|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 16 2013 14:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Smart, creative thinkers are the ones companies want to hire these days. Stakhanovites fell out of favor a while ago.
Companies want to hire enthusiastic, hard workers who buy into the company's mission to enhance the bottom line for a small salary rather than any real stake in the company. It just so happens that smart kids who have already fully bought into the American Dream are better at enhancing the bottom line than dumb kids are.
|
On September 16 2013 14:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 13:50 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 16 2013 13:22 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line. Besides, that might involve the realization that education is an assembly line producing canned meat from the capitalist abattoir for the good of the Economy. Ignoring the emotional language, how is this an inherent flaw in education? Should society not want to produce effective, efficient workers and citizens? "Effective, efficient workers?" No, thanks. I'm not a robot. I'd rather be a more fully realized human being who works for myself, thinks for myself, and exists in an organic social community rather than a more efficient cog churning out more widgets so that I can buy more widgets in a society where even social interaction is commoditized. I don't consider those mutually exclusive goals. We should be educating people to be smart, creative thinkers. That's also what the economy needs more of. We don't need cogs in the US, we have China for that now and robots in the future. The system doesn't actually want smart, creative thinkers. They want people who buy into the cultural ethos and are capable of selling things. The economy doesn't want smart, creative people to make better things, things that don't need replacing, things that are better in the long run. The economy needs people to make more things. Or at least to spend more money. Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'.
On September 16 2013 14:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Smart, creative thinkers are the ones companies want to hire these days. Stakhanovites fell out of favor a while ago. Companies want to hire enthusiastic, hard workers who buy into the company's mission to enhance the bottom line for a small salary rather than any real stake in the company. It just so happens that smart kids who have already fully bought into the American Dream are better at enhancing the bottom line than dumb kids are.
Companies certainly want smart people because they're more valuable. But I think you're missing some key points here. Consumers want good quality and innovative products. To the extent that smart workers can help provide that, they'll help the company be more successful. Smart, creative workers are also able to fetch a higher salary and tend to be much more able to strike it out on their own if they think they're being underpaid.
|
On September 16 2013 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:16 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 13:50 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 16 2013 13:22 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line. Besides, that might involve the realization that education is an assembly line producing canned meat from the capitalist abattoir for the good of the Economy. Ignoring the emotional language, how is this an inherent flaw in education? Should society not want to produce effective, efficient workers and citizens? "Effective, efficient workers?" No, thanks. I'm not a robot. I'd rather be a more fully realized human being who works for myself, thinks for myself, and exists in an organic social community rather than a more efficient cog churning out more widgets so that I can buy more widgets in a society where even social interaction is commoditized. I don't consider those mutually exclusive goals. We should be educating people to be smart, creative thinkers. That's also what the economy needs more of. We don't need cogs in the US, we have China for that now and robots in the future. The system doesn't actually want smart, creative thinkers. They want people who buy into the cultural ethos and are capable of selling things. The economy doesn't want smart, creative people to make better things, things that don't need replacing, things that are better in the long run. The economy needs people to make more things. Or at least to spend more money. Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'. Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:20 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 14:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Smart, creative thinkers are the ones companies want to hire these days. Stakhanovites fell out of favor a while ago. Companies want to hire enthusiastic, hard workers who buy into the company's mission to enhance the bottom line for a small salary rather than any real stake in the company. It just so happens that smart kids who have already fully bought into the American Dream are better at enhancing the bottom line than dumb kids are. Companies certainly want smart people because they're more valuable. But I think you're missing some key points here. Consumers want good quality and innovative products. To the extent that smart workers can help provide that, they'll help the company be more successful. Smart, creative workers are also able to fetch a higher salary and tend to be much more able to strike it out on their own if they think they're being underpaid.
I grant you all of that.
