies the problems we're facing, and I deal with him in the manner I best feel deals with it, and counters his meme.
I'm not opposed to rational discussion with Mark. He is. As to agreements, and working forward, well, hell, again, you need to get him to stick to definitions of words, stop inventing words and terms and concepts, putting words in people's mouths, and kneejerk bigoted reactions.
You don't want to see responses to Mark's regular? Then leave. Don't open the comments. You want to work on his critical pegadogy bullshit, and insist that it's only how we feel about things, and all opinions are equal, and there are no objective facts? Then you're a big a problem as he is.
Can I double like UJ's response?
Mastiff, I like the cut of your jib, by and large, and please take this with the spirit intended, but 3 years hath Markadelphia failed to engage in any sort of discussion in anything approaching good faith.
UJ isn't chest thumping, he's doing warm up exercises against a punching bag. All Markadelphia has to do is stop being the punching bag. To further strain this, the ball is in Markadelphia's court, and if he wants a different response, he really should stop running it back for a safety and declaring it a homerun!
Mastiff, I agree, it does get tiresome. But...
Do you think it possible that we might mutually acknowledge our vast areas of disagreement, and then try to figure out what we agree on? And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
To be honest, no, I don't consider it possible. I wish I could think it was.
But I must ask: When you are "trying to fix it" with someone who...
- defines fully half of Congress and the US electorate (everyone to the right of Nelson and Stupak) as extremists who have no valid positions, in other words who defines "moderate" as wherever they happen to be and "extreme" solely by distance from that position,
- has a many times longer history of moved goalposts, strawmen and deliberately ignored questions than of actually discussing issues, and most importantly
- has made it clear by his reaction to current law that it doesn't matter what compromises you make or why you make them, if the end result doesn't agree 100% with his position he'll advocate ignoring it, not obeying it, and not enforcing it,
...I can't help but wonder, what possible point can there be to "fixing the problem" with such a person? They've already proven to you that they cannot be trusted to honor any agreement they make, have they not?
P.S. Russell, was that a contest to see how many bits of different metaphors you could cram into a single paragraph? If it was, dayum, well done.
;)
" Russell, was that a contest to see how many bits of different metaphors you could cram into a single paragraph? If it was, dayum, well done. "
Thank you, it was a product of a long day combined with being up later than I should have been!
Marxadopia gets what he comes here for, thus he has no grounds for complaint or surprise that he gets it. To not oppose his blitherings is to give him credibility that he hasn't earned. He will not win by default.
Personally, I have hope (but no way to test) that others might learn from his idiocy and be educated thereby. That hope is grounded in the observable fact that no one comes here to defend him.
He doesn't even gin up much support on his own blog.
I know I was called out in the other EDU thread to respond to these posts but, honestly, it's really pointless.
Mind the door... I hope... er... it has a tendency to smack people on their asses on their way out.
And maybe think about the problem a little and try to fix it?
Well, after this long line of horse manure, I think you have the answer to your question, Mastiff. Since you seem willing to engage in a substanitive discussion regarding the problems facing education today, let's find some common ground on which we agree and go from there. If anyone else wants to join in, you are more than welcome. Remember, the actual problems...not "All schools suck everywhere because they are being run by touchy-feely liberals who are indoctrinating students into a Marxist agenda."
Mastiff. Since you seem willing to engage in a substanitive discussion regarding the problems facing education today, let's find some common ground on which we agree and go from there.
Mastiff:
Have fun!
For the peanut gallery, I'm doing this mainly to get it on the record, for those interested. (Refer to Kevin's standard reason for half of his blog posts.) Those who think this is a fool's errand should kindly point and laugh from the sidelines.
So. In a nutshell, my view of the problems:
* Many students are in college who should not be in college. A large fraction of these are simply unprepared, a sizable chunk of whom would have been ill-suited for college in any event; of the rest, those who are able to handle college, their particular aptitude would be better served elsewhere. As it is, we seem to have made it a rite of passage to sacrifice four years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars, for the sake of a piece of paper.
My views on this have become more radical since I entered graduate school, and truly understood that my college career was little more than an extension of high-school. My understanding of political science (my major) was not much more developed after undergrad as it was when I started. Worse, my experiences as a TA have been horrifying. Very, very few students at my mid-tier state university know how to write well. Many don't know how to spell, even when using word processors! And the classes we offer them are the worst sort of watered-down treacle. It amounts to academic fraud, in some points.
The typical rebuttal to this argument is that college is not a vocational school, and is meant to broaden the mind. My response to this is that first, this judgment is made without concern for the cost of such broadening, versus its actual effectiveness; and second, the students' minds would already be plenty broad except that—
* Most schools tend to beat the love of learning out of students. For full arguments, refer to John Taylor Gatto, who makes the point at length. Suffice to say that students seem to break into four classes: those who would be voracious learners no matter what obstacles are placed in their path; those who would not care regardless; those who would otherwise love learning, except for the deadening, soul-crushing format of the Prussian-style school system (of whom there are far too many); and the rare, blessed few who would have spent their lives in darkness, were it not for the intervention of a single, providential teacher who somehow kindled a spark.
* Schools group by age, when they should be grouping by ability and maturity. This is especially so given the Lord-of-the-Flies aspect of school, in which those students who excel are persecuted for it. More generally, for all that schools see their task as teaching character, they forget that children in school learn most of all from each other. Usually, the tone of a class is set by the worst among them.
*This also leads to wasted resources and talent. Teachers are forced to aim for around the second-lowest quintile among their students. This leaves the most desperate cases to struggle anyway, and the exceptional students to languish. If you don't think this has a measurable cost, just go to Slashdot and read the comments the next time an article dealing with education shows up.
*Finally for now, and I think I have mentioned this before, but students are never given truly long-term projects to work on. Because of the disjointed structure of the school-year curriculum, students often leave college having never in their lives worked on any single project for longer than two months—or, more realistically, three weeks (given last-minute cramming). This serves them poorly in the real world.
Note that there's not a single "ideological" argument here—though I certainly have concerns on that front, the above applies nearly as much to private schools and religious schools. It's a structural argument, dealing with the entire format of the modern educational project.
Your thoughts, Mark?
"honestly, it's really pointless."
