The idea that there's a hidden key somewhere (typically Finland) that will unlock the education door and make American schools something more like the shiny, happy ideals we see in Heritage Foundation fliers and pedagogical conference brochures seems almost unkillable. Somehow our nation always seems to be At Risk; at risk of failing, at risk of falling behind those regimented Europeans and cunning Asians unless we do X. Y. and Z, at risk of economic and intellectual desuetude unless we Do Something Brilliant Now.
What's the latest flavor of brilliance?
Apparently it resides in Finland. That's where they train only the "best" students to be teachers. This is our authors' notion, while they recommend somehow magically ensuring that the number of teachers trained matches the teaching jobs available to avoid the current oversupply of discouraged teachers. Let's pay them handsomely, too, finding all those tax dollars' special secret place where the voters have hidden them, and with it we'll also somehow make all schools safe, intellectually challenging places to work. Oh, yeah, then we'll find even more money to evaluate and mentor these outstanding teachers thoroughly, and finally we'll make word"teacher" the semantic and social equivalent of "investment banker" or "major league baseball benchwarmer" resulting in all sorts of public love and respect for teachers.
What could be wrong with that?
Well, nothing, of course. If teaching were like trial law, biomedical research, or writing computer code. You'd jack the pay scale, jigger the working conditions a tittle, and the Stanford and Cornell grads would come shouting in.
But teaching is nothing like these sorts of technical professions. Teaching is, fundamentally, a mixture of performance art and artisanal craft with technical knowledge thrown in on top. The skills to do it well are almost entirely personal, and the ability to teach well is highly reliant on the quick development of people skill.
And, what's more, as a teacher you're working with the Great Unwashed, the Average American; many of them will come to your classroom raised on television and video games, short of attention, patience, and ingenuity, trained to expect learning to be "fun", often poorly literate and numerate, impatient with being told that their "effort" is inconsequential and that they will not be rewarded for mediocrity.
I know, because I went from being a professional scientist to a teacher and back again.
As a registered geologist I was presented with a suite of challenging and often innovative tasks to solve in company with other professionals whom I respected and who listened to me with respect. I worked closely with my peers, my supervisors, and the clients, who acknowledged me as the subject matter expert that they were paying well for an opinion. I was able to maintain a stable family life and a fulfilling work life.
As a teacher I spent the vast majority of my day with adolescents who typically considered me an mildly entertaining irrelevance at best and an irritating nuisance at worst. I barely saw my peers and my supervisors were almost invisible. My workday consisted of attempting to introduce the most fundamental aspects of my profession to an audience that generally considered the subject (when they considered it at all) an obstacle to their social lives. I had to spend a hell of a lot of my time dealing with personal issues of people whose lives had been utterly fucked up for years prior to my encounter with them. For which time I was paid roughly half of what I made previously.
I did teach some great students, and agree that with good students teaching is among the most rewarding of tasks. But I also spent a ton of time on "classroom management" - in a setting with gave me a tenth of the tools I had had as a drill sergeant while expecting me to accomplish twice the instruction.
And possibly the worst part was the parents; many of whom didn't care or didn't know what their children were doing. many of whom were manifestly overwhelmed by their children, almost all of whom were struggling desperately under loads of work, family, debt, and a crippling lack of time and intellectual resource.
So the notion that somehow we can just wave a magic policy/money wand and make every public school Saddle River Country Day School?
Well...I think the key here is to look at the examples used in the article.
Finland
South Korea
Singapore
All of them relatively tiny, homogeneous, intensely urbanized and highly urbane polities, typically with cultures that emphasize unity, conformity, hard work and achievement. You might as well start making plans for American public schools in urban Detroit, Seattle, and Los Angeles by looking at the systems currently working so well in Grosse Pointe, Scarsdale, and Beverly Hills.
Of course the educational systems in Finland, Singapore, and South Korea work well.
Given the starting points, you'd have to be a thermonuclear-grade moron to fuck them up. I'm just guessing here, but I highly suspect that it has as much to do with the qualities of the Finns, Singaporeans, and South Koreans in the classroms as it does with picking teachers from the top 25% of the ACT and putting scented piss-pucks in the boys bathrooms.
(True fact: the boys bathrooms in the high school I taught in stank like year-old piss. One of my classes started with the idea of raising money to put those disk-shaped odor absorbers in the urinals to help make the bogs a little less nasty, assuming that the lack of pucks was a budget problem. We were informed that, no, the practice had been intentionally halted because of the number of times the pucks had been stuffed into toilets and plugged them up.Okay, here's the real bottom line.
Think about that for a moment; what sort of human fishes in a public urinal for a piss-soaked disk to then shove into a public toilet.
Hmmmm.)
In 1965 the Coleman Report identified economic class as the single largest factor in predicting academic achievement.
That conclusion has never been refuted.
If you take a look at "failing" schools identified by the NCLB, most of them are in urban or rural poor areas. It's the same here in Portland; our "good" schools are in the parts of town that look like Finland or Scarsdale (wealthy, white) - Grant, Lincoln, Wilson. The marginal ones - Madison, Franklin, Cleveland - are in the browner, more marginal parts of town. The "failing" ones - Roosevelt here in our NoPo and Jefferson - are in the hood, either Hispanic as up here or black in the case of Jefferson. This despite a PPS policy that has been in place for years to encourage the better teachers to choose the tougher schools.
They don't - no one would. Because an American classroom in a tough neighborhood is never going to look like Singapore. Or Sweden. Or fucking Finland.
In fact, I'm going to now suggest a goddamn federal law banning on any educational nostrums, prescriptions, seminars, or on-line classes that mention the fucking word "Finland". Or "Singapore". You want to suggest a fix for education? Take something more like us or go to jail, dammit.
I suggest Brazil, maybe.
And this "education problem" isn't going away any other way, either. Income disparity in the U.S. is rising, and the percentage of people falling behind is growing, at a rate we haven't seen since the end of WW2. And the current political climate makes the notion of raising tax money to help the schools where the new underclasses will be warehoused somewhere south of unlikely and a quarter to "ain't ever gonna happen".
So, sorry, boys. I agree we can do better with our schools - though I will argue that they're not as bad as they're made to be, given the available cash and the human timber we're starting with. I won't argue that there needs to be better teacher training, testing, and mentoring, either.
But it doesn't have as much to do with finding the academic superstars as it does the great actors, improvisational standups, skilled craftsmen, and savants. I can teach math to a great teacher - I can't teach a great mathematician how to teach.
And let's face it - there's no way in hell the teacher training schools will cut back their numbers and the American public ain't gonna vote the money you'd need for all this stuff, anyway. Your little piece was a nice dream. But it was a dream.
And dreaming of Finland isn't going to solve our problems. Hell, dreaming of Finland isn't even going to lead you to the right problems.
"Somehow our nation always seems to be At Risk; at risk of failing, at risk of falling behind those regimented Europeans and cunning Asians unless we do X. Y. and Z, at risk of economic and intellectual desuetude unless we Do Something Brilliant Now. "
ReplyDeleteContinuous improvement is a necessity for all nations which want to be or to stay wealthy. It doesn't only seem that way.
"Continuous improvement" = Weber's concept of Rationalization which is composed of the notion of progress, market capitalism (how else does one measure "efficiency"?) and bureaucracy (how else does one insure "control"?) Of course we seemingly have lost control of the process which in effect now controls us. Weber pointed out around 1910 that this modern and Western Rationalization was corrosive to all traditional value systems, in essence destroying them and replacing them with "instrumental rationality", or seeing every process as a means to an end, not having value in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteMany have argued that our current environmental degradation, the collapse of democratic values (money = free speech), and the replacement of rational capitalism with "adventure capitalism" or in US "crony capitalism" are the end results of Rationalization or "continuous improvement" . . . The problem is that "power" in social relationships always remains and influences the process and systems of measures . . .
As to the subject of Chief's post? Finnland, is a nice place but not really a guide for the US, unless the aim is to avoid controversy and ignore the actual situations/problems.
Instead, De-centralization and "Triage". Let the teacher in the classroom/school principle decide what is best for the class/school in question. Given the complex nature of classroom social interaction, only the professionalism of the teacher can hope to cope. That, and get those "scorpions" (game theory notion - see "prisoner's dilemma") out of the classrooms where they are only destroying the opportunity for everyone else. We have to look at public education as an opportunity and a responsibility (concerning both teachers and students), not a right.
FD Chief,
ReplyDeleteDude, if you're hopin' on transformin' schools in the U.S. to the ones in fuckin' singapore, be prepared for lotsa your youth killin' 'emsleves or gainin' permanent membership in a mental asylum.
If you'd like yer kids to all become automatons that are only good at mouthin' quotes from their elite. Talk 'bout totalitarian regimes! Imagination zilch.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2010/11/singaporeans-people-without-conviction.html
ReplyDelete"And possibly the worst part was the parents"
ReplyDeleteChief, the parents ARE the problem! We lived in a school district which had a high percentage of parents who were VERY determined to make sure that their children got a good education in spite of their current economic standing, which was piss-poor.
There was only 1 nurse for every 3 schools, the computers were 10+ years old and notoriously cranky, most of the paper was donated by corporations so tests had to be scheduled around their deliveries. Textbooks were used until they were completely worn out and then used for five more years. The teachers were paid about 10% less than their contemporaries in other school districts.
But the school district had the BEST teachers because they KNEW that the kids would behave and that most of the parents would show up at parent-teacher conferences and would respond to teacher input.
In spite of huge funding issues this school district was always in the top 3 in the state in standardized testing.
But the budget troubles of the last decade caught up with them and finally overcame the fanatical determination of the parents to ensure that their kids got a good education.
About that time, for reasons that had nothing to do with the school district, we moved to a different suburb which has plenty of cash. What an incredible difference!
First rate facilities, school lunch programs that weren't left-overs from the 1950's civil defense programs, GREAT elective courses with plenty of fun doo-dads to play with. Tons of child and parent support programs!
But student performance was predictable. Ten percent of low-income kids, and about 50-60% of middle and high income kids were getting a good education. The rest seemed to think that school was some sort of poorly designed daycare facility.
At parent-teacher conferences, the teachers who teach the high-end courses are mobbed by interested parents who are asking how their kids can get that last 1% of learning out of the class. The teachers who teach the mid-level classes have some parents show up. The lower-end teachers play games on their laptops because the parents won't or can't show up.