The education system still produces canned meat. Grade A prime canned meat fetches a higher price in the capitalist mill. Some canned meat can even aspire to becoming filet mignon and owning other canned meat. The American Dream is nothing if not aspirational.
|
On September 16 2013 14:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:16 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 13:50 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 16 2013 13:22 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line. Besides, that might involve the realization that education is an assembly line producing canned meat from the capitalist abattoir for the good of the Economy. Ignoring the emotional language, how is this an inherent flaw in education? Should society not want to produce effective, efficient workers and citizens? "Effective, efficient workers?" No, thanks. I'm not a robot. I'd rather be a more fully realized human being who works for myself, thinks for myself, and exists in an organic social community rather than a more efficient cog churning out more widgets so that I can buy more widgets in a society where even social interaction is commoditized. I don't consider those mutually exclusive goals. We should be educating people to be smart, creative thinkers. That's also what the economy needs more of. We don't need cogs in the US, we have China for that now and robots in the future. The system doesn't actually want smart, creative thinkers. They want people who buy into the cultural ethos and are capable of selling things. The economy doesn't want smart, creative people to make better things, things that don't need replacing, things that are better in the long run. The economy needs people to make more things. Or at least to spend more money. Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'. On September 16 2013 14:20 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 14:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Smart, creative thinkers are the ones companies want to hire these days. Stakhanovites fell out of favor a while ago. Companies want to hire enthusiastic, hard workers who buy into the company's mission to enhance the bottom line for a small salary rather than any real stake in the company. It just so happens that smart kids who have already fully bought into the American Dream are better at enhancing the bottom line than dumb kids are. Companies certainly want smart people because they're more valuable. But I think you're missing some key points here. Consumers want good quality and innovative products. To the extent that smart workers can help provide that, they'll help the company be more successful. Smart, creative workers are also able to fetch a higher salary and tend to be much more able to strike it out on their own if they think they're being underpaid. I grant you all of that. The education system still produces canned meat. Grade A prime canned meat fetches a higher price in the capitalist mill. Some canned meat can even aspire to becoming filet mignon and owning other canned meat. The American Dream is nothing if not aspirational.
Suddenly I feel like watching Soylent Green again 
|
The system is designed to preserve the interests of teacher's unions and politicians at the expense of students and (sometimes) teachers. They are the ones in power to set policies and the average parent collection stands at a disadvantage in the education of their own children. The myth is that phantasmal forces align to preach false ideology into the ears of students, when really it is one association more concerned with their own profit and power wholly disconnected from their effects of their disastrous policies. See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
In practice they are almost wholly disconnected from blowback, except for the reporting on the entrenched teacher's unions that has poisoned some of the good will they previously possessed. Teacher's unions demands in California and their strikes did cause a massive uproar. It didn't lead to effective action, but public sentiment reversed for a time.
|
On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote:
The system is designed to preserve the interests of teacher's unions and politicians at the expense of students and (sometimes) teachers. They are the ones in power to set policies and the average parent collection stands at a disadvantage in the education of their own children. The myth is that phantasmal forces align to preach false ideology into the ears of students, when really it is one association more concerned with their own profit and power wholly disconnected from their effects of their disastrous policies. See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
In practice they are almost wholly disconnected from blowback, except for the reporting on the entrenched teacher's unions that has poisoned some of the good will they previously possessed. Teacher's unions demands in California and their strikes did cause a massive uproar. It didn't lead to effective action, but public sentiment reversed for a time.
I'm not sure what you are even talking about, but I am going to assume you aren't talking about the canned meat factory.
|
On September 16 2013 14:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote:
The system is designed to preserve the interests of teacher's unions and politicians at the expense of students and (sometimes) teachers. They are the ones in power to set policies and the average parent collection stands at a disadvantage in the education of their own children. The myth is that phantasmal forces align to preach false ideology into the ears of students, when really it is one association more concerned with their own profit and power wholly disconnected from their effects of their disastrous policies. See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
In practice they are almost wholly disconnected from blowback, except for the reporting on the entrenched teacher's unions that has poisoned some of the good will they previously possessed. Teacher's unions demands in California and their strikes did cause a massive uproar. It didn't lead to effective action, but public sentiment reversed for a time. I'm not sure what you are even talking about, but I am going to assume you aren't talking about the canned meat factory. The identify of the forces in question stuffing in American Myths and stifling creative thought.