Actually, I agree with this, though not for the reasons Mark thinks.
Mark, you have shown repeatedly that You Do Not Even UNDERSTAND Our Arguments, let alone actually respond to them directly and logically. Over the last 6 months I've noticed that you're slipping more and more into arguing SOLELY with that burning straw man in your head, and not actually with us.
It seems like you're sliding completely into demonization mode ("The Cult", "Just Like Al Qaeda", "Racist", "Dying Man", "Pathological", "Tribe", etc.) where your mental image of us is almost exactly like how the Nazi's portrayed the Jews in their propaganda. It really is pointless to argue with such paranoid delusions. We can only point them out for what they are.
JLAQ!
Don't be silly! Everybody knows that Al Qaeda uses box cutters, airliners and IEDs. It's ign'rant rednecks who use pitchforks, torches and ropes.
And Leftist intellectuals who use dystopic tyrannical dictatorships, secret police, and mass graves.
Sheesh. You can't even keep your tropes straight.
"I know I was called out in the other EDU thread to respond to these posts but, honestly, it's really pointless..."
So, you're gone then?
Good.
May you rot in Hell.
Here's the story I tell every now and then about the education system.
My mother helped create the ESL program at St. Pete JC back in the late '60's. This program was set up to teach foreign students English language skills. At that time the accepted norm for college students was 70% comprehention and 50% retention (I think - it's been more then 40 years, Mom's gone and I'm a OF.)
Anyhow the program was a sceaming success with the foreign students(most of whom were from the Middle East), except that as time went by more and more local high school graduates had to be assigned to course because their scores on the incoming placement tests were so low.
Of course this was back when colleges gave every incoming student a placement test to see if they were capable of matriculating through college level courses.
And THAT'S how long this mess has been going on, Mark.
What can we do? Simple. Homeschool. Or deprogram at the very least...
just checked - Miss 8 knows the correct answers to:
1) is the sun a star?
2) does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?
3) is the moon a planet?
4) does the earth revolve around the moon or does the moon revolve around the earth?
and yes, she's in a private school.
Hate to be pedantic, but I trust she said "no" to 3.
I've never heard of the natural satellites of the planets of our solar system referred to as planets themselves. Then again, I am a product of the public education system. Or did our solar system not lose Pluto as a planet but actually gained 139 planets?
The work "Planet" is from the Greek meaning a wanderer - i.e. it looks like a star but "wanders" around the sky. Depending on which dictionary you consult, the moon can be either a planet or a satellite - it isn't illuminated by producing light itself but reflects sunlight - hence a planet. However, it does not have the Sun at the locus of its primary orbit so it's a satellite ... pay your money, take your pick. >};o)
Phil: The Moon hasn't been considered a planet since ancient times. In order to be a planet, a body must first revolve around the Sun. Since the Moon revolves around Earth, it fails that most basic test. This is according to the scientific definition of the word, i.e. how the word is used by astronomers.
The Moon hasn't been considered a planet since ancient times.
Until comparatively recently, when the argument has been made that the earth/moon system is a binary planetary system. If you consider earth and moon two planets orbiting a common center, then yes, the moon is a planet. If you don't, then it isn't. It all depends on where you draw the line between "satellite" and "sister planet". I think the majority of those who know or care about the debate at all have decided it's a satellite, because its tidal drag is insufficient to cause the same face of the earth to always face it.
I dunno; I remember reading somewhere that the Moon's interaction with the Earth was entirely /wrong/ in comparison to other satellites and their primaries. Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth. The end result was that while satellites may be moons, the Moon was not, technically, a satellite.
I'd have to look it up again, to be honest. I may even be misremembering it, so take with a grain of salt.
Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth.
I don't know precisely how eccentric the moon's orbit is, nor how that affects what is defined as a "planet" as opposed to a "satellite". I'm pretty sure the moon's orbital eccentricity is less than Pluto's by several orders of magnitude... but then again, they recently decided Pluto wasn't a planet either, even though it doesn't orbit anything except the Sun. So that may not be helpful.
The way that the International Astronomical Union determines whether something is a moon is the location of the center of gravity (the 'barycenter") of the two bodies. If the barycenter is inside one of the bodies, then the other body is a satellite or moon. If it's outside either body, then they constitute a double planet system.
In terms of 2 and 4, strictly speaking it's not a question of which body orbits which, but, again, the location of the barycenter. The Sun and Earth both orbit around the barycenter of the solar system which happens to be located inside of the Sun (but not in its center!).
Thanks, I wondered what the standard was. Of course, I knew it wasn't a question of "which orbits which", because it doesn't take all that large a "smaller body" to create a distinct, measurable difference between system barycenter and the center of mass of the "larger body."
Okay, so that one makes sense. IIRC, Earth/Moon system barycenter is somewhere around mantle depth, right?
Correct, Grumpy.
There you go with Science, Sarah!
And here I was working on response critiquing Aristotle's Categories and how we run into problems with trying to classify everything into neat little groupings :)
"I dunno; I remember reading somewhere that the Moon's interaction with the Earth was entirely /wrong/ in comparison to other satellites and their primaries. Something about the way it falls towards/away during its orbit around the Earth."
Any satellite in a prograde orbit with an orbital period greater than the rotational period of its primary will be dragged outward by tidal effects. Satellites with smaller orbital periods will be dragged inward. All of the Galilean moons of Jupiter experience the drag outward, as does our Moon.
I believe I've said it before, but it bears repeating. My children's education does not end when the school bell rings. I make a point of being the primary influence and information resource in their lives.
anybody else but me notice that the topic of this thread went from "in short, the only thing preventing them from getting a high-quality neducation was the educational system itself" to "every old higgledy-piggledy thing under the sun (which ISN'T a planet!)(yes it IS!!!)" the instant the commie troll checked in? and the important, highly relevant topic just....melted away, like a snow cone in the sun?
almost as if that was - i dunno - as if that was his GOAL???? as if it were a tactic written down in a handbook somewhere?
that's why i ignore the troll, and refuse to engage it. but hey - that's just me.
