Slashdot Mirror
The Underground History of American Education
The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.
Over the course of the book, Gatto exposes many of the individuals, organizations, and crises (both real and manufactured) that helped to make our public school system what it is today. Such architects as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and a handful of teaching and management experts sought to benefit directly from a dumbed-down citizenry. Others contributed in a naive attempt at Utopian social engineering, mostly unaware of the harm that they were doing. There was never any master plan, though. The author puts it best:
With conspiracy so close to the surface of the American imagination and American reality, I can only approach with trepidation the task of discouraging you in advance from thinking my book the chronicle of some vast diabolical conspiracy to seize all our children for the personal ends of a small, elite minority.Gatto maintains throughout the book that all individuals have an innate curiosity and desire to learn. Examples are given in the first chapter of prominent historical figures who prospered with little or no formal schooling. But I found the examples of desire for substantive education on the part of "the masses" to be most compelling:Don't get me wrong, American schooling has been replete with chicanery from its very beginnings: indeed, it isn't difficult to find various conspirators boasting in public about what they pulled off. But if you take that tack you'll miss the real horror of what I'm trying to describe, that what has happened to our schools was inherent in the original design for a planned economy and a planned society laid down so proudly at the end of the nineteenth century. I think what happened would have happened anyway-without the legions of venal, half-mad men and women who schemed so hard to make it as it is. If I'm correct, we're in a much worse position than we would be if we were merely victims of an evil genius or two.
When a Colorado coalminer testified before authorities in 1871 that eight hours underground was long enough for any man because "he has no time to improve his intellect if he works more," the coaldigger could hardly have realized his very deficiency was value added to the market equation.The real function of the school system is not to empower people by giving them knowledge, but to crush this instinct toward self-improvement before it makes the workers too independent and troublesome. Another compelling example is the "Jewish Student Riots" described in chapter 9:
Thousands of mothers milled around schools in Yorkville, a German immigrant section, and in East Harlem, complaining angrily that their children had been put on "half-rations" of education. They meant that mental exercise had been removed from the center of things.
The book does have a few problems. Gatto is by his own admission somewhat casual about citing his sources. This is important because there are some assertions made that many will find dubious. For example:
Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered.This would be a great fact to toss out when trying to convince someone that schooling is unnecessary. But where does this statistic come from? What does "wherever such a thing mattered" mean? Some readers may be willing to simply take Gatto's word for it and accept this assertion, but skeptics will be left unsatisfied. According to historical census data from 1840, the national average literacy rate for white adults was indeed approximately 93%, and the literacy rate for white adults living in Connecticut was 99.67%. Why not simply say that the statistic refers to white adults? The omission hurts the author's credibility in the eyes of a skeptical reader.
The other thing that I found disappointing is that Gatto doesn't discuss solutions to the schooling problem as thoroughly as I wanted. Throughout the book examples are shown of educational methods which have worked well. As I read, I mulled these over, and anticipated that the final chapter (titled "Breaking Out Of The Trap") would be a comprehensive look at these methods and ways to promote their implementation. But that final chapter is mostly a collection of anecdotes. Gatto does provide a short list of positive suggestions and a promise to cover solutions more fully in a future book.
The picture that Gatto paints for us of our school system and society is frightening, but I also found it comforting to see evidence that ignorance and apathy are not the natural state of humanity. I found hope in the fact that things were once different. Having a clearly defined problem that can be solved is preferable to having a vague suspicion that something is wrong, but no clear idea what it is.
The ideas presented in Gatto's Underground History have the potential to change our society and our individual lives for the better. Even when we are trapped within the system, knowing how it works and what it is really up to can help us retain our wit and our humanity. If you are a student, if you are a parent, if you know or care about anyone who is in school, or even if you are just concerned about corporate and government control versus individual freedom, you need to read this book.
You can purchase The Underground History of American Education from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
it's no wonder he's written a tell-all book. Those who take the Vow of Poverty need to make a buck.
First, the education system here is based on some industrial-conformity training system devised by industrialists in the 1800s, or therabouts.
It is not really natural or right for kids of a certain age to be sitting in a desk all day. Boys especially need to have a break at certain stages of their growth, usually about 13-15 yo, when they should be sent away from home to some sort of boarding school/military school/vocational school arrangement, at least for a time. It all depends on the kid.
Once again, Europe has us beat in this area. Just do what the most advanced countries in Europe do, and it will undoubtedly be twice as good as what we do.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Fans of Daniel Quinn should take note that this very idea has been around in both Ishmael and The Story of B. Our educational system isn't designed for learning, per se, but to train kids to be proper working adults, and to make sure they know how life "really works" in our culture.
There are always exceptions to the rule -- you will always find a teacher willing to go the extra mile, or a student who rises far above the rest. Mediocrity reigns in the American public school system, and it isn't going to change any time soon.
- oZ
// i am here.
homeschool
Children should be with their parents and extended family. Having transient adult figures isn't the way to be raised.
Children shouldn't spend all day with their human contact being dominated by others of exactly the same age. A child should have contact with a wide range of age groups.
Children should be being taught by example.
Children should learn the values needed to want to learn and understand the reasons why they should. Passing an exam doesn't make a person a good person, nor productive, nor creative, nor caring.
The longer a modern education system is present in a society, the more the society dies.
I have been railing against the mis-use of the university system in North America for years. It is no longer about learning, but memorizing, cheating and begging to get a 'grade' so you can get a job. It's a system designed to keep young people out of the work force (because work is mostly illusory these days anyways) , to keep them in debt and create a class of permanent woker/paupers with the illusion of being 'educated'.
So they can get ready to compete against each other to curry favor with the dominant monkeys instead of enjoying life.
My mother is a school librarian in NY and she has told me how Bush's current plan means that teachers teach tests instead of lessons, but I agree with this guy; it seems evident that the school system was designed to make quasi-educated, but more importantly obedient factory workers. You want your workers to be able to read instructions, etc, but not much more; not think on their feet or anything. Its the only explanation for the disparity between college and primary school; and now that everyone is going to college, it's becoming the difference between a masters and a bachelors.
A quick intro to the ideas explained at length in the book may be found at The Six Lesson Schoolteacher, from an article by Gatto published in Whole Earth Review in 1991.
I also recall seeing this recently, but I think it was over at k5, not here.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Please mod this nonsense down. The author did not claim that "religion" in schools was a problem, he claimed that the school IS A RELIGION!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I haven't read Gatto's book (though I should). I do have a recommendation for a similar work though: James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me". It doesn't take on the whole education system (it's American history specific), but he does show at length that American history is deliberately taught in a way that discourages critical thought, heroizes the government, and suppresses historical dissent. Great read. Now I have to read the book actually reviewed...
If you've worked with little kids, one of the first things you notice is that almost every single one of them really, really wants to learn.
But somehow, during about K-4th grade, most of the kids in the US educational system seem to have that crushed out of them.
Personally, I don't think the schools are wholly to blame. Quite a lot of it is cultural. Kids learn early -- from TV, from movies, and even from books -- that it's cool to be ignorant, it's cool to be a wiseass, but it's never cool to be a nerd.
This is so on-point it's frightening. I was a high school teacher in Los Angeles from 2000-2001, and it's frightening how much of what is articulated in this exerpt I *experienced*.
We had a principal who was fantastic, because he was a former teacher from the area. But when he was replaced by someone with more "administrative experience" it was appalling how quickly things declined. Children aren't held to standards, parents come at odds with teachers, administrators point the finger at teachers, and the children are the ones left out in the cold.
In just one year there, I was chastised for
1) Driving students home to bad neighborhoods after dark.
2) Creating an extra-curricular dance program that "interfered" with the students curriculum.
3) Attempting to engage students with "dangerous" science demonstrations (i.e. using a bunsen burner constitutes dangerous, using 1 Tesla Magnets constitutes dangerous.)
4) Breaking up a fight with my bare hands (I was chastised for "laying my hands" upon the students.)
The list goes on. I truly believe that the entire system needs reform, from the bottom up and the top down. But without involved parents, administrators who take full responsibility, students who are forced to live with their choices instead of having excuses made for them, and up to date equipment and books, it truly is a lost cause except for the few self-motivated students.
I could agree with this, were my school more like a trade school, which it wasn't. Most of my elementary and later teachers actually encouraged some level of independent thinking and creativity -- others were often astounded whenever a student thought of 'the third way' One particularly poor teacher, 2nd grade, seemed only there for the money or until she could get somewhere else -- I was frequently on her bad side and grew to loathe school, prefering to be tardy by as much as 2 hours roaming woods and poking around a creek for frogs and snakes.
I'm more likely to believe the role of schools in NYC was to keep the little animals manageable by compressing their little minds into a one-size-fits-all mould.
I'd later find I had a very high IQ and did exceptionally well in college, after graduating highschool only by the merest of threads.
If you have a kid and your kid seems disinterested or hostile about going to school, you might consider getting more involved and learn about the teacher and the school. At an early age contending with a poor teacher can have a lifelong impact.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
SINCE THE MODERATORS SAW IT FIT TO MOD DOWN MY ORIGINAL POST, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN:
Please mod the parent post down! The author did not claim that "religion" in schools was a problem, he claimed that the school IS A RELIGION.
