|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24577 Posts
On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers.
For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year.
When I was training to become a science teacher, we were very much steered away from facilitating a "banking model" as you call it. Use whatever buzzwords are popular (e.g., inquiry), but the underlying principle for at least science education was you wanted students to come to an understanding of how the world works on their own. The more you facilitated that process, and the less you provided answers to students, the better their understanding would be and the better job you performed as the educator. I imagine things have gone less smoothly in social sciences than they have in hard science.
|
A huge part of the problem is that the majority of stakeholders in US education consider history/social studies and language arts to be less rigorous, less objective, and ultimately less useful than their STEM counterparts, and that attitude bleeds through and colors a very large number of student experiences in schools of all kinds.
I would wager that appropriately teaching history/social studies and language arts is actually one of the more difficult things to do in education, and until the system acknowledges that, I don’t see a way forward.
|
On January 24 2020 03:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers. For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year.
It is true that shift is happening (I spend time in schools). To one degree or another it's always been a part of educating wealthy people (personal tutors/therapists/coaches and such)
I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress.
When I was training to become a science teacher, we were very much steered away from facilitating a "banking model" as you call it. Use whatever buzzwords are popular (e.g., inquiry), but the underlying principle for at least science education was you wanted students to come to an understanding of how the world works on their own. The more you facilitated that process, and the less you provided answers to students, the better their understanding would be and the better job you performed as the educator. I imagine things have gone less smoothly in social sciences than they have in hard science.
You know how in movies when there's a scientist working on some world ending project for a superficially benevolent benefactor and they don't realize (or seemingly stop to think about) it until it is too late? That's what happens when that curiosity/inquiry stops at the 'hard science' imo.
I'm not sure how to say it other than it seems obvious why powerful wealthy people wouldn't want the masses to be capable of critical pedagogy and scientific inquiry (that they've been implementing to one degree or another through private institutions and individuals among themselves) being applied to social sciences and such.
If you're trying to manufacture consent for a war, you don't show the people you're trying to convince Chomsky clips explaining manufacturing consent to accomplish it if that makes sense?
|
I think it's silly how STEM and the humanities have been turned into a dichotomy. Tying subjects together is not only more natural and accurate, but it helps the memory as opposed to learning things in isolation. And since people are inclined to different interests, it would help ease the learning of what is "boring" by showing its relevance to other subjects.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On January 24 2020 04:33 Starlightsun wrote:
I think it's silly how STEM and the humanities have been turned into a dichotomy. Tying subjects together is not only more natural and accurate, but it helps the memory as opposed to learning things in isolation. And since people are inclined to different interests, it would help ease the learning of what is "boring" by showing its relevance to other subjects.
Yes, plus it also prevents two undesirable side-effects, where you end up with people with the ‘I can’t do x’ mentality, and conversely people specialising too soon. Initial struggles when things are taught in isolation and that becomes the subject you hate and want to drop as soon as possible, conversely people will focus on the subjects they’ve initially taken to.
|
On January 24 2020 04:33 Starlightsun wrote:
I think it's silly how STEM and the humanities have been turned into a dichotomy. Tying subjects together is not only more natural and accurate, but it helps the memory as opposed to learning things in isolation. And since people are inclined to different interests, it would help ease the learning of what is "boring" by showing its relevance to other subjects.
Two huge problems with this otherwise on the money take: finding teachers with the skills to adequately teach cross disciplinary approaches is extremely difficult, particularly given the sad state of teacher wages. Further while the likes of LinkedIn and other career success pornographers assert otherwise, the job market simply does not reward folks for crossing over between STEM and the humanities, at least not outside the very small world of the wealthy liberal arts education.
|
On January 24 2020 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 03:59 micronesia wrote:On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers. For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year. It is true that shift is happening (I spend time in schools). To one degree or another it's always been a part of educating wealthy people (personal tutors/therapists/coaches and such) I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress. Show nested quote +When I was training to become a science teacher, we were very much steered away from facilitating a "banking model" as you call it. Use whatever buzzwords are popular (e.g., inquiry), but the underlying principle for at least science education was you wanted students to come to an understanding of how the world works on their own. The more you facilitated that process, and the less you provided answers to students, the better their understanding would be and the better job you performed as the educator. I imagine things have gone less smoothly in social sciences than they have in hard science. You know how in movies when there's a scientist working on some world ending project for a superficially benevolent benefactor and they don't realize (or seemingly stop to think about) it until it is too late? That's what happens when that curiosity/inquiry stops at the 'hard science' imo. I'm not sure how to say it other than it seems obvious why powerful wealthy people wouldn't want the masses to be capable of critical pedagogy and scientific inquiry (that they've been implementing to one degree or another through private institutions and individuals among themselves) being applied to social sciences and such. If you're trying to manufacture consent for a war, you don't show the people you're trying to convince Chomsky clips explaining manufacturing consent to accomplish it if that makes sense?