I don't know EC, you think he's really that clever? That this is all just a ploy? Or does Occam's Razor not apply?
well, look at his record over the past...whatever many years, JI. you'll find a reasoned, articulate discourse going on, and then....the guy pops in, says something idiotic/bizarre/ALWAYS inflammatory, and then pops out. reasoned, articulate discourse grinds to a halt; everyone draws their sword and charges after the impudent imterloper, who then blithely refuses to engage them. he just taunts them with more bullshit; never NEVER answers a direct question; absolutely REFUSES to acknowledge any points that destroy his childish little 'argument', and it goes on & on & ON. for...3 years now, is it?
face it gang. the guy dominates this blog, and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding. "jump, rightwinger!" "roll over, redneck!" "chase the ball, reactionary imperialist running dog!" even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM. (see the comment thread on the next post) so who's really in charge here?
would occam's razor explain how one single, not-particularly-bright, admittedly unhinged commenter can **capture** and utterly OWN a blog dedicated to a philosophy he opposes?
He certainly had nothing to do with my rabbit-holing on the moon question, and you seemed to think that a tangent (whereas it was from the article and the comment giving rise to mine).
"would occam's razor explain how one single, not-particularly-bright, admittedly unhinged commenter can **capture** and utterly OWN a blog dedicated to a philosophy he opposes?"
Yes, it does explain it, if he is as I diagnosed him long ago, to wit, a textbook-perfect example of someone who is afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This affliction is the cause of his being driven like a rented mule by an utter inability to admit serious error, it is the cause of his being immune to shame or embarrassment, and it is the cause of his denial, not only of said affliction, but of said behaviors. The diagnosis is so spot-on that even a layman can see it; no psychological training is necessary.
If you'll notice, my response is usually (but not always) to address his disorder, rather than his argument. It's like playing whack-a-mole; easy but repetitious.
The bottom line is still this; he will not win by default and he will not gain credibility through not being opposed. He does such good work for our side.
"face it gang. the guy dominates this blog, and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding. "jump, rightwinger!" "roll over, redneck!" "chase the ball, reactionary imperialist running dog!" even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM. (see the comment thread on the next post) so who's really in charge here? "
Whoa, slow down there for a minute, trigger, and let's take a look at what's going on.
"the guy dominates this blog"
No, what he does do is stir up a response in the comments. Kevin's used his bleatings as a jumping off point, but never has Markadelphia dominated the blog.
"and anyone fool enough to engage him is merely his trained dog, doing master's bidding"
*Raises an eyebrow* I cannot state other people's motivations, but I respond for a couple of different reasons: a) it amuses me to bat around the chew toy, b) I've heard that particular idea somewhere else, and I wanted to explore the idea for my own edification, c) Some nonsense simply cannot stand on it's own without being countered, and since I know Kevin doesn't going around dumping things he doesn't like into a memory hole, the response will stick around, therefore it is worth more of my time to respond here than elsewhere that has no such assumption.
If the majority of the response to him were mere name calling a void of any actual semantic content, you would have a point. But since the more frequent responders use an array of data combined with sound arguments to counter chosen statements, it's hardly a conditioned response.
"even when he DOESN'T comment, y'all comment about HIM"
Some people do. I'm guessing his blathering about a certain topic amuses them. I think if he actually stayed away from here, those that really need to read his ramblings would saunter over to his blog. I certainly wouldn't miss his 12 standard responses to any topic.
"who's really in charge here?"
Anyone that mindfully engages with anything posted or commented. Don't confuse a willingness to refute nonsense as being the same as lacking free will.
The problem is not that I don't understand your arguments. The problem is that your arguments are rooted in a deep seeded and single minded error filled belief.
Okay, then if I take you at your word...
You understand the arguments concerning the rule of law, and equality under the law. If I take that as given, my only other choice is to conclude that you don't consider such things important.
In other words, you're comfortable with despotism, so long as it's your despot. Right?
I can only relate personal experience.
Step-daughter, 8th grade, "Social Science" paper.
Title: "The Pillgrums and the Endiens."
Grade: "A"
I pointed out to the teacher that her title alone had 5 words, 2 were "The", 1 was "And" and the rest were misspelled. She was horrified at my suggestion she should have used a red pen to correct (or at least point out) misspellings - because "All that red ink will *KILL* her self-esteem!"
No Ma'am. What will kill her self-esteem is being allowed to go through school thinking spelling doesn't matter, then being treated like a MORON for the rest of her life because she cannot spell.
I have more -- many, many more -- examples, but the point is simple: Schools stopped being about "education" a long time ago.
My 2 daughters survived the same school system and have excelled in college and in life - because I refused to abdicate my responsibility to educate them.
DD
Red-colored ink, by the by, is steadily gaining Frowned Upon status, to hear it from some professors I know (yes, professors--as in college-level). Apparently it's too intimidating and demoralizing, even if the written criticism is positive, so if you feel you MUST correct a student's error*, please choose a more soothing color to do so.
*The word "error" is currently under review, and is likely to be phased out in favor of "non-standard application of language" by 2011. Please observe discretion in its use until then.
>>then being treated like a MORON for the rest of her life because she cannot spell.
Don't worry. That will be "fixed" as the generation that can't spell or apply objective criteria to their evaluations displaces the generation that can.
That'll be payday for the advocates of such a "system" of thought.
Is that a "big-Endian" or a "little-Endian"?
"Is that a "big-Endian" or a "little-Endian"?"
Bravo!
I almost fell off my chair, and I'm still laughing so hard I can barely type this.
One little, two little, three little endians....
Is that a "big-Endian" or a "little-Endian"?
Forcing the bits to anything other than random sequence is nothing but patriarchial rigidity. In doing do, you are squashing their uniqueness, dampening their creativity and crushing their self esteem. Each sequence should be free to choose its own semantic meaning free from your ordinal oppression.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all semester.
Question/Point of Order:
When was the last time, (if any!) that the Commissar Markadelphia has argued in defense of any positive assertion of his own, unrelated to the premise that "The Readers of Kevin's site/holders of similiar viewpoint are wrong, no matter what"?
Has that *ever* happened?
When was the last time, (if any!) that the Commissar Markadelphia has argued in defense of any positive assertion of his own,
I think you can find cases of that. With some big asterisks on that statement. Mark will argue in favor of things, but you cannot get him to actually give hard rules. He always ends up with "well, we'll figure that out" or "we'll decide that" or something similar.