But the trend that causes me the most concern is one that the Chief already identified. Teachers have noted that electronic toys have grown so small and capable that they are absorbing far too much of the kids time, energy, and interest. This trend is starting with the kids from wealthy families and reaching down.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the percentage of kids that "get" what education does for them drops from 10/50-60% to 10/20/10% by economic class.
The South Koreans, arguably the most "plugged-in" country in the world, are facing this problem right now and are not having a lot of luck figuring out how to get the kids who are addicted to online games integrated back into humanity.
P.S. - Sven's comments on continuous improvement are SOOO true!
I disagree. Compare Canada to the USA.
ReplyDeleteWe are less homogeneous than the USA but in aggregate we do much better.
Yes, we have problems (our ghetto schools tend to be on reserves rather than the poor parts of town) but we are doing OK-ish. Provincial funding of schools greatly levels most of the monetary issues.
I think a lot of the problem is that education is still organized like a 18th century factory.
Okay, here is a question I have that is sort of related. Let's assume that the US is truly in worse shape than some other, smaller countries.
ReplyDeleteSo why is it that other countries, let's use Scandinavian countries, why is it that they are able to have great health care, good schools and higher quality of life? What are the conditions that allowed these achievements to occur?
Are the governments better run? Or more authoritative? Are the people more apathetic and simply allow the government to implement the plans, or are the people more strategic thinkers or better educated? Are the people just less attached to their income and are more willing to be communal and give 50% of their money to the government? Are big businesses like Nokia and Ericsson less influential in these countries? Is it because the countries are smaller and therefore change is quicker and easier to implement? Is there a smaller gap between rich and poor?
What is it? Why can other countries achieve this level of society and we can not?
Here is an interesting take on this issue. What I like about it is it looks at the issue from a state perspective; the U.S. as a whole is indeed a monster and it's difficult to compare us to smaller, more homogeneous nations. Turns out it doesn't matter. Bottom line is the U.S. really, really sucks no matter how you slice it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/your-child-left-behind/8310
Bg asks a ton of good questions. Bg, my friend, as one of you, in response to your wondering about why the Scandinavian countries whip our ass in every meaningful quality of life index, I would say, look inward. Much of our problem has to do with our eagerness to engage in war. Can't dodge that one, buddy, no matter how much we may wave the flag. Think of how much money—not to mention lives—those Scandinavians have saved over the years.
And, yes, the governments are almost always better run. Some are more authoritarian than others and all are influenced inordinately by the rich. But WRT the rich, one thing leaps out. Yes, the rich are always greedy, but the nations that do better than the U.S. seem to be able to control the depredations of the rich. The U.S. can't or won't. Are we more apathetic? Of course we are. A substantial slice of our population—most of those whose children are most at risk—have essentially given up on life. Shit, I'm white, well-educated and have decent assets. I've got a kid who's the same. What's my biggest worry? Ain't me or the wife. We're old and we'll make it, especially because we're white and we vote. It's my kid, who's also white and votes. I fear the string may run out on her because of the avarice of our rich and the abject stupidity of the poor.
In case nobody's noticed, we're becoming Mexico. I don't mean that in the immigration sense. I mean that in the governance and societal sense.
bg:- "What is it? Why can other countries achieve this level of society and we can not?"
ReplyDelete1. They want to?
2. Everyone is willing to contribute to it?
3. Their culture is more oriented toward collective well being than individual prosperity?
I wonder if the collapse in education/education standards is not connected to the decline of the Middle Class? Al's recent post comes to mind. The countries with relatively successful education systems also have strong Middle Classes . . . the same people who would exert political pressure to maintain these standards and participate with teachers and schools to implement them . . .
ReplyDeleteAel's comment about the "factory" model for schools is spot on imo. It gets in to the wider issue of paradigms in education . . .
http://zenpundit.com/?p=3566
I think we are all hitting pieces of the target. My list (in no particular order) of reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Parents - it starts and ends with parents recognizing the value of education and having the time and energy to get their kids focused on it.
2. American exceptional-ism - We don't need to be well-educated because America is God's country and he'll look after his own. Also covers the too-big-to-fail theory of life.
3. A growing sense in this country that the game is rigged and the wealthy are fleecing everybody else (including the moderately wealthy). This includes both the death of the middle class and the increasing similarity between Mexico (chronic weak government and inflexible class structure) and the US.
4. An increasing lack of willingness to work for the common good. Not so much in private volunteer circles but in the public arena, which is slowly becoming a blood sport.
Personal example: my father lives deep in Tea Party country and moved heaven and earth to get his local library moved to a better building because the old one was deemed an ecological disaster by the state (asbestos, mold, fungus, and much more).
After a decade of determined effort he finally managed to get the job done. But it looks like the library will now have to close because the local leaders are unwilling to bring an increase property taxes by $1.69 per month to pay for the better building before the voters.
There was a comment on zenpundit with which I fully agree: Real creativity depends on content knowledge and cognitive skills. You can’t have insights about things of which you do not comprehend their significance. What’s needed is a blend of content mastery, analytical-evaluative exercises and efforts to promote counterintuitive thinking, changes of perspective, synthesis etc.
ReplyDeleteIn short, if kids don't master basic math skills, there is no way they can become theoretical mathematicians, or even competent engineers. Or even more basic, figure your change at a cash register. There is a significant difference between "creativity" and "fantasy" or making it up as you go along.
My 8 years in higher education exposed me to what a friend called the "education industry". Schools of education that offered graduate programs on education subjects (curriculum design, education administration, educational media production) that provided a path to pay increment raises to public school teachers. But these teachers were receiving no formal academic subject matter continuing education. Think about a system where a high school chemistry teacher could be teaching based on material they learned 15 years ago, updated only by random personal inquiry into the subject, along with whatever advances are incorporated in this year's (high school level)text book.
As to "standardized tests", without standards, how do we, as a society, know the meaning of a given diploma? I'm not saying I buy the current testing schemes. But when I was in high school, we had to pass a three hour, state wide, "standardized" test in each subject, each year, to pass that subject. That was 12 to 18 hours of standardized final exams every year from 9th through 12th grade. We didn't graduate illiterates who couldn't add subtract, multiply or divide, as is the case today, and we were a contributing part of putting man on the moon.
(Cont)
To me, the question is what our public schools exist to do? Is it to cater to the desires of individuals or provide our society with people educated and identified (by the award of a diploma) as being capable of functioning at a defined level in that society?
ReplyDeleteIf public schools exist to solely meet the desires of the students and/or their parents, then let them pay the bill. Tax dollars should only be spent on that which provides for the general well being. And an education which doesn't prepare the diplomate for some generally accepted and worthwhile role in society is not providing for the general well being of the society.
So, taking an education model from another culture, and expecting it to be a silver bullet in the US is fool hearty. That model is a result of the culture which developed it, and reflects that culture's expectations for itself. I am not convinced that America knows what an education should do for American society as a whole. I'm not sure Americans, in the main, have any expectations for society as a whole. At least not in terms of each of us having to make an effort on behalf of the society in general.
Our education system sucks because we don't have the guts to say that not everyone is willing or able to meet a minimum standard to achieve a defined level of skill that might be called a high school diploma. Nor does it really have a focus on what our society needs from someone holding that diploma. It's simply focused on awarding diplomas to as many people as possible.
A powerful pair of posts, Al. You're making statements that the majority of Americans would disagree with but they really wouldn't be able to say why (either because they didn't know or they don't want to bring the reasons for their rationalizations to light).
ReplyDeleteWe should be talking about alternatives to school for grades 9-12 if we are not going to require them all to graduate from high school. How about bringing back the old apprenticeship programs? Or we could recalibrate high schools into part-academic and part-trade schools.
Pluto-
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment. What is the purpose of school? Supposedly to learn something. And a diploma should be the mark of that which is learned.
But we have gotten some things backwards. For example, should a higher education in a given subject automatically result in higher wages? For example, back in the late 70's, child care workers in TX were being sold the idea that if the educational credentials for day care workers were elevated, it would result in better pay. My question, at the time, was what value was added by a child care worker having a BS or BA versus an Associate Degree? Further, could the average parent needing day care afford or be willing to pay more because the workers had gone to school for two more years? If this was the case, they why not have BS/BA programs in hamburger cooking to help the Mickey D crowd lift themselves out of poverty.
In short, education, especially that which results in a credentialing (e.g. diploma) should be credentialing to given standard which gives value to that credential. When high school graduates have to take "placement" tests when entering college to see if their mastery of English and Math are sufficient to enter Freshman English and Freshman Math, and 40% will require remedial course work, then clearly a high school diploma is not a valid credential. That information alone, from The College Board, should be setting off alarms. But rather, these folks are considered "successes" because they got their diploma, no matter that 40% were not properly prepared for the next step in their education.
Al-
ReplyDelete"I am not convinced that America knows what an education should do for American society as a whole. I'm not sure Americans, in the main, have any expectations for society as a whole. At least not in terms of each of us having to make an effort on behalf of the society in general."
Excellent argument. Agree. Could it be that the goal is simply "offering everyone the same"? That is complying in some superficial sense with the American ideal of equal opportunity?
Back in the 1950s, the idea was for US education to "produce" people who could work in industrial production, understand the basics of industry and their place in it which included in return the idea of a steady job, good pay and the opportunity for a decent live. We still seem to be playing to that ideal, but the economy has changed and along with it the requirements of said economy. What is important today are skills few Americans are properly educated to have which it why we let so many immigrants in. Also the dream of a steady, well-paying job is gone as well. Instead what is promoted is an appetite for a Middle Class life-style without the skills necessary to achieve it economically, even if the Middle Class is under siege as in fact it appears to be.
We've reached the end of meritocracy, where those who have made it to the top (for instance the Clintons and Obama) kick the ladder away to make sure their kids enjoy the advantages of their family's connections without having to compete with the masses . . .
The move now seems to be to apply the "business model" to mass public education . . . as Bloomberg in doing in NYC.