This time with a +2 modifier so it gets heard.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The sooner we get an education system which does not teach religion or political or patriotic based material the better.
What school system are you referring to? Not the US school system clearly, a system where highschool religion classes exclude Christianity, where political science teachers worship europe, and where students are told that if the US were to vanish in a instance the world would be fine again in a month or two (a subject I once had a heated debate with my AP US History teacher about)
Come on now. Yes I know there are some school districts across the country that may also teach creationism as well as evolution, but those are clearly not the norm by any means.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
This isn't going to happen as long as educational curricula are based upon textbook teachings. As Diane Ravitch chronicled in her poignant bestseller The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, there are many lobby forces at work that keep textbook publishers from making sales to school districts if they don't fit the group's agenda. This includes references to multiculturalism from the left, and patriotic propaganda from the right, both of which are not only prevalent but pervasive in American education. There will be no end.
Interesting ideas.
My problem with current education is the ridiculous "leave no child behind" mentality. We don't need to send all these people to college. Let's be realistic about that and send some of them on the path to a meaningful trade. High school is all "college college college", and as a result, lots of kids get NOTHING out of it (and a bad side effect is that college is becoming the new high school with an influx of immature students). So, my proposed Triage:
Kids who want to go to college.
Kids who want to learn a trade skill.
Punks who are on their way to prison. Priority #1 is separating this group from the first two.
Not teaching religion, political or patriotic material is in itself a religious/politic/patriotic decision. Gatto's point is that people should be driven to learn what they want to learn --- almost in the fashion of Montessori.
I take issue on your points.
Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.
Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.
Lasly, patriotism is a vague term that is largely misused by the right to imply that you should be doing what they say. Patriotism itself is not inherently a bad thing and can pull people in a nation together. However, through education on varying political and religious systems, as well as through education that teaches the people to think on a global scale, we can both be proud of the nation we reside in (for it truly is still great, imo) and yet also be conscious and aware of other nations' desires, beliefs and rights.
Outside of the most ardent libertarians no one is seriously talking about chunking the one tax funded public institution which is literally the closest with local school boards to the electorate, the public school system.
So for a public school system to survive what do we as a society need to do?
Are voucher systems somehow the silver bullet or does that simply stretch public funds to private hands and further deplete the money to be spent on public education?
Or perhaps what does real accountability mean? Or does it just mean more teaching to the tests?
Is it the teachers fault or does society blame the teachers too much?
What can we do?
ACK
The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.
To anyone interested in this topic, I'd suggest also reading Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America . It'll make you want to homeschool your kids.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Gatto's got it almost right, and has a lot of good ideas. Like having kids work from 14 on.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Caveat: I did not read the whole book, just browsed through the online pages. However, this seems like a classic example of the "hasty generalization" fallacy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/hasty%2 0generalization). The author extrapolates his personal experiences and assumes that they are representative of the whole nation's school system, weaving a conspiracy theory through it to further sensationalize it.
First of all, there is no "national school system" in the United States. Each state is responsible for public education within its own borders. I don't know about New York, but at least in Colorado, the situation is nowhere close to that described in his prologue. If a Colorado administrator had subjected a student to the verbal abuse described there, they would be subject to disciplinary action at the least, and possibly termination.
I know that education in the United States is not perfect. There are many areas that desparately need improvment, especially science and math education, but hysterical diatribes such as these do little to advance the dialogue and only serve to inflame the True Believers.
No, the full text is not available (as far as I can tell). From this page:
Each month we will post a new chapter on this Web site. If you are patient, in 18 months you will have read the book in its entirety.
Maybe a moderator would like to challenge the content of my post instead of modding down? Hmm? Here is my source, directly from the book. And I quote:
School is a religion. Without understanding the holy mission aspect you're certain to misperceive what takes place as a result of human stupidity or venality or even class warfare. All are present in the equation, it's just that none of these matter very much--even without them school would move in the same direction.
Anyone who has a problem with religions (ANY religions) being discussed in school is not someone who can be educated. Whether you like it or not, Christianity, Muslim, Jewish, Greek Mythology, Buddism, and other religions all have played a strong part in history.
So get it right, will you?!? The author said "school is a religion", not "school has too much Christianity".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Teach someone to think, and they can figure out Powerpoint and Word. Teach someone Powerpoint and Word and you have an idiot who can't do anything else.
Every homeschooled person I've ever met have been crazy geniuses because they were taught how to think and reason. Of course, they are also socially inept as they didn't have to deal with masses of other children.
Keep the population stupid, and they will be more apt to eat up your propaganda. Ignorance is bliss.
This isn't going to happen as long as educational curricula are based upon textbook teachings.
More to the point, this isn't going to happen as long as schooling is tax-funded.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But seriously, large organizations have no single "true" purpose which determines their effect, but are composed of tens of thousands of people, who each have different goals. Much more important is what the people actually doing the work (all the teachers and principles, who actually interact with the children) are trying to do, what their purpose is. It's laughable that we are against "actual education".
Of course certain structural reforms could improve education. But to say that the true purpose of the American educational system is against education is silly.
It's odd though...
I went to all religious schooling, my whole life. Never set foot in a public school until I was 16 and went to take the SAT at a public school across town.
You can take a look around my area and notice that virtually every prominent civic, business, and social leader followed the same track as I did. Bank presidents, mayors, city politicans, state senators, our Congressperson, etc.
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
On top of that, we took students of all economic backgrounds, all racial backgrounds, and all religious backgrounds. The only discrimination at the time was that it was all-male.
The difference in my view? My teachers were either all Jesuit priests, all themselves educated by Jesuit priests, or at very least, dedicated to their style and manner of teaching.
I can't say exactly why the school does better than public education, but by all measures, it does. So many things are different: a student took a swing once in the cafeteria at our litterally ~75 year old WWII-era Marine vice-principal. After avoiding the attack with cat-like grace and precision, he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
Other differences? I can think of a few that might be relevant: strict dress code - pressed pants, starched shirt, suit-coat or blazer, appropriate tie, groomed hair, proper facial hair care (beards/goatees, etc allowed, but must be neat), authority of teachers, non-reproach of teachers on matter of discipline (example: teacher told student if he didn't stop interupting he'd be forced to stand the rest of the year instead of sitting. Result? Student stood for 2 months at the back of the room), required civics class, required ethics class, required religious education class (contrary to belief, it was not an evangelical style class; it was a serious study of religion; 1 year of scholarly biblical study, 1 semester of study of Jewish scripture, 1 semester stufy of world religion, 1 year study of non-religious spirituality, 1 year study of christianity), required public speaking classes, etc. Non-core non-liberal education topics were discouraged: minimal technology classes (typing, basic computing skills), minimal phys. ed, no vo-tech, etc.
Ohh well.
That's exactly what I'd expect. Our public school system grew out of the industrial revolution's need for people to have a minimum skill set and be regimented from an early age to follow a bell system. Ring. Lunch. Ring. Work. Ring. Leave.
Now that we're moving into a post industrial world (or that the industrial world is moving overseas) the regimenting is a bit less important and the skills taught have eroded to the point that McDonald's now has pictures of the food on the cash register instead of text.
The schools are great at producing people with stunted reasoning skills who can be content working at Wal Mart and make great consumers, and who vote (when they vote, if the system were perfect they wouldn't vote at all) based on emotion and often against their own interests.
There are some political parties who just can't afford to have an informed or educated electorate (hint: they tend to cut education spending and demonize teachers), and who's children never touch public school anyway.
-dameron
I think that the "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" essay by Paul Graham would also be appropriate here. Some people do try to learn and improve themselves, while others simply don't care or only want their piece of paper.
How many times have we heard about parents pushing for easier or non-existent teaching for their precious and sensitive whelps and yet demand that they "graduate" despite not learning a thing?
Ashamed to to say, I've seen this in my own family. A cousin of mine was coddled since he was born (hell he was in preschool an extra year, how fucked up is that?) by his relative caretakers (an aunt) after his mother died while he was a baby. Despite living in poverty, this person was spoiled continuously with toys. As I recall, he didn't stop playing with toys (complete Star Wars and He-Man collections, to name an example) till the 7th grade. Any attempts by the schools (throughout his schooling) to get him to learn or stay disciplined was met by a ferocious attack by his caretakers. Needless to say, he was socially promoted until he dropped out at 16.
He has worked a total of 2 weeks in his life (he is 32 now), in jobs given to him by relatives in an honest attempt to help, despite he not having training for anything. He quit them after complaining he was actually made to work, doing tasks as running sales money to the bank, etc. His caretakers were equally vehement in their condemnation of his kin/employer about their requirement he work for his money. To this day he subsists on $600 a month for diabetes disability, and will likely continue until he dies. For somone who has worked a grand total of 80 hours in his entire life, he has inexplicably owned more vehicles than I have. Last I heard, his aunt was saving up money to get him his latest toy, a truck, since he's never owned one.
...the public education system was very good to me. I'm a distinct individual who can operate independently and think for myself. The thought that I've been "bred" to be a "working stiff" in this U.S. economy is just a fabrica...
...Ooops, here comes my Boss. Gotta run....
Here's a clue for you. Teachers spend so much time preparing students to take tests (Ever hear of a political candidate saying they've got a better idea on making schools accountable through testing?) there's scant time to teach outside of a packaged program, let along politics or patriotism (and religion, that's a livewire in the local schools, don't touch it.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
His verdict is not what you'd expect: the school system cannot be fixed, Gatto asserts, because it has been designed not to educate.