But when there's some subjective or flexible rule in his crosshairs, it's absolutely unheard of and insane and malpractice to do that... but yet he cannot give even rudimentary guidelines.
But I think that you can find cases where Mark has in the past, at least (in his way, minus facts and failing to use sources and evidence and facts CORRECTLY). But it has been a while.
As I said, I think it's breaking through to him, that we "knew the right questions to ask" and as a result, pegged Obama within a fare-thee-well, where he didn't. But he doesn't have the tools to evaluate and learn from it, because remember, no viewpoint is wrong. (Unless it belongs to the Christian White Male Cult of Feminine Atheists).
Rather than deal with all of the threading up there, I'll respond down here since geekwitha45 asked an interesting question. If you look at the exchange above between me and Unix, I refer to an EDU thread awhile back in which I linked to the Minnesota State Standards. If you recall, I did defend those standards as being the framework for pedagogy in my state. I also added that reflection not critical pedagogy was a large part of my approach to instructing.
Unix made the following claim above:
And yet, they're what you pointed me to with your "Standards".
Let's take a look at the MN Science Standards as it relates to the topic in this thread.
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/Science/index.html
This pretty much jibes with how science is taught every day around our school district as well others. Take a moment and read through the standards and benchmarks. What do any of you think?
On page 26 we see quite clearly that knowing the nature of the Sun is part of our standards of learning. This is an example for 8th grade. Page 34 is for 9-12. Are these acceptable standards for any of you?
Now, do they actually learn this stuff? And is it taught to standards?
http://www.startribune.com/local/99283559.html
Educators and officials emphasize that American students need to excel in science to compete in a global economy.
"We have been emphasizing the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)," Seagren said. "This provides us an opportunity to judge how well our students are doing in that discipline. We know that more of our students need to have more of a science background."
The scores have improved over the years but they are still not where they should be...hovering at 50 percent. But do these tests accurately gauge learning? I'm not sure they do. One of the big issues of EDU has always been standardized tests. I've always thought they are not accurate measures of learning and subscribe to Gardner's MI theory. Thus, I adjust my assessments accordingly. I've given examples of these in other threads which would be other times when I have defended positive assertions of my own.
As to these scores being lower than they should be, there are a variety of reasons. Teachers aren't very reflective and continue to teach the way they want to teach. They don't vary their instructional strategies. Parents are completely checked out of the process...willingly or unwillingly. I've noted before that since it is very hard to fire teachers, many are checked out themselves...spending class surfing the internet or being just plain lazy. It takes a lot of energy to teach and some aren't willing to go the extra mile to invest the time. These instructors should be fired and you'll get no argument from me if you want to lay some of the blame at the feet of the unions.
Of course none of this nor any of Kevin's EDU posts seriously examine the massive influence of the mass media (the 5th agency of socializaton) that we have today. To put it simply, a child today gets more excited about growing up to be Justin Bieber or Terrel Owens than a scientist. They are inundated every day with images of "success" from the media that do no include knowlege of the Sun. So....who owns the mass media? More importantly, what if the parents (primary agency of socialization) are also heavily influenced by the mass media? In my opinion, they become the Michael Jordan Generation which is a LARGE part of our problem.
One other thing to consider...it's not about "old ways" or "new ways"...it's about what works. Somtimes the old ways are, in reality, the new ways. If you recall an older thread, I noted that DJ's desire for a return to the age of MiniMaths would be most welcome by me. In fact, I loathe the entire concept of new math so I think we are in agreement there. MiniMaths are fine examples of the instructional strategy known as Problem Based Learning. They also appeal to the verbal-linguistic learner and hint of Gardner.
Rather than deal with all of the threading up there, I'll respond down here since geekwitha45 asked an interesting question.
Right there is an indication of your ability to discuss. "Rather than deal... I'll respond down here". But you're ignoring a lot, as usual. You claim to merely have moved the reply, but in reality, you've dodged a lot of things that were open and asked of you.
If you look at the exchange above between me and Unix, I refer to an EDU thread awhile back in which I linked to the Minnesota State Standards. If you recall, I did defend those standards as being the framework for pedagogy in my state. I also added that reflection not critical pedagogy was a large part of my approach to instructing.
I don't recall that, but the link you gave me then wasn't the same one you just linked to. Which means that the conversation we did have is not necessarily related to this one.
Unix made the following claim above:
And yet, they're what you pointed me to with your "Standards".
The other link you made, the over all, yes. I'll find it and start posting the critical pedagogy - well, that would be most of it. but I'll make a sampling of it.
But that was another link. You've conflated 2 different links, and thus are complicating and confusing the situation - not clarifying or working towards common ground.
This pretty much jibes with how science is taught every day around our school district as well others. Take a moment and read through the standards and benchmarks. What do any of you think?
Not bad, all in all. You could learn a lot if you studied them more.
But, here's the big but.....
Obviously they're not working. Well, that's unfair. They were just adopted in May. They haven't had a chance yet. By the way, they're a result of "NCLB" - are you saying that's good now?
The older 2003 standards (in effect until this school year) are... nowhere near as rigorous or as detailed.
On page 26 we see quite clearly that knowing the nature of the Sun is part of our standards of learning. This is an example for 8th grade. Page 34 is for 9-12. Are these acceptable standards for any of you?
Those standards, isolated from the others you linked to, I don't see anything objectionable in a quick skim.
But let us get back to the topic at hand. You present these as evidence that "SEE! THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS DOING GOOD!" I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
There's a disconnect there. You can't grasp that. The school systems get massive amounts of money - and for that we have less and less to show for it yearly.
But do these tests accurately gauge learning? I'm not sure they do.
If you're making the claim that the schools are doing well, then make that, and try and back that up. But in the meantime, on average, those tests do a pretty decent job of tracking the results, IMO.
Of course none of this nor any of Kevin's EDU posts seriously examine the massive influence of the mass media
Wait, this would be the same "mass media" that in other threads you sneer when *we* talk about it's influence?
Even so, overall, that's not the issue. It's a small part of the problem. Just as with the Stanford experiment, the same kids, exposed to the same mass media, but who were instructed and held to a rigid standard, excelled. The kids who weren't, didn't. Where you don't find slavish devotion to the critical pedagogy you don't find those problems. Catholic schools have the same mass media to contend with, yet they have far better results. Private schools always have better results - and often, cost less when the total costs are totalled.
