View Full Version : Expansion of "Civics Exam" Discussion
ZonieDiver
08-05-2012, 11:57
So as not to 'hijack' the Civics Exam thread, I started this one to expand/expound on some of the issues Richard mentioned in his post there:
There are a couple of answers in the quiz which force you to think about it, but it helped having (1) developed the curriculum for and taught the subjects at the HS level and (2) having tutored HS and college students in History, Government, and Economics. At our HS, all seniors took a semester of Government and a semester of Economics; many schools here in Texas have their students take the Govt/Econ course as freshmen or sophomores, but we had it reserved for our seniors because (1) they had a better understanding of the basics of the subjects by then, (2) they had a greater interest in the topics as many were registering for the SSS (males) and to vote during their senior year, and (3) they had a greater maturity level for more aggressively debating the issues presented in the courses.
Some of the ISI programs are interesting. I found their 2011-2012 Scholarship Essay Competition for American College Students - “Are We Back on the Road to Serfdom?” - an interesting read. The attchd pdf has the winning esssays - First Place: Danielle Charette, Swarthmore; Second Place: Robert Sylvester, Catholic University; Third Place: Kevin Sullivan, Georgetown.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Believe it or not, Arizona state standards do NOT require the teaching of Government (per se). US History and Economics are required and most districts put Government in there to satisfy admission requirements of the state universities. For years, I taught Economics... and occasionally Government... to seniors. Since I was junior in seniority to many, I rarely got to teach Government - since most teachers viewed Econ as harder to teach, and lacked the academic preparation to do so.
Arizona's State Legislature (sometimes referred to as the "90 Dwarves"), in their infinite educational knowledge and forethought, have come up with what they call "The Grand Canyon" diploma - which allows students who don't wish to go to a university to graduate with the "minimum" requirements - and finish in two years. The idea being that they will go on to a vocational school or community college. To get school districts to "buy in" - the district will still receive half the $$ they would have gotten for each student that leaves. (Dire Straits would be proud - "Your money for nothin'...)
However, the entire curriculum and progression of classes needed to be altered. My former school's principal wanted to "lead the parade" for this movement and has "turned over the apple cart" at our formerly high performing high school in order to do it. World History will now be taught to freshmen instead of sophomores. US History will be taught to sophomores. The only 'hole' in potential schedules that is left, due to other required courses, is in the freshman year - so Economics will be taught there.
Seniors often had difficulty grasping economic concepts. I shudder to think how they'll "dumb it down" to get freshmen to understand, especially given the dismal state of social studies education in the elementary and middle schools. (Social studies have not been, and are not, tested in our "high stakes test (AIMS). Since schools are graded by how well students DO on such tests, the schools - naturally - downplay or ignore the subjects not tested.)
Three new teachers were hired to handle the "double-booking" for US and World History (for a year, both sophomores and freshmen will take World and sophomores and juniors will take US. At the end of the year... there'll be three "surplus" teachers.
It remains to be seen how many of the Grand Canyon Diploma students WILL progress on to CCs or VocEd programs. With our population of students, most of whom have been taught the mantra that a High School Diploma - in and of itself - is some kind of "magic talisman" that opens employment opportunities, instead of the value of the education behind said diploma... they may just take it and be done.
I'm glad I retired when I did.
The "Grand Canyon High School Diploma" appears to me to be a bit short sighted and hopeful - but I do not operate in that arena so, for now, I must defer to the wisdom of the supposed professionals. Thinking back, those two additional years of high school contained substantial time and opportunity to mature. IMO, that maturity contributes to the ability to understand and process information differently - to actually contribute in the classroom. Everyone benefits.
Certainly not everyone is cut out for college, not everyone develops at the same rate - but two less years in high school seems a bit short sighted to me.
Below is an excerpt describing the program from the Center For The Future of Arizona:
"This new, optional diploma is designed to increase student academic achievement to national and international levels, preparing students for college and careers. It is not about setting low expectations and fast-tracking students to high school graduation."
http://www.arizonafuture.org/mowr/grand-canyon-diploma.html
ZonieDiver
08-05-2012, 15:27
Yep, it sounds great... on paper. But the devil is in the details.