Sam's
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies
Your
The system doesn't actually want smart, creative thinkers.
Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'.
I'm liable to start looking behind my back to see if Education big brother is stuffing myths in my niece and nephew's heads if sam gets his way. The actors in this play are unstated. Or perhaps sam's got a shotgun of shady characters he's ready to fire out onto the thread.
|
On September 16 2013 15:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:57 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote:
The system is designed to preserve the interests of teacher's unions and politicians at the expense of students and (sometimes) teachers. They are the ones in power to set policies and the average parent collection stands at a disadvantage in the education of their own children. The myth is that phantasmal forces align to preach false ideology into the ears of students, when really it is one association more concerned with their own profit and power wholly disconnected from their effects of their disastrous policies. See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
In practice they are almost wholly disconnected from blowback, except for the reporting on the entrenched teacher's unions that has poisoned some of the good will they previously possessed. Teacher's unions demands in California and their strikes did cause a massive uproar. It didn't lead to effective action, but public sentiment reversed for a time. I'm not sure what you are even talking about, but I am going to assume you aren't talking about the canned meat factory. The identify of the forces in question stuffing in American Myths and stifling creative thought. Sam's Show nested quote +the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Your Show nested quote +Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'. I'm liable to start looking behind my back to see if Education big brother is stuffing myths in my niece and nephew's heads if sam gets his way. The actors in this play are unstated. Or perhaps sam's got a shotgun of shady characters he's ready to fire out onto the thread.
It's always puzzling to me why people think that there is some kind of Big Brother character behind societal forces. Teachers don't create canned meat because they are union members, nor do they do it because they have orders from Big Brother. It's not even a conscious decision. It's not even on their radar most of the time. It's unspoken.
They create canned meat because they themselves are canned meat. The cultural ethos that permeates the media and social fabric of this country has exerted its tug on educators in this country for generations, and this is what you end up with. American teachers creating American students. The same can be said for American families, media, et al.
|
if sam got his way he would teach them about how systems of social control don't require puppetmasters or shady actors because they are self-organizing and self-perpetuating. Then he would tell them never to trust sam because sam will lie to them because sam is nothing but a cog in the ideological state apparatus (seriously, I tell my students not to trust me).
edit: I'm going to spend my entire life trying to explain that critical theory is not a conspiracy theory because the whole point of critical theory is to not be a conspiracy theory, aren't I.
|
On September 16 2013 13:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 16 2013 13:22 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line. Besides, that might involve the realization that education is an assembly line producing canned meat from the capitalist abattoir for the good of the Economy. Ignoring the emotional language, how is this an inherent flaw in education? Should society not want to produce effective, efficient workers and citizens? "Effective, efficient workers?" No, thanks. I'm not a robot. I'd rather be a more fully realized human being who works for myself, thinks for myself, and exists in an organic social community rather than a more efficient cog churning out more widgets so that I can buy more widgets in a society where even social interaction is commoditized.
Let's put aside personal preferences and ideals for a while. I promise we'll come back to those in a moment, but first we need to find a common understanding upon which we can hang the framework within which we should be able to come up with some kind of solution to this problem.
Is it not in society's best interest to have law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens? In any society imaginable, either socialist or capitalist, anarchist or totalitarian, the common thread which runs through is that society itself is made up of people. And it is self-evident that productive citizens are the key to productive societies. It is equally self evident that any and all societies must have some kind of order. Chaos breeds inefficiency, both moral and physical. A lack of self-control breeds degradation, both moral and physical. There are few who would suggest that society should be composed of creatures entirely unwilling to (or incapable of) combining their efforts for common causes, or that there should be no recourse for those who have been wronged. Such a society would not be a society at all, but simply a world where order, cooperation, and recourse begin and end at the barrel of the gun. Even the most ardent anarchists don't suggest such a horrific eventuality, but rather propose that order and productivity will occur naturally, without interference or control by any governing body. Let us ignore the arguments for or against this idea of natural cooperation for the moment and rest ourselves at the point where we agree that order and productivity and some degree of cooperation are both essential and desirable.