One other thing to consider...it's not about "old ways" or "new ways"...it's about what works.
Which is a fine sentiment. But you've been fighting that concept HARD for years here now. You're all hat, no cattle when it comes to that. Again, see what you had to say about the Stanford Education failure. What worked? What didn't? What do you promote?
And yes, Mark, you've got three years of history at this site, where you don't do "what works". You throw out something you've not researched, and then you refuse to admit error. A week to define "verbatim" when it was obvious you were misusing it. Over a year now, refusal to admit that more people watch nightly news than listen to Rush Limbaugh. (Contrary to your flat insistence that it was the truth.) Ed, DJ, Sarah, they've got their pet peeves that are identical. That's not "about what works" when you can't admit when you're wrong. There's no way for you to know what's working, when you insist that your way is the only way.
History matters. If you've changed your mind, that's good. But it does not absolve you of prior bad acts, and just like above, when you (perhaps inadvertently) started talking about a different document than had been previously discussed, and repeated my comments on a wholly nother document, you have a history of doing that, because you don't know how to actually think through a process. Or you haven't. Perhaps you learned in the last few days. It's possible. I'm just not putting any money on it.
"If you recall an older thread, I noted that DJ's desire for a return to the age of MiniMaths would be most welcome by me. In fact, I loathe the entire concept of new math so I think we are in agreement there. MiniMaths are fine examples of the instructional strategy known as Problem Based Learning. They also appeal to the verbal-linguistic learner and hint of Gardner."
Until I read this sentence, I had never heard of "MiniMaths".
In this post:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/08/critical-unthinking.html
Kevin included an education joke that he'd used before, part of which was:
"Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?"
I began first grade in the fall of 1959. A similar problem from my fifth grade textbook (1963 - 1964) would have been (for example):
"A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. He pays a federal tax rate of 20 percent and a state tax rate of 5 percent on his gross profit. What is his net profit?"
Yes, the problems we solved were that serious. We were taught the real uses of arithmetic as we learned how to perform it.
The experience I wrote about was the shock of what was called "new math" in the sixth grade. Kevin's example of the 1970's was:
"Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.
The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."
The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M."
Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?"
Yes, this is representative of my experience, but for me, it occurred in 1964. No, I do not exaggerate, not even slightly.
So, I Googled "MiniMaths". It appears that "MiniMaths" is a methodology and aids thereto for teaching arithmetic concepts TO PRESCHOOLERS UP TO ABOUT AGE FIVE.
No, I have no desire for "a return to the age of MiniMaths". I never knew such an age. My concern addressed the needs of more than just preschoolers.
I have a desire for a return to the notion that children of all ages should be taught the arithmetic and mathematical skills they will need and benefit by as adults, in particular the practical application of arithmetic in everyday life as a routine skill, to be used as needed, and never to be feared.
I have a desire for an exit from the practice wherein children are taught that how they feel about a mathematical result is more important that whether or not said result is correct. To those who believe such idiocy is good practice, I offer a simple question: Suppose the teenager at the cash register in Walmart gives you incorrect change because he cannot count up what the register tells him. Which do you think is more important: that he gives you the correct change, or that he feels good about giving you the incorrect change?
Perhaps we are in agreement on this subject, but I don't know to what degree. I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would. THAT is what I would like to see a return to.
DJ, sorry, I think of Mini Maths and story problems as the same thing. I used Mini Maths in grade school in the 1970s in WI and some instructors still use them today. My mother is a principal of 30 years in a school district there so I'll see them pop up when I visit. They have simple problems on a small sheet of paper on one side and two story problems, similar to the ones above, on the other. So, I was speaking of your example of story problems.
One other thing, when I said new math...I meant NCTM math, not the fad from the 60s. I can happily report that even the new new math is being phased out as well and we see many states (CA) returning to traditional methods of instructing math which I hope you will be happy about.
Unix, let me see if we can try this another way. My goal (and hope for all teachers) is that they pass on enduring understandings to their students. If there are instructional strategies that fail to do this or fail to pass on basic knowledge to students, then they need to be discarded. This would include critical pedagogy. This would also include strategies that pay no attention to differentiation. Truly reflective practioners will do this and, sadly, we have too few which is one of the major problems.
I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
But do you honestly agree that standardized tests are accurate measures of learning? I would urge you to delve further into the pros and cons of this debate. And do you also understand that comparing our students to China's, for example, has one very obvious flaw? What is it?
It's a small part of the problem.
I completely disagree. Unix, do you have the occasion to spend time with the youth of today? Notice, I am asking a question before jumping to a conclusion and comment further.
Mark,
Standardized tests measure very little, to be sure. But you are neglecting the trend, which is downward. What they do measure is deteriorating.
Since what standardized tests measure most of all is reading comprehension, vocabulary, and study skills, that scares the hell out of me.
Also, see my post yesterday at 10:18:38. It's above the "Der Jude" images.
"DJ, sorry, I think of Mini Maths and story problems as the same thing. ... So, I was speaking of your example of story problems."
I understood you. Again, I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would. That suspicion is based on much more than your comments here. I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable and I support a return to those standards.
And, on another note, do you see the difference in the response you get when your comments are not simply those of a shit disturber? We've been trying to teach you this for more than three years now. Have you seen the light a bit at last?
I point out that scores are dropping, US students keep scoring lower and lower and lower compared to the rest of the world.
But do you honestly agree that standardized tests are accurate measures of learning? I would urge you to delve further into the pros and cons of this debate. And do you also understand that comparing our students to China's, for example, has one very obvious flaw? What is it?
Yes. Standardized tests are accurate measures of learning and knowledge. Note that that does not mean they are perfect, nor do they cover all facets. But for what they measure, they are accurate. This is where thef fact you do not understand measurement, accuracy, and precision comes in. I can infer what you mean, but that's prone to misunderstanding.
And as to comparing to China, well, let's just say if you'll stop telling us what the Chinese Government without verification claims about various things you like. But I meant more India and Pakistan, personally.
It's a small part of the problem.
