| BookTalk.org News |
| Have you ordered your copy of our next books? |
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Dissident Heart 
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1515
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Why: I don't think the students who aspire to become cashiers at Barnes and Noble are really suffering from any deficiency in the education system as it is currently being offered. |
I think they are, but that is because I think the current system (in amny ways) is geared to provide deficient skills and values to the majority of its students: because the dominant economic model requires a mass of deficiently skilled, disposable people.
| Quote: |
| Why: But for those who would aspire to become more but have no hope because a secondary education is out of reach, how much do you really think they are going to get out of their public education? |
I think if Public Education provides meaningful skills and knowledge in ways that make immediate differences in the lives of Students, then they will be hopeful regarding their lifetime of learning...whether that involves the academy or not. They will discover that learning is not relegated to classrooms, and that a curious, investigative, critical and imaginative approach to living is far more valuable than most degrees that hang on walls. I think this kind of curiosity and imaginative critical thinking can and should be inculcated in Public Education. I think it makes the biggest difference where it most impacts the immediate lives of Students. From these points of immediacy, Students can project a future of potential learning opportunities: thus, becoming hopeful that learning is worth the time and trouble...again, whether in the Academy or not.
But, as you point out later on, the Academy and University Education is a major business operation: thus it clearly reflects the interests of the dominant economic system from which it receives funding, and towards which it provides a layer of coordinators and managerial class.
Using Public Education to simply prepare for Academy is sacrifcing our next generations to a failed economic system.
| Quote: |
| Why: There isn't a sense anymore that a child can grow up to be anything they want to be. |
I'm not so sure this has ever been the case for the majority of Students in Public Education. For most, it has been a matter of doing as well as your Parents did, or maybe a little better off. For the few elite economic classes, of course the world is their oyster! But, actually, they too have been trapped within an economic system that has severely limited their options and truncated their vision.
| Quote: |
| Why: As long as access is limited by affordability, it is going to be more and more difficult for this country to compete in areas that do require a significant education, i.e., science and technology. |
I think Public Education should address technology and science in ways that directly impact the immediate lives of Students: the food they eat, the water they drink, the air they breathe, the entertainment they enjoy, the transportation they utilize, etc. I think this kind of immediacy will prepare Students to better live in the world: meaning more ecologically sanely...which is far more important, in my opinion, than being able to compete in a global market.
| Quote: |
| MA: "Many" obscures the fact that I mean intrinsically inadequate. |
Fine. I disagree.
| Quote: |
| MA: I think they're only justified by whatever potential they may have to outfit the student for the sort of society in which they can expect to live. Once they've acclimated themselves to a reasonably well-informed sense of what society is, they can go about figuring out whether or not they can tolerate that society. |
And, how do we determine "the sort of society which they can expect to live"? From who's perspective, according to what values and agendas? I think they can expect to live in a terribly violent society full of major climatic and social upheaval. I think you agree. If you are interested in equipping them with tools with which to survive in that society, then survival requires substantial change. I think they have the right to say "You know what, I don't give two shits about the world going to hell in a handbasket". But I don't think Public Education is responsible if it provides a curriculum that doesn't challenge them to try to change the ruinous course and repair the damage all around them. I think Public Education betrays its Students if it avoids the terrible future that awaits all of us. This is not apocalyptic yahoo, or personal ideology: it is "reasonably well-informed sense" of the world they are inheriting.
| Quote: |
Me: I would rather we seek the values and skills we want, knowing full well the danger- then settle for values we know won't make any difference.
MA: I'm all for that. I just don't think it's fair to make your kids do it for you. |
I do not see the Classroom or Public Education as a value-free zone. Teachers are presenting and endorsing values constantly, both implicitly and explicitly. Nowhere am I saying that Students should seek or endorse the values of their Teachers. I think solidarity between Teacher and Student requires a discussion of values, and a common bond around at least the value that the Teacher places in the well-being of the Student. If the Student knows the Teacher values her well-being, then a great step toward genuine learning is taken. Showing that kind of value requires taking seriously the threats that confront the world of the Student. Classroom time and Curriculum should reflect this seriousness.