Most of the courses are using the ACT Quality Core as their BES (most of our students did poorly on it last year... the first year classes were "realigned" to the ACT QC standards. (My last year, I got to "realign" my classses, even though I wouldn't be there... I hope my successor appreciates it.) Only World History is using Cambridge (because ACT QC didn't have standards for WH at that time. My fear is that with a harder test, teachers will begin to teach to that test - especially since now their pay increases and tenure will, at least in part, be determined by class performance, as measured by the test
In Arizona, students may drop out at age 16 or upon completion of 10th grade. I think, at least in the 'implementation' years, a lot of them will be 'set-up' for failure... and just quit. As I said, the devil is in the details. Of course, if this holds true as for most new educational programs... it'll go away in three years or so. (Or, even before that, the state will quit remunerating districts for students no longer there.)
The desired end result is good. We'll see how it turns out.
Back in central Maine, vocational skills students went part of the day to "standard" school to take 3rd and 4th year English, Math and some other courses I can't recall, and then spent the afternoon at the vocational school learning the various trades. The catch was if the student failed to maintain a C or better in the required classes (i.e., English, Math, etc.), they would be removed from the vocational courses and revert back to standard high school courses.
longrange1947
08-05-2012, 21:54
I would love to see a strong vocational program return to schools. They seem to have forgotten to most kids will not go to or finish college. I would also like to see the old apprentice, Journeyman, and Master come back as well. Maybe some of the shoddy BS that is now occurring in the building industry would shape up. :munchin
I had about 200 woodworking books that I now have on digits and had a heck of a time giving them to the school system for the students. :(
Remington Raidr
08-05-2012, 23:22
I enlisted at 17 and day one and earned my GED prior to discharge. Ten years of of screwing around got me my bachelors degree, and ten more years my JD. I was very different at 17 than I was at 37. There are a LOT of kids in high school that could do better somewhere else. Time to think outside the box. But we ALL know that's not gonna happen.:(
1stindoor
08-06-2012, 07:00
The difference now is that a GED holds no weight whatsoever as far as the military is concerned. The only way a GED holder is going to get into the Armed Forces is if that person backs up his GED with somewhere between 15 and 30 semester hours of college.
I agree with longrange, a return to vocational programs would reap greater benefits. At my HS (granted I graduated 30 yrs ago) we had building trades, auto body, auto repair, horticulture, and a few others. We also had a robust college prep program, home ec, and taught typing and shorthand. There were many different ways to be successful in HS and your diploma and skillset helped prepare you for life.
I would also like to see the old apprentice, Journeyman, and Master come back as well. :(
Concur.
There are still plenty of trades remaining to warrant that.
This is where I went to high school.
http://eghs-egusd-ca.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1240065033374
They offer a strong college prep program yet - to meet the needs of the community - still retain the active FFA, AgMechanics, auto mechanics, and other industrial arts programs which were there when I was a student. They also still have their working school farm/ranch maintained by the students and Ag Dept, as well as offering a number of apprenticeship programs for students to train with local businesses and industries while finishing high school.
These are some of the career pathing offered by the district today.
http://blogs.egusd.net/collegeandcareer/career-planning/academies-and-career-pathways/
Takes a community approach and commitment to retain such programs where the general view I've run into seems to be that IT is the only tech program(s) being considered and offered by many schools today.
A HUGE problem around here is the high drop-out rate among the inner-city and Hispanic youth population - no simple explanations or solutions for it that I can see, either.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
mark46th
08-06-2012, 16:44
I would like to see the curriculum in Elementary and High Schools of every state drop anything that is politically correct. If it isn't related to Math, Science, English, U.S., World and State History, Civics and Economics, Art, Music, etc, It shouldn't be taught. Phys Ed, Yes. Foreign languages, Yes. LBGT Studies, No. Chicano Studies, No. African Studies, No. What you choose to study in college/university is up to you. Just don't complain if your PhD in some arcane discipline doesn't have a 6 figure job waiting for you...
Badger52
08-06-2012, 16:57
Takes a community approach and commitment to retain such programs where the general view I've run into seems to be that IT is the only tech program(s) being considered and offered by many schools today. Very astute observation. I hate to burst some young folks' bubble, but if you are a 23yo Masters-in-whatever you're very unlikely to start at even .5x6-figures. Nope, all the alphabet soup behind your 11-line email signature block won't do it either, but it might get you in the door.
Companies that are paying good salaries for their serious IT disciplines like IT security are commonly used as sources for talent to non-IT companies. They are expected to field a VERY experienced journeyman professional for the ginormous billable hours they're going to charge the client. You need to be a 1-person ODA equivalent in your field if you want the big bucks. It takes experience, it takes time and seeing lots of situations just like a medical intern.