I agree 100%.
The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.
Again, I agree, but I have one thing to add. The US education system also serves as a babysitter up through undergraduate degrees. Education also helps keep unemployment down, and in the case of "higher" education, people are out of the workforce and they are _paying_ into the economy.
And yeah, educated people are a pain in the ass for the "establishment". Try to get some menial "regular" job with a PhD. Who wants a person who is skilled in critical thinking and independant thought to ask people "Do you want to biggie size that?"
In fact, education is overexaggerated. I routinely ask people "What percentage of the population has a college degree?" And I routinely get answers about 50-60% while it has been 20% for a long time, and it is increasing. I don't remember what its at now, but nowhere near 50%.
I consider myself lucky in that I have done standard unskilled services work (convenience store clerk) and manual labor (landscaping and construction). I did construction when I was in college, and let me tell you, I felt very stupid for a month or so, even though I'm a good "booksmart" kind of guy. One skill I was really lacking was basic teamwork. Plus I did not know the vocabulary for the work, and basic stuff like using a level, plumbob, tape measure, etc.
The reasons that I don't have a problem with the education system not educating are twofold. 1) People don't need to be educated and 2) those few that do need educating and are bright will get it.
You can also see the role of being educated in our breeding habits. The more educated one is the fewer offspring they will have, and the inverse is true as well. Poor, uneducated people here in the US have tons off kids. Since kids when they are young are a liability, they tend to keep the poor poor. But one thing that I've noticed about the poor and their offspring, is that the children are more likely to take care of their parents when they are older. Whereas the wealthier/educated crowd are more independant in their old age because they do "smart" stuff like invest their money, have retirement funds, etc.
Comments?
The European system is even more overtly designed to train good little workers. In many countries, you have to pick a career by the time you're 16, and rather than receiving any sort of further general education, you at the age of 16 start receiving specialized education to train you for that job.
Same with higher education: whereas in the US people who want to be doctors get a general undergraduate degree, and then go to med school, in Europe they go straight to med school.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is one of those books you have to let percolate a bit before passing (negative) judgement against it; I first read the book just as I was getting my Master's degree and it is hard to come to grips with the idea of just how much of your life has been wasted by the system. A lot of you are still in school and the cognitive dissonance can still be bad for you.
And I was even one of those who would attack the schools on other grounds, mind; I was open to the idea it was flawed, hell, I knew it was flawed, but just how deeply and how deliberately sent me into shock.
Give it a try; more of my opinion in the above link, though I won't trouble Slashdot with it. Gatto really puts his case together well.
Also, I observe there are a lot of Slashdotters who reflexively assume home schooling is some sort of evil. Make sure you first satisfy yourself that the institutional schooling we now have is not itself a form of evil, perhaps even worse. Having read both sides of both issues, at this point I consider not home schooling borderline child abuse. Most of the homeschooling flaws pointed out by people, such as the ever popular (and unfounded in my experience) "lack of socialization" is correctable, with parental effort. The flaws in institutional schooling are not; indeed, they are assumed "beyond reproach". What amazes me about the human spirit is how many escape the system as I did without a crushed spirit, not how well it works.
One of the things forcibly impressed upon me from wasted years of "education" is the way school actively decieves you about the nature of the workplace.
Medical education is my latest nightmare. It fills the student with theory and visions of how things "should" be done, and informs them not at all regarding how things ARE done. Pity the poor medical student on their first hospital placement. The garbage colectors know more about what the score is than they do.
I've been out of public school for so long that I can't comment on how things are now, but higher education baby, that I can. What we have here is what I call Certification Syndrome. You aren't worth a damn to anyone unless you are Certified in some subject or other. Like a Certified Microsoft Engineer has a clue why XP screws up on one PC but not another.
The unholy alliance of lazy large busineses looking for replaceable cogs and schools willing to crank them out is what we have these days. Unfortunately people trained to be good little cogs don't do great things. Bill Gates for example is not a good little cog. Bill doesn't have a CME either, I bet.
Bottom line, if you want to be educated instead of trained, you have to WORK your ass off at it. Same for your kids. Teach them how to think, give them the tools of rationality or put up with them when they become Radical Vegan Socialists for Peace with a CME or an MD. Because that's what's fashionable at school this decade.
Next decade it'll probably be Radical Christian Conservatives For War. I don't see that as an improvement. You got a brain, you should get some decent software for it. God forbid you should have an origional thought.
I work in education, and never has a truer article come along in my memory. Schools are not here for teaching students; they have become self-perpetuating job-producers for people unable or unwilling to pursue "hard" jobs. Incompetent teachers are protected by unions and simultaneously given raises just for existing. Billions of dollars are poured down the drains of "technology" and "special education" with little or no accounting and rationale for them. In short, though, you will never change the system now. It is too entrenched. Much like the governmental system in general, it now feeds off itself. Try to run for President saying that you will dismantle the Education system...it's similar to saying you're going to get rid of Social Security. It is so entrenched in society's collective mind that it will never change without a revolution.
It's not just the format of American education that's the problem, it's the content and the objective.
I think of American public schools like I think of American prisons. We really haven't figured out if we want to help the inhabitants improve, or babysit them to keep them from hurting others or themselves, and so far, we've done a shitty job of both.
But perhaps that's oversimplified. There are many different pieces that join together to form the whole problem.
1) Teachers - underpaid, underappreciated, and undertalented. We need to train, pay, and expect the best from teachers, and treat them with the respect and admiration deserving of the people who nurture the minds and interests of the next generation, because they are.
2) Parents - underinvolved and unwilling to do their part. It used to be that if you got in trouble at school, it was nothing compared to the trouble that you'd get into when you got home. Conversely, parents used to be much more active and supportive of their children's education, and "active" is not defined by putting pithy stickers on the minivan.
3) Students - "some children left behind." The hardest problem is that we have the mindset that school has a plethora of solutions for children with problems. It doesn't. Those places would be called "juvenile hall" or "psychiatric ward." Some students are going to misbehave, cause trouble, underperform, or fail, and we should let them. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, and you don't get increasing results by applying declining standards.
School was pretty boring and unchallenging for me, but it wasn't miserable. It seems like it's heading that way, though.
In the end, we get what we (as a market) ask for. If you think our system sucks, look at yourself and your neighbors to find the reason, not to some silly conspiracy.
What's up with your rants and who are you ranting against? The guys you're ranting against seem like they never mentioned anything about teaching about religions or discussing religions.
The original poster said:
The sooner we get an education system which does not teach religion or political or patriotic based material the better.
Which was not the point of the author. The author's point was that school IS a religion, based around social-compliance. Now the mods have seen fit to completely ruin a possibly good discussion by modding up unsubstantiated drivel that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
For pointing this out, I've lost about 5 points or so in karma. I'd lose another 50 if I thought it would help.
As for the distinction of teaching religion vs. practicing religion in school, I don't remember any public schools in the past thirty years requiring students to get down and pray. This leaves nothing but a discussion of a topic of very real import to life on this planet. No, I don't think teachers should shove any religion down childrens throats (that would be wrong), but how can you shy away from discussing it? This is supposedly a country of tolerance for all customs and religions! Where's the tolerance from the average slashdotter?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I set up a mirror here, from my "offline reading" copy. Please use the main site when it comes back up.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
The other point about religion, politics and patriotism is that much of the world's history is based on some combination of these. It would be difficult to foresee the future and its direction without a clear understanding of the past.
Karma: Neutered
A couple of points came to mind. First, literacy today is much different than in the 19th century. There's just more sources of knowledge, more types of knowledge, hell, just more stuff period.
To argue that "hey, people were okay" back then without formal schooling leaves some questions open. Imagine what TV would do to people from the 19th century, and you see what I'm driving at here.
Also, firstly, I like the notion that the role of "socialization" is uniformly a bad thing. Frankly, I don't think America has a problem with people being overly conformist yet (compare us to say, China). I still see plenty of signs that free thinking is still pretty common here.
In fact, sometimes I think focus on the "be yourself, whatever it takes" vs. "be nice to others and get along". Not that has to be a conflict, but it often is.
Finally, there is a terrible Catch-22 in education. Teaching is not an honored profession. The pay reflects that. So, we need to increase the social and economic status of teachers.
But the problem is that many professional teaching associations protect too many bad teachers. There are many states in which it is almost impossible to fire a teacher after he/she has taught for two years.
The profession has to look seriously at itself and get over the view that all teachers are saints. There are truly great teachers, but there are truly bad teachers, and as long as they are seen as equals, then we will be stuck with suboptimal education.
For me, the teachers are the key. A good teacher can overcome amazing obstacles, and a bad teacher can spoil the best of resources.
If the kids had the time, a lot of American curriculum is focused on memorization and facts not analysis and critique. I remember seeing a comparision of European math and science school books compared to American schoolbooks on the same subject (Algebra vs Algebra. Chemistry vs Chemistry). The European schoolbooks were 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the Americans yet Europeans generally score better in math and science. The difference was that the European books emphasized theory, analysis, and techniques and not graphics and exercises.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I think this is the real principle behind your school's success (and other schools like it): the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education as a value.