I think you'll find no shortage of people (including in this thread) that will agree with you on the problems of the "banking system" of education and the need for a pedagogical approach that teaches students to search for answers and not just wait for them to come.
What you'll probably have an issue with is that not many people will agree that this pedagogical change needs to be tied hand in hand with ideological calls to class consciousness and revolutionary action.
|
Canada11278 Posts
This last wave of curriculum development in BC is really big into integrating courses. I would say there is a limit to how much that is useful. There are some natural integrations- English and History into Humanities. But the examples they were toting to integrate math into cross-curricular project-based learning seemed highly suspect. The 'highlight' was some hay bail hut that some class spent weeks if not months on. They did math and science and history alright, but as far as I could tell, the learning was highly diluted. At some point, you simply need to put your nose to the grindstone and learn a concentrated amount of math concept, or grammar, or history.
Certainly, it's stretched what I'm doing and I have integrated more and have included more projects. But it's not the silver bullet. The same students that excel in tests, usually excel on projects... which are the same students that excel in debates and discussion based learning... though with the caveat that some have public speaking anxiety. The students that are not engaged in the old methods, remain not engaged in any of those iterations. Struggling students continue to struggle. The variation is inherently beneficial for better teaching practice.
However you reconfigure things, it still tends to favour intelligence and industriousness. If you struggle with organization and industriousness, then project based learning is a nightmare because at least the old method kept you semi-on task. For those students, the greater the freedom, the less the output, therefore requiring the same structures put back in place.
Also, it's not the case that teachers can't teach all those cross-curriculur courses. Most can do a competent job. But there's a huuuge difference when you are teaching in your wheelhouse. You excel at those course- that extra spark, that extra creativity is simply lacking outside of them. Competence vs excellence- what we'd get is a tendency towards mediocrity.
|
On January 24 2020 05:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2020 03:59 micronesia wrote:On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers. For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year. It is true that shift is happening (I spend time in schools). To one degree or another it's always been a part of educating wealthy people (personal tutors/therapists/coaches and such) I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress. When I was training to become a science teacher, we were very much steered away from facilitating a "banking model" as you call it. Use whatever buzzwords are popular (e.g., inquiry), but the underlying principle for at least science education was you wanted students to come to an understanding of how the world works on their own. The more you facilitated that process, and the less you provided answers to students, the better their understanding would be and the better job you performed as the educator. I imagine things have gone less smoothly in social sciences than they have in hard science. You know how in movies when there's a scientist working on some world ending project for a superficially benevolent benefactor and they don't realize (or seemingly stop to think about) it until it is too late? That's what happens when that curiosity/inquiry stops at the 'hard science' imo. I'm not sure how to say it other than it seems obvious why powerful wealthy people wouldn't want the masses to be capable of critical pedagogy and scientific inquiry (that they've been implementing to one degree or another through private institutions and individuals among themselves) being applied to social sciences and such. If you're trying to manufacture consent for a war, you don't show the people you're trying to convince Chomsky clips explaining manufacturing consent to accomplish it if that makes sense? I think you'll find no shortage of people (including in this thread) that will agree with you on the problems of the "banking system" of education and the need for a pedagogical approach that teaches students to search for answers and not just wait for them to come. What you'll probably have an issue with is that not many people will agree that this pedagogical change needs to be tied hand in hand with ideological calls to class consciousness and revolutionary action.
I'd agree more or less:
I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress.
Then I would say what Falling describes is the bastardization of critical pedagogy (typically called 'interdisciplinary' or some variation) for a better worker under capitalism instead of a 'living' (in the Freireian sense) society.