Now, given that it should be clear that we all agree that these things are desirable, it falls upon us to determine what is the best way of fostering these behaviors. Will children naturally learn productivity, self-control, and cooperation outside of any kind of instruction by their elders? Surely they will form some semblance of society, as humans are naturally social creatures, but wouldn't it be apparent that if every generation were required to re-learn the processes of social gathering that the human species would be incapable of advancing beyond a certain point? Just as if we required every new generation to rediscover the entire theory of mathematics, the limits of the human brain and of time would only allow for so much learning before that generation had died and then all theories would be lost, and the process begun again with the same general results. It is only by learning from the experiences of those who went before us that we advance, in the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants."
It is clear that some instruction in the doctrines and philosophies of human society are necessary for the general well-being of both society and of children. For we should be cutting them short by not placing them firmly upon the shoulders of those who came before them. Thus if education should exist, and in fact, must exist; should the purpose of education not primarily be to instruct children in precisely those doctrines and philosophies that we find to be most beneficial for creating a peaceful, productive citizen? This is not to imply that students should be kept away from other doctrines or philosophies, so let's not run down that road quite yet. All we have established here is:
1. Society is necessary, and is a moral good.
2. A society must be both ordered and cooperative.
3. A society, being made up of citizens, must be composed of orderly and cooperative citizens.
4. Education is necessary for the production of orderly, cooperative citizens.
5. Education is most effective when based upon the experiences of past generations.
6. The experiences of past generations hold the keys to creating better societies.
Now, what exactly are the best societies? Let us try to establish first some general outlines, and then become more specific as we go along. We have already established that society should be ordered, cooperative, and peaceful. But shouldn't society also be productive? Does the stagnant pond not breed corruption? Does the underused muscle not weaken? And is that old adage: "Idle hands are the devil's playthings" not true? Humans are clearly naturally inclined to advancement. Our instinct and desire is to move forward; and though we may stumble, we must be like babies who learn from their falling and rise anew to try again. So if society should be ordered, cooperative, peaceful, and productive, does it not necessarily follow that citizens should be orderly, cooperative, peaceful, and productive? And it is evident that one's productivity is at least tied to, if not entirely based upon, one's efficiency. Therefore our citizens must not only be all those things listed above, but also efficient. And when our citizens act, should they not act effectively?
Let us take up another thread for a moment. What of that other instinctual urge, that of competition? Is competition healthy? I would say that it is clear it is, being that it is not only natural, but that it provides natural incentives to be efficient and effective. If I am in a friendly competition with a rival, will my natural urge to win not provide me with the desire to excel in every area possible? And will my victories and defeats not only serve as further incentives? The thrill of winning breeds the desire to keep winning. The shame of defeat breeds the desire to stop losing. And likewise for my rival. Thus we spiral around and around, always bettering ourselves, and through bettering ourselves, better each other. Then it seems we have established another trait of the ideal society: it is one that allows for competition.
Ordered, peaceful, cooperative, productive, efficient, effective, and competitive. If these are the things that allow for the most healthy expression of mankind, than should our education not reflect these qualities? Should our education not be designed in such a way as to mold children into citizens who are orderly, peaceful, productive, efficient, effective, and competitive? And then shouldn't our education system itself have all these qualities to it? Shouldn't it be ordered, so that children learn to thrive in ordered environments? Shouldn't it be peaceful, so that children are able to learn without fear of bodily or mental harm? Shouldn't it be cooperative, so that children learn to cooperate? Be productive, so that children may learn to produce? Be efficient so that children learn to do things efficiently? Be effective so that children learn to act and think effectively? And shouldn't it also have an element of competition, so that children learn to innovate and to push their own boundaries to their utter limits?
We have the general elements that compose the more ideal society, and we have the elements that compose the education which fosters the more ideal citizen. Is it truly immoral to use those elements in order to foster the creation and continuation of that society? Leave aside your specifications for exactly what form society must take or what economic practices are best. Those arguments can come later. For now, focus on the truth that education is, at it's heart, a tool that society uses to better itself.
