|
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 |
On January 24 2020 08:25 IgnE wrote:
What is "manipulative propaganda"?
"propaganda" broadly refers to any media/coordinated campaigns aimed at promoting a cause. When I say "manipulative" I mean it is supposed to generate an emotional and thought provoking response aimed at promoting one's cause.
When I say "tread carefully" is where you'll get varying opinions among reasonably prominent figures on the left past and present in theory and practice about the degree or whether deception (or what qualifies) is acceptable.
For instance war propaganda is pretty ubiquitous as a phenomena, the degree/type/volume of deception is primarily what I was getting at. The dust up between the US and Iran is a sort of topical example where there was deceptions on both sides with varying degrees and specific/varying circumstances and levels of plausible deniability domestically and abroad.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On January 24 2020 08:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: 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. 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.
Pretty interesting insight as it pertains to this broader topic.
As you say, a non-revolutionary or at least pretty large systemic overhaul is ineffective because it’s almost an all-or-nothing proposition as it has to feed into other systems.
Grades to many of us aren’t really important, or at least aren’t close to approximating the totality of our abilities, until they become important. Or whatever else would be changed.
It’s a frustrating bottleneck.
I recall reading an article from some business group over here complaining that graduates didn’t have the skillsets required in industry. But yet when I went hunting about how these companies were recruiting the bar was often set at a 2:1 honours degree.
There’s a lack of joined up societal thinking on a whole lot of this stuff and making the required, or desirable changes becomes excessively complicated to even envisage happening.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On January 24 2020 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:"propaganda" broadly refers to any media/coordinated campaigns aimed at promoting a cause. When I say "manipulative" I mean it is supposed to generate an emotional and thought provoking response aimed at promoting one's cause. When I say "tread carefully" is where you'll get varying opinions among reasonably prominent figures on the left past and present in theory and practice about the degree or whether deception (or what qualifies) is acceptable. For instance war propaganda is pretty ubiquitous as a phenomena, the degree/type/volume of deception is primarily what I was getting at. The dust up between the US and Iran is a sort of topical example where there was deceptions on both sides with varying degrees and specific/varying circumstances and levels of plausible deniability domestically and abroad.
Is ‘internalised propaganda’ an accepted term or have I just pulled it out of my arse?
Bit of a tangent mind. For example vocal adherents of the American Dream/bootstrap mentality, even from people who aren’t riding that train themselves and despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
On January 24 2020 08:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: 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. 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.
@Ryzel ^ that would be a summary description I would give of my experience leaving out a particular exercise that I suppose I could spark interest in by mentioning it was about using critical pedagogy to answer questions about "The Lottery" at a conceptual and statistical level.
Mind you this was with a mixed class ranging from 16-78 years of age with education levels varying from "the hell did this kid graduate highschool!?" to "got an old bachelors degree". It was absolutely miserable but one of the most enlightening experiences I had (which I didn't realize or appreciate until months later).
EDIT: I'd add that I'd credit a healthy portion to the dialogue between pockets of students/good facilitators as well. There are also people in those systems that see the problems you're describing but lack the political imagination to envision solutions unbound by conventional structures. It isn't their (our) fault. We're inundated with capitalist propaganda from birth. Your first moments (in the US) are spent often in pink or blue without a thought from anyone involved to the fact that the pink-blue gender dichotomy is a construct thought up by some coked-up "Mad Men" (advertisers) to sell us more crap.
I still discover hegemonic bullshit I haven't confronted tucked away in parts of my brain pretty regularly.
|
Montessori schools partially use the idea of critical pedagogy from my understanding. Their results are mixed. The problem with critical pedagogy is that it's hard to evaluate whether it is being done well or not. Standard school (banking model, I assume, I'm not too versed in the terminology) has tests where you check to see that the students are learning what they were supposed to learn. If the students learned what they were supposed to learn, then the teacher did his job. If not, something went wrong.
In critical pedagogy, how do you even make sure that a teacher is doing his job? It really becomes a matter of opinion. One principal could sit in and say yeah, this teacher is doing things right. Another could sit in and say nah, this teacher isn't doing things right and it's all based on the principal's biases and opinions. Then there's parents who have their own biases and opinions and if a teacher is nudging students in a direction away from their parents opinions, then you've got angry parents. Without right or wrong answers to fall back on, you've got a mess. It'd be very easy for something like creationism (or intelligent design) to be the standard in certain areas rather than evolution. Even in the crazy south, evolution is taught alongside intelligent design as two possibilities because standardized tests will demand evolution knowledge. Without that? You can have some really messed up thinking.
It is not that I think the current model of school is perfect. Hell no, I have plenty of problems with it, especially with the rote memorization. However, the current model of school allows students to show how well they can learn. You may never need advanced math for the rest of your life, but if you can learn a subject like calculus, then you have proven an ability to learn that will be necessary for higher thinking jobs in the future.
I do also believe more practical life skills should be taught in high school. Personal finance is a big one. Basic home economics classes should be standard (cooking, sewing, electronics/car maintenance). However, I wouldn't want to get rid of all theoretical classes that prepare people for high end thinking careers and prove that people are ready to learn advanced concepts specific to a job.
|
Canada11278 Posts
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).