This is the fundamental difference between such schools and public schooling, no matter what school board members, teachers, administrators, and teacher college PhD's say to the contrary. Learning and education is not valued in the public school culture.
In non-government schools, kids are there first and foremost because their parents care enough about education to spare the money for it. Moreover, every student's place in that school is conditional: fuck up, and you're out!
There are good teachers, good students, and good books in both government and non-government schools. The fundamental difference (that makes all the difference) is the above. Promote the value of education, and the work is half done.
This will not happen in American public schools, except for rare exceptions. Government schools in America cater to discipline problem students, half-idiot students, and every half-baked educational fad that comes out of the ivory tower. Apart from the good students, good teachers, and good ideas that happen to make it in through the doors, the public schools are a dumping ground.
For what it's worth, I went through graduate school, earning an M.A. in education and currently substitute teach in several districts. I'm familiar with what goes on.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Mods:
Please mod up posts with low moderation scores so we may be inclusive of slashdotters with greater challenges. Now lets all group-hug without actually touching each other.
So as to not keep you guessing, I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. You said your school took all economic backgrounds - but what was the breakdown, and how "low" on the economic ladder? At my public high school, about 66% of the students were on free or reduced lunch. (I was on my newspaper and I crunched the numbers one time.) Our school was also not, in general, a bastion of academic achievemnt.
For standardized tests like the SATs, there's a strong correlation between performance and household income.
Oh, and if someone at my school had physically attacked our principal in the cafeteria, the administrators would have restrained the kid very quickly, and the kid would have been expelled. It wouldn't have been instantaneous like in your school, but it certainly would have happened.
("Free or reduced lunch" means the kid's guardians have an income low enough that the state is willing to sell lunch to him/her for a reduced price or free.)
I also know a teacher who is constantly fighting with the school system to let the students learn, rather than follow the party line.
Background: My sister's original motivation for home schooling was to avoid some of the unfiltered acceptance of life-styles of which she disapproves. Also her expectation that the standard industrial schooling process would label her second child, a very energetic boy as having attention-deficit disorder and get "treated". I was pretty well concerned by this approach that my sister wanted to take. In the fullness of time, the positives of learning, self-confidence and genuine critical thinking will allow the children to become strong contributors to our society, probably a bit conservative but not rabidly dogmatic followers of some party line.
Schools are not about teaching. They are about money. School teachers have been weeded out of administration by politicians who campaign for money.
When have you heard, "We have enough money to get a good education for our students this year." ???
You will never hear anyone associated with education say those words.
But you will hear, "Our scores would be better if we had more money."
Kids are taught from an early age to equate money with education. They will not say, "You can't get a good education because there isn't enough money."
They will say: "Tell your parents to vote for the tax levy because we need a new $56 million dollar building, otherwise, you will not get a good education." Or, "We want to buy new _____ so they can learn better."
Kids equate money with education.
They're taught that school teachers don't make much money.
They need new textbooks, and textbooks cost a lot of money.
Money is the problem. "We need to cancel music or art because we don't have any money."
The truth is, there will never be enough money in the universe for education. "We need to close a few schools because we don't have any money."
Money solves all problems. "If we paid more money, we would attract better teachers."
Administrators pass this stuff down to the teachers, the school board, and the newspapers.
Teachers pass it to the kids. They send notes home to the parents.
With all this talking and crying about money, no one gets an education. Teacher unions are squarely focused on money. They have no concern over quality education. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If quality came into play, then teachers would be judged, and unions don't want teachers to be judged.
Another common statement, "We need new books."
I hate to say it, but math hasn't changed much. Neither has reading or writing. Yet every year, the textbook gets a new revision, teachers simply have to have it to "stay current." Good teachers are weeded out of administration to be replaced by politicians who can campaign for budget.
-- No sig for you!
Someone please mod the parent up. He's making a very good point that is worth listening to. Let's consider for a moment, that maybe the solution to schooling is not to remove religion, but to open the floodgates to all beliefs. Isn't that what this country is based on?
As a matter of disclosure, I am not a fan of the Jesuits or their teachings. Yet that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell the parent poster to shut up. He has his beliefs, I have mine, and every other slashdotter has theirs. To misuse authority and powers given to you to silence those that disagree, is petty.
Again, please mod the parent up for making a well thought out point based on very real and observable effects.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.
Among the religions we treat equally must also be atheism: we cannot encourage religion per se any more than we can encourage one religion over others.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Wow, great post, but I'm out of mod points.
In the high school I went to 20+ years ago, a small county school, we did indeed have teachers who were way out of line in promoting religion (at least two science teachers who didn't believe in evolution), blind patriotism (two total ignoramous history teachers who knew nothing of history, but proceeded to tell us that the United States was God's own chosen land and could do no wrong). But, you know what? The majority of the students hated these teachers and scoffed at everything they said.
Now, my wife teaches as a large city school that fits more closely with the model described by the parent post and I hope that a majority of the students approach the material with the same degree of skepticism. My two kid's teachers in elementary and middle school are a mixed bag, idealogy wise, but they seems to average out and, most importantly, promote thinking. Of course, we moved across town to pick the schools our kids go to as they are among the top 5 or 10 in the state.
The trouble with extremes on either side is that, most often, the truth and real life lie somewhere in the middle.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. I can guarantee you not. The schools mandate was to serve the underprivelaged. Most kids were (1) first or second generation immigrants, (2) children of poor catholics, (3) children of large families (for example, I have 5 siblings, my best friend had 8!).
We had no "free" or "reduced" lunch; our cafeteria was pay only or brown bag. I think the economic factor is off base. I know when I was there we were spending $8,000 per student while the public high-schools in towns were spending $12,000. (And just so you know, because I asked this when I was told, the indentured teachers - aka priests - were paid a full salary but then donated the proceeds to their order).
Oh, and if someone at my school had physically attacked our principal in the cafeteria, the administrators would have restrained the kid very quickly, and the kid would have been expelled. It wouldn't have been instantaneous like in your school, but it certainly would have happened.
Now, if that happens, it's not automatic. In my hometown there was a student who attacked a teacher in the parking lot. He was expelled, but then lawsuits were waived about, he was changed to a 10-day suspension, then a 5-day, and then finally he was just back in school. Where I was there was a low threshold for BS. The teachers didnt have to worry about the ACLU. Didnt have to worry about students rallying to not read books they thought were wrong, etc. You did as told, or you could pound sand. The kids who really made it hard for themselves were the ones who were trying to get kicked out but whose parents had worked out arrangements with the school to make sure they couldn't be kicked out. Punishments became very creative for them. In a public school they'd go to school to protest being singled out, they'd cave, Jesse Jackson may get involved, etc.
I sure hope that they start teaching politics in US schools...maybe then people will understand that there are numbers higher than 2.
Right vs. wrong? Left vs. right? Black vs. white? Elephant vs. donkey?
There are more than two sides to most issues. The problem with politics (at least in the western world) is that the populace can't understand (or doesn't want to think about) more than two sides.
Pro-choice vs. pro-life? Not that simple.
Capital punishment vs. life-long imprisonment? Not that simple.
Same-sex marriage? ... actually, that one is easy.
You're right. But, consider our modern "service" society. What if everyone "self-actualized" their free-thinking, intellectually-curious, self-motivated selves? Who'd work the cubicles? Who'd work the phone support? Who'd flip the burgers? Drones are what we get because, in the end, drones are what we need.
I recommend "The Technological Society" by philosopher Jacques Ellul. Basically, he argues post-industrial revolution, the whole Socratic notion of "know thyself" as the raison d'etre for the human endeavor was replaced with "make it faster, cheaper, easier, more convenient." The cult of "technique" as he calls it.
BAD IDEA!
I would have fallen into that third category of 'punks on their way to prison', had I been triaged in such a manner in high school.
Now that I'm a ways out of high school, I haven't been in trouble in a decade and am a productive member of society.
I think all this standardization is useless, i don't see why a person who's going into Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, is required to do the same things as someone going to lawschool.
I think many kids by time they enter 9th grade, they know what they want to do, so their courses should reflect what they want to do for a job.
Not all kids think the same, not all kids learn the same, not all kids work the same and this "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT" just makes the problem worst, it requires standarized tests.
- Terrorism (Both domestic and abroad.)
- Religion (covered Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam). We had to study about an inch stack of worksheets and information packets about half an inch thick on each one. Then give a presentation.)
- Abortion. (I got fired up on this one...then I got in an email flamewar with a prominent person on the issue, got scared, and have stayed out the debate ever since.)
- Foreign wars and genocides
- Female circumcision (I got sick thinking about that one.)
- WWII and the Holocaust. (We were shown much more disturbing photos than the ones you see on the History channel.)
I think it really opened my eyes to what was going on around me, stuff that most people don't hear about and don't want to hear about. I took the class because I'd heard a lot of mixed messages from other students. Some thought it was horrible, others though it was boring, and others thought it was great.tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
She told me and the rest of the class, "school isn't here to 'teach' you anything except 'how to learn'.
Trouble is, that was a lie. It's a nice-sounding platitude, but the school isn't there to teach you how to learn, it's there to teach you to be docile.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I went to public school, I don't think they are unfixable. I think that the "lump all the students together" and educate to the lowest common denominator is the problem.