"(G)et those "scorpions" ... out of the classrooms"? Hey, I'm not so bad that I didn't notice someone here wrote "fool hearty" vs. "foolhardy" [just a tease -- I know you're not being astrologically bigoted, seydlitz:)]
ReplyDeleteFurther, you are correct to note the collapse of the middle class, the group that props up public schools. We now have more of the better-prepared students attending pilot programs, charter schools or private schools, or following desegregation, having moved to the more preferable school districts.
I don't think we can dismiss desegregation (40 years ago) as beginning a negative cascade from which the U.S. has not recovered. It's not p.c., and it's not on most thoughtful person's radars, but there it is.
Pluto: A dreadful story about the library loss. I am with you re. "bringing back the old apprenticeship programs" (vocational), along with secretarial or what might now be an IT track. It is not elitist to say not everyone needs the same cookie-cutter approach; in fact, it fails many students.
Even Obama's vaunted community college initiative recognizes the fact that many jobs require an 18-month or 2-year certification. Still for these students, a basic reading-writing standard must be gained after 12 years in p.s. So why are college remediation programs such a huge growth area?
Our grades 1-12 are based on kindergarten rules: Give lots of gold stars and keep them amused. The diploma is a token gesture for everyone, whether gained via social-promotion or actually earned. We want everyone to feel good, and we don't want to be accused of bias. But the bias is deep and cultural, and begins early when teachers form expectations of their charges -- when they "slot" them.
On a social level, Publius is correct: "the nations that do better than the U.S. seem to be able to control the depredations of the rich."
Agreed, Al -- the education industry is a scam.
Last time I looked, these wonderful places with Utopic schools don't have to deal with religious heretics and fanatics messing with curriculum, a political party dedicated to denigrating public schools and cheating them out of tax monies to benefit their campaign donors in private schools
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39993441/ns/us_news-life
and every other year it seems educational consultants with a buzz up their ass and an idea in their noggins and empty pockets to fill descend upon districts like a plague of locusts.
It's all about power, money and influence.
bb
lisa: "Still for these students, a basic reading-writing standard must be gained after 12 years in p.s. So why are college remediation programs such a huge growth area?"
ReplyDeleteLook at the current testing set up. The test in English and math proficiency that's given for "graduation" under most schemes, including No Child Left Behind", is administered in the 10th grade. 2 1/2 years before completion of high school. About 8 - 12 hours of testing to cover all subjects, not just English and math.
For public community colleges and universities funded by enrollments in classes, remediation courses are a cash cow. No harm to them to sell 3, 6, 9 12 extra credit hours per student over time. No burden on the high schools at all. I had a colleague at the state univ where I taught suggest that the cost of remediation for recent HS grads be back-charged to the school district of the student, as it was their job to get the kid to the proper level in the first place. Talk about a radical idea!
Why does public education exist? Does it exist to help/please/entertain the student or the parent, or to meet a societal need? I doubt that the way we implement it in the US is really about the needs of our society. If it were, then a diploma would be a clear credential of an identified level skills, knowledge ability in specific subjects.
Public education resulting in a diploma should result in a member of society that is armed to accomplish identified tasks. An academic HS diploma should mean that the holder is fully prepared for college level work. A vocational diploma should mean that the student is fully prepared to enter the identified occupational field. A HS diploma of any sort should document literacy in English and mastery of basic math to an identified standard. But instead, we have a system where all HS grads must be tested in math and English when entering post secondary education to identify the 40% who lack basic HS level mastery. WTF?
Why? That gets very complex. I would put part of the problem in the lap of our culture of the individual's interests being superior to the collective well being. Thus, we target our education programs to the wants and desires of the student/parent more than the needs of society in general. My retired neighbors back in the US grudgingly paid schools taxes for children of other people's families. Rather than see the societal benefit of kids educated to a reasonable level in order to receive a diploma, they saw the money being spent for the benefit of individuals in whom they had no direct interest.
Second, the diploma is seen as something for the benefit of the diplomate, not as a credential that allows society at large to identify skills demonstrated and available for applying to the needs and benefit of the greater society. I wonder how society would react to a similar approach to airline pilot licensing where the license had no solid relationship to proven skill mastery!
Glad to see the good discussion on this topic, one I think will have a lingering effect on the U.S. long after the last Tea Cracker and Obamaniac have gone to their rewards.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I should note to accompany the article about the Next Brilliant Thing out of Finland; Oregon's public schools now have to go in front of the Feds and explain why they aren't meeting federal law concerning special education or pay the price. The law? That SPED funding must be equal to or increased from the funding for the previous year.
??????
We're laying off teachers, cutting class time, closing gyms, libraries, and computer labs...but we have to fund Joey's extra study time?
WASF
On a general note, I think that a lot of the factors everyone has mentioned play apart; the arteriosclerosis of the "education profession", an increasingly frayed middle class as well as the accelerating breakdown of the cease-fire between the rich and the rest that held between 1932 and 1980. The current "no taxes not ever never" craze. The competition and distraction from the electronic media, as well as a culture that decreasingly values the "egghead" model of education.
Call it "cultural exhaustion", if you will.
All things considered I honestly believe that the public schools deliver a better service than we deserve, given the way we've abused them. But I think we're going to have to decide soon whether we're going to accept a massively stratified school system - sort of like the problems we recognized in the Sixties and Seventies, when desegregation (as Lisa noted) forced us to recognize the Jim Crow schools we'd neglected for generations but on steriods - or try and claw back some sort of equity.
I'm not sure we have the fight left in us.
Here's an example, at the undergraduate level, where educational standards have been diluted to be able to award more degrees:
ReplyDeleteCHEM 1360. Context of Chemistry. 3 hours. (3;2) Fundamentals of chemistry for students who are not science majors. Applications of chemistry to its role in the world. Topics include historical and philosophical development of modern chemistry, the environment, energy, industrial and economic development, modern materials, popular perspectives of chemistry. Includes laboratory. May not be counted toward a major or minor in chemistry. May be used to satisfy a portion of the Natural Sciences requirement of the University Core Curriculum.
I am quite familiar with the development of such a course. It's in no way a college level course in a Natural Science, but more a course about a Natural Science. Its title should be "Chemistry for those who don't want to take, or can't learn Chemistry". It's a Mr Wizard, or lower level course about popular chemistry created to let people achieve the requirements for a BA/BS degree (yes, it applies to a variety of BS programs at that school) without them having to master an introductory science course.
I remember a statement a Community College Chancellor made at a conference I attended years ago. Someone was saying that as long as schools had "open enrollment" programs, we would have to accept the dilution of education. It's the only schools like Harvard, with high admission standards that will be able to offer "quality education". The Chancellor responded:
The world does not compete for Harvard MBAs because of Harvard's entrance standards. They do so because of Harvard's graduation standards. If entrance standards alone were the criteria, people who flunked out of Harvard would be in great demand, and they are not. Our problem is that we have let open admissions standards result in an equally open and low graduation graduation standard.
There is nothing wrong with opening the doors of our public schools to more and more of society. There is also nothing wrong with mobilizing extra resources to assist those who need it. Where we are going down the tubes is that we have lowered the standards to graduate. We offer the least among us the opportunity to attend school, fuss over them with additional resources, apply low standards to their work, award passing grades and a diploma to them whether or not they are literate or can do basic math, and then wonder why they are dysfunctional and/or angry when they set out into the real world ill-prepared for what is really expected of them. After all, if you can get a B in math and a HS diploma without the ability to figure change at a cash register, where the hell does an employer get off expecting you to do so?
Chief
ReplyDeleteAll things considered I honestly believe that the public schools deliver a better service than we deserve, given the way we've abused them. But I think we're going to have to decide soon whether we're going to accept a massively stratified school system - sort of like the problems we recognized in the Sixties and Seventies, when desegregation (as Lisa noted) forced us to recognize the Jim Crow schools we'd neglected for generations but on steriods - or try and claw back some sort of equity.
I'm not sure we have the fight left in us.
Very perceptive on all levels, Chief. Unfortunately, I'm POSITIVE we don't have enough fight left in us considering the other challenges we've messed up lately.
Fortunately my kids will have just managed to graduate before the mess is likely to hit. Unfortunately I'm hoping to have a number of grandchildren...
Al: There's a lot here.
ReplyDelete[1] I'll take exception with this:
"There is nothing wrong with opening the doors of our public schools to more and more of society. There is also nothing wrong with mobilizing extra resources to assist those who need it."
As you said earlier, remediation is a cash cow, and I had students who had gone through the same remediation course four times (yes), still to no effect. So, do we remediate the remediation? When students begin their headlong fall at fourth grade, that portends eight years of learned helplessness.
Or perhaps it is as one student explained, whose parents just had to have him graduate from their alma mater (a public university). He struggled all day with the coursework, but he could not wait to weld at night, for welding was his pleasure. Why was he not spending all day apprenticing and perfecting his craft?
We are snobby and elitist, and p.s. is a grudging sop to the paeans. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? We don't really mean it. What we need is little consumers and taxpayers.
However, we also need entreprenuers, and if we weren't such a covetous society, all would be let on on this little secret instead of having to flounder and pay hundreds to attend a "Rich dad, Poor Dad" seminar.
next: why p.s.?
[2] "Why does public education exist? Does it exist to help/please/entertain the student or the parent, or to meet a societal need? I doubt that the way we implement it in the US is really about the needs of our society."
ReplyDeleteWhy, indeed? Historically, someone decided we needed all educated to the 6th grade level so they could read machine manuals and thereby not lose a finger. That's a solid idea, which morphed into the beneficent Walter Mittyish idea that anyone could be president one day, so all now traipse through the next six years on a sort of Mr. Toad's Wild ride.
It used to have a leveling influence (for the good) when music and art were a part of the curriculum, but they are largely a thing of the past. Funny, but as we see our fall on measures of math and science competence, we fail to see the connection that students are humans and not automatons to be filled with data. But we're trying that approach because we see the Chinese and Indians fast on our heels.
It is tragic that 40% are unprepared for college. The reasons for this are manifold. As you suggest, we have no societal mission nor expectation, and really, since p.s. is an exercise in socialism, there should be a concomitant idea of how the individual might fit into his society. Instead, we have a horrible mish-mash, turning out a lot angry people unfit for a productive future.
One case in our community concerned a star football player who discovered after h.s. graduation that he had failed to be educated. The school used him, however, for his football prowess.