I think, to a certain extent, it's unethical rally your class around political projects in the real world. Most problems in the world, there isn't an obvious solution. So the idea that teachers should be rallying their class on whatever political pet project of the teacher seems highly suspect.
Same teacher's conference as the hay bale huts, we were told about some Australian school that had put together a proposal to create an Aboriginal state (independent?)- lots of research went into it, and they were actively petitioning the government to effect these changes. That one made me nervous. I'm uncomfortable imposing that much influence by requiring a particular political action.
'Even zeal without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses the way.' Students are high on zeal and low on knowledge, which is why I think it's unethical. It would be far too easy to wind them up and release them at any old thing- to strongly influence and lead to a predetermined political action favoured by the teacher when it might not even be a good solution. I'd far rather give them as much context and nuance as I can, so they can think it through critically and decide for themselves upon graduation what they want to do with it. Who knows, maybe one of them will come up with the better solution- but I'm not confident in my own solutions (nor whatever the students decide by committee) to be any good that I would want to inflict it upon the whole class as a mandatory part of the class.
I understand the desire to push for 'authentic tasks' to enhance learning, but when the application is in the political realm, it seems like the teacher's potential for undue influence on their class is far too great, which makes it unethical.
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. No doubt. The difference in class size makes such a difference for getting around to all the students and actually being able to sit beside and work through sentence by sentence, helping them tighten up their thinking and wording in their paragraphs/ essays.
|
On January 24 2020 08:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: 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. 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. ...
As in, just no final grades? Or no summative assessments (graded tests or graded papers during the school year) whatsoever? I'm all for more formative assessments, but I'm wondering how a teacher can (as objectively and consistently as possible) evaluate each student's understanding of the course without any grade-related metrics.
|
As someone who was very good at standardized tests (in the US)...how much easier could they be? It seems like the students who would benefit the most from alternative forms of education are the ones who would excel anyways with the current system. The public school system can't change kids from broken homes and who are in terrible real life situations.
|
On January 24 2020 10:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 08:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On January 24 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: 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. 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. ... As in, just no final grades? Or no summative assessments (graded tests or graded papers during the school year) whatsoever? I'm all for more formative assessments, but I'm wondering how a teacher can (as objectively and consistently as possible) evaluate each student's understanding of the course without any grade-related metrics.
Keep in mind we're talking about the bastardized version of critical pedagogy in Howie's example.
None. Meaning none during the course and none at the end. Typically it is done with a narrative evaluation from the student and the facilitator.
At the end of the quarter/semester the facilitator has a scheduled 1 on 1 dialogue with each student to discuss these evaluations before they are written and/or after.
No grades.
|
Not sure if anyone is following it but I think the impeachment managers are doing a good job at making the case. They have sound build up in the presentations and use clips from the house-interviews to empower their points. Schiff, Jeffries and Lofgren were really excellent in both narration and explanation. Crow and Demings are also pretty good, Garcia struggles a bit more. Still, anyone who was still confused about the details could watch it and walk away clearly understanding the misconduct. They laid out the timeline and they laid out the actions taken.
Schiff went on the offense in the closing remarks today and straight up said that the senators know that they can't count on the president not putting his personal gains ahead of national interest, and that they can't deny this.
Not that any of it matters since the senators already sold their soul but they did a good job on the case so far. I'm interested to see if the defense comes with anything remotely near the same quality of presentation.
|
On January 24 2020 13:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Not sure if anyone is following it but I think the impeachment managers are doing a good job at making the case. They have sound build up in the presentations and use clips from the house-interviews to empower their points. Schiff, Jeffries and Lofgren were really excellent in both narration and explanation. Crow is also pretty good, Garcia struggles a bit more. Still, anyone who was still confused about the details could watch it and walk away clearly understanding the misconduct. They laid out the timeline and they laid out the actions taken.
Schiff went on the offense in the closing remarks today and straight up said that the senators know that they can't count on the president not putting his personal gains ahead of national interest, and that they can't deny this.
Not that any of it matters since the senators already sold their soul but they did a good job on the case so far. I'm interested to see if the defense comes with anything remotely near the same quality of presentation.
I just wish we could hurry up and get to the part where Trump is cleared and we have to figure out if that makes him/his actions legitimate or our system incapable of stopping Trump as president from being illegitimate. The latter honestly makes more sense to me since they couldn't stop him before he was president..
Generally it's just incredibly boring TV from my pov. Admittedly it is a lot more of a production than I'm used to when it comes to watching congress though. Usually we're looking at blown-up printouts.
|
Joe Rogan kinda sorta has endorsed Bernie Sanders and Twitter is losing its mind because Rogan is critical of Transathletes in professional sports and therefore Bernie obviously is anti LGBTQ+.
This is such a weird time to live in.
|
On January 24 2020 17:01 Velr wrote:
Joe Rogan kinda sorta has endorsed Bernie Sanders and Twitter is losing its mind because Rogan is critical of Transathletes in professional sports and therefore Bernie obviously is anti LGBTQ+.