On January 24 2020 05:11 Falling wrote:
This last wave of curriculum development in BC is really big into integrating courses. I would say there is a limit to how much that is useful. There are some natural integrations- English and History into Humanities. But the examples they were toting to integrate math into cross-curricular project-based learning seemed highly suspect. The 'highlight' was some hay bail hut that some class spent weeks if not months on. They did math and science and history alright, but as far as I could tell, the learning was highly diluted. At some point, you simply need to put your nose to the grindstone and learn a concentrated amount of math concept, or grammar, or history.
Certainly, it's stretched what I'm doing and I have integrated more and have included more projects. But it's not the silver bullet. The same students that excel in tests, usually excel on projects... which are the same students that excel in debates and discussion based learning... though with the caveat that some have public speaking anxiety. The students that are not engaged in the old methods, remain not engaged in any of those iterations. Struggling students continue to struggle. The variation is inherently beneficial for better teaching practice.
However you reconfigure things, it still tends to favour intelligence and industriousness. If you struggle with organization and industriousness, then project based learning is a nightmare because at least the old method kept you semi-on task. For those students, the greater the freedom, the less the output, therefore requiring the same structures put back in place.
Also, it's not the case that teachers can't teach all those cross-curriculur courses. Most can do a competent job. But there's a huuuge difference when you are teaching in your wheelhouse. You excel at those course- that extra spark, that extra creativity is simply lacking outside of them. Competence vs excellence- what we'd get is a tendency towards mediocrity.
I think this attempt to split the baby and strip critical pedagogy of its revolutionary nature so the workers don't revolt inhibits progress and undermines the very nature of the pedagogy.
|
I hear and agree with a lot of this but for me the biggest faults in modern education is that the majority of schooling is done in a theoretical and academic model. Far too much attention is paid in high schools for higher-level maths and social studies when the reality of people's situations is ignored.
There is always going to be the working poor and schooling today doesn't prepare people for the basic things to alleviate their situations. Things like basic cooking and exercise so people can feed themselves with good food and not injure themselves with working related activities. People should be taught how to change brake pads on their car more then the fourth year of math that they'll forget and to have the same knowledge on how to do taxes as richer white people.
You can't critical pedagogy how to do most of the skills that people need on a day to day basis.
|
On January 24 2020 06:12 Sermokala wrote:
I hear and agree with a lot of this but for me the biggest faults in modern education is that the majority of schooling is done in a theoretical and academic model. Far too much attention is paid in high schools for higher-level maths and social studies when the reality of people's situations is ignored.
There is always going to be the working poor and schooling today doesn't prepare people for the basic things to alleviate their situations. Things like basic cooking and exercise so people can feed themselves with good food and not injure themselves with working related activities. People should be taught how to change brake pads on their car more then the fourth year of math that they'll forget and to have the same knowledge on how to do taxes as richer white people.
You can't critical pedagogy how to do most of the skills that people need on a day to day basis.
I'm sure it'll come as no surprise that I disagree but these assertions in particular the most.
There is always going to be the working poor equitable distribution of current resources lifts everyone out of poverty.
You can't critical pedagogy how to do most of the skills that people need on a day to day basis Of course you can, that's how most people learn that stuff in the first place (albeit a very crude version).
Hampton tells a story to that effect:
+ Show Spoiler +Let me try to break it down to you.
You say this Brother here goes to school 8 years to be an auto mechanic. And that teacher who used to be an auto mechanic, he tells him, "Well, n****r, you gotta go on what we call on-the-job-training." And he says, "Damn, with all this theory I got, I gotta go to on-the-job-training? What for?"
He said, "On on-the-job-training he works with me. Ive been here for 20 years. When I started work, they didn't even have auto mechanics. I ain't got no theory, I just got a whole bunch of practice."
What happened? A car came in making a whole lot of funny noise. This Brother here go get his book. He on page one, he ain't got to page 200. I'm sitting here listening to the car. He says, "What do you think it is?"
I say, "I think its the carburetor."
He says, "No I don't see anywhere in here where it says a carburetor make no noise like that." And he says, "How do you know its the carburetor?"
I said, "Well, n****r, with all them degrees as many as a thermometer, around 20 years ago, 19 to be exact, I was listening to the same kind of noise. And what I did was I took apart the voltage regulator and it wasn't that. Then I took apart the alternator and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator brushes and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator and it wasn't that. I took apart the generator and it wasn't even that. After I took apart all that I finally got to the carburetor and when I got to the carburetor I found that that's what it was. And I told myself that 'fool, next time you hear this sound you better take apart the carburetor first.'"
How did he learn? He learned through practice.