There is a population drags down the learning of the rest of the students. Because kids are forced to go to school, and teachers are forced to not "leave any child behind" it drags down everybody. Throw the dead weight aside and let most of us learn!
Luckily my school district offered a public highschool that was specificly for more advanced students (not just math/science, but also music & literature). This made the environment in the classroom for students and teachers more conducive to learning. More importantly, the teachers could teach more advanced concepts. Rather than doing a report basically summarizing "Frankenstein", you had to interpret the underlying messages. I learned more calculus in highschool than my first year of college.
I had intelligent friends from jr. high who went to "normal" high schools and it ended up screwing up their lives. A few got in the wrong crowd and became alcoholics or total stoners, or the pace of their curriculum was so slow they'd get frustrated and quit learning. Some also went on to college, but lacked study skills so were slower to keep up with the faster pace of learning.
Once we recognize that not all students are equally intelligent and that we shouldn't hold the more advanced ones (or even the average students) back so the slow kids "feel good about themselves" the better our school system will be. We do this for sports, if you're not good enough to make the team too bad.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Perhaps the majority of Western Countries based their laws on the tenets of Christianity, but America is one notable exception. Our rules were based largely on Deistic principles and on general ethics and were specifically engineered not to value religion. Dubious? Read The Godless Constitution. Or consider this: despite the fact that many Americans claim the US Constition was based on the Bible and that it was founded by Christians, so we are a Christian nation, the founders specifically chose not only to exclude Christianity from the Constitution (which was a cause of debate throughout the States), but to specifically prohibit religious tests as requirements for holding public office. One can be ethical and can have morals without religion.
Live free or die
Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.
Fact based education is a great concept, but it assumes that designing the curriculum and those teaching are completly unbiased in their own understanding of the "facts" and have no agenda to put forward other than the "zen" of education. I strongly doubt that such a teacher exists.
I've come to the conclusion that nearly all of human behavior can be summed up by the following two apparent facts about humanity (taken as a group):
This applies to teachers as well as children - and dealing with the "smart kids", who tend to come up with odd, novel ways of looking at and asking about things makes the teachers have to think. Really good teachers LIKE that sort of mental challenge, but I think most are just ordinary people who don't like to "work". Discouraging time-consuming, thought-provoking smartness just makes their lives easier.
(Someone once told me that one of the few college degrees you can get that does not require ANY science classes is...a Bachelor's degree in Education. That, right there, says something if it's true. Can anyone confirm or refute this claim?)
Some nerds still try to fight against that tendency, though. One of the nerdliest humor publications I know of is The Annals of Improbable Research (yes, the same people that host the IgNobel Prizes every year...). Every issue of their magazine includes a very short, concise "teaching guide", which begins with:
"Three out of five teachers agree: curiosity is a dangerous thing, especially in students. If you are one of the other two teachers[...]"
Personally, I'd love to see copies of this getting plastered all over every "educational" institution, everywhere in the world (I find it hard to believe that the US is the ONLY place in the world with this problem, fundamental human nature being what it is everywhere...).
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Other differences? I can think of a few that might be relevant: strict dress code - pressed pants, starched shirt, suit-coat or blazer, appropriate tie, groomed hair, proper facial hair care (beards/goatees, etc allowed, but must be neat)
Yes, because as we all know only the conservatively-dressed can learn or contribute to society.
The most brilliant person I know (a bioengineering major) has purple hair and wears a patent leather choker with lab vials full of flourescent chemicals attached to it. She is more interested in learning than anyone I've ever met, and picks up subjects from chemistry to MIPS assembly in a heartbeat.
I'm a full-time systems engineer, and I have blue hair and wear knee-high combat boots. I like to dress up sometimes, but if someone tries to force me to I lose all interest in whatever it is they're offering.
Fortunately my employer seems to realize that having people who are happy with their working environment is more conducive to productivity than demanding that everyone fit some sort of Victorian-era ideal of how people should appear "professional."
This sort of archaic conservative-society mentality is exactly what I thought of when I read the book review above - it places superficial appearances over actual results.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.
But your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion. It's like asking whether you want grape, strawberry ot pina collada flavoring in your cynide slushie. Pick your poison.
A lot of important science raises serious questions that make people of many religions uncomfortable. But it should still be taught, undistorted. It should be taught specifically for the reason that it challenges religious belief: after all, that which is challenged and survives becomes stronger in the process, and if it does not survive, then arguably it *should* be destroyed.
Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.
I also take issue with this, though my point is more subtle here.
The person who picks how the sides are represented can determine the outcome. Rare has been the textbook I've seen that has gone out of its way to show that an issue is truly complex and difficult to decide. (This happens in favor of both sides.) Furthermore, presenting two sides of an argument equally implies to the reader that the answer lies between, when it fact the real answer could be beyond the extremes presented, or even outside of the duality presented. Many arguments have more than two sides.
Patriotism itself is not inherently a bad thing and can pull people in a nation together.
I had a German friend who went to school here, in the U.S., for a while, and the thing he said that struck him about the United States was how everyone is so determined to be patrotic here. American flags everywhere (even pre-9/11), and people conspicuously saying what a great country it is, and pledges of alliegience in schools. European nations don't fly apart at the seams, but neither do they, these days, have this kind of pervasive, cultural nationalism. We don't need these things to be brought together as a nation.
That's the evil word for patriotism of course, the negative version: nationalism. That's a thing that I'm not at all comfortable with having tought in our schools. It wasn't the everywhere-stars-and-stripes that brought the U.S. together after 9/11, that was just a result of a deeper sense of fellow feeling that emerged in response to adversity. What brought us together had nothing to do with our nation, but everything to do with our humanity.
So you're saying that those who believe in Christianity (or perhaps Judaism, Muslim faith, Buddhism, etc.?) should be told to "get with the program" and have their freedom of religion stripped from them?
Or should the state declare the official religion as atheism? "You must believe that there is no higher power, and that you are worthless and have no purpose other than a product of the Universe's machinations."
1. That would be unconstitutional. It's in the first "right" granted to every American for a good reason. For those of you who have forgotten it, it goes something like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
2. I submit that if you think religion is dying (especially Christianity), you aren't paying enough attention. Many of those around you are quite possibly of a faith, but choose to keep it to themselves instead of beating it over your head in an inappropriate forum.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
because private schools don't have an agenda?
Sure they do. They have the agenda that their customers demand. In public schools, the government is the customer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The best science teacher I ever had (8th grade) started off the school year pointing to the (inconspicuous) Bible on his desk and saying "I don't draw my lesson plans from that book, and I will never open it in class--it's for reading in my off hours. But I can promise you that nothing that I teach you will in any way conflict with the spirit of what's in that book. If you have any concerns about that, I'd be happy to speak with you about it anytime after class."
Absolutely brilliant. And allowed him to teach evolution in the Bible-belt South with *nary a peep*.
But more directly to your point, as a Unitarian, I agree with you completely, and find it disheartening that the first time many people get to learn about religion, in a non-partisan, educational setting is in college, when it's often too late to get anyone to actually listen to anyone else. But on the other hand, having grown up in a small, very Baptist town, I can understand why it's a good idea to play it safe and just keep it out of the school entirely. Things don't go bad too often, but when they do, they get extremely ugly, and it happens very quickly.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Math textbooks are fine, science textbooks are okay. Once you get into social sciences though textbooks are just a tiny piece of the puzzle, since they present the author's interpretation.
In highschool we didn't have a "history textbook" we had the school district's book we called the "Gahrity(sp?) text" we also got photocopies of journal articles, historical text, and other documents by other authors that offered differing interpretations. Then it was up to the students to take all this information and come up with a logical supported arguement that showed understanding of both the event and possible causes. (ie Boston Tea Party was about the protection of tea smuggling profits) This was a situation where there were many "right" answers, but you had to demonstrate higher thinking skills and form a well thought out arguement.
It is important to have a good teacher who knows and is interested in the subject (not a gym instructor covering an english class) and who cares about teaching.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
This guy is just ripping off a Pink Floyd classic
For those who would like a shorter essay by the same author on the same topic, he wrote an article entitled Against School in the September 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine.
Religious secularism and prayer in school are total fabrications. Under existing laws, neither teachers nor students canlead a group in prayer. However, any student can freely exercise their freedom of religion in school by finding a quiet place to pray alone. I went to school with several Muslim students who freely permitted to step out of the room in the middle of the lesson so that they may pray as commanded by their religion.
The reason that it is important that nobody lead a group of students in prayer is because it would be a reflection of what happens during the pledge of allegiance. Anyone can look around the room and see who is not participating. We all know kids are great at picking out small differences between their peers, and exploiting them to pick on the person and make them feel bad. Lead prayer in school is just another way for children to pick out the non-conformists. The biggest difference is that, from a young age, children are taught to be particularly fierce about religion. Tolerance is not one of the regular highlights of Sunday School.
Political literature in school is rather dry and taught very matter-of-factly. It usually steers clear of any heated controversy and also fails to point out that there are serious flaws with America's political system. Considering that it hasn't been revised since the original authoring, this isn't a big surprise; but public schools teach children to remember, not to think. When I was in school, during a U.S. History class, I asked my teacher why election law hasn't evolved in the last 200+ years. I continued by indicating that in a consumer based economy that people are not satisfied with only two choices, but the two choice mentality permeates our political system. He responded by reminding us that there were more than two parties. When I elaborated that the electoral system can mathematically support only a two party majority, he quickly deflected my questions by reminding us that there are countries where people don't get to vote at all. It was a true statement, but not an answer to why our system works the way it does.