Last edited by Dissident Heart on Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dissident Heart wrote: |
| And, how do we determine "the sort of society which they can expect to live"? |
Making sociological and anthropological research a component of the panels that determine the needs and solutions of a curriculum are a pretty good way to inform that groups that make curriculum decisions of what kind of world students are likely to face. It's certainly a step better than having physicists draft a physics curriculum based on the expectation that the student studying physics will one day work in that field.
| Quote: |
| I think they can expect to live in a terribly violent society full of major climatic and social upheaval. |
A lot of them can, yes. Just about all of them can expect to live in a society governed by a particular system with a particular set of guiding principles, and the effect of the government need not be "terribly violent" or as dramatic as the picture you've painted to warrant giving students a better set of tools for interacting within it.
| Quote: |
| But I don't think Public Education is responsible if it provides a curriculum that doesn't challenge them to try to change the ruinous course and repair the damage all around them. |
Why have you decided that public education (again, what's with all the capital letters? I notice you've started capitalizing "parents" and "students" as well) ought to be responsible for those specific things? Is it simply that public education ought to be responsible for whatever it is you care about? Why not entrust those issues to institutions that are more capable of transmitting without distortion or compromise those values? The way you talk, it's as though public education were the only stop-gap measure keeping us from toppling straight into hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1515
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| MA: Making sociological and anthropological research a component of the panels that determine the needs and solutions of a curriculum are a pretty good way to inform that groups that make curriculum decisions of what kind of world students are likely to face. |
I think this is an excellent idea. But I don't think we avoid the fact that the tools of sociology and anthropology are value laden, as are the sociologists and anthropologists who engage these crafts within these fields. Should the anthropologist offer examples of economic and political systems that run contrary to the dominant model: or simply supply data that shows there is no alternative to neo-liberal global capitalism? Should the sociologist begin with the wealthiest classes, the struggling middle income folk, or in the slums when defining kinship norms, gender relationships, health care practices, dietary habits? Should they avoid actual examples altogether, simply discussing the theoretical, or engage particular communities in concrete settings?
I think the Students and the Teachers are also equipped to describe what is happening in the world around them. I think these two bodies of experience should not be overlooked or simply relegated to supplemental info, leaving the experts to tell us which way the wind blows. I think training students in the crafts of anthropology and sociology would be an excellent step towards equipping them to thrive in the world they inherit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1515
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| MA: Just about all of them can expect to live in a society governed by a particular system with a particular set of guiding principles, and the effect of the government need not be "terribly violent" or as dramatic as the picture you've painted to warrant giving students a better set of tools for interacting within it. |
I think social systems are composed of conflicting values and institutions, where some dominate and others struggle (all struggle) to survive: but none are in a position to claim tantamount allegience or settled adherence. I think there are conflicts between economic classes, gender roles, and generations; as well as cultral differences and ethnic strife that compose a far more volatile and unsettled society than you seem willing to admit. I think surviving in this world is dramatic and often violent. The Public Arena reflects this volatility, and if Public Education is to have any merit in that world, it needs to provide tools for navigating those troubled waters...and even changing course as needed.
| Quote: |
| MA: Why have you decided that public education ought to be responsible for those specific things? |
I think Public Education should equip Students for thriving in the Public Arena. The Public Arena includes the elements I've described. I do not think they are passing concerns for a small minority of particularly interested like-minded people: I think they pose threats to the quality of life and outright survivial of all Students, the Public, hell- the entire Biosphere as well.
| Quote: |
| MA: Is it simply that public education ought to be responsible for whatever it is you care about? |
Public Education is about caring for the next generation. It is also about caring for the Public Arena. Students will thrive under the tutelage of Teachers who care about them: and can show how this caring is translated into immediate applications that make a difference in the lives of the Students. I care about the issues I am raising in this thread. I suspect any body who cares about Public Education will care about the kinds of things discussed and experimented upon in Classrooms.
| Quote: |
| MA: Why not entrust those issues to institutions that are more capable of transmitting without distortion or compromise those values? |
Any institution is subject to compromising the ideals and values it professes to uphold. All are subject to distortion and betrayal and, well, any number of human, all-too human failings. I am trying to describe a Public Education system that reflects values I think worthy of implementation. I am hardly alone, nor are my concerns about the precarious and dangerous state of current affairs simply my own quirky quixotic delusion. Maybe you can describe what institutions are more adept at bringing the Public together around issues concerning how to care for the next generation, and how these can avoid the kinds of distortion and compromise you see as inherent in Public Education?