I dont care how much theory you got, if it don't have any practice applied to it, then that theory happens to be irrelevant. Right? Any theory you get, practice it. And when you practice it you make some mistakes. When you make a mistake, you correct that theory, and then it will be corrected theory that will be able to be applied and used in any situation. Thats what we've got to be able to do.
www.historyisaweapon.com
Starts at 4:05 for people that prefer audio visual (read by Michael B Jordan)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I think 538 is wise to be bringing up the idea of a brokered convention at this point. I think Biden is arrogant and out of touch enough to feel fine relying on superdelegates to clinch the nomination.
|
On January 24 2020 06:12 Sermokala wrote:
I hear and agree with a lot of this but for me the biggest faults in modern education is that the majority of schooling is done in a theoretical and academic model. Far too much attention is paid in high schools for higher-level maths and social studies when the reality of people's situations is ignored.
There is always going to be the working poor and schooling today doesn't prepare people for the basic things to alleviate their situations. Things like basic cooking and exercise so people can feed themselves with good food and not injure themselves with working related activities. People should be taught how to change brake pads on their car more then the fourth year of math that they'll forget and to have the same knowledge on how to do taxes as richer white people.
You can't critical pedagogy how to do most of the skills that people need on a day to day basis.
More and more schools (at least, in the United States) are requiring a Personal Finance course, and my seniors *love it*. I have students literally thanking me for teaching them how to do their taxes, open up a savings account, discuss stocks and insurance, etc.
I don't quite see the same gratitude when I teach my math students about polynomials, although there are plenty of reasons to teach students the "non-applicable for most future careers" content that math, history, English, science, and other subjects teach.
On January 24 2020 04:33 Starlightsun wrote:
I think it's silly how STEM and the humanities have been turned into a dichotomy. Tying subjects together is not only more natural and accurate, but it helps the memory as opposed to learning things in isolation. And since people are inclined to different interests, it would help ease the learning of what is "boring" by showing its relevance to other subjects.
Agreed, and fortunately, a lot of schools are also making sure they have plenty of room for the Arts, even so far as renaming the acronym "STEAM". As much as I love science and math, humanities/ the arts/ other subjects are super important too.
|
On January 23 2020 08:01 Ryzel wrote:
Here’s a couple of questions I have...
1) Given that critical pedagogy is adapted as the new method of education, how do we as a society ensure that it is being conducted appropriately? How do I as a parent ensure that my child is learning things and is not, for example, with a facilitator who is just twiddling their thumbs? Not all facilitators of critical pedagogy will be equally skilled, is it fair if my child is stuck with a shitty facilitator? If the way I ensure my child is receiving the benefit of the education is by talking with my child and teasing out his/her understandings, what is stopping me from reporting the facilitator if I have a personal vendetta against them, my word against theirs?
2) What are the prerequisite academic skills required to engage in critical pedagogy? Presumably I need to read and perhaps write, understand arithmetic and so on. What happens for children that struggle with these skills?
This is actually the first time I've heard of the term "critical pedagogy"; I haven't heard it in recent education research or throughout the schools or tutoring centers I work at/ with.
(I assume you're referring to this: "Advocates of critical pedagogy reject the idea that knowledge is ever politically neutral and argue that teaching is an inherently political act, whether the teacher acknowledges that or not. They therefore insist that issues of social justice and democracy are not distinct from acts of teaching and learning.[2] The goal of critical pedagogy is emancipation from oppression through an awakening of the critical consciousness, based on the Portuguese term conscientização. When achieved, critical consciousness encourages individuals to affect change in their world through social critique and political action in order to self-actualize." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy )
I think discussions of identity, democracy, social justice, and other real-life issues that both adults and children go through are worth integrating into class discussion when there are relevant opportunities for teachable moments, but it's risky. There could certainly be a variety of backgrounds that teachers may have (e.g., very liberal or very conservative) that could inform (good) or taint (bad) these situations, which is why most teachers would prefer to remain apolitical and not risk losing their job (due to parents who disagree with the teachers' views complaining to the administration).
In terms of directly answering your question of "How do I as a parent ensure that my child is learning things and is not, for example, with a facilitator who is just twiddling their thumbs", I assume you're referring to the above characteristics of critical pedagogy and not just referring to a teacher who isn't doing a good job of teaching standard subject content and skills? These elements of critical pedagogy would likely be more informal and less "There is explicit homework/ classwork/ a test on this" than, say, the official subject curriculum. (For example, my syllabi say absolutely nothing about integrating critical pedagogy - just a list of math topics, grading rubric, etc.)