Now, the final question. On the specifications of society. There we must go deeper into the philosophy or mankind's desires. Is it not true that all men and women desire some degree of autonomy? Shouldn't our society then be, at least to some degree, controlled by the citizens of which it is composed? Does it not follow therefore that the citizens themselves should choose how their society exists, keeping within the general guidelines already outlined? And then does it not necessarily follow that if the citizens have chosen a certain form of society that education should also be designed to foster the traits and behaviors specific to that form?
If this is true, then it follows that in a capitalist society where the citizens have chosen capitalism, the education of children must be focused on creating orderly, peaceful, cooperative, productive, efficient, effective, competitive, capitalist citizens. The methods the education system should be ordered, peaceful, cooperative, productive, efficient, effective, competitive, and capitalist in nature. If the society is also republican, then the system should also produce citizens who are advocates of republicanism. Keep in mind that the political label "Republican" is modern, and is not what I mean here. A member of the Democratic party can be an advocate of republicanism as much as a member of the Republican party.
Every education system, to be effective in any way, must have a goal in mind. And that goal should be the creation of the type of citizen that would best flourish in the society that the citizen lives in. If our society is American, than our education system should be focused on creating the type of citizens that will best flourish and advance the American society. To do otherwise would be to hobble the child. It would be the moral equal of shackling a child's legs before asking it to compete in a race for the necessities and comforts that it desires to obtain. You can argue against the system we have, or argue for the transformation of this system, but you should not argue that education should not always be focused on creating exactly that type of person who will be able to flourish in the system that exists right now, and not some imaginary system that may or may not come in the future.
In our system, work is a fact of life. It should be the job of educators to create productive workers. If in the future our society and system change so that work is no longer a fact of the citizen's life, then perhaps we can rethink this. As it stands, the responsible educator is committing a grave sin to do anything but prepare the child for the society that he or she will live in. Your personal desires and fears are irrelevant to this truth.
|
On September 16 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Education is like farming.
In this case the teachers are the trees.
How can you make the tree grow the fruit better?
You throw shit at it? Is that the metaphor here  ?
|
Most teachers (at least in my country) were good students, who tend to over value discipline, scolarship and mob mentality. A "good" student is a student who don't question too much.
Is it not in society's best interest to have law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens? In any society imaginable, either socialist or capitalist, anarchist or totalitarian, the common thread which runs through is that society itself is made up of people. And it is self-evident that productive citizens are the key to productive societies. It is equally self evident that any and all societies must have some kind of order. Chaos breeds inefficiency, both moral and physical. A lack of self-control breeds degradation, both moral and physical. There are few who would suggest that society should be composed of creatures entirely unwilling to (or incapable of) combining their efforts for common causes, or that there should be no recourse for those who have been wronged. Such a society would not be a society at all, but simply a world where order, cooperation, and recourse begin and end at the barrel of the gun. Even the most ardent anarchists don't suggest such a horrific eventuality, but rather propose that order and productivity will occur naturally, without interference or control by any governing body. Let us ignore the arguments for or against this idea of natural cooperation for the moment and rest ourselves at the point where we agree that order and productivity and some degree of cooperation are both essential and desirable.
There are two vastly different things : production and creativity. While the first needs "peaceful, law-abiding" citizens, the second also needs people who question reality and refute what "is". Progress, of course, is in creativity and not production.
This is actually why societies who defend freedom above anything else are, historically, more innovative : people strive for their freedom in the simpliest and smallest things. They want to be more than what they are assigned to be.
I'm not sure why you are talking about chaos. As a teacher, I make sure that all my students respect each other (I give class to kids from 15 to 18), and I punish them hardly if I see anything that goes against that basic principle. Some rules should not be questionned.
But, on the other hand, I also respect their point of view and accept any critics of my class : what do they think about marginal utility ? Models in economy ? Determinism in sociology ? etc. One must not forget that everything that we are teaching them is not "the truth", but a perspective on reality. That perspective gives a lot of informations, but it is not perfect nor will it ever be enough to help us decide what is the "best" course of action. To give you an exemple, despite all we know on economy, it is still difficult to say for sure what kind of policy we should enforce : should we accept inequalities ? should we fight against it ? etc.