M
| Quote: |
| A: The way you talk, it's as though public education were the only stop-gap measure keeping us from toppling straight into hell. |
It may be too late for avoiding that, and there are multiple places across the planet where hell is very appropriate term for the state of affairs.  Public Education, I think, can be a crucial component in constructing a Public Arena worthy of great care and sacrifice. It is not the only ingredient, but it cannot be avoided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dissident Heart wrote: |
| I think there are conflicts between economic classes, gender roles, and generations; as well as cultral differences and ethnic strife that compose a far more volatile and unsettled society than you seem willing to admit. |
Have I claimed that our society isn't volatile and unsettled? My concern is that if our public education system places a higher premium on the results of those "volatile and unsettled" aspects, it may short change its students when it comes to those quiet and totally mundane ways in which they can easily lose grip on whatever happiness and bearing society affords.
| I wrote: |
| Why have you decided that public education ought to be responsible for those specific things? |
| DH wrote: |
| I think Public Education should equip Students for thriving in the Public Arena. The Public Arena includes the elements I've described. |
Reiterating that you think that ought to be the case does nil to explain why you think so, which is what I asked in the first place. Presumably it is susceptible of explanation and/or elucidation. Presumably. Otherwise, I'm not sure anything can save this thread from the sheer tedium of hearing "I think... I think... I think..." at every turn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Oops. Repost.
Last edited by MadArchitect on Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1515
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why: I don't think the students who aspire to become cashiers at Barnes and Noble are really suffering from any deficiency in the education system as it is currently being offered. |
How do you think Public Education should adress the issue of aspiration in its Students? When and how is it appropriate to utilize, tap into, or build upon Student aspiration: should it be encouraged, challenged, or simply ignored?
I think aspiration is a powerful motivator, certainly not infallible, but it can be something that pushes a Student onward and pulls them up and out of circumstances they can and must change. What a Student aspires to can be linked to what a Teacher aspires to, as well as a School as a whole: this linkage of aspiration can be the adhesive needed to create solidarity in the struggle for something worthy of sacrifice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seeker
I can enter The Chamber
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Dissident Heart wrote:
| Quote: |
| How do you think Public Education should adress the issue of aspiration in its Students? When and how is it appropriate to utilize, tap into, or build upon Student aspiration: should it be encouraged, challenged, or simply ignored? |
I recently heard a talk by the Dean of Students of the local branch of the state university that focused on students entering college later in life. One of the stories was about a student who returned to college because a former high school teacher, at a chance meeting, told him that he was smart enough to go to college. He went on to get a master's degree. Another story was about a female student whose husband told her, after her first year, that it was a choice between him and school. She chose school. I had somewhat forgotten the dramatic impact a liberal education can have. It is hugely motivating and empowering. We should never underestimate the ability of the human mind to seize knowledge and make it a door to freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1515
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| seeker: I had somewhat forgotten the dramatic impact a liberal education can have. It is hugely motivating and empowering. |
Could you elaborate more about liberal education? What makes it liberal, and what do people look like who receive a liberal education: i.e., how do they engage the public arena?
How should Public Schools engage a liberal education for its young and developing students?
For me, a liberal education is training for freedom and an education in liberty. Sounds corny, perhaps, but it is an examination of ideas and skills that protect individual rights and promote the general welfare. I think it is motivating because it encourages students to imagine a world worth living in and prompts them to make it real. It is a challenge to tyrants and despots everywhere, and good news to those oppressed and kept apart from knowledge and tools that can change their world. I think liberal education is about changing the world: attaining the good society by telling the truth about those who oppose individual liberty and reject the general welfare. It is an attempt to beautify self and society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