So some things never change, kids; you don't "deserve" to start at the top, you just might have to build the path yourself.
[/IT-Career-Expectations rant]
:cool:
I would love to see a strong vocational program return to schools.
I totally agree. When I was in High School, we had a Trades and Industries class which was, basically, a vocational school embedded in the public school. I don't think farming or ranching was included but there were kids that worked in farm machinery manufacturing, retail sales, auto repair, etc.
Our Shop teacher started a program where the school would acquire some land and building materials, then his class would build a house on it and sell it for a profit. I believe that program was part of the T&I course but shop students, interested in carpentry, electrical, cabinetmaking, etc, could go "on site" during Shop class to work in a practical setting. Of course, this was in Oklahoma in the mid-'60s. It's probably illegal now.
Pat
GratefulCitizen
08-07-2012, 16:33
The public school system is fulfilling its designed purpose.
It is meant to benefit the public (i.e. those holding power), not the individual.
It is a system of control.
John Taylor Gatto's characterization of Alexander Inglis's writings:
Functions of schooling:
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
In fairness to Inglis, here is a link to his book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_secondary_education.html?id=8gsUAAAA IAAJ
Much of the material addressed by Gatto is found starting about page 375.
Gatto's article: http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
Dozer523
08-07-2012, 19:55
It is meant to benefit the public (i.e. those holding power), not the individual.
It is a system of control.
Yuck. Cue Pink Floyd.
RE: Post 13 - a chip off the ol' bloviators.**
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
** http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187186&postcount=25
GratefulCitizen
08-07-2012, 22:07
The original assertion made in my post remains ignored.
Particular schools and teachers are not the same thing as the "public system".
Those with money, influence, and knowledge do everything they can to avoid the liabilities of the public system.
If you live in the right zip code, your school plays by a different set of rules.
I've heard that charter schools play by a different set, too.
A HUGE problem around here is the high drop-out rate among the inner-city and Hispanic youth population - no simple explanations or solutions for it that I can see, either.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Maybe the system is doing exacty what is desired.
Pretending to present equal opportunity while actually just sequestering some of the "inconvenient" population.
RE: Post 13 - a chip off the ol' bloviators.**
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
** http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187186&postcount=25
My attitudes have changed in the last 5 years due to observed results and learning the reality of my past.
I wasn't truly a product of the "by the rules" public system.
A small group of my peers and I were illegally "tracked" in grades 1-5.
When Iowa test scores came around in 3rd grade, most of us were 96th percentile or better in every category.
In 9th grade, my parents rented a house and moved us so I could attend a smaller school where they were both teachers.
While languishing in the boredom of high school, they kept a close eye and made sure that I "played the game" in order to keep grades at acceptable levels, take the right classes, and participate in the right extra activities.
The "public system" doesn't do this for everyone.
It's funny that you bring the comments about my parents into this, Richard.
My father used to be an advocate for the public system, then an apologist, and finally decided that it doesn't work anymore.
10-15 years ago, in argument and tone, and on most issues, he sounded exactly like you.
This has been a great thread to read, so thanks Zonie for continuing the discussion here.
Like many of you, I agree that the role of high schools is to prepare kids for meeting the minimum of expectations of the society they inherit upon graduation. Surely, these kids should be able to function for themselves (e.g. balance checkbooks, draft resumes, write coverletters, etc). IMOO, high school vocational programs offer an excellent opportunity for kids who's goal isn't necessarily more education, at least for the moment. However, are "we" (i.e. US taxpayer, educators, citizens) being realistic when it comes to our expectations of these vocational programs for these kids? Seeing as how the number of manufacturing jobs in this great country decreased, are we setting these kids and their families up for failure if we believe they will have opportunities for gainful employment in skilled manufacturing? :confused: Even electricians, plumbers and carpenters have been hit hard in this economy, so I hold a degree of skepticism that vocational programs are a panacea of sorts.
Another thought that has recently received wide coverage: is college even worth it (time, money, effort) at all anymore? From my own personal experience, I've known quite a number of people who have either dropped out, flunked out or have under-utilized their degree and are working in an altogether different careerfield than they studied. I'm willing to accept that this is only my perspective and the true college drop out rates may have followed a general trend since...pick your decade. But again, MOO, college (like Military Service) ain't for everybody. On the flip side of the coin, college ain't all it is cracked up to be either (Take it from the guy who spent 12 years there and racked up a sizeable debt from it as a result :boohoo). Seems to me that we are managing little Johnny's and Susie's parent's expectations as well. Perhaps they aren't willing to admit that college is not the best career path for their kids.