I completely disagree. Unix, do you have the occasion to spend time with the youth of today? Notice, I am asking a question before jumping to a conclusion and comment further.
Let me be clear; that you paused and asked is good. But it's an answer that I've given many times before.
I spend 10+ hours a day on campus at a public university. So yes, I spent lots of time with the "youth of today".
And it's one thing to disagree - it's a point where we could, reasonably, disagree. Except I said why it was a small issue. I said that. You didn't deal with the examples, and the context.
.
I say it's small because of those things - it doesn't affect some schools. Now, if you're going to claim that it is, well, that's a fine point to argue. But you've got to back it up. I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
we see many states (CA) returning to traditional methods of instructing math which I hope you will be happy about
That is wonderful to the extent it is true. But don't you HAVE to consider how many children were condemned to a substandard education in the pursuit of a pedagogical hobgoblin? And how do we make damn sure we don't do that again?
tar baby sit, and don't say nothin' (that makes any sense). so brer rabbit, he asks, "is you deaf? cause if you is, i kin holler". tar bbay sit, and don't say nothin' (that makes any sense.)
aftewr awhile, brer rabbit loses his temper at the tar bbay. "i'll learn you to set there and not say nothin' that makes any sense!" so he smite the tar baby a mighty blow wid his strong right hand. his sfis' stuck, an' he can't pull loose. "if you don't let me loose, i'll whomp you again", brer rabbit warned. tar baby sit, and....well, you know. and with that, he fire off a nice left hook, and *that* stuck, TOO!! then he tried head-butting the tar baby, and got stuck; then he tried kicking the tar baby, and got stuck....
yeah, you're right, guys. the troll doesn't dominate this blog. he just wins each & every argument, because he's find hisseff a whole BLOGfull of brer rabbits to ensnare. you're 0-for-3 yeras, now playing by the rules he sets. arguing with a troll who's made it clear he won't engage in good faith; who plays by alinskyesque rules of debate; who twirls you around like his own personal marionettes. good luck with that.
No, he doesn't. He simply doesn't acknowledge that he loses any argument. He is unreachable, incurable, and fundamentally, demonstrably dishonest to a degree one seldom ever encounters.
Now, consider all the people who read the comments here without commenting themselves. What do you suppose THEY think about who wins? THEY are the real targets of the whole effort. Note again that NO ONE comes to his defense here. That is why I have said, for a long time, that he does such GOOD work for our side.
And he drives traffic here, not to mention the posts he's inspired (see left sidebar.) If you don't want to read his drivel, there's an "X" up there in the corner.
you know what? you're right. adios - have fun doing your troll's bidding. click.
Well, well, well. Check out Markadelphia's latest post on his blog:
"After a few minutes of explanation, I sat and reflected about Jeff [a guy who's clearly misreading what the Bible teaches about The Antichrist, or is that Paul?] and how much he reminded me of others in my life. In this reflection and the period of time since then, I have reached a conclusion: I will no longer be referring to the GOP as the "Cult" any longer. In addition, I'm going to make every effort to analyze what they say without being derisive. This, of course, does not mean I won't be critical or wonder where their reasons and facts are for a particular argument. It does mean that I am done personally attacking or labeling people that are on the right. I will also be relying more heavily on what they say as opposed to my interpretation of it. If they wish to continue to do that with me, it will be ignored and I will respond with impersonal comments. This will also hold true for any comments I have on TSM as well, although I think the transition will be more difficult over there."
I have really mixed feelings about this post. First, he equates this guy's crackpot theory (which I strongly disagree with and would tear apart pretty quickly) with the entire right, then claims that he's not going to demonize the right anymore. But he just did.
Second, if he actually follows through with this, it would be excellent progress. I welcome it!
Third, his claimed reason for backing off strikes me as awfully conveeeeeenient timing, coming only one day after I openly called him out on how ugly his caricature of us really is. Especially since he kept his old tactics going right up until the appearance of that post (and still mixes them in, though more subtly in that very same post).
"... his claimed reason for backing off strikes me as awfully conveeeeeenient timing ..."
Hmmm ...
I can't help but speculate. "What if" is a big part of an engineer's life, not just his career.
Mind you, I welcome the progress too, presuming it's real, but I can't help wondering. Do you s'pose he's setting the stage for not being hammered quite so hard when the left side of the aisle in Congress gets hammered in November? Consider this comment of his, posted only three days ago:
"There is no doubt that President Obama has made mistakes--a couple of big ones certainly. I've always maintained that he is not perfect..."
You'll find that statement in his comments of this post:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/08/quote-of-day-damned-straight-edition.html
If you go back and search through my comments, you will see that I have made similar statements about President Obama in the past. He has also spoken of himself in the same way.
Honestly, I've been thinking about this for the last couple of weeks. The incident at the block party really drove it home, I guess. My first reaction was to call him a lunatic but then I realized that much of the anger we see these days is driven by people's personal frustration with their lives or, if you are a functionalist, anomie. His rants--most of which I did not list in my original post--sucked every amount of snark and obnoxious vitriol out of me after some period of reflection. In some ways, so did this thread.
So, it really has nothing to do with the election in the fall which is clearly going to contain losses from the Dem column. How many that will be remains to be seen. We have some more primaries to go through and I think you will agree, DJ, that much can happen in the 10 odd weeks we have until Nov 2nd.
Mastiff, if it's OK with you, I'm going to comment on your ideas on my blog. Very interesting points indeed and worthy of longer posts than simple comments here.
I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
I think that when people reach the university level they are on a different plane of learning than at the K-12 level. These are people that made a conscious choice to get a higher education. The test scores of which we speak are from public education, 3-13, right? Year round, I am with people in this age range. The mass media has an enormous influence on them. Interestingly, I have a friend named Eric and he is an evangelical pastor...a staunch conservative. We have loads of fun debating but one area on which we agree is that the mass media have radically shifted the priorities of young people in this country. They don't care about knowledge regarding the Solar System. They do care about Call of Duty and becoming the next Vinnie Chase (for you Entourage fans). His answer, of course, is Jesus Christ. I think that's a good start but I'm biased.
The difference of what you speak is more than likely the parents. So many are simply checked out and very driven by extrinsic motivation.