"What are the prerequisite academic skills required to engage in critical pedagogy? Presumably I need to read and perhaps write, understand arithmetic and so on. What happens for children that struggle with these skills?"
I can't speak for all subjects, but as a math teacher, getting to know my students (and their strengths and weaknesses) + having a variety of different strategies for explaining and solving math problems = more likely for my students to be successful. I suppose the first part of that - being cognizant of students' backgrounds - is relevant to critical pedagogy.
On January 24 2020 03:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers. For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year.
This conversation seems to be less about critical pedagogy and more about the progression of problem solving and critical thinking skills, which I'm much more familiar with. Memorization isn't learning, teacher-centered lectures often aren't as constructive as student-focused lessons, getting students to ask and explore relevant questions instead of being told what to do and how to do it, etc. Of course, none of this means that a fact or demonstrable truth is no longer a legitimate answer to a question.
|
On January 24 2020 02:33 Broetchenholer wrote:
The thing with education is, that it is always very subjective. I had the luxury of having teachers in ethical ond societal classes that preferred open questions, involving the students and letting them discuss. More than half of my classmates hated them. Because they were not easy to get good grades with. Every new initiative in pedagogy needs to account for the fact, that good teachers are rare and bad teachers will have no idea how to mediate such a class room.
The thing with education is that good students are rare too.
|
To me the fundamental problem that is easy to avoid confronting (or contradiction if you will) goes back to Vivax's point about nurses. We want a holistic education system that develops capable, well-engaged, productive, critical thinking people, but not so capable, well-engaged, and productive with their critical thinking that they are able to recognize they are being screwed over and do something about it.
I see it in every single issue that comes up here or elsewhere. It is what Asimov laws are for.
+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to humans "Balanced world" is when oppressed people put "protect yourself" last, "Terrifying standoff" is what happens when they stop. "Frustrating world" is when we all put following orders last.
"balanced world" is "negative peace" with the "killbot hellscape" out of sight, out of mind for those that it feels "balanced" or maybe "a little off balance" to.
|
I am far more pessimistic about human beings than you, I think.
|
On January 24 2020 08:11 IgnE wrote:
I am far more pessimistic about human beings than you, I think.
As you mentioned, there is an element of faith to all this. There simply won't be time for satisfactory examples for everyone. Luckily, faith/hope without evidence is baked-in to the hegemony, as well as bandwagoning, so there is room for optimism in my view. Of course those tendencies could just as easily be used by reactionaries so it is far from a given in my book. Plus theory treads carefully around manipulative propaganda (depending on ones preferred sources on theory).
|
What is "manipulative propaganda"?
|
On January 24 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 05:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 24 2020 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2020 03:59 micronesia wrote:On January 24 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT 2: It is not easy to break away from the banking model because it is a lot more comfortable/comforting. There's a truth and you either know it or you don't. "The Civil war started on _____ It was fought over ______" there is a right answer. Sometimes they even do you the 'favor' of literally limiting your choices to pre-selected options.