Rambling thoughts, I know, but lots for y'all to pick apart.
Cheers,
Dale
The original assertion made in my post remains ignored.This statement implies an interesting set of expectations and assumptions. Just because people don't agree with you and flood a thread with +1's doesn't mean they're ignoring your thoughtful generalizations on the state of public education in contemporary America; generalizations that you've based upon your reflections on your own past.
It just may well be possible that different people have had different experiences. These differences may reflect different choices and not just dissimilar socio-economic conditions. (At what point does one take personal responsibility for the ups and downs of one's own educational career and stop pointing fingers at the "system," the school board, the teachers, and the parents?)
And it may well be that some draw clearer lines of demarcation among autobiography, history, and policy analysis.
My attitudes have changed in the last 5 years due to observed results and learning the reality of my past.By my reading, the opposite is the case. While there are tremendous collisions among the positions you take on a variety of issues, the themes of the overall narrative of that past are remarkably consistent.
For example.
In 9th grade, my parents rented a house and moved us so I could attend a smaller school where they were both teachers.
While languishing in the boredom of high school, they kept a close eye and made sure that I "played the game" in order to keep grades at acceptable levels, take the right classes, and participate in the right extra activities.
The "public system" doesn't do this for everyone.AndMy father used to be an advocate for the public system, then an apologist, and finally decided that it doesn't work anymore.
In other words, two teachers do their best to advance the educational interests of a student and the reward for that effort is rhetorical ubasute.
How about that.
My point has been and remains - has it ever been any different and can it ever be any different. :confused:
The so-called "public" schooling systems, as well as the numerous "private" schooling systems, have always been and remain as varied as ever in attempting to meet their individual community's desires and expectations.
So perhaps they should be seen more as a barometer for measuring change in the complex dynamics of those communities than as some sort of failed social experiement or yet another conspiratorial tool of the "man" to oppress the unruly masses.
But maybe that is my public school upbringing and world-view, formed by my travels and on-going experiences with both private and public schooling systems here in America and abroad.
Richard
GratefulCitizen
08-10-2012, 21:17
My point has been and remains - has it ever been any different and can it ever be any different. :confused:
This nation didn't always have a public education system as the predominant form.
People were still educated.
The so-called "public" schooling systems, as well as the numerous "private" schooling systems, have always been and remain as varied as ever in attempting to meet their individual community's desires and expectations.
So perhaps they should be seen more as a barometer for measuring change in the complex dynamics of those communities than as some sort of failed social experiement or yet another conspiratorial tool of the "man" to oppress the unruly masses.
Wouldn't call it a failed social experiment.
It was probably quite helpful in building a powerful industrial-age economy.
Wouldn't call it a conspiracy of oppression, either.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, those in power probably felt they were doing the right thing.
But maybe that is my public school upbringing and world-view, formed by my travels and on-going experiences with both private and public schooling systems here in America and abroad.
Richard
I fail to see what is so controversial about pointing out that a public system of education is designed to benefit the state, not the individual.
I also fail to see what is so controversial about pointing out that the "state" (whether it's local, state, or national) has an interest in confiscating children for their own purposes (present and future).
If the system(s) were meant to benefit the individual, truancy laws would not be necessary.
The decentralized system(s) are certainly a check on the liabilities of a public system, but that decentralization is fading quickly.
The public system(s) are doomed because they are socialist in nature.
People will naturally try to maximize benefits while minimizing liabilities.
Those left with the short stick vote themselves larger shares of the treasury to compensate for disparities.
Modern information technology speeds this process of maximizing/minimizing, discovery of disparity, and confiscation by majority rule.
The public systems(s) are further doomed because they are designed for the needs of the industrial age.
Modern information technology will speed the discovery of this obsolescence.
Alternatives have long since taken root.
Hard to say whether the public system(s) will find a way to compete.
Peregrino
08-10-2012, 21:29
There's a reason Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the Western Hemisphere. It isn't altruism.
GratefulCitizen
08-10-2012, 22:05
Entire post.
Welcome to the conversation, Sig.
Richard pointed, I responded.