From my perspective, I'd say education is making the world personnal. From an utilitarist point of view, I make sure my students acquire the necessary skills that will be needed in their working life, but I also try to make them understand that a lot of things are up to interpretation and that it is up to them to use what they know how they want it. A good student, for me, is a student who understands a theory, but also knows when or how it is needed to spit on that theory / point of view / skill and search for something else.
|
On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote: See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
Ok we get it, you want to fire all the teachers who failed to meet corporate's bottom line. So you apparently have some magical spring of fan-fuckin'-tabulous people with an education degree and a teaching certificate (for that specific state of course) who don't want to ever earn more than 50k a year in their lifetime. Please, do reveal.
Edit: Here they are now!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
sermo we are a society that pretends to be democracy. There is nowhere in the constitution where it talks about capitalism
to have democracy you must have citizens who know how to question everything
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
given the disparate conditions for 'good' schools and 'bad' schools in the american system, there are different problems for different groups. beyond lack of resources, the poorly performing idstricts are kind of stuck in a spiral of bad influence from bad students. it's basically another aspect of the ghetto-ization process.
good schools at the k-12 level increasingly focus on performance, because that's what gets you into le elite colleges. it's not merely performance in test scores, it's also perofrmance in peripheral after school activities.
so yea, middle class parents are dealing with the pressure of competing for the fewer and fewer gated jobs with professional license/elite school requirements, while the underclass is the underclass. le rich are competing for glorious nameplate colleges, bidding up those even more.
one thing on standardized tests though, they are generally easy enough so that those who figure out how to work them get bored. if that's all there is in a school then it will turn the experience into a disconnected game.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 16 2013 14:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:16 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 13:50 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 16 2013 13:22 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line. Besides, that might involve the realization that education is an assembly line producing canned meat from the capitalist abattoir for the good of the Economy. Ignoring the emotional language, how is this an inherent flaw in education? Should society not want to produce effective, efficient workers and citizens? "Effective, efficient workers?" No, thanks. I'm not a robot. I'd rather be a more fully realized human being who works for myself, thinks for myself, and exists in an organic social community rather than a more efficient cog churning out more widgets so that I can buy more widgets in a society where even social interaction is commoditized. I don't consider those mutually exclusive goals. We should be educating people to be smart, creative thinkers. That's also what the economy needs more of. We don't need cogs in the US, we have China for that now and robots in the future. The system doesn't actually want smart, creative thinkers. They want people who buy into the cultural ethos and are capable of selling things. The economy doesn't want smart, creative people to make better things, things that don't need replacing, things that are better in the long run. The economy needs people to make more things. Or at least to spend more money. Education in this country is about fully integrating the American Dream Myth into students' worldview to become good consumers. Always hustlin'. On September 16 2013 14:20 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2013 14:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
the economy doesn't want smart, creative thinkers. Smart creative thinkers cause trouble by asking dangerous questions about the purpose of economies Smart, creative thinkers are the ones companies want to hire these days. Stakhanovites fell out of favor a while ago. Companies want to hire enthusiastic, hard workers who buy into the company's mission to enhance the bottom line for a small salary rather than any real stake in the company. It just so happens that smart kids who have already fully bought into the American Dream are better at enhancing the bottom line than dumb kids are. Companies certainly want smart people because they're more valuable. But I think you're missing some key points here. Consumers want good quality and innovative products. To the extent that smart workers can help provide that, they'll help the company be more successful. Smart, creative workers are also able to fetch a higher salary and tend to be much more able to strike it out on their own if they think they're being underpaid. I grant you all of that. The education system still produces canned meat. Grade A prime canned meat fetches a higher price in the capitalist mill. Some canned meat can even aspire to becoming filet mignon and owning other canned meat. The American Dream is nothing if not aspirational.
