John Galt
1/10/2008 8:42:00 PM
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4786642e.27250906@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:31:24 -0600, "John Galt"
> <whoisjohngalt@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>news:478634b6.15098859@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:07:10 -0600, "John Galt"
>>> <whoisjohngalt@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:47861da7.9196234@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:20:56 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Genaro" <genaro@bat.hit> wrote in
>>>>>>news:pan.2008.01.10.04.13.17.11508@bat.hit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Education reform has been talked
>>>>>>> about for decades but privitization is the only answer in my
>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others share your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole public system has become much too
>>>>> politicized ... various political, financial
>>>>> and ideological interest groups waging all-out
>>>>> war against each other. Each is determined to
>>>>> brainwash the kiddies THEIR way with THEIR
>>>>> 'truths' to serve THEIR purposes and agendas.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Education" ? Lost concept. Can't get there
>>>>> from here anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't always like this, but now it is - so
>>>>> we just have to accept this new reality and act
>>>>> accordingly before the Great Toilet finishes
>>>>> its flush cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> If politics is screwing-up public education and
>>>>> no sane compromises can be reached (and, after
>>>>> decades of trying they haven't been) the only
>>>>> remaining option is to largely abandon the public
>>>>> system and switch to private education plans.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is no panacea however. Every private school,
>>>>> tutor and parent serving to educate will bring
>>>>> their OWN ideologies to the chalkboard, brainwash
>>>>> the kiddies THEIR way even if they imagine they're
>>>>> being 'neutral'.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be Jesus schools, Satanist schools,
>>>>> athiest schools, fascist, commie, socialist,
>>>>> militarist, pacifist, passivist, Darwininan,
>>>>> anti-Darwinian, 'liberal', 'conservative',
>>>>> Libertarian free-market, communitarian no-market,
>>>>> self-esteem, screw-esteem, whack-the-slackers-
>>>>> with-a-stick-and-let-'em-get-esteem-through-
>>>>> success, pro-tech, luddite, artsy-fartsy ...
>>>>> you name it and there will be private schools
>>>>> pushing those perspectives and ignoring or
>>>>> denegrating rival philosophies. Sometimes the
>>>>> bias will be intended and overt, sometimes subtle,
>>>>> sometimes unrealized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such a lack of uniformity has good sides and bad.
>>>>> It allows for much greater depth along any given
>>>>> course, but it also creates an uneven workforce
>>>>> that will hurt our international competitiveness
>>>>> and can promote far deeper divisions amongst the
>>>>> citizenry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, no panaceas ... just a way to do somewhat
>>>>> better in the current environment. Natural selection
>>>>> in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what real choice do we HAVE if we want
>>>>> tomorrows citizens to posess the depth and
>>>>> breadth and critical thinking skills needed
>>>>> to make democracy work and keep us afloat
>>>>> in a sea of competitors ? The current mess
>>>>> of confused, bowlderized, politicized PAP
>>>>> (or is that "CRAP") passing for "education"
>>>>> just isn't anywhere close to meeting the need.
>>>>>
>>>>> SOMEDAY, we may be able to return to a largely
>>>>> public system. This can only happen after the
>>>>> existing system has been eliminated and the
>>>>> assorted vultures stop circling its mummified
>>>>> corpse. THEN perhaps we can, as objectively
>>>>> as possible, re-assemble a fairly 'neutral'
>>>>> high-quality education system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... I think I'll re-post this as a
>>>>> seperate subject .........
>>>>
>>>>Yea, do. But quite right -- until we say no to ALL interest groups
>>>>(religious AND societal) wanting the educational hours to brand their
>>>>ideology on the kids (at the expense of course material) this problem
>>>>will
>>>>never be solved.
>>>
>>> But WHO solves it ? WHAT is a "good education" ? WHAT
>>> deserves emphasis, mention, denegration, ignorance ?
>>> Can't rely on "democracy" - and I'm not sure there
>>> really ARE any "experts" these days.