Yes, I am all over the map in discussions on this board.
My primary use of this media is for the purpose of "brain exercise" -- exploring ideas.
Much of that exploration is quite unstructured.
Occasionally, it is strictly structured.
Apparently, this disturbs you.
<shrug>
Serious thoughts, with serious consequences, are made out in the real world, not on an internet BB.
They are counseled by people who share decades of specific context and often have an interest in whatever matter is being considered.
Not sure what your goal is with this particular round of dart slinging.
The behavior just seems odd.
I stand not quite 6'2" barefoot.
Someone on the internet could accuse me of being 6'6" or 5'6", and they might even convince the vast majority of humanity that this was the case.
None of this would change my height.
Likewise, you can make whatever case you wish about me and it does not change reality.
So, you can keep doing what you do to people all over this BB and probably elsewhere on the internet.
The instances I see will be linked in entertaining emails to real-world friends along with a jpeg of the Sigaba "furious chiuaua".
Have a nice day.
It was probably quite helpful in building a powerful industrial-age economy.
Wouldn't call it a conspiracy of oppression, either.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, those in power probably felt they were doing the right thing.
I fail to see what is so controversial about pointing out that a public system of education is designed to benefit the state, not the individual.
I also fail to see what is so controversial about pointing out that the "state" (whether it's local, state, or national) has an interest in confiscating children for their own purposes (present and future).IMO, your comments are controversial for at least three reasons. First, you resort to speculation ("probably") when you generalize about the history of education in America rather than providing evidence to support your remarkably broad observations.
Second, your critique of education in America was anticipated by Karl Marx in the mid nineteenth century. Like Marx, you argue that formal education is a means to establish hegemonic control in the service of political, social, and economic elites to further their own ends in an industrialized world. Like Marx, you intimate that those who find fulfillment within the educational system you deplore suffer from some sort of false consciousness (see post #5 in this thread (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=435631)). Like Marx, you set the stage for your own "alternatives" on the argument that you know what choices are best for others. Granted, you do differ from Marx on key points--for example, the place of family and religion in everyday life, as well as making conflict a function of generational struggle rather than class conflict. However, you, like Marx, have an overly determined vision of the future that is based upon a teleological vision of the past.
Third, your argument is controversial because it is inconsistent with many of your own lifestyle choices. For example, you offer the following forecast.
The public systems(s) are further doomed because they are designed for the needs of the industrial age.
Modern information technology will speed the discovery of this obsolescence.However, if both of these projections are sustainable, then what explains your own career choice--working for a logistics company that leverages the infrastructure of industrialized, statist America as a member of a union fully invested in the continuation of an industrialized statist America (http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-endorse-obama-2012) --as well as your choice to deny access to information technology to those over whom you have power?
That is, if one is committed to one's vision of the future, then why make choices that delay the unfolding of that vision while deliberately undercutting the ability of others to thrive in a new environment?:munchin
Entire post.Again, you are offering an interesting argument.
You say you're using a medium to explore different ways of thinking. Yet, when someone disagrees with you and/or connects the dots among your posts, you attempt to change the tone of the conversation with an ill considered, poorly executed attempt at anthropomorphization. (A Chihuahua? Really? That's what you came up with after spending all that time writing that post. I, at the very least, rate a comparison to a Shih Tzu or a Pomeranian. Okay, maybe a Jack Russell is pie in the sky vanity on my part but one can always hope.)
In any case. Are you saying that you don't want your posts to be read and your POV on issues to be considered seriously? Or are you saying that you do want your posts to be read and your POV on issues to be considered seriously on the stipulation that no one disagrees with you?
Re Post #20
I find Professor Jewett's views (attchd pdf) on the fundamental beliefs for the foundations upon which our educational systems have been built (and have since evolved) are most in-line with what I have studied and experienced.
I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile these views with your personal beliefs as stated and implied in your many comments upon the topic.
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
08-11-2012, 17:35
Re Post #20
I find Professor Jewett's views (attchd pdf) on the fundamental beliefs for the foundations upon which our educational systems have been built (and have since evolved) are most in-line with what I have studied and experienced.
I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile these views with your personal beliefs as stated and implied in your many comments upon the topic.
Richard :munchin
Don't see where Jefferson advocated the Prussian model we use.
The Philadelphia Quakers were on top of educating the poor right after the Revolution and the "sunday school" movement spread from there.
They didn't wait for the government.