This is such a weird time to live in.
I thought the recent South Park was pretty entertaining/topical.
|
It's not even about the "issue"... It's these stupid super leftists calling foul because someone that does not alligns with their believes endorses a candidate they like, therefore not liking that candidate anymore (or at least virtue signaling it).
There is plenty of criticism you can throw at Joe Rogan for various reasons, I tend to see him as a positive all things considered but i totally get why someone could see this differently.
WTF is wrong with these people?
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On January 24 2020 20:22 Velr wrote:
It's not even about the "issue"... It's these stupid super leftists calling foul because someone that does not alligns with their believes endorses a candidate they like, therefore not liking that candidate anymore (or at least virtue signaling it).
There is plenty of criticism you can throw at Joe Rogan for various reasons, I tend to see him as a positive all things considered but i totally get why someone could see this differently.
WTF is wrong with these people?
It’s a complete lack of any kind of pragmatism or sensibility whatsoever. It’s not as if Bernie has been actively courting Joe Rogan, I think he appeared once in 2016, it’s just a case of a guy who isn’t Bernie, or connected to the guy expressing his preference.
Especially when the incumbent has engaged in actively baiting outrage on trans people in the military.
I wouldn’t even consider that cohort as especially super left, presumably some of them are though. There’s a chunk that are happy enough being under capitalism’s boot as long as everyone is treated equally under it.
|
Sounds like it's part of the attack on Bernie, my guess is this one has more to do with libs trying to stick accusations of sexism on him or his vicinity.
Although the phenomenon that you describe, which Contrapoints is currently in the middle of, also exists, and I don't want to minimize that
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On January 24 2020 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2020 13:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Not sure if anyone is following it but I think the impeachment managers are doing a good job at making the case. They have sound build up in the presentations and use clips from the house-interviews to empower their points. Schiff, Jeffries and Lofgren were really excellent in both narration and explanation. Crow is also pretty good, Garcia struggles a bit more. Still, anyone who was still confused about the details could watch it and walk away clearly understanding the misconduct. They laid out the timeline and they laid out the actions taken.
Schiff went on the offense in the closing remarks today and straight up said that the senators know that they can't count on the president not putting his personal gains ahead of national interest, and that they can't deny this.
Not that any of it matters since the senators already sold their soul but they did a good job on the case so far. I'm interested to see if the defense comes with anything remotely near the same quality of presentation. I just wish we could hurry up and get to the part where Trump is cleared and we have to figure out if that makes him/his actions legitimate or our system incapable of stopping Trump as president from being illegitimate. The latter honestly makes more sense to me since they couldn't stop him before he was president.. Generally it's just incredibly boring TV from my pov. Admittedly it is a lot more of a production than I'm used to when it comes to watching congress though. Usually we're looking at blown-up printouts.
I’m reasonably optimistic thus far, insofar that my fear was that Trump could weaponise this and galvanise support behind playing the victim.
So my worst case scenario at least seems to be being avoided, with the bonus that perhaps this might shine a light on the system’s faults in holding rogue actors to account.
I think the most likely result is a middle ground where it’s as you were and not much has changed whatsoever, but it’s US politics so that’s nothing new.
|
On January 24 2020 20:22 Velr wrote:
It's not even about the "issue"... It's these stupid super leftists calling foul because someone that does not alligns with their believes endorses a candidate they like, therefore not liking that candidate anymore (or at least virtue signaling it).
There is plenty of criticism you can throw at Joe Rogan for various reasons, I tend to see him as a positive all things considered but i totally get why someone could see this differently.
WTF is wrong with these people?
From a practical perspective (i.e., gathering enough votes to beat Biden and eventually Trump), I totally agree that inclusivity is the name of the game for Sanders (and any candidate). You can't afford to turn away voters, especially if they're popular like Joe Rogan and can influence followers.
In theory, I'm guessing, some people would prefer not to have the endorsement of certain controversial figures or groups, in the same way that noting the white supremacists for Trump is a guilt by association (although Rogan isn't nearly as unethical as literal Nazis, and Trump's lack of ethics is apparent even without support from hate groups).
|
Bernie was recently on Rogan.
Rogan did say very recently he will most likely vote for Bernie.
Bernies campaign did use Rogan saying that in an add on twitter.
It's not old news, this is very fresh.
Yes, the contra"drama" goes into the same direction, these are the kind of purity tests that make the left look so bad to me, despite agreeing with probably 90%+ of the actual policies Bernie promotes (which don't really allign witch much of the tankies and breadtube because he's not an idiotic extremist).
In my book "the left" needs to become way more inclusive when it comes to clear allies. Thats why I sometimes post controversal shit that "doesn't look good" here. I'm not trying to promote the pure ideology or not even the form i personally would subscribe to. I try to promote one a majority can get behind, everything else is, as long as there is a real chance someone like Trump can get reelected, harmful.
|
But are you sure that it goes in the same direction? I don't think so. So far I've only seen people who support Warren or someone else say that Bernie should reject the endorsement, imo this is political strategy more than cancel culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