There's no room for dispute or discussion on the accuracy or completeness of the available "right" answers. For the past few decades there has been a general progression in the US educational system from teaching rote knowledge to teaching critical thinking that emphasizes concepts over raw information. Certainly the progression has not been effective in all States and across all disciplines, but the evolution is mostly underway (I wouldn't call it a revolution to date). Argue the changes are too little too late if you like. Just recognize it's not that easy to take an effective snapshot of what education in the United States is actually like on a given day/year. It is true that shift is happening (I spend time in schools). To one degree or another it's always been a part of educating wealthy people (personal tutors/therapists/coaches and such) I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress. When I was training to become a science teacher, we were very much steered away from facilitating a "banking model" as you call it. Use whatever buzzwords are popular (e.g., inquiry), but the underlying principle for at least science education was you wanted students to come to an understanding of how the world works on their own. The more you facilitated that process, and the less you provided answers to students, the better their understanding would be and the better job you performed as the educator. I imagine things have gone less smoothly in social sciences than they have in hard science. You know how in movies when there's a scientist working on some world ending project for a superficially benevolent benefactor and they don't realize (or seemingly stop to think about) it until it is too late? That's what happens when that curiosity/inquiry stops at the 'hard science' imo. I'm not sure how to say it other than it seems obvious why powerful wealthy people wouldn't want the masses to be capable of critical pedagogy and scientific inquiry (that they've been implementing to one degree or another through private institutions and individuals among themselves) being applied to social sciences and such. If you're trying to manufacture consent for a war, you don't show the people you're trying to convince Chomsky clips explaining manufacturing consent to accomplish it if that makes sense? I think you'll find no shortage of people (including in this thread) that will agree with you on the problems of the "banking system" of education and the need for a pedagogical approach that teaches students to search for answers and not just wait for them to come. What you'll probably have an issue with is that not many people will agree that this pedagogical change needs to be tied hand in hand with ideological calls to class consciousness and revolutionary action. I'd agree more or less: Show nested quote +I am arguing it is too slow, and was begun in earnest (to the degree it is) too late but also seeing a similar bastardization as we saw with the BPP's breakfast program. It is being stripped of the part that makes it revolutionary, which is the part we need most. There's an attempt to co-opt it to create better capitalist workers rather than more complete humans and that contradiction inherently prevents progress. Then I would say what Falling describes is the bastardization of critical pedagogy (typically called 'interdisciplinary' or some variation) for a better worker under capitalism instead of a 'living' (in the Freireian sense) society. Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 05:11 Falling wrote:
This last wave of curriculum development in BC is really big into integrating courses. I would say there is a limit to how much that is useful. There are some natural integrations- English and History into Humanities. But the examples they were toting to integrate math into cross-curricular project-based learning seemed highly suspect. The 'highlight' was some hay bail hut that some class spent weeks if not months on. They did math and science and history alright, but as far as I could tell, the learning was highly diluted. At some point, you simply need to put your nose to the grindstone and learn a concentrated amount of math concept, or grammar, or history.
Certainly, it's stretched what I'm doing and I have integrated more and have included more projects. But it's not the silver bullet. The same students that excel in tests, usually excel on projects... which are the same students that excel in debates and discussion based learning... though with the caveat that some have public speaking anxiety. The students that are not engaged in the old methods, remain not engaged in any of those iterations. Struggling students continue to struggle. The variation is inherently beneficial for better teaching practice.
However you reconfigure things, it still tends to favour intelligence and industriousness. If you struggle with organization and industriousness, then project based learning is a nightmare because at least the old method kept you semi-on task. For those students, the greater the freedom, the less the output, therefore requiring the same structures put back in place.
Also, it's not the case that teachers can't teach all those cross-curriculur courses. Most can do a competent job. But there's a huuuge difference when you are teaching in your wheelhouse. You excel at those course- that extra spark, that extra creativity is simply lacking outside of them. Competence vs excellence- what we'd get is a tendency towards mediocrity. I think this attempt to split the baby and strip critical pedagogy of its revolutionary nature so the workers don't revolt inhibits progress and undermines the very nature of the pedagogy.
As a personal anecdote that relates heavily to this, I would like to bring up the example of Hampshire College. They barely teach subjects that aren't interdisciplinary, and have done away with the idea of grades altogether. Instead, the professor writes a written evaluation of the student's progress and understanding of the subject, and the student's transcript is the collection of the evaluations they've received. The school frequently touts its higher than average graduate school acceptance rate instead of the achievements of their students and the changes they've made in the world. I see this as a direct example of the bastardization of critical pedagogy, especially after knowing several students from there.
Setting aside "holier than thou" attitude they have about other schools (I've heard as much as I can bear from them on how my state school is atrocious, thank you very much), the student I know best is doing much more impressive work than I have at a very similar age, which is a great improvement over my school. However, when I ask about ideas on campus and how discussion moves between students and teachers, I can find the same things at my school (depending on subject). Many of the teachers are information dispensaries, and not participants. I would actually credit most of the improvements in student achievement that the school has to a reduction in class size and more 1-on-1 time than any kind of dialogue being generated.
Additionally, with all I've had to listen to about the school's financial troubles, it would seem the market does not even acknowledge this improvement. Despite the superior results for price compared to other undergraduate institutions, they routinely have to ask for money. I would think that a labor market focused on any kind of long term profit would at least react positively to the upped worker quality through more individuals willing to fund the school. Not the case.
I guess I'd say that the non-revolutionary adaptation of interdisciplinary teaching is risky and not as profitable, although this analysis may be narrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hi2csxT.png)