30000 of the 50000 libraries in America in 1859 were "sunday school" libraries.
By 1875 there were 65000 "sunday schools".
There was no shortage of education prior to the government school takeover.
The critical difference was the lack of compulsory attendence and the lesser contact time with the children.
In addition to serving educational needs, they also had moral instruction.
That vacuum has since been filled with moral instruction approved of by the state.
Sounds much like a state religion.
I still stand by my assertion that a public system of education is designed to benefit the state, not the individual.
GratefulCitizen
08-11-2012, 17:57
Again, you are offering an interesting argument.
In any case. Are you saying that you don't want your posts to be read and your POV on issues to be considered seriously? Or are you saying that you do want your posts to be read and your POV on issues to be considered seriously on the stipulation that no one disagrees with you?
Your inferences are likely skewed by psychological projection.
Not terribly worried about my "rep" or how I'm perceived by strangers on the internet.
It is quite likely that nobody here cares or spends any significant time thinking about me.
For those that do, it is unfortunate that they wasted their time.
Occasionally opportunities present themselves where ideas can be highlighted and propagated.
The ideas presented in post #13 drew fire from three prominent BB members whose political leanings regarding education seem to be in line with one another.
Strangely, no one directly attacked the idea.
This seemed like a perfect setting to keep pushing the assertion and pointing people to ideas.
Yeah, I may come out the other side battered, but the ideas get out there.
Being the target of freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it just comes with the territory.
The assistance you've given in drawing attention to the thread is greatly appreciated.
:D
It is quite likely that nobody here cares or spends any significant time thinking about me.
For those that do, it is unfortunate that they wasted their time.There you go, then.
Since you're committed to not being taken seriously by members of this BB, and since you're not going to answer questions put to you in response to your own posts--regardless of who asks--the question that follows is: Why do you post?:confused:
GratefulCitizen
08-11-2012, 18:36
There you go, then.
Since you're committed to not being taken seriously by members of this BB, and since you're not going to answer questions put to you in response to your own posts--regardless of who asks--the question that follows is: Why do you post?:confused:
FWIW, you shouldn't split an infinitive.
"Committed to being taken seriously."
That is a telling bit of psychological projection.
I'm not an important person in this community.
Never will be.
Unlike some members, I understand this.
Pawns have their uses, especially when they embrace their role.
Occasionally, an important person in the community will make use of an opening created by a pawn (like post #21).
This type of "by, with, and through" interaction is quite common on this BB.
Might want to look for it while grave digging ancient threads.
Don't see where Jefferson advocated the Prussian model we use.
Jefferson advocated for some form of public education for all citizens who would otherwise be unable to avail themselves of the existent educational opportunities.
The model, as instituted in Prussia, was a tax-funded and generally compulsory primary education, comprising an eight-year course of primary education. It provided not only the skills needed in an early industrialized world (reading, writing and arithmetic), but also a strict education in ethics (IAW the state sponsored religion), duty, discipline and obedience. Affluent children often went on to attend preparatory private schools for an additional four years, but the general population had virtually no access to secondary education. It instituted compulsory attendance, specific training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade and mandatory kindergarten. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy by replacing local control over schooling with a centralized, uniform system administered by the state under which all schools and universities were made institutions of the state.
Although we have adopted certain components of the model, we have retained a much greater decentralization in methodology, and have neither sought to institute such a system nor for such a purpose.
The Philadelphia Quakers were on top of educating the poor right after the Revolution and the "sunday school" movement spread from there.
They didn't wait for the government.
30000 of the 50000 libraries in America in 1859 were "sunday school" libraries.
By 1875 there were 65000 "sunday schools".
There was no shortage of education prior to the government school takeover.
The critical difference was the lack of compulsory attendence and the lesser contact time with the children.
In addition to serving educational needs, they also had moral instruction.
YGBSM – an evolved ‘Luther’ model whereby people need to read so they can study the ‘word of god’ expanded to add an 'industrial needs' component - serving the ‘educational’ needs for whom?
The Sunday ‘schools’ were organized by people who found that working-class children required some form of discipline, and evening schools were established to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and catechism to the 'deserving' poor where enrollment was decided upon by visits with parents, nominations from subscribers, and individual student applications.