As it stands, p.s. is a token gesture to the masses, highly uneven in its implementation, suggesting a commonality and equality which does not exist, in fact.
When we discover who we are as a society and what are goals are, and can commit to the idea of communal goals, school problems will resolve. Not until that day, for education merely reflects the dis-ease in our society.
p.s.:
ReplyDeleteRe.: My retired neighbors back in the US grudgingly paid schools taxes for children of other people's families. Rather than see the societal benefit of kids educated to a reasonable level in order to receive a diploma, they saw the money being spent for the benefit of individuals in whom they had no direct interest.
We have written something on this, which will be up soon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYikes:
ReplyDelete"When we discover who we are as a society and what are goals are ..."
OUR goals, ahem.
Yes, good discussion!
ReplyDeleteI see frequent comparisons between the US and Scandinavian countries on a host of issues. For all the reasons already cited, it's not really appropriate to compare them in most cases. Finland is a homogeneous society with the population and GDP of Maryland (which holds less than 2% of the total US population).
I think Seydlitz is right that we have a system that was built for an industrial society which doesn't exist anymore. That's true of most of government actually and many areas of the private sector as well. Simply put, it persists in education because the level of dissatisfaction has not yet reach a point where the status quo and entrenched interests can be overcome. Heck, even a relatively simply idea such paying and promoting teachers based on something other than seniority and credentials is still considered radical in some quarters.
Even if the industrial model for education was still appropriate for today's society, it is failing at it's core tasks despite the fact that most schools are spending 2-3 times the money per student that they were in the 1960's. I think a major reason why post-secondary education is now a requirement for most entry-level jobs is because everyone knows how meaningless a HS degree really is because it's been so dumbed-down.
Al,
ReplyDeleteI've got to agree with almost everything you say, but I'm not sure about this:
"Thus, we target our education programs to the wants and desires of the student/parent more than the needs of society in general."
I'm not sure education programs are satisfying the wants and needs of students or parents. When polled, parents sure don't sound happy with the education system at all. Students don't seem happy with a system that demands conformity, isn't challenging, and doesn't meet their needs. I think the education system is failing all around - it's failing students, parents and society. Parents don't seem to have much influence in changing their district for the better - if they did, I suspect we'd see fewer parents moving simply to get into a better school district.
I'm also not sure about the fraying middle class as a factor, but I can see how the increase in single parents and dual-working parents can make parent involvement much more difficult. Spending-per student remains very high yet we keep hearing stories about laying of teachers, closing music/art programs, libraries etc. I'm still wondering where the money is going. (The rich, as they always do, can buy out of any failing system.) The middle class is usually stuck and their ability to change their school or school district is limited.
As I've said here before, I'm heavily involved in my kid's school. I know all the teachers and the staff and they know me. Generally they are good people, but, despite my involvement, I don't feel I have much influence except at the margins. I don't really know how money is spent in my district except for the very basics. I know they spent just over $11k per student. I know the best private school in this area charges $6k per student. The best public school district in this area spends about $10k per student. I know that 70% of the district budget comes from the feds and the state and that 85% of the total budget goes to personnel costs. I know that teachers rely on parent fund-raising efforts for many basics such as computers and even supplies even when budgets weren't declining.
I think the educations system itself is the main problem and sooner or later it will have to get a big shakeup. I don't understand the math that my district spends almost $9.5k per student just in personnel costs when the best private school spends $6k for everything. There are two reasons I can think of that can account for that: The private school has much fewer employees per student, or the private school employees receive much lower compensation, or both. I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of personnel costs for the public schools costs are tied up in compensation for retiree pension and medical benefits which is an issue affect state and local budgets pretty much everywhere.
I'm pretty sure the best public school district, which spends a comparable amount-per student as my district, gets a much larger portion of it's budget from local property taxes. They are located in a high-property value area and their education-related property tax rates are over twice what they are in my area. Maybe lessened dependence on state and federal money (along with more freedom from the strings attached to that money) means they are able to do a lot more with comparable funds. I don't know, it's not an easy topic to research and I'm generally pretty good at research.
And to be clear, I'm not pointing this out to criticize my district, which I think is generally good. I think I'm probably willing to pay more than the average person to ensure my school has the funding it needs. This is just part of my ongoing effort to understand where the money is going and to understand a system that isn't as transparent as I'd like it to be.
lisa-
ReplyDeleteSorry I wasn't clearer on "mobilizing extra resources to assist those who need it."
I was not promoting the so called "revolving door" that keep students in the system regardless of progress. Such resources should only be mobilized for those who are willing or able to benefit. Thus, as was the case in my day, a judgment call (shudder, shudder, shudder) is required.
And, I have big issues with "remediation" where it is the provision of make up education, such as the case with the 40% of high school grads who need remediation to be able to perform at what should be a high school grad level. What meaning does a diploma hold if one still needs to be tested following its award to see if one can perform to the level the diploma implies?
Having as many of our population as possible literate and able to do basic math benefits our society. Since we see that a high school diploma is not a valid indicator of a given level of language or math proficiency, we obviously can't measure our success in achieving societal literacy and math skill on the basis of diplomas awarded. If that is the case, why do we award them at all?
In summary, it is in our society's best interests to have the population as educated as possible. However, if "graduation" from high school does not elevate the graduate to a real high school level of education, and university degrees are awarded on the basis of "All Time Favorite Snippets of Chemistry" courses, we are not increasing the level of education. We are just distributing more diplomas. And, I fear, it is the distribution of more and more diplomas, while letting the actual level of education that they represent fall lower and lower, that is actually taking place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAl,
ReplyDeleteI am in full agreement on the debasement of value of a diploma, both p.s. and college.
Oh yes, we are TERRIFIED of making judgment call! "Judge not, lest be judged," over and over in perpetuity, and it is this apprehension which is to blame for so many ills, IMHO. I mean, I'm not the big Hand of God, but we have to make some decisions, and deciding for one thing negates the other. Fact.
And Andy, because the post-secondary degree is so important, many students in the 40% are paying for remote learning from questionable institutions in order to receive the vaunted diploma. They often pay more at these private "schools", but the product doesn't mean much, and that is a tragedy. They are still not high school equivalent.
So, yes Al, the standards of education have fallen, 40% graduate unable to enter the college level, and we perform abysmally in the science and maths, but equally poorly at English, as well. It is clear that our schools are failing (though they're doing better than if we put the students out to pasture ... maybe), but I don't think jiggering about with NCLB is going to solve the problem of lowered exit skills.
If all parents were like Andy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. FDC mentioned the dissipation in our society, and this is a problem: We have a thirst for those things that quench our appetitive desires. Sacrifice is for rubes. So we're battling an ethos of entitlement, top to bottom. I saw it from the high and the low.
Our technology makes cheating much easier, and perhaps the skill that earns the most money is that of learning to "get by" and work the system. One will not be great, but one will manage to get by if one can navigate the system, and that's what school is -- a child's first introduction to navigating the bureaucratic beast.
[erratum: "We are snobby and elitist, and p.s. is a grudging sop to the paeans."
ReplyDeleteNO! Of course I meant, "plebians" or "hoi polloi" or something like that. *sigh*]
A "hoi", sailor Lisa!
ReplyDelete:D
But "paeans" does have a weird, but effective, insight to it.
bb
Lisa:
ReplyDeleteIf all parents were like Andy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I pulled the post trigger too soon on this.
But one thing I do not see in this discussion, which you touched upon briefly, Lisa, are comments upon some of the human refuse that washes up on the shores of our public schools.
Abused kids, foster kids who've lost their siblings and have not yet found a decent home, drug-addled kids and parents, poverty and homelessness, mentally and physically damaged. Our school children population is not entirely composed of entitled spoiled brats who think the world will be handed to them on a silver and gold-inlaid platter.
Our political leadership can be so busy telling us our schools fail, but not have the honesty and courage to do something about it. In my whole teaching career, from east coast to midwest, not a careless boast but gives me, I think, some authority on the statement, I've met just a couple of teachers who didn't care about their students and the subjects they teach.
But when you're under the constant threat of being fired for your lack of success with your classes, some cutting of corners gets done. And please, no bullshit about teachers not being able to get fired. It's called "non-renewal" of contract.
Has anyone seen the latest story of James O'Keefe and his upskirt adventures with some New Jersey teachers?
And that shitsack Christie backing his story up?
QED
bb
bb
bb says,
ReplyDelete"Our school children population is not entirely composed of entitled spoiled brats who think the world will be handed to them on a silver and gold-inlaid platter"
Yes, far from it; wealth is represented proportionately. I witnessed crude behavior from the best and the worst, reflective of the root stock. I have met more than a few burned out, cynical or simply inadequate teachers, again, perhaps reflective of the population at large.
But the thing is (as FDC has suggested), teaching well requires a spark, and how do you teach someone to have an internal fire? No education school can do that. So teachers continue as they ever have, to be pulled from the general pool of potential workers. But it may be that the pool has had a come down. Or it may be that pursuing wealth is more important today, the idea of teaching, less noble.
When working with a younger population, a 4th grader once came in with a "big word", asking if I could define it. After I did, he replied, "Mom said you probably wouldn't know what it meant."
It's not that his mom knew me from Adam -- she simply "knew" that teachers weren't the shiniest apples in the barrel. He was one of the wealthy "entitled" ones; the attitude made me mad and sad, at once.
Re.: "But "paeans" does have a weird, but effective, insight to it" --
I thought the same, but it wasn't literally correct. We strive for precision [except when I'm off on a rip :)]
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI've frequently read that one of the major criticisms of education colleges and degree programs are that they focus too much on education theory and not enough on the practical difficulties of managing a classroom full of a diverse set of kids. New teachers arrive unprepared for the environment they're in and either muddle through and figure it out, develop bad habits, or quit out of frustration. So it seems to me like our colleges of education could use some serious reform as well.
..."one of the major criticisms of education colleges and degree programs are that they focus too much on education theory and not enough on the practical difficulties of managing a classroom full of a diverse set of kids..."
ReplyDeleteAndy: I can speark directly to this issue, having learned to teach the Army way and then relearned the "professional education" way.
All education programs I am aware of spend considerable time teaching "classroom management". This involves a fairly wide range of both cognitive and organizational skills, from lesson plans to seating arrangements to one-on-one counseling. I must have taken between 100 and 140 hours over two years on these subjects.