the education system took on more mission purposes/imagined goals as time went along. at first it was about work training and 'citizenship' education. the higher realm of critical studies on society itself, which is what mostly gets people going about their own education into the subject, is a later development flowing from higher tier institutions/independent education efforts.
in other words, you needed to be in college to actually even be exposed to dangerous thoughts like those of sam, or come into contact with actual political activists. assuming this dynamic, if you want more independent and critical thinkers, increasing college education availability is key. (though nowadays that's not looking too good with universities increasingly becoming more vocational, and students themselves have no background to ever gain interest in something sam has to say when they do get to college.) back in the good ole days, college was also a hotbed for political activism, which is impactful not for the actual changes they caused in their day, but for the thoughts and curiosities enkindled for later generations.
if i had my way social theory would be a basic class in high school. so at the very least threads like this can be a productive exchange that is not mostly people talking past each other and sam losing his temper.
now, this would seem ridiculous now, but if more people thought it important enough, for democracy's sake, perhaps. then there will be some inroads made in actual policy fronts. this too is the process by which new capacities are introduced into the education system.
when something like social theory or the products of le english department finds enough cultural presence to get kids interested in humanities classes, then the modern phenomenon of greatly increased college rate can work to revolutionize education down the road.
|
On September 16 2013 22:29 sam!zdat wrote:
sermo we are a society that pretends to be democracy. There is nowhere in the constitution where it talks about capitalism
to have democracy you must have citizens who know how to question everything
Ya you need a few of thoose people, but only a few. For democracy to work you also need alot of people who dont question everything,people who simply accept the decissions made by thoose who do question everything without questioning
I dont realy get this complaining about the education system in the usa though.
Highschool is a terribly low level of education i agree but america also has the best universities in the whole world.
The smartest people in their field from all over the world go to harvard and such.
The usa is a country of huge differences, huge difference between rich and poor, huge difference between the best and average education as well.
Dont think its such a bad system regarding education, for every engineer who thinks of something new and revolutionary, you need 100+low educated people to execute the idea, preferably without questioning it
Questioning things in itself is not that productive annyway!
One dumb person can question more things then 100 wise people could answer (i believe this is an old saying)
What about summers pulling back btw?
Is there anny change geitner will become the next fed president? (apearently he doesnt want to)
Its weird to see democrats in favour of more QE , as it mostly favours the rich people.
Maybe obama wants to leave cleaning up that mess for the next president.
|
On September 16 2013 15:27 sam!zdat wrote:
if sam got his way he would teach them about how systems of social control don't require puppetmasters or shady actors because they are self-organizing and self-perpetuating. Then he would tell them never to trust sam because sam will lie to them because sam is nothing but a cog in the ideological state apparatus (seriously, I tell my students not to trust me).
edit: I'm going to spend my entire life trying to explain that critical theory is not a conspiracy theory because the whole point of critical theory is to not be a conspiracy theory, aren't I.
What if the self-organization leads to the puppetmasters? What if they are a necessary part of the system?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
questioning everything is not anarchy or chaos, it's rather the invigoration of morality in society. as much as relativists like to harp on differences, there is genuine moral progress. academics in the humanities are modern day moral teachers. there are pretty solid normative directions in most of the social sciences, and the humanities is literally social morality. learning some sociology or theory will let people be more aware of the problems in society and engage with tehm in a more human(e) way.
socrates may have been a gadfly critic, but his questioning leads to moral betterment.
|
On September 16 2013 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
questioning everything is not anarchy or chaos, it's rather the invigoration of morality in society. as much as relativists like to harp on differences, there are pretty solid normative directions in most of the social sciences, and the humanities is literally social morality. learning some sociology or theory will let people be more aware of the problems in society and engage with tehm in a more human(e) way.
socrates may have been a gadfly critic, but his questioning leads to moral betterment.
Has it? that is just an illusion.
2000 years of questioning morals,yet we still dont aply thoose morals when push comes to shove (like america in guantanamo bay or the way top businessleaders operate) Questioning and discussing morals has not made the world a better place at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/disney/marypoppins/MaryPoppins1.jpg)