That day I went home and wrote a short essay on our political parties, their differences, and their common ground. For the common ground section I explained that our electoral system will never change because both parties agree that they want it to stay a two party system. They've been playing this game for over 150 years, and they know it well. They fear having to contend with a third, or even fourth, candidate who stands a fair chance. Even though runoff, direct elections are more representative of a multicultural system like ours, both parties have no interest in sharing their power.
I went to the copy store and ran off about 1000 copies to distribute to the upperclassmen and stuck them to cars, lockers, and handed them out in the halls. Later that day I was pulled out of class by a Sheriff and the Dean of students. I was searched, and so was my locker and car. They said they had gotten a tip about me bringing a gun to school. While my locker was being emptied in to the all, I asked the Dean what he thought about my essay. He said that productive members of society need to feel safe and secure about their [perceived] power in America's political system, and that people "like me" raise dissent and cause people to lose their faith in our system. Right about this time they pull out my girlfriend's purse, which I picked up after she forgot it at the lunch table. Inside they found a bottle of Midol and some nail clippers. I received a one week suspension for each. As a result, I could not make up the work or tests that I missed. Four weeks later I graduated 8th in my class with 4 missing tests and 13 missing assignments.
Safe and secure in our rational system.
The author claims that school is a religion, so it is time to pass the hat.
Help out your local schools by donating school supplies at TrueGift Donations. You can donate cash on the "Paypal Donate" button, or ignore us and deliver what crayons, pencils, and scissors your local teacher needs.
In all of the commentary on our education system, no one has ever argued that having enough school supplies is part of the problem. Wouldn't you rather donate now than deal with the uneducated later? Once all the tax money has been spent on teachers, school buildings, administration, No Child Left Behind, etc., many teachers cannot teach basic lesson plans because of a lack of school supplies. School supply budgets for basic materials tend to run about $5 per student per year.
I strongly agree with your statement. Teaching religions in high school can help in areas where students seem to be lacking the most these days. I believe that if students are opened up to the different philosophies of the world, they will better understand human psychology and culture. Perhaps it will reduce racism and promote analytical thinking (why is any one religion any better than another?).
I went to a high school in suburban Pennsylvania less than a decade ago. There was very little racial diversity (my class was 100% caucasian), and almost everyone was a Christian. Since I am not a Christian, I was made fun of and repeatedly reminded that I was "going to Hell." All I feel is sadness now. Sadness for the students' ignorance and for how hard it must have been for most to see and live in the real world. I blame the educational system. I was never taught about anything else until college, by which time I realized how much high-school failed to prepare me for the diverse world.
Students coming out of our (America) high school system seem to ever increasingly lack the ability to think on their own. Problem solving is key to a productive career. If students were allowed to debate fundamental philosophical questions, it would only benefit them. Having seen what our current educational system is producing, I have lost faith completely in it. It is embarrasing to me as an American to see this. I would very much prefer to move to Japan to raise children, knowing that their attitude towards schooling is far superior to America's.
I am not sure how one would fix America's schooling system, but perhaps the problem is not so much with funding, but instead requires a fundamental shift of our values. Students should want to learn as much as possible and contribute to extra-curricular activities. Whether or not someone in IT has perfect grammar doesn't matter - they need to be able to solve problems on their own or in a group to be useful. Teaching various world religions can help open that door, IMHO.
I believe that some religious education is important to a society as a whole. It provides for a moral base (at least most religions).
Every church I've ever been to was full of sinners. Certainly wouldn't want them setting the example...
Me, I prefer the golden rule. Neat and simple.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Are voucher systems somehow the silver bullet
t ml
They sort of are.
The real silver bullet is an effective system of negative feedback. When the schools do a bad job, they need to be punished, and when they do a good job, they need to be rewarded. A simple idea.
Simple, yes, but hard to do in real life. Teachers' unions, educational bureaucracies all the way up to the federal level, politicians making promises... all of these things can complicate the school system to the point where incompetence isn't punished, nor excellence rewarded. And attempts to use standardised tests to guarantee that kids are taught well, just mean that teachers will wind up "teaching the test".
The best thing you can hope to do is to allow parents to move their kids around to the best schools. This will not, itself, fix the problem instantly; but it will introduce an element of feedback into the system. Over time, this will inevitably force the schools to improve.
If a restaurant has poor food, people will take their business to other restaurants. It doesn't matter what kind of union the cooks have, it doesn't matter what kind of promises politicians might have made, etc. If the customers vote with their feet, the better restaurants will prosper and the worst ones will have to close. The same thing would happen with schools, but it would take longer (people eat several meals per day, but they would probably leave their kids in any particular school for at least a few months before deciding to move the kids somewhere else).
I have debated this issue in the past with some people who claimed that parents must not be trusted to choose schools for their kids. That's lunacy. There will be a few bad parents, but by far most parents really want what is best for their kids. The parents and kids together are the best judges of how well a school is serving them.
Note that middle-class and upper-class parents already have some freedom to pick schools; I know my parents, whenever we moved, would carefully consider what the schools were like, and they would only move someplace where the schools were decent. The poorest people, who are trapped in the bad part of town (no money to move somewhere else), those are the ones who really want school vouchers.
By the way, public school systems spend a lot of money per student. The vouchers are generally for less than the public school system would have spent on a student. If a student takes a $3000 voucher and goes to a private school, that is usually a net profit for the public school. In my state, the average per-student spending is $9,454 per year.
For more on vouchers, click here: http://www.cato.org/research/education/vouchers.h
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ninety percent of them, selling back or throwing out only what I thought was absolute garbage.
Your comment rings true, but I think the public school culture squelches the young's desire to learn; and I believe that this is one of the points Gatto's book makes.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I have long believed there was a problem in the educational system in the United States. I was raised up through it, and have experienced it in 4 different states. Each state takes its approach to education differently, which made it hard for me when I moved around from school to school. There was no consistency throughout my education. At one school I would be ahead and at another I would be behind, but all the while I felt I was playing catch up. Yet that being the case, I was still able to do well when I got to High School. I entered the academically challenging IB http://www.ibo.org/ program, and did a full course load for three years and my senior year I tested and got my IB Diploma as well as the regular HS diploma. I also graduated 15th in my class of 345. I'm not tooting my horn here, put using this as a point to show education is possible, but you have to choose a path that means hard work.
The program I was in was the only one in the district of 6 or so High Schools. Other HS's has Honor's programs, but those are a joke. As are the basic requirements for passing. You show up to class and they pass you, for fear if they fail you, they will destroy your self esteem. Did they ever think about how that makes those who actually work for their grades feel? My brother was able to skip 40 days out of a 90 day semester and still graduate. Now if I were to skip out of work without letting anyone know nearly 50% of the time, I would be fired in a heartbeat. What kind of message are we sending the kids in the educational system? Do what you want, and we will let you pass because we don't want to hurt your feelings. That's bullshit, the minute they get out into the 'Real World' they get stuck with the cold hard reality that it sucks, and bosses are tough. But they have been so pampered and babied, that they blame their bosses for being demanding and uncompromising, and the bosses end up being more lax in the work force. Can you begin to see the effects this could have on society.
There are good teachers out there, I know, I had some outstanding teachers. Teachers that challenged me to think, to question. This became even more apparent when I got to college. But it needs to start earlier, and not just in the 'special or gifted' programs. Our society has been moving away from a mass-production intensive society to a services environment. That means people need to think more on their own, problem solve, not just be mindless droids on an assembly line.
I think and know the educational system needs to change, and it isn't so much about money in the schools, its about complacency. We have gotten two comfortable with how things are, loosening the requirements are far easier then failing students that don't perform.
But that's just my 12.5 cents worth on that subject.
Sig? No thanks, I don't smoke.
I see people blasting the system for apathy. OK. I can deal with that. But no one blames the students for apathy. The current student culture not only wants to avoid learning, but holds as a religious mantra that school is a waste of time and completely useless. The students hold just as much blame as everyone else as the government or the teachers or the school administration. How different would school be if the students *valued* their education and then acted on that belief? Personally, unless you are headed for academics, I do not think that high school is useful to most people. For the non-college crowd, school should focus on developing leadership skills, political awareness, and the complex task of running a democracy.
Boy howdy, you're an upset looking for a place to happen. Made my point for me there, eh?
The Christian religion is the philosophical basis upon which law and custom are built in Western society. By which I mean North AND South America, Europe, and their former empires. That's just the facts.
So if you don't know at least the tenets of Christianity, you have no idea what's going on here.
For example, the concept "freedom of religion" is derived from Christianity. Other religious traditions have no such belief. People who come to your country from those traditions will be most offended by your assertion that you are free to practice any religion you want.
Therefore if the tenets (and history!) of Christianity are not taught in school, there will be people in ever growing numbers who do not know about or understand the concept of Freedom of Religion, and who will be completely ignorant of the ass kicking awaiting them should they transgress against it.