The Sunday school also developed into a hub of social interaction for a class of children and parents who were rapidly moving away from small, close-knit, rural communities to large, over-populated, urban centers where catechism could be preached and taught to a population that, until that time, only learned it via a rote memorization system. As the ‘schools’ gained in popularity and effectiveness, the churches started to actively provide them with facilities and finances, giving them a tighter control over their management and curriculum.
That vacuum has since been filled with moral instruction approved of by the state. Sounds much like a state religion.
The only formalized moral instruction I’ve encountered in public schools is based primarily upon the universally recognized ‘golden rule’ and not a specified or state sponsored religious belief. Private and parochial schools, as well as home schools, however, are different and have the latitude to espouse whatever moral instruction they choose to adopt for their curriculum.
I still stand by my assertion that a public system of education is designed to benefit the state, not the individual.
Perhaps the desire and design of the American system (which is similar to but quite different from the model found in Germany which remains much closer to the original Prussian methodology) is to benefit both, not merely one or the other.
However, YMMV.
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
08-13-2012, 07:53
Jefferson advocated for some form of public education for all citizens who would otherwise be unable to avail themselves of the existent educational opportunities.
Point conceded.
Based on his writings, what do you think his opinion would be of truancy laws?
The model, as instituted in Prussia, was a tax-funded and generally compulsory primary education, comprising an eight-year course of primary education. It provided not only the skills needed in an early industrialized world (reading, writing and arithmetic), but also a strict education in ethics (IAW the state sponsored religion), duty, discipline and obedience. Affluent children often went on to attend preparatory private schools for an additional four years, but the general population had virtually no access to secondary education. It instituted compulsory attendance, specific training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade and mandatory kindergarten. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy by replacing local control over schooling with a centralized, uniform system administered by the state under which all schools and universities were made institutions of the state.
Although we have adopted certain components of the model, we have retained a much greater decentralization in methodology, and have neither sought to institute such a system nor for such a purpose.[/COLOR]
There's plenty of information out there regarding the Prussian techniques.
Anyone who is interested can look and discern for themselves what components were retained, and for what purposes.
Regarding decentralization, I am in total agreement that we have retained much and it is of great benefit.
However, the federal government and the UN have been seeking to undermine that decentralization.
The purpose of federal funding is to gain control.
The POTUS pushed the idea of a federal truancy law to age 18 in a state of the union address.
The UN has been pushing the "Rights of the Child" treaty for some time.
It's hard to say how well the Pierce v. Society of Sisters precedent will hold.
YGBSM – an evolved ‘Luther’ model whereby people need to read so they can study the ‘word of god’ expanded to add an 'industrial needs' component - serving the ‘educational’ needs for whom?
The Sunday ‘schools’ were organized by people who found that working-class children required some form of discipline, and evening schools were established to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and catechism to the 'deserving' poor where enrollment was decided upon by visits with parents, nominations from subscribers, and individual student applications.
The Sunday school also developed into a hub of social interaction for a class of children and parents who were rapidly moving away from small, close-knit, rural communities to large, over-populated, urban centers where catechism could be preached and taught to a population that, until that time, only learned it via a rote memorization system. As the ‘schools’ gained in popularity and effectiveness, the churches started to actively provide them with facilities and finances, giving them a tighter control over their management and curriculum.
The only formalized moral instruction I’ve encountered in public schools is based primarily upon the universally recognized ‘golden rule’ and not a specified or state sponsored religious belief. Private and parochial schools, as well as home schools, however, are different and have the latitude to espouse whatever moral instruction they choose to adopt for their curriculum.
Not going to dispute any of this.
Just wanted to get your take on the Prussian model and whether public systems are designed to benefit the state.
Perhaps the desire and design of the American system (which is similar to but quite different from the model found in Germany which remains much closer to the original Prussian methodology) is to benefit both, not merely one or the other.
However, YMMV.
Richard :munchin
Benefit both?
Perhaps that was the desire and design.
But what happens when the interests of the state and the individual are in conflict in a government school?
We know who ultimately yields.
RE Post #31 - good points - and I agree wholeheartedly with the 'he who controls the purse strings controls the household' issues afflicting education today and in the near term. That was always an issue with us in the private school world and the main reason we refused to accept government (federal, state, local) funding of any sort.
FWIW - the BRD is in the process of looking to revise their current version of the 'Prussian Model' of education and looking at the American model as a guide which - in their eyes - lends itself to continually fostering levels of creativity and originality the BRD is seeking and cannot seem to achieve.
And sso it goes...
Richard :munchin