>>
>>A "good education" defined has to start with the skills necessary to
>>compete. Obviously, math/reading/science are the core skills of lifetime
>>success. After that, it's a mixed bag. The usual mix is civics, history,
>>geography, etc., a mix which is pretty much defined by consensus
>>worldwide.
>
>
> You see ... we've already parted company. I would say that
> the core of any good education is teaching the kiddies how
> to THINK - reasoning, logic (esp the fallacies), ethics,
> some philosophy - and how to FIND OUT THINGS (only SEEMS
> easier nowdays with Google - but when you get 379,000 hits
> which ones are good data and which ones aren't ?).
I consider that a part of subject matter curriculum. But, you're entering
shaky ground -- the current level of educrats have tons of "abstract
reasoning" stuff in the "new" curriculums -- to the point where they've
decided that memorizing multiplication tables is not necessary.
>
> Anti-capitalists might say that the 3-Rs are just tricks
> of the upper classes, designed to make you a good exploitable
> money-making tool so they can get rich while you don't. They'd
> center a curriculum around class struggle. Oh, and without
> strong skills in the 3-Rs, THEY find it easier to exploit you ...
Granted. But those skills are best taught in context of subject matter, and
in an age appropriate way.
>
>>> 100 years ago there wouldn't have been (too) much debate
>>> about those questions. The scholarly tradition and its
>>> ancient, sensible, guidelines were still strong. Those
>>> involved in education "just knew" what an education was
>>> supposed to look like - sort of Greek, sort of Roman,
>>> sort of old european school. 'Liberal' but in it's
>>> OTHER meaning, depth where it does the most good.
>>
>>Sure. "Classic Education", its now generally called.
>
> MAYbe it would be useful to just take the standard from
> Harvard or Oxford or a top-flight prep school - circa 1899.
Agreed. A lot of the old material and methods is deprecated for no other
reason than the textbook manufacturer needs to make money with new
copyrighted material. Obviously, in curriculum areas such as science, things
change rapidly. I was taught the Bohr's model of atomic theory, for example,
but that's now old knowledge. In math, grammar, reading, and some history,
the idea (or need) for "new material" is much less certain. Schools teaching
classical curricula use many older textbooks in these areas, for example.
> Use that. It would be "modern enough", but still the product
> of a more scholarly age where petty politics had far less
> effect on the curriculum. These would be the kinds of schools
> that produced the Einsteins and Bohrs, the literary illumanati
> of the Lost Generation, the Freuds and Jungs and Fords and
> Rockerfellers ... the kind of thinkers and doers that poured
> the foundation of our modern age, a foundation that remains
> strong over a century later.
>
>>> But today ... yikes ! Everyone involved sees a captive
>>> audience of ignorant kiddies they can stuff with THEIR
>>> special, "better", take on things in their own special,
>>> "better" way. The scholarly tradition disintegrated
>>> (here) in the mid 1960s. May still be a few traces
>>> in europe, but in the USA - forget it.
>>
>>Yep.
>
> Yep.
>
> Sucks, doesn't it ?
Like you can't believe. You have no idea what was being pumped into my 2nd
grader under the guise of "math education."
>
>
>>>>Ergo, I cough up 7K a year for private education for my kidlet.
>>>>
>>>>MY kidlet. Not theirs.
>>>
>>> Satan-school for them then eh ? :-)
>>
>>Heh.
>>>
>>> The football games with Jesus-Junkie Academy must
>>> be really interesting ...... animal sacrifices in
>>> the respective endzones at halftime .........*
>>
>>Whatever. All I know is that their kids will be working for, or being
>>treated by, mine.
>
> Careful ... kids aren't robots. They have an annoying
> habit of becoming something you NEVER expected no matter
> HOW much effort you put into brainwashing them. Left-
> wing social-engineering fantasies about the 'tabula-rasa'
> aside, kids have their own personalities which lead
> them who-knows-where.
Oh, geez, I've lived that. The objective is that they have the education to
become whatever they want, considering their aptitiude and motivation, not
limited by systemic deficiencies.
JG
>