Like the Muslim guy in Florida who fired his Latino secretary for eating a bacon sandwich at lunch. He is currently getting his ass kicked up and down and all around in the media and in court by the ACLU, because he doesn't understand that religious tolerance means HE has to tolerate OUR religion and values, not just that we have to tolerate his. In practical terms it means that while he is not required to eat bacon himself, his company does not have the right to declare bacon verboten for all employees.
A Conservative would state it thusly: "Welcome to my country. These are the rules. Play by them and there won't be any trouble. If you don't like the rules, go in peace."
I can't imagine what a Liberal would say, my mind won't bend that far into hyperspace. Probably depend on what day of the lunar calendar it was.
As for Christianity dying, only in New York public schools. But then math is dying there too, so pehaps we should not be shocked.
From Pedro Noguera's (Ph.D., professor of education at the University of California, Berkeley) paper: Preventing Violence in Schools Through the Production of Docile Bodies:
The best quote from this paper is:
It was easy to make my case that metal detectors, and such, are no solution to the problems we face. Seems that only the intelligentsia get this as it's lost on school faculty.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If you go to a Catholic school, you will learn that Catholicism is pretty cool. Same thing at a Jewish school, or any other religion. Why more people don't see that a government school teaches the students that government is the answer to just about any question. This leads to generations of kids growing up thinking that government should be the answer to everything. The powers that be want us to be dependent on them because that increases their power at the expense of the individual. I know some people are going to call this a troll, but look at the almost unchecked growth in the size of our government since the state took over education and compare that to the decline in the liberty, personal and economic, over that same time frame.
Math textbooks are fine, science textbooks are okay
Did you somehow miss the "New Math"? The one where kids could succeed at it, and still not be able to make change for a dollar?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
But your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion.
This is a silly statement. Atheism is as much a religion as any other. From the dictionary:
religion
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheism is simply the "religion" that no higher being exists. From the dictionary:
atheism
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Thus atheism should be discussed as a belief system that many have chosen. This should lead into a discussion of the rationalizations inherent in such a belief system. e.g. Did a man named Jesus exist? If he did, what social and political factors contributed to his success as a spiritual leader? If he didn't, how did such a legend arise?
These things must be discussed, as it's insufficient to simply assume that our predecessors were mindless idiots. That sort of thinking is why people still think aliens must have built the pyramids, or that the Aztecs and Romans could not have possibly build calculation devices. History actually shows that man is very clever, and is capable of overcoming any problem he puts his mind to. As a result, one must think upon the issue very carefully to gain insight into the human condition.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
'Docile Bodies' is a big ole MF hammering point. Discipline and Punish has a whole chapter devoted to it. I hope he cited it....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
>But seriously, large organizations have no single "true" purpose which determines their effect
"The purpose of a system is what it does".
Keep that in mind and you can cut through all obfuscation like a bandsaw through butter.
So just take a look at what the school system does. My late mother was a teacher. She got memo after memo from upstairs and filed tons of paperwork. Her report on the percentage that bore on helping children to learn: 0%.
Oh, and the author didn't say it was "conspiratorial", he said it was a pattern. As he points out, patterns are harder to change.
The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.
Hate to piss on the parade, but this is exactly what they teach in Education Foundations 101, History of Education. At the University of Alberta, at any rate.
I didn't realize it was some sort of secret.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Actually, we have a post-industrial economy. In basic terms that means that more of our labor is comprised of skilled labors than the world average. The mindless "mass-production" jobs we outsource to China for a few dollars a day per person.
Open Source Sushi
Christopher Lasch wrote about this in 1979 in "The Culture of Narcissism".
I'm sure he wasn't the first.
Nice to see people are finally catching on.
-... ---
I am a certified teacher as is my spouse; we both have multiple university degrees, and two school age children. I have taught in both public and private schools and found both to have good and bad qualities. I agree fully with Gatto (read his work a while ago) about the purpose of public schools and where they are taking our children, to the factory floor (or lower with off-shoring). In the private school I saw the tuition dollar driving educational and advancement decisions, students advanced because the tuition cheque cleared. If you want to make the most of your student/child's education and give them the opportunity to grow and develop into their full potential remember the following: 1: Parents are the first and most important teachers. Your kids will follow your example; read a book, have a discussion, take a course, learn something new, and do this with them. 2: Know what happens in your student's school (public/private/home); call the principal, visit the teacher, send notes, follow up tests, question policies, etc. Don't let a problem be the first and only reason you talk. 2: When they are in a school you must provide positive support both direct (volunteering) and indirect (reading to kids, having books in the house, shutting off the tv/Nintendo/ps2/computer/etc) participation is paramount. 3: Talk about school with your kids; what did they learn, can they teach it to you? 4: Empower them with their right to a good education, and their responsibilities as a student 5: Take opportunities to expand their worldview; take them out of school for family trips, special events, bonding opportunities. 6: Finally, help them learn to make decisions and then let them make decisions. Yes, they will make mistakes and learn from them and grow... Of course there is much more you can do. If you do some of what I suggest you will be part of the solution. Of course you may drive some teachers and administrators nuts first and your kids will want you to walk way behind them at the mall...
Why is it that, when *every* other governement monopoly has been replaced by a competitive private equivalent, the quality of the product has gone up and the price of the product has come down but no one is willing to try this with primary education? Where there is competition, costs fall and quality rises.
Also, you assume that the only way to provide education is at the public expense through taxpayer funded schools staffed by so-called "education professionals" and the only alternative is a costly private school. I know of quite a few people who have home-schooled their kids to keep them out of the public school beast and have managed to do so on not a whole lot of money and with extremely good results (i.e., educated, inquisitive kids with independent ideas and without public education scars). Interestingly, this also didn't present a significant time-drain for the parents since a couple of hours of individual, quality instruction each day were more than sufficient to impart the same material that mass classroom instruction required a full day to attempt to communicate. Finally, the kids who have been home schooled also tend to be better disciplined than the public school product since they knew better than to "mouth off" and "goof off" with their parents.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Would you people please quit repeating this stupid crap?
Pretty please.
It is absolutely false.
A - without
theism - belief in god(s)
An atheist is somebody without a belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Some people might be more militant about it, but that has nothing to do with what the word means or how it fits into reality.
Everybody is born an atheist. Everybody. The Pope, those people on your college campus yelling at you that you're going to hell, Bush, everybody.
It is the natural state.
At some point everybody who now believes in some particular god was taught about it through some means ( most often their parents tell them it's absolute truth from the time they're born ) and they started believing that that was true.
I personally, have never seen anything to convince me that an all powerful, all knowing creature who is at the same time good is even possible in this universe. If you choose to believe that, then that is your business, but the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one claiming such a thing exists. This isn't to say that you have some burden to try and convince me, just that the fact is that you are the one who is proposing something as true, not me.
In fact you are proposing something as true with zero evidence and a built in requirement that it shall have zero evidence and that it has to be accepted as such.
That is a religion. Not choosing to believe such a thing is in no way, shape, or form religious.
So nobody chooses to be an Atheist (at least initially. Some people have gone back and forth) they just are until and unless they make some other choice.
Do you get it?
Please stop repeating that mindless mantra which has no basis in reality.
I didn't RTFA, yet, but based on the review inclusiveness isn't mentioned. It's easy to educate the elite very well, but getting a minimal level of education for all Americans has been the battle for the last 150 years, especially for the last thirty years. It's only natural now that we have most people attending school that we can focus on making the quality of the education better. Perhaps no education is better than a mediocre one, but that is a moot discussion at this point. The question is how we go from mediocre to good and then great.
I went to a really good, Canadian, public high school with a lot of really good teachers and a pretty good "advanced" track for gifted students - honours Math, and honours English.
;)
And as your typical Slashdot gifted geek-type, kicked ass even at the higher levels from the advanced track.
(I also took a lot of shop electives, which really paid off in a BIG way later in life... but that's a digression)
Because school was so easy, I got to having a pretty high opinion of myself - which is a nice way of saying I was an arrogant, know it all shithead.
I applied for, and was accepted to, a Canadian Military College (le College Militaire Royale de St Jean), which was unique in Canada in accepting students in advance of their high school graduation - that's right, I joined the Army and went to MilCol at 17, when all my peers were still in Grade 12.
I did this for a couple of reasons. It got me "free" post-secondary education. It made me special. It filled a recruiting officer's quota. A couple of others I'll gloss over.
None of these are good reasons for going, and I was completely and utterly ignorant of both the reasons why these institutions exist and of the ethos of the professional military officer. I could not have possibly been more unprepared for what I was getting into.
Did I mention that CMR was a bilingual institution, and that the operating language of everything outside of classes switched from French to English and vice versa every week? Or that I didn't speak French at all?
So anyway, I dropped into this for all the wrong reasons, and I got the mother of all wake-up kicks to the head. Not only did my private life totally change around, but I was now surrounded by people every bit as smart as me - and more than a few a damn sight smarter. No more special me. All of a sudden, I gotta STUDY. I gotta WORK.
I spent a large portion of the next 4 years in and out of a good bit of disciplinary and academic trouble.
And it was the best goddamned thing that ever happened to me, and I'm thouroughly glad of it.
Suprised?