And I was still commonly confronted with situations I couldn't control, or barely controlled, in my first-year class.
Because teaching, perhaps more than any other "profession" is ALL about specific individuals, situations, and personalities. All the Ed. professors can do is teach the course, not the winds. They cannot possibly prepare you for the ADHD kid who is off his meds at the same time your overhead projector dies. They can't teach you how to figure out how to break up a hallway fight without getting cock-punched, or handle a normally good student who suddenly starts doing D-level work.
This has absolutely nothing to do with our colleges of education, and everything to do with the reality of education as a craft, not a "profession".
If we REALLY wanted to teach education we would dump billions observing and assessing teachers in order to find the most gifted 10%. This is a LOT less simple than it looks; teaching isn't high test scores, it's a relationship like love or a chain gang, and can only really be assessed by observing the teacher and the students over a long time.
Then these people would have to be placed in a setting where they would have two or three student teachers - apprentices - who would work with them over the course of at LEAST a year to see if 1) the teacher can teach how to teach and 2) the students can learn.
Then the apprentices would become journeymen, working under the fairly close supervision of a master craftsteacher, who would spend hours with them discussing lesson plans, classroom management, and especially the lessons learned from incidents that went wrong.
Finally, after two or three years they would sit for their master's papers and be able to teach independantly.
Now you, I, Lisa, and Scooby Doo know that no American citizens in the world would consent to that, none would tax themselves to pay for it, and very, very few would give the teachers produced the kind of respect and hearing this training would produce.
So we will soldier on with the cannon-fodder the existing system cranks out.
Lisa: The pool of prospective teachers has been tremendously impacted by the liberation of women from homemaking and pink-collar jobs. For a hell of a long time a truly gifted woman had very few options outside cooking and sex (for free, not for money) other than teaching. Those days are gone, and the teaching pool is thinner because so MANY other jobs are more lucrative.
ReplyDeleteAl: One thing to think about, here.
Let's try and put this in perspective. Until probably the mid-20th Century a HELL of a lot of Americans got little or no education at all. Urban kids, poor rural kids, a pantsload of them left school at ten or even younger. I would guess that this situation persisted well into the Forties and possibly even into the Fifties.
Now we at least try to educate probably something like 80-90% of the nation's kids. This results in two things:
1. A lot of dropouts, because we're asking kids to perform cognitive tasks we didn't - for a hell of a lot of them, anyway - before. And
2. A choice; we can either force the low-skill, low-intelligence (mostly) low-income kids into a "dummy track", a vo-tech education, a less-demanding degree...or we have to spend what it would take to give all these kids, the ones with the personality problems, the ones with the fucked-up homes, the ones with the drug and mental and emotional and physical issues, every swinging richard and renee, the tutoring and counseling and teaching and re-teaching they'll need to reach the college-prep level.
I don't think we'll be willing to pay for Option B, and the American public won't stop deluding itself long enough to choose Option A.
I'm not sure where you go from there, but I suspect it's not a good place...
lisa: Oh yes, we are TERRIFIED of making judgment call! "Judge not, lest be judged," over and over in perpetuity, and it is this apprehension which is to blame for so many ills, IMHO. I mean, I'm not the big Hand of God, but we have to make some decisions, and deciding for one thing negates the other. Fact.
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time (at least my time) the schools did make this judgment. Of course today, there's big money in programs to help kids get through school. If you don't offer the programs, you don't get the money. For me, the question is why standards have been so readily lowered to support the myth that every kid is willing and/or able to achieve what was formerly the standard for a high school education? Why do the "educators" fight standards. And even the politicians that are calling for "standards" are doing so with the ill informed notion that standards alone will raise the graduation rate. The higher the bar, the smaller the population that can jump over it. Do we set the bar based on a desired "graduation rate" or based on legitimate standards for what a diploma stands?
I remember then Governor Bill Clinton being quite precise about his view when addressing Arkansas' abysmal school situation. At a town hall meeting I attended, he said, "As a first step, we are not going to discuss "programs" or "money". We all agree that there are massive numbers of diploma-ed Arkansans who are illiterate and cannot do basic math. Step one is to establish the standards our schools need to enforce for the award of a diploma. Then we need to address the standards of knowledge for our teachers, since poorly educated teachers can only pass on a poor education. Once we have these standards in place and see where we stand, we can do something to improve our schools and children's education. And, we must accept that there will be students that will not or cannot meet the proper standards. For them, unfortunately, a diploma is not in the cards. But, in 10 years, when you meet a recently diploma-ed Arkansan, you can safely expect him or her to be literate and be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide."
Reading the posts, it seems clear to me that we're actually talking about two separate sets of problems.
ReplyDeleteThe first concerns education, or specifically what we can call "the factory model" as described in the link I posted. Just about every education system in the world is going through a rather intense period of reform, and the British Quango I work for is involved in a lot of it especially in Asia and Africa. Language, specifically English as a means of communication, expression and comprehension is high on the list. If you are an English language teacher, right now the place to go is Malaysia btw . . . where their government is pouring in serious money to retrain/train every one of their local English teachers in the country. Across the developing world we see the same goal, that of improving their human resource base in order to make them competitive in a global market and the government in each country is pushing this.
The second set concerns specific American problems which are closely tied with changes in American society and especially imo with the collapse of both Liberalism/Progressivism and Conservativism as political ideologies. From the "Left", a lot of the good intentions of mass education or more broadly, the Square, New and Fair "Deals" as well as the "Great Society" coupled with modern notions of "progress" have eroded traditional authority - be it parents, churches, teachers and communities, and replaced it with . . . well nothing really. The state as in bureaucratic control, be it education or social services or whatever, has been unable to fill the void.
The less said about what has become of Conservativism in America the better. Any practical view of politics or of state responsibility has been sunk in a morass of corruption, self-interest, racism and blind ideology which sees the state as simply the steel fist of the elite to enforce their version of "order" or as a milk cow for their narrow interests.
Consider how the collapse of language as a means of communication and sharing ideas fits in with the growing polarization in America, it is as if we are operating in different dimensions since the ability for rational thought seems to have been lost.
As the rest of the world stumbles forward, the US sinks in its own little swamp of delusional self-interest and money-drenched corruption. We have become our own worst enemies, our own dynamic for self-destruction . . .
Chief,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that! Teaching as an apprenticed profession - the more I think about it, the more I like it as a concept. More generally I'd like to see apprenticeship come back and no longer play a distant second fiddle to a college education. My family has, since the end of WWII, been in the construction business, which my oldest brother now runs. One of his greatest challenges is finding skilled workers and part of that is due to the collapse of apprenticeship programs.
Seydlitz,
That's probably the best critique of modern progressivism & conservatism I've read.
BG,
ReplyDeleteThis is a late reply to your cmt.
Is it possible that the Scandanavian countries do all the things right because they don't conduct draining continuous wars?
Just askin'.
jim
Publius and BG,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that i cmtd b/f i read Publius's reply to bg.
I was going down the list.
We're starting to sound like twins.
jim
ranger and Publius,
ReplyDeleteYep, I agree we piss away money on our foreign policy. But I really don't think it is about money. I think the problems are much deeper, as discussed in the multiple comments above. I have no confidence that if the USG did not spend a dime on defense or foreign adventures/aid, that the money would be spent wisely on education or anything else effectively.
Living in Maryland, I liked the point that was brought up that Finland is really no bigger than Maryland in terms or population and economy (of course, MD is far from a homogenous population, the difference of demographics from county to county is extreme). So is the answer, going back to a 200+ year debate, that in order to better, more effectively govern and spend public resources, should there be more State control vs. Federal? Would that help?
Andy,
ReplyDeleteA timely article from 11.16.10 WSJ:
Teacher Training Is Panned
FDC,
Re.: "it's a relationship like love or a chain gang" -- yes, a little bit of both, actually! You have to understand that, without being ingratiating. It helps if one has the knack of recruiting the criminals to your side.
The idea of apprenticing is good, but as you say, who has the guts or the inclination to weed out the unsuitables? Prospective teachers are given, at best, a semester of interning, which is rarely a stellar experience.
Spot-on re. more job choices for women and the schooling of people who were once unschooled. We maintain this fantasy that everyone can be brought to college level, but I don't think it's so, certainly not with the resources we have.
The solution: Dummy down college. The result: Much reduced services in every field. I've witnessed medical transcriptions errors in action. That's your life, we're talking about.
Al,
I don't know why everyone turns a blind eye to these hard realities. Political correctness has a lot to do with it. It's just not fashionable to admit we have a caste system in our country, and it keeps people stratified. So we play a game that everyone gets a stamp on their forehead, and there, it's all o.k. Except it's not, and I see the comedown in services in my lifetime.
I wonder if anything changed in Arkansas?
Seydlitz,
Yes: "the ability for rational thought seems to have been lost". I do not know how rational Americans of yore were, but I do know that public ed is now (sort of) on the math/science fast track which may, at best, promote logical thinking, but does nothing for rationale. That fine and quaint aspect of thought is going by the wayside, run over by fast-twitch wrist and finger fibers tatting out the next Tweet.
As usual, good educators seek to "embrace" this behavior -- what else can they do? As you say, authority to protest has gone missing.
This Daily Finance article terrifies and disgusts me:
Five Ways New Technologies Are Changing Stores -- and Shopping
--is such behavior rational? I don't know how/what one teaches such a person.
bg,
I'm from MD, and attended one of the more progressive school districts at that time (in Prince Georges Co.) What a world apart was our school from the District schools, 20 miles away!
I agree with more local/State control, but wow, look at P.G.'s recent corruption scandal!
Who you gonna call -- Ghostbusters?
I really have no answers, but am endlessly fascinated by the fact that everything continues to lurch forward, somehow. I wonder when or if it stops?
I hear very little truth spoken anywhere -- we are engaged in it, here, but most people who have something on the chopping block will not speak the truth, everyone so covetous of their own tiny packet of goods they've managed to accrue.
"...the Square, New and Fair "Deals" as well as the "Great Society" coupled with modern notions of "progress" have eroded traditional authority..."