But don't you HAVE to consider how many children were condemned to a substandard education in the pursuit of a pedagogical hobgoblin? And how do we make damn sure we don't do that again?
I'll consider it but in this day and age of high stakes testing, a renewed call with vigor for national standards, and teachers being fired for poor performance (finally), we may have begun to see the light. I'm only going to say this once just to get it out of my system: some of the unions need to go fuck themselves. I've seen far too many wonderful instructors villified because they wouldn't go along with the small minded group think. I've been in trouble myself but that's largely due to that same small minded thinking.
What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers.
What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers.
I think you misunderstand if you think the criticism is primarily pointed at personnel. It is only to the extent that teachers either believe in the failed pedagogy, or, are aware of its failings but continue to teach it anyway.
But above all, the point is that we are fucking over generation after generation of children with an educational system that has abandoned what DID work in favor of what DOESN'T. It really doesn't matter the motive, noble or nefarious, it is that this system has no facility for self-correction.
...more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers.
I can't help it. This whole side of the discussion reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWhr2xevNKY
Aaaaand this thread just went 100 comments.
And THAT is why I keep Markadelphia around. At least one of the reasons, anyway.
I think he draws better traffic here than at his own blog.
Sadly, that is the case. But then again, your site is more heavily trafficked than mine by at least 10 to 1. I suppose I could do more work to promote it but I'm not sure I really want a group, say from the Democratic Underground posting on my site. I'd like to see some more left of center regulars as you have more right of center here but it's not a big deal. More than likely, I'm going to lose readers if I am less incendiary. Ah well...
"What I'm really hoping to accomplish here is to widen the criticism and look at what are more pressing issues than teachers who are concerned about feelings and answers."
It seems to me that THE central issue of education is, "Are the children learning as much as possible? And is what they are learning accurate?" Furthermore, it seems that the purpose for education is to teach children facts (accurate) and the thinking skills (reading, writing, math, logic, how to find information on their own, and yes, morals) to make the most of their capabilities so they can accurately understand and interact with the world around them.
Teachers—and ideology taught to teachers—which promote self-esteem at the expense of learning directly undermine that central purpose. Therefore, that direct relationship between this ideology and the central purpose of education would necessarily put it at the top of the list of concerns. That doesn't mean it's the only thing at the top of the list. Inaccurate and/or incomplete textbooks would be another issue right up there. The point is that it cannot be ignored.
Take a look at the link Sarah provided in the comments to "Even I Didn't Think It Was This Bad" about the students who hadn't even heard of Al Qaeda. They have self-esteem just oozing out of every pore. Yet they couldn't think their way out of a wet tissue paper bag. They have clearly learned what they've been taught very well.
I saw that and I agree but for different reasons I think. Do you remember John Lennon's comment that The Beatles were more popular than Christ? Well, Justin Bieber is more popular than school. Kids can have a ton of arrogance. By and large, they think that they know everything about....well....everything. In particular, they view people older than 30 as being completely worthless and out of touch. Most of the time I can connect with kids but I watch my colleagues struggle all the time. Part of this is because some of my colleagues are somewhat small minded and...ahem...dorks.
The point is that learning isn't "cool." Of course, this has always been the case with the many generations of youth but Mastiff's point above (which I will be talking about on my blog) regarding all the fun being drubbed out of learning is true. This is why I favor multiple instructional strategies based on differentiation. I think you will agree that there are a plethora of ways to teach facts and thinking skills. This comes from learner centered instrustion which should not be mistaken for this self esteem learning of which you speak. This requires teachers not to be lazy. And therein lies the problem.
Again, I submit this self esteem learning is the exception rather than the rule. There simply isn't any time for it during the course of learning. Of course, that doesn't mean that teachers shouldn't be encouraging and act like robots. Students do need to be championed for the achievements and challenged to learn from their mistakes.
"The point is that learning isn't "cool.""
I've been waiting for that.
Now, remember my earlier comment:
"I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable and I support a return to those standards."
When I was in school, learning was cool, and that was before anything was "cool".
The core problem, in my unhumble opinion, is that children don't know what they don't know, and yet, all too often, children are allowed, either intentionally or by default, to determine what they will learn. That is a recipe for ignorance, for being unprepared for the responsibilities of adulthood, and for dependence on gubmint.
Ignorance is not cool, and I would not suffer students to treat it so. This is, in great measure, the basis for my previous statement:
"Again, I suspect that I would require a great deal more learning by students than you would."
I gave you examples where kids, exposed to the exact same "mass media" have wildly differing outcomes. What's the difference(s) between them?
I think that when people reach the university level they are on a different plane of learning than at the K-12 level.
That's got nothing to do with what we were talking about. I was pointing you to primary educational cases where the playing field was level.
Catholic schools in NYC have the exact same mass media as the public schools, yet they outperform them embarrassingly.
Aspire (EPAC) had the exact same distribution as Stanford (Stanford New School) - and yet EPAC has excelled, and SNS is getting their charter yanked.
This is where - if you're serious about a dialog, don't disregard this, you've been told by how many people about this? - your lack of understanding of measurement comes in. Now, you can't get a true control group in this sort of science. You can only approximate. But you can get as close as possible, and EPAC and SNS are about as close as you're going to get in the real world.
Right there, that means your supposition that it's the media, and the culture's, fault needs a lot more support, since both schools had for all intents and purposes identical factors there. Thus that neutralizes that as a differing factor.
I'll agree with you that the media and culture are not helpful, but I don't see it as the determining factor.
We have loads of fun debating but one area on which we agree is that the mass media have radically shifted the priorities of young people in this country. They don't care about knowledge regarding the Solar System.
Mark... Students have never cared, as a whole, about some of the things we make them learn. That's why we have teachers. If they were self-motivated, we wouldn't need them.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
-- Hesiod ~ 750 BC
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. " - Attributed to Socrates by Plato, Circa 400 BC.
The difference of what you speak is more than likely the parents. So many are simply checked out and very driven by extrinsic motivation.
So all the motivated parent's kids ended up at EPAC, and none at SNS? That's highly unlikely, and would require substantiation if that's what you're saying.
Yes, motivated parents makes a huge difference in the specific - but overall, they average out. Now we're back to because of that, I'm saying culture's not the difference there - something else is. Culture is the same across both those schools, across Catholic schools in NYC and the NYC Public schools. Yet the results are widely variant.