What that place did - although it took a while - was cure me of of being an asshole. It taught me humility, leadership, and established a personal ethos that I still live by today. (Verite, Devoir, Valliance)
I am a much *much* better person than I was before I went there. The pre-CMR me was a total shithead. Post CMR... less so,
And along the way, I got a decent education and learned to speak French, plus a military career, and the best friends I've ever made.
The media, and especially Hollywood, makes military institutions look like brainwashing hellholes. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I had my life to do over again, I'd go back in a heartbeat - except this time I'd skip all the subversive rebel bullshit and learn what they were trying to teach me.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Most (but certainly not all) private schools have a per pupil cost much lower than their neighboring public systems, and at least SEEM to produce better results, even comparing apples to apples in terms of student body.
I really don't understand how the same people who decry k12 educational vouchers in one breath are happily choosing to attend whatever college they want, knowing that Federal loans and grants etc. are available regardless of the school you choose, public or private. Why can k12 education operate this way?
Each k12 school ought to be controlled by a board that is elected by the parents of the attending students. They would set tuition, hire the principal(s)/administration, and make school policy. Parents would be free to use the stipend from the state to pay for fees/tuition at any school. Least that's my idea.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Better in what way? Your other comments would seem to suggest that you see the purpose of religion to be to serve the civilization.
But isn't this the question to be asked of religion: Is it true? Service of civilization should be secondary to truth; besides, building a culture on lies seems counterproductive in the long run.
You assume that religions exist to serve people. But you must see that if a religion, any religion is true, then it must dictate the goals of humanity. Only if religion is false can one say that its purpose should be to serve humanity, and then to observe a religion would be silly.
The central question is one of truth, not of function.
If you're looking for a good example of the right way to teach religion, you should check out the UCSD MMW (Making of the Modern World) program. http://provost.ucsd.edu/roosevelt/mmw/
...Okay, so I lied, I liked it. But it was a ton of work.
;)
;)
Undergraduate general education requirement for Roosevelt college at UCSD. We study fscking EVERYTHING under the sun, and being an engineering student I absolutely hated every minute of it. I value it now though. Perhaps it was more of a guilty pleasure.
It's 28 units of anthropology, a complete history of the world crammed into two years of study. It's very aggressive, but it's also taught very well and could easily be repackaged for high school consumption. Professors come from all sorts of different departments - history, English, theology, philosophy, etc. Oh, and anthropology.
When I say everything, I mean everything. From pre-history to the modern day. IIRC the breakdown is:
MMW 1: pre-history to neolithic
MMW 2: neolithic to classical antiquity
MMW 3: classical antiquity to medieval era (or as Eddie Izzard calls it, the "stupid fucker" period)
MMW 4: medieval era to ~1600
MMW 5: 1600 to 1800
MMW 6: 1800 to modernity
A favorite theory of mine posited by my MMW 1 professor is that agriculture came out of the discovery of grain fermenting on river banks, in other words, proto beer
Another interesting theory is that the "virgin" birth was a mistranslation into Greek - the Greeks didn't have a word for "young girl," the closest thing was "virgin," and that's what got used.
One element of our study of the bible was that of who wrote it - the author of the book "Who Wrote The Bible" is a professor here at UCSD. Very interesting. Turns out there were four authors or so over a period of time, and that the whole thing is very political. Go figure.
The idea here is that this is all crap I absolutely never would have known without taking MMW.
Every major religion throughout time is studied, including the oddball ones - we don't stop at Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. We read parts of the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, all sorts of stuff. We're taught the beliefs and values, and investigate how these have effected history and decision making, why people might be fundamentally at odds, that sort of thing. But there's never any suggestion that something is right or wrong - that much is left to the student, and essays are graded on the strength rather than the slant of one's argument. Professors aren't looking to make students think a certain way, but instead simply to make students think. Far more valuable if you ask me, and what the author of the book in the OP is fighting for.
What makes it even more interesting is that it isn't particularly Euro-centric, and actually, one of the main themes of MMW 4 is the question "why Europe?" After all, China had gunpowder first. We read all sorts of crazy stuff too - Xenophon, Confucius, the salt and iron debate, the code of Bushido, the tale of Maruf the cobbler, Ibn Batuta, Newton, Treitschke, Ike, Hitler, Bob Dylan, and on and on and on. Contemporary accounts of every event we study, as well as op-ed type stuff. Very interesting.
Just don't ask me to remember any of it
I've suggested that the lectures be made available on DVD to alumni of the program...I really hope something comes out of that.
Umm, no, Freedom of Religion is not derived from Christianity. Christianity is a triumphalist religion, like Islam. This means that, according to Christianity, unless you're a Christian, you're going to hell. Or according to Catholicism, if you're not a Catholic, or according to Presbyterians, if you're not a Presbyterian... you get the picture.
Christianity now plays nice mainly because it gets beaten up if it doesn't. It wasn't long ago Christians were as bad or worse as political Islam is now. Consider the Crusades, the slaughter of the Cathars, the wars that were sparked by the Reformation, Cromwell, the witch hunts, Northern Ireland, and the list goes on and on. And of course, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
Ahem... sorry...
What I'm driving at here is that the First Amendment is the separation of church and state, because it means that the state is never to take any religion's side against another religion. A lot of the people who had emigrated to America had already had quite enough of that. I think every child should probably be taught the Bible in school, and the Koran, and the Tao Te Ching, be acquainted with the ancient Greek philosophers, as well as being taught critical thinking, the ideas of the enlightenment, and humanism. But none of the religions would permit their own faith to be treated as just one more color in the rainbow. Triumphalist religions think the have the TRUTH (caps necessary), while everything else is just the opinions of those who don't know any better--or work for Satan.
As soon as you teach religion in school, you have to choose one. The alliance of the faithful will only last until they win. That's when the real holy war starts, between the faiths, and the various forms of each faith. What the Falwells and Robertsons of the world have to understand is that the secular humanists are their best friends. They're the ones preventing the faithful from strangling each other.
And if anyone pipes up and says that science and evolution are religions too, I will have to hurt them.
Badly.
Why:People will pine over this for 20 minutes. This is a test of common sense. I've heard that the box has failed, all the servers are down, even the power is out. Simply put "YOUR IN THE WRONG ROOM!" The box with the lights are in the Lab you walked into your OFFICE, duh. Some clever people will say, "I don't know but I turn the lights back on in my office and walk down to the lab and check so see if the box lights are ok." That is someone you want working for you verus "I don't know" as an answer. I'll take a guess over nothing.
Some of your questions are wise, but this one is not. It's a childish trick question that uses semantics. If all your questions required a careful analysis of their semantics, it would be a reasonable question; but to throw out ten or twenty or fifty ordinary fact-oriented questions, and then mix in a trick question based on semantics and shell-game manipulation of words, is just a petty power trip that mean-spirited teachers use to bolster their need for a quick fix of superiority.
Essentially, it's just changing the rules so the house is more likely to come out on top.
The Internet is full. Go away.
I graduated from High School with a career 59% grade average. For those of you who didn't go to school in New York, that's basically an F average. I was awarded a diploma because I passed all of the required classes, barely. The conclusion you might come to is that I hate learning. But you'd be wrong.
For someone who loves to learn, school is the absolute worst enemy in this regard. In my case, I would cut school simply to hang out in the library and study with notebook in hand. School is not about learning, it's about control, purely and simply. Some teachers could recognize your interests and help you along, but these teachers were so rare and could only do so much.
I never did go on to college. I never even took the SATs. I regret nothing.
One thing I said to myself then, which I say to myself now, is that the beaten path is the easy way out. Down that road is what everyone else has. A 9-5 job with unpaid overtime, living for the weekends, and genuinely being told what to do throughout life hoping that someone will someday appreciate your obedience and throw you some scraps. Public schools train you to fit in this kind of life. In my opinion, that's not life. I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine calling it life.
You can take away my car, house, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, heaven forbid even my high school diploma, but as long as you haven't taken away my ability to think, I can still survive and I can still be happy.
Like they said in trainspotting (but missing the point entirely): Choose life.
In most places this is illegal, thanks to the power of featherbedding labor unions. They are responsible for the minimum-wage laws, and hence for high unemployment among young and poorly educated people. They DEFINITELY don't like competing against volunteers or unpaid apprentices.
The Democrats are so in hock to the unions for manpower and money, they ignore the fact that unions regularly shit all over the most marginalized workers in our society, and destroy the impulse for volunteer civic betterment.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
In my humble opinion this is an important book. Please read it. Mr Gatto states that the purpose of American education (and perhaps much of the education that happens on this old planet) is designed to "dampen" the intellect, spirit and humanity of people. It is in fact, an assembly line approach to humanity. Mr Gatto writes about the "empty child" and the stuff that s/he is filled up with. (I know I ended this sentence with a preposition...sorry.) This stuff is supposed to snuff out the dreams and replace them with "reality". He notes that the educational system (not the teachers, not the schools...but the SYSTEM) is set up to destroy not enhance intellect (I mean thinking and problem solving skills). The statistics he cites on the decline of literacy are frightening. Literacy has dropped so much in less than a hundred years. Education has replaced learning. Learning is a natural part of life. Learning is how we survive. But I disagree with him on one point. I believe that this has been done deliberately. I ask again, please read this book...the text is online. We're all individuals here. (quoting Life of Brian) Thanks for your attention. LadyMary