ReplyDeleteMmmm...maybe. Or could it be that "traditional authority", being as it was almost exclusively male, typically white, generally wealthy, is, rather, finding it harder to enforce itself physically on an "open source" technologic society? And the result is the hotch-potch of confusing, often contradictory sorts of attempts at public opinion control and propaganda being thrown out via the electronic media?
One thing to keep in mind; for a hell of a lot of people, "traditional authority" meant being kept poor and fairly miserable for their entire lives. Mind you, they knew where they stood - in the shit ("Look, a king!" "'Ow can you tell 'e's a king?" "'E ain't covered in shit.")
I consider perhaps the really monumental American achievement of the 20th Century was the emancipation of the ordinary Joe and Molly from a vicious rural or urban poverty, sickness, and ignorance. For almost a generation almost every kid in America outside the obscenely wealthy (who already had it) and the black (who came to it late, if at all) could look forward to a real shot at a safe, comfortable, well-fed, healthy middle class life.
This is, I think, now collapsing, and many of the problems we're seeing in schools relate to that.
But think of it this way, seydlitz.
If I could have done to the kids in my high school classes what I did to the trainees in my BCT platoons I would have had no - zero - significant long-term "classroom management" problems. But would you want me to teach tha way? Would it be in the best interests of our nation? (forget the best interests of the individual kid...)
I think we are struggling to figure out how to maintain a civil society that doesn't have the same degree of social sanction that the "traditional" one did - largely because those sanctions were usually used against the very people that that society shat on constantly. I'm not sure we're losing that struggle, but I'm not sure that I agree that the social reforms of the 20th Century are a "problem".
Perhaps the problem is, rather, that the old authorities are fighting to prevent the "newcomers" - the women, the blacks, the hispanics - from becoming authorities themselves for they (the old gods) fear what the new pantheon might bring?
"Why do the "educators" fight standards."
ReplyDeleteBecause when they apply them it means telling parents their kid is a badly raised, fractions, immature, handless fathead who is best suited to shovel shit in Alabama.
Just like Americans love to pretend that they are rich, they refuse to accept that their spawn are not all uniquely gifted. A truly rigid standard will, inevitably, mean condemning the failures. In the pre-post-industrial America there was enough unskilled labor and farm work to absorb these dropouts and failures.
That's gone.
So any attempt to truly slap down the gomers, dopes, buzzers, gimps, and wheezers will inevitably result in accusations that the educators, not the ineducated, have failed.
"The idea of apprenticing is good, but as you say, who has the guts or the inclination to weed out the unsuitables?"
ReplyDeleteWell...apprenticing would be good for teaching. It'd also be slow, inefficient, and expensive as hell - that's why I said it won't happen.
But the whole point of a long apprenticeship was to allow 1) the master to DX the gomers, and 2) the gomers to realize that they just couldn't play that game.
Part of the deal would have to be the effective elimination of the "teacher's college" as the certifying authority of teaching competence. The state superintendant of public instruction (at present a meaningless figurehead sort of job) could take on the task of certifying apprentice teacher to journeyman and journeyman to master.
Wonderful!
ReplyDelete"The Fairfax County high school that asked teachers to all but banish F's from its recent report cards has been experimenting with an approach that would allow students caught cheating to retake tests instead of receiving zeros. "
Someone upthread also mentioned one of the Other Brilliant Ideas for Making Teachers Better; "merit pay".
ReplyDeleteAside from the whole notion of paying me more than you because my squad is STRAC and you got assigned the battalion dildo-repair strike team, the real problem is nicely summed up here: http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2010/06/three-more-holes-in-atmosphere.html
"Secondary education is a shared occupation, inside and outside the classroom. My Poor Wife began last school year writing quick lesson plans for the classes of a new teacher whose health problems had worsened suddenly, a practice which would continue on and off for the entire year. Not because her feather-bedding contract required her to; she'd already agreed to teach an extra class per day. And certainly not because she was paid extra to do so. Because she is an adult (and experienced, Klein), and because all teachers are responsible for all the students in school. If the prof--sorry, I mean if the TA--next door doesn't show for ten minutes everybody leaves, or starts sexting, or something. The guy next door doesn't even look in.
This is what's been said to me, several times, and not by my Poor Wife, who's too damn saintly: when they start paying someone teaching Math, or Physics, or for "Meritorious service in helping students cheat on standardized tests" more than me, that's the day that person gets no more of my help. Not watching her class, or taking his lunchroom duty, or helping with lesson plans. Nothing. If it's gonna be a free-for-all then it'll be a real free-for-all."
Bottom line here: every teacher knows that your students make you or break you. If you get the studs you could teach like Dean Wormer and get a raise. Get handed the little shits - and the whole point of the drive to "put the best teachers in the tough schools" is a candy-coated way of saying "We're going to hand you the turd of the school system" - and you could teach like Socrates and still get handed your ass.
"...experimenting with an approach that would allow students caught cheating to retake tests instead of receiving zeros."
ReplyDeleteAgain...let's forget the journo sensation for a moment and ask ourselves: what's the desired outcome?
Are we using school to teach a moral lesson? Are we using it to winnow the chaff? Or are we using it to make legions of good little secretaries, data entry drones, and infantry privates?
If the first, or the second, then letting the cheaters walk makes no sense. Fuck 'em, let 'em burn.
But if its the third, then what's the point of failing these gomers? They fail, they drop out, they don't get trained to do your mindless data entry?
This would be no different from my pencil-whipping privates who couldn't pass their PT test and sending the limp gomers on to become their unit's problem and not mine? Not that I ever did that, mind you, stalwart American Hero that I was.
If your objective is to get EVERYone past the post, then you can't avoid this crap, because cheaters are gonna cheat and liars lie, they're gonna get caught, and then what?
100 years ago they could have had a lucrative career as a goat-minder or crow-scarer. Today, not so much. So does it make more sense to try and figure out a way to get the dumb bastards to pass, or to flunk 'em?
I'm not saying I like it, but there's a case to be made for the "retest the cheaters" scheme.
Lisa-
ReplyDeleteI follow Neil Postman's view of the typographic versus the TV or image-based medium and how this is reflected in culture. People a hundred years ago - with a basic education - were able to follow complex and extensive arguments. This goes back even farther, consider that the Lincoln/Douglas debates lasted for hours and people came from miles around to listen to the debates, and even held their own on a wide range of important subjects. And woe to those who could not make a coherent/fact-based argument. Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism speech of 1910 was perhaps the most radical speech ever made by a (former) US president and was widely understood as to content and impact at the time. How would that come across today? Would people be even able to understand what TR was on about? Compare TR to the current crop of GOP politicians to understand what I mean . . . How long would Sarah Palin have lasted in 1910 before being laughed off the stage, or GW Bush for that matter?
So, yes I think Americans in the past were in general not only more literate, but better able to carry out their obligations as citizens . . . which goes to the basis of our main problem today.
FD Chief-
ReplyDelete"Mmmm...maybe. Or could it be that "traditional authority", being as it was almost exclusively male, typically white, generally wealthy, is, rather, finding it harder to enforce itself physically on an "open source" technologic society?"
That's not really what I said, rather my comment in full was this:
. . . From the "Left", a lot of the good intentions of mass education or more broadly, the Square, New and Fair "Deals" as well as the "Great Society" coupled with modern notions of "progress" have eroded traditional authority - be it parents, churches, teachers and communities, and replaced it with . . . well nothing really.
I wasn't talking about traditional political authority at all, rather "parents, churches, teachers and communities" which cut across all socio-economic (s-e) groups. In fact I would say that the lower s-e groups have fared the worst from this collapse of traditional authority . . . In fact the Progressive notion that parents could not be trusted to raise their own kids was targeted at especially immigrant groups in our cities a century ago - "too many kids", "they work them like slaves", "use folk remedies instead of medicine", etc. . . what you describe as "the really monumental American achievement of the 20th Century". The problem is that this achievement had hidden costs which we are only realizing now . . .
Your unstated assumption seems to be that the current political elite is somehow superior to that of the past, since it is more inclusive of various groups who were excluded from power in the past. But you do admit that the current crisis is also a product of that same elite giving up on democracy, or am I wrong? How do you square the two? Is the new elite and their actions part of the same "monumental achievement"?
Chief,
ReplyDeleteRegarding merit pay, I'm not sure what the best model is, but it seems to me that pay based solely on seniority and credentials is insufficient. There's got to be some kind of performance evaluation mechanism in there or why bother evaluating teachers at all? I am dubious that an inflexible rule-based system using student test scores (as some have suggested) is a valid method to evaluate teachers (I still remember one of my freshman college professors who did not grade on a curve because he said some classes were dumber than others - he was probably right). I think this brings us back to judgment - perhaps it's time for administrators to actually spend more time observing, evaluating and judging teachers.
On cheating, I see your point to an extent. However, the rare incident of cheating and receiving a zero should doom a student or, by itself, cause someone to fail a class. I know that I was caught cheating twice in school and both times I received a zero for that assignment. It wasn't enough to fail me out of school or even the course, but it certainly was enough get my ass in line. If we're going to let them retake a test after cheating, at least average the score with the zero they earned in the first place.
seyditz: I think we're arguing past each other here.
ReplyDeleteMy take on your statement was that you were repeating the usual attack on the "social justice" movements from the Right; those commie bastards took God out of schools and the White Massa out of the Big House and replaced it with godless socialism and Free Love. To which I reply - fine. I'd rather have a higher level of chaos if it means getting out from under the old order. I man be a white guy, but I'm not sold on the idea that everything runs better when the White Guys are in charge.
I'm NOT saying that changing the demographics of the leadership makes for better leaders, tho. That would require changing the entry requirements into what we accept as leadership. I won't agree that simply being better rhetoricians made Americans better citizens - you don't have to look much further than slavery and the Trail of Tears to realize that we were some dumb fuckers then and we're some dumb fuckers now. But I will agree that at least our elites had some better debates about stuff!
But I think you have to look past the New Deal and Civil Rights to find the roots of the present lack of direction in American society. I don't think that the deans of the SCLC would have wanted black kids running wild around the streets, and I don't think that FDR would have wanted today's more anarchic classrooms. I think a LOT of what we're seeing is a product of a combination of;
1. The failures of the "old" leadership to bring the "new" into the older forms of power, leaving them to piss into the tent from the outside,
2. The explosion of telecommunication and the electronic media, which allowed
3. "Consumerism" - a self-centered obsession with personal aggrandizement that touches everything from self-help books to buying Hummers - to become the real religion of 21st Century America.