Right there, that means your supposition that it's the media, and the culture's, fault needs a lot more support, since both schools had for all intents and purposes identical factors there. Thus that neutralizes that as a differing factor.I'll agree with you that the media and culture are not helpful, but I don't see it as the determining factor.
No, it's not the determining factor but it is a major one. The parents are honestly the major contributing factor. My reason for mentioning the differences between the university environment and the K-12 environment were the former is not compulsory. When you are in that sort of environment I think you will agree that the attitude towards learning is different as well as the development of the child.Young people at my level are there because they have to be...at your level they are there because they want to be. Another question, do you have kids, Unix?
I'm saying culture's not the difference there - something else is.
Well, that's true. As I have said all along, teachers are simply not doing a good job and need to be held more accountable. That's why I favor high stakes testing for social studies even it means having to deal with loathsome standardized testing.
Culture is the same across both those schools, across Catholic schools in NYC and the NYC Public schools. Yet the results are widely variant.
I disagree. There is a wide variety of difference between the culture of a Catholic school and a NYC public school. So, it stands to reason that mass media affects these varying cultures in a different way.
At the end of the day (and as I have said before), there are a multitude of instructional strategies beyond Aspire and SNS. Those that do not workd should be chucked. You should take stock in the fact that SNS won't be around long if they are failing to get even the basics done. President Obama has made it pretty clear that our nation's education system needs to be at a much higher standard.
President Obama has made it pretty clear that our nation's education system needs to be at a much higher standard.
Not to be obvious, but pretty much every politician has made the same mouth-noises since before Jimmy Carter gave us the Department of (Mis-)Education, and we keep going downhill.
"The parents are honestly the major contributing factor."
In order for that to be true, the schools cannot be the major contributing factor. In other words, the schools have a culture where students' failure to learn is considered acceptable.
Contrast that with what DJ said:
"I was educated in a time when not learning was not acceptable…"
Would parents' involvement still be "the major contributing factor" if school systems decided that students would be held back for another year if they did not learn what they were required to learn?
Would parents' involvement still be "the major contributing factor" if school systems decided that students would be held back for another year if they did not learn what they were required to learn?
Leaving aside the difference of opinion of what the "major factor" is, this is a good point that should be emphasized more to Mark, so he can understand why we're saying "nuke it from orbit."
Because this speaks to the heart of why I, for one, keep talking about the failed educational system.
If the students don't learn, that's one issue. It's got causes, and we can attempt to deal with that.
But the educational system is not doing its job and failing the students who do not learn. The students who aren't learning, are being promoted far past their accomplishments (and right now, dumped on the college system to try and rehabilitate in many cases.)
The question of why the students are failing to learn is one thing.
The question of why they're graduating from the system is quite another, and indicative of people failing to do their jobs, and hold them accountable.
And that's not a result of culture, media, or parents. Not really. It's just an abdication of responsibility, which one also should note, the schools are quick to claim and require for other reasons. Just not performance/results.
Just came across this today and haven't had a chance to read it yet, but thought it might be pertinent as a reference.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/coulson_comparing_public_private_market_schools_jsc.pdf
Ed and Unix, students should be held back or failed if they don't perform in our school districts. This is also true for the several states (WI, IA, IL, SD, ND, MO) that I have observed over the last few years. Actually, they aren't held back...they are simply failed and told they are going to have to get their GED in order to complete their schooling. I have seen this happen many times. I think you may be overstating the "passing on" idea but we should really take a look at some numbers.
But that's why we need multiple instructional strategies. Bringing in something from the film thread, The Blind Side demonstrates this quite well. Michael had the knowledge and the potential to learn more but the instructors needed to adjust their pedagogy. When they did, he excelled, was able to graduate, and became the success he is today.The instructors that take the time to do this (i.e. the non lazy ones) do a great job.
CAshane...briefly scanned the paper. I look into it more later but it reminds me of this quote from Manzi.
Our basic model of public schooling — accepting raw material in the form of five-year-olds, and then adding value through a series of processing steps to produce educated graduates 12 (or more) years later — reflects the vision of the old industrial economy. This worked well in an earlier era, but improvements that might have kept this model up to date have been stalled for decades. We now need a new vision for schools that looks a lot more like Silicon Valley than Detroit: decentralized, entrepreneurial, and flexible.
For a generation, many on the right have argued for school choice — especially through the use of vouchers — as the primary means of achieving this vision. Their approach, however, has been both too doctrinaire and too artificial. If school choice ever becomes more than tinker-toy demonstration projects, taxpayers will appropriately demand that a range of controls and requirements be imposed on the schools they are ultimately funding. At that point, what would be the difference between such "private" schools and "public" schools that were allowed greater flexibility in hiring, curriculum, and student acceptance, and had to compete for students in order to capture funding? Little beyond the label.
We should pursue the creation of a real marketplace among ever more deregulated publicly financed schools — a market in which funding follows students, and far broader discretion is permitted to those who actually teach and manage in our schools. There are real-world examples of such systems that work well today — both Sweden and the Netherlands, for instance, have implemented this kind of plan at the national level.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge
One more thing
indicative of people failing to do their jobs, and hold them accountable.
Completely agree. I suppose we disagree on why they are failing but no doubt they should be fired which is way too hard to do. This reminds of an instructor I recently met named Rick. He and I coached tennis together this summer. He told me he was a special ed teacher but wanted to teach social studies. I told him I heard of an opening for a civics teacher at a local high school and he laughed and shook his head. "Ill never get it," he said, "why bother? There will be 500 people applying for it." As I worked with him over the summer, I noticed that he became a teacher because he thought it would be easy and have summers off. He was very lazy in his approach to coaching tennis. On the hot days, he whined a lot and gave very little effort. I found out at one point that he was 28 and firmly in the entitlement mindset. He deserves the same type of life as Vinnie Chase (Entourage), right? No doubt, a product of Michael Jordan generation parents.
He was correct about one thing, though. He will never get that job because he didn't even try. I suspect that his approach to instruction is similar and it will be his students that all of us will be discussing...again....in a few years. Worse, they are students with disabilities and need extra attention.
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>