So IMO the fact that we're now all about "me" has something to do with the Progressives but a hel of a lot more to do with NBC and General Mills.
Andy: The problem with assessment brings us back to the question of "What is a good teacher"? and the problem of teacher training.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that in an ideal world teachers would get paid in the same way that any craftsman gets paid; if you're the best silversmith, finish carpenter, or plasterer in town you get the biggest and most lucrative commissions. But here the problem is that the finish product isn't a teapot, a chair, or a ceiling but a kid. And assessing how well that kid has learned is hellishly difficult. You can do it, but it takes a lot of time and money, and you're STILL confronted with the statistician's nightmare, the multivariate analysis.
So in the real world it's all about test scores, and you know how we can all gimmick those.
And in school as in life there needs to be some sort of punishment for cheating - although I used to tell my students that I had no illusion about their willingness to cheat and that if they got caught cheating they should consider their punishment (no credit for the task) as much punishment for ineptitude as for cheating - but it always comes back to "what is our purpose" in schooling. As satisfying as bodyslamming the cheating little bastards is, or as is flunking out some sulky, entitled, slacking little prick, we are always confronted with the reality that our failures WILL come back upon us. If we cannot figure out how to teach them to earn their own living we will be faced with the unpleasant choice of supporting them or drowning them like puppies.
As I think the school district in question is facing. So they may choose to, say, assign the kids ten hours of community service in detention and let them retake the test; the penalty remains but is separated from the business of learning the subject.
But who would expect a modern journo to actually fact-check a piece when its SO much more fun to just set off bombs...
seydlitz: I want to examine this a little more closely.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at those models of authority you cited.
1. Parents. Well, I'll agree with this. As a parent I can no longer beat my child senseless without consequence. My child is no longer legally my chattel. In that sense I have lost that authority.
I'm not sure if this owes more to the social justice movements and the New Deal, tho, as it does to one major change and one minor change in American society.
The minor one is the above; the move away from the notion of parental dictatorship. That's a good thing in a lot of ways, when you see how fucked up a LOT of parents are (I had a student tell me about missing his dog, which his father had shot "by mistake"). But it DOES make it harder on parents to parent without the sort of club I used with relish on my trainees as a drill sergeant.
But I think the really significant one is the physical changes in families. We just don't live like we did, a lot of us, with relatives and grandparents close by, in communities we've grown up in. I think it is that rootlessness and isolation that has more to do with the greater difficulty parents have with kid-control. Add that to the siren call of televised life outside the home and you've got a perfect recipe for diminished parental control.
2. Churches. Organized religion has its ups and downs. We're not as "Godless" a society as in Georgian times, say, but the authority of churches in general has been slipping since the Enlightenment. The churches don't help themselves when they die on hills like the Evil Gay Agenda and No Contraception For You, either.
3. Teachers. We're talking about this. And I would argue that teachers are not all that much worse off that politicians, police officers, doctors, and cashiers. We're not a "respectful" culture, generally speaking, and it shows.
What also hurts is the demand to educate ALL kids. This is a variation of what Andy and I have been talking about; if you can't cull the herd you have to deal with the worst of them. And that makes you look bad, and loses you authority.
4. Communities. Our local community organizations have been dying since the beginning of the television era. Just to give you an example; my little neighborhood in Portland, St. Johns, had a local semipro baseball team from the late 1880s until the 1950s. But when offered the choice between going out to watch the local nine play and staying home to watch the St. Louis Cardinals on TV, what do you think happened?
Same-same things like city councils, local civic groups...and the corporate culture that moved people like my father across the country six times between my birth and my high school graduation didn't help.
Our "authority" figures are now people like TV talk show shouters, self-help book authors, sports stars, and American Idols, to a great extent. I think we often look at our little local institutions with a touch of distain because they're not Dancing With The Stars.
John Robb would warn that we're going to soon find that we will live or die based on the resilience of our local communities, but that's another issue entirely.
But the Clif's Notes version is that these traditional authority figures (with the exception of parents) have been sliding since the Forties, and because of a raft of economic and demographic changes, I think, rather than because of the social programs of the New Deal or because of desegregation...
FD Chief-
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments. I got you thinking at any rate.
What I hoped to point out with my comment was that the good intentions of Progressives/Liberals had a down side, essentially the unintended consequences that we see now . . . my view of the "Right" is far more damning believe me. The "Left" comes out in my analysis fairly well-meaning, if unable to see the final outcome of their endeavors, but at least not mendacious, hopelessly corrupt and conniving . . .
Television, following Postman again, is a big part of it. But then was not the Liberal view in the 1950-70s that TV offered a "great opportunity"? Have not Liberal educators attempted to bring TV into the fold as a "teaching medium" oblivious to the actual nature of that medium . . . ? Is that particular attitude not part of the problem?
The breakdown of traditional communities I would tend to lay at the door of late 20th Century US capitalism, or "Walmartism", which destroyed the economic integrity of small town America . . . of course this had its Liberal supporters/midwives as well . . . which brings us back to the subject of collapse.
Are you arguing that Liberalism/Progressivism are still functioning ideologies?
Consider that I am at most a far-right Progressive, as in TR, or more likely a small town Southern conservative who is heart-sickened by what goes under the label of "conservative" today.
seydlitz: IMO Liberalism/Progressivism is a very vital set of ideals, and one that is primarily responsible for what remains of the promise of Western Enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is that most of this is not happening here.
In the U.S. the Right may have nothing substantive to offer but it has won the rhetorical battle. Almost no one is out defending the ideas that turned the U.S. from a paper tiger in the 1930s to the superpower of the 1950s and 1960s, the ones that birthed the GI Bill, the incredible advances in science and engineering, that produced the incredibly rich cultural, artistic, and social ferment, the fumes of which we're still running on - to a great extent - today.
One of the largest and most critical factors in the Re-Gilding of the U.S. in the 21st Century is the retreat of the forces that pulled the U.S.'s head ot of its oligarchic ass after the first Bonfire of the Vanities in 1929; the socialists, the labor unions, the attack press, the limousine liberals (a.k.a Rockefeller Republicans), the GooGoo (Good Government) types.
But as Andy likes to remind us; these guys were no huggy liberal squishies. They remain in my mind typified by that arrogant aristo FDR. And I don't see them on the modern horizon; the current crop of "liberals" in the country are sad and beaten by the endless torrent of lies, spin, bullshit, hysteria and stupidity they have had to spend the last 30 years fighting.
I have little hope for a genuine return to the values of Enlightenment liberalism any time in the near future...
Re: TV as a "teaching medium"...
ReplyDeleteTelevision, like computer sims, like flashcards, like times tables, is a tool. A hammer. You can use it to build a house, or bash someone's skull in. TV by its nature is terrific for conveying impressions and feelings, not so much for ideas and analytical thought.
The problem was that there WAS a time when thought that watching a movie or a TV special was "learning", and that was wrong.
But we also can't return American kids to the 1930s; there has to be some adaptation to the fact that a hell of a lot of people are now TERRIBLE at extracting meaning from the spoken and even the written word.
My solution would involve sending a LOT more time on reading, writing, speaking, and discussing in school. But that form of learning is slow, difficult, and consequently expensive.
Somehow this all seems to come back to "What do you want and how much will you pay for it?" Most communities in the U.S. don't want to pay what they'd need to pay to get a significant level of public learning, and it shows.
FDChief: "My solution would involve sending a LOT more time on reading, writing, speaking, and discussing in school. But that form of learning is slow, difficult, and consequently expensive."
ReplyDeleteBut that is what was done in the past. It's just not "sexy", or "21st Century".
What is the goal of "public education"? You can't establish methods and programs without stating the objective. As I have said before, thinking that 100% of the population is willing or able to achieve the standards of a legitimate HS diploma is just plain horse puckey. Thus, setting graduation goals that are not based on the realities of the population's willingness or ability is crazy. There are simply people who are going to fail, and no remediation is going to change that. It may sound cruel, but there needs to be a limit to the amount of public treasure that is thrown into a Quixotic adventure.
I go back to then Gov Clinton's statement that first and foremost, schools must have standards. If the kids can't meet the standards, then the task is to determine why. Since a significant number of Arkansas HS grads were still illiterate and math challenged, he stated that the standards were obviously too low. After repeated attempts by the head of the local teachers union to place the blame on "The Republicans", who weren't responsive to the needs of schools and teachers.
Clinton asked:
"Do you accept the findings that x% of our graduates are basically English and math deficient?"
She answered, "Yes", and before she could continue, Clinton interrupted and asked:
"Who signed the report cards granting passing grades to these substandard students? You or the people you are complaining about?"
Graduates of my home town's public high school had no problems getting admitted to the university of their choice. We all had to pass the state Regents final exam in every course we took. Even the folks with no university aspirations or ability had to pass those same Regents exams in 9th, 10th 11th and 12th Grade English, History and Government to graduate. The only differentiation was in Math and Science, where non "college prep" students only had to take and pass Algebra and 9th Grade General Science - to the same stands (Regents Exam) as the "college prep" crowd. Thus, a "Regents" diploma verified a minimum level of mastery in the "3 Rs" that was consistent across the state, and required literacy and math competence. If you didn't achieve that level of competence - in every required course, you simply didn't receive a diploma.
I have no objection to opening the doors of public schools to all. I have no objection to extra resources to assist those who need it. What I do object to is the awarding of a HS diploma to someone who hasn't proven mastery of English and Math, along with a few other basics. And such hollow diplomas have become all too commonplace.
Chief:
ReplyDelete"The problem was that there WAS a time when thought that watching a movie or a TV special was "learning", and that was wrong."
What do you mean "was?" My kids science education was primarily composed of reruns of Nova for the first eight years of their studies. Then they had to take a fairly rigorous physical and chemical sciences class in 9th grade. The shock to their systems was nearly overwhelming.
The sad thing is that the school district only offers this class to the top 10% of the students. Don't know what the other 90% get but I'm afraid, very afraid.
Al: "But that is what was done in the past. It's just not "sexy", or "21st Century"."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's fucking expensive. When it was done in the past it was largely done by relatively poorly paid pink-collar teachers. Now you pay through the nose, not so much for the salaries but for the benefits. Anything people-intensive is going to cost you the heaven and the Earth, and no one wants to pay for that, the last election demonstrated that, if nothing else.
And I think we're working off selective memory, Al. I remember that sort of high school education, although by the late Sixties and Seventies the edge was already coming off. But we tend to forget 1) how many kids we dropped out, many of them even BEFORE high school, and 2) the jobs that even the dropouts could pick up back in the day. Those jobs, especially, are gone. A kid we flunk out of high school today pretty much has the choice of McDonald's, crime, or the dole.
I agree with you that we could get back to where we were if we wanted to spend the time and money. But we'd also need to re-create the economy of the Fifties and Sixties; could we do that?
Pluto: Trying to teach hard science to kids under 12 is like teaching German irregular verbs to a cat. You'll just frustrate yourself and annoy the cat. The reasoning structures in those heads aren't there, for most of them.
ReplyDeleteSo the NOVA programs are a good introduction to the concepts of science. By 7th and 8th grades the kids should be doing simple scientific experiments, though, not so much to "learn science" as to get familiar with the process of scientific experimentation and the observe-hypothsize-test-synthsize process.
I agree that the TV programs shouldn't be the center of the curriculum.
While we're on teh subject, frankly, I think we try and teach too much higher level detail to kids at young ages. Let me give you an example.
I took algebra in high school. I learned to solve a quadratic equation. It pretty much sucked for me, because I don't have a lot of intuitive understanding of mathematics.
Since high school, I have had to solve a quadratic equation only one time since - when I had to take calculus in college.
At that time I took calculus I had to learn to solve integration snf differentiation of functions. Since then I have worked as a professional geologist most of thee time I was not a soldier. I have never needed to integrate or differentiate a function during that time. If I did, I had a computer application that did the number-crunching for me.
So IMO most kids should be familiar with basic scientific concepts, and the fundamentals of math up to geometry. But I'd rather have a kid be able to balance a budget and figure out an invoice than do most algebra, and I'd rather have them be able to make sense out of whether something is or isn't "science" than know the details of cell division and redox reactions.
I think we'd be better off if we taught K-12 more for the process of critical, investigative, and creative thought and less for breadth of the knowledge base. Just my opinion, but there it is.
FD Chief-
ReplyDeleteI think the Enlightenment under attack from all sides . . . I wouldn't except Barack to defend the Enlightenment since it doesn't have an interest group behind it that he thinks he needs for the next election cycle . . .
The main idea behind the Enlightenment was that humanity was basically rational, that is provided the fundamental set of intellectual tools would be able to think for themselves, provide for a better society in the long run to the betterment of both the state and the people. That's was the reform in 18th Century Prussian education was all about and they were a monarchy . . .
The basic idea behind current US politics is that the people are stupid and unable to identify their own interests, will fall for blue smoke and cheap mirrors every time, thus $$$$ = "free speech" . . . Both the GOP and Demos (for the most part) operate according to these assumptions. Or does the history of the last ten years indicate otherwise? Funny how the current education "system" promotes this . . .
So ideology does have a place and influences things like how education is organized by the state and/or community. To understand a given ideology requires the ability to comprehend complex arguments and discern those same arguments in terms of consistency and relevance. First you have to understand and then decide if you agree or not. Not so with what passes for ideological thought today, which is more the nature of broken shards of sometimes contradictory ideas reinforced with prejudice, stupidity and obstinacy.
I kinda long for the days of convinced and well-read Marxists on the other side. They at least had a whole system of ideas and could provide fairly accurate analysis, whereas their solutions were the problem. Compared to that your typical "wingnut" cuts a poor figure indeed . . .
Seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Postman; it is hard not to.
You say, "First you have to understand (ideology) and then decide if you agree or not. Not so with what passes for ideological thought today, which is more the nature of broken shards of sometimes contradictory ideas reinforced with prejudice, stupidity and obstinacy."
--And today, both sides are prejudicial and stupid.
FDC says,
T)he current crop of "liberals" in the country are sad and beaten by the endless torrent of lies, spin, bullshit, hysteria and stupidity they have had to spend the last 30 years fighting
This is due to their own flaccidity; I'd argue the liberals are as lost as the conservatives, just perhaps less vociferous (though no less rigorous in thought.)
FDC further says,
"I won't agree that simply being better rhetoricians made Americans better citizens - you don't have to look much further than slavery and the Trail of Tears to realize that we were some dumb fuckers then and we're some dumb fuckers now"
--But the converse is not implied (being poorer rhetoricians means more moral citizenry.) I do not think one can equate morality with either stupidity or intelligence. A nation has a better chance of making viable choices if it understands the options on the table. Being able to speak and listen logically aids in this goal.
Re. slavery and the Trail of Tears (neither defensible), it may be too facile to say people were dumb. People may be brilliant fiends, or dumb saints. It has more to do with greed, ethnocentrism and our propensity to follow form.
Agreed here:
"I think we'd be better off if we taught K-12 more for the process of critical, investigative, and creative thought and less for breadth of the knowledge base. Just my opinion, but there it is"
The bonus of technology is in performing rote equations like solution molality. When have I ever used the damnable Krebs Cycle, which I had to memorize?
Oops:
ReplyDeleteI'd argue the liberals are as lost as the conservatives, just perhaps less vociferous (though no less rigorous in thought.)
... though no MORE rigorous in thought.
Lisa: Conservatives are never lost. Wrongheaded, misdirected, bone-stupid, aggro, hysterical, smug, or facile.
ReplyDeleteBut never lost.
Re: the issue of dumb fuckery, I should step away from the rhetorical bar for a moment to comment that by that I meant that Americans of the 19th Century were, as you point out, no less greedy, venal, brutal, and foolish than they are now. They could follow a verbal argument better, which was good on them, but no less than we today seem to have used that skill largely to advance strawman arguments and biased rhetorical strategems to advance their own agendas.
So what I meant was that Americans appear to be no less - and no more - intelligent and moral in 2010 than they were in 1840 or 1859.
FDChief: "1) how many kids we dropped out, many of them even BEFORE high school, and 2) the jobs that even the dropouts could pick up back in the day. Those jobs, especially, are gone. A kid we flunk out of high school today pretty much has the choice of McDonald's, crime, or the dole."
ReplyDeleteChief. We are talking past each other. The only way to grant a HS diploma to 100% of the society is to lower standards. The only way to make 100% of HS diplomas of any value is to enforce standards. No matter how many diplomas a kid has, he's going to have serious difficulty in the employment arena if he is illiterate and can't do basic math. The low standards diploma simply puts the burden on potential employers to figure out whether the kid is illiterate or not. And, the kid comes out thinking he achieved some "standard" and finds himself unable to perform to that standard when on his own.
Back in my day in HS (end of the 50's), a school system could award a "local diploma" to any kid who could not pass all the Regents exams, rather than a "Regents diploma" for those who did. Folks knew that a "local diploma" meant less than Regents standards.
All the emphasis on lowering dropout rates means nothing if it doesn't result in a valid level of education upon graduation. If the remediation rate for college freshmen is 40%, then what does a HS diploma mean? Is the goal keeping kids in school for 12 years, or educating them to a standard? The illiterate kid with a HS diploma is going to end up in pretty poor employment circumstances. Why not just provide a "Certificate of Attendance" for kids who put in 12 years and cannot meet the standard?
We are spending big bucks to produce "graduates" who must be further tested to find out if they reached a HS level of proficiency. That's what should be addressed.
After all is said and done, I have become cynical enough to think that we will continue to muddle along until a true societal crash makes folks sit up and face facts. We have a heath care industry that is out of control Our schools are costing mega bucks while producing a large number of meaningless diplomas. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are becoming more numerous and poorer. Folks argue over "relative versus absolute" poverty, building a case that today's poor are better off than yesterday's, ignoring the massive number of unemployed, uninsured and pensionless people.
ReplyDeleteThe institutions causing and perpetuating the above are firmly entrenched. A sufficient portion of the population is satisfied with life to make any challenge remote. Is it really worth worrying about? If the majority is satisfied, then let them eat cake, McDonalds or whatever, as long as my kids, grandkids and succeeding generations get their better than their fair share of the pie.
FDC says,
ReplyDelete"So what I meant was that Americans appear to be no less - and no more - intelligent and moral in 2010 than they were in 1840 or 1859."
Right -- it's but a millisecond in time. Intelligence and morals have not changed, but education, goals and valuation has. It is here where I feel we've had a comedown.
In Teaching the Teachers, WaPo points out that in the most successful school systems 100% of the teaching corps is drawn from the top 1/3rd of college graduates.
They also concur with your thoughts on training:
TEACHERS, LIKE DOCTORS, should receive their training through clinical practice.
But as Al says, "A sufficient portion of the population is satisfied with life to make any challenge remote." We are not hungry enough (literally or figuratively) to reconfigure the government bloat which so many have come to rely on, regardless of how ineffective.
I am always in awe that the behemoth keeps limping along. Will we go down in a bang or a whimper? It seems, as the new plans call for continued reduction in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps and all programs that keep us civil, and a mean rush to privatization of all services, the answer is: a whimper.
Lisa-
ReplyDelete"I'd argue the liberals are as lost as the conservatives, just perhaps less vociferous (though no less rigorous in thought.)
... though no MORE rigorous in thought."
Agree. What we are dealing with is a whole series of systemic failures, collapses at the national level, be it political, economic, intellectual, ethical . . . Education reform if it comes from the top is thus doomed by default in spite of the best efforts of the current Sec of Education. Reorganization will have to be at the local level initially, imo and hopefully work up from there.
seydlitz,
ReplyDeleteYes, the failures are a cascade and have become entrenched. It would take much excavation to find bedrock, and much innovation to overlay the needs of modernity upon that.
It would be nice if local systems had a concurrent awakening, which set in motion a phase change, but how does one kick off that process?
Ideology . . .
ReplyDeleteWhere is our Solomon to prescribe this ideology?
ReplyDeleteCommon sense has gone AWOL, it seems ...
Perhaps, but an ideology of "Rationality" + "Humanity" + "respect for the environment" could be a start, it doesn't have to be that complex, but it does need to indicate a new way forward along with a rejection of past mistakes . . .
ReplyDelete