Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane

an INTERWEBNERD

I'm sure others are aware that American schools were largely designed to ready people for industrial society, and thus they are largely about organization, structure, learning to follow directions, learning to respect authority and to behave in a docile manner.

hurting, check out walter karp's classic essay "why johnny can't think," from harper's circa 1985. he basically says what you said, only with a great deal more bile and indignation.

furthermore, he spells it all out: the only defensible purpose of public schools in america is to - in thomas jefferson's words - teach every citizen how to decide "what will secure or endanger his freedom." giving every person a well-rounded education is the only reason not to privatize education - if we just want to train industrial workers, then we might as well turn school over to the corporations.

compare:

"we want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific manual tasks." - woodrow wilson, 1909

"(primary education should) be chiefly historical. history, by apprising (students) of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." - thomas jefferson, 1782

judging from the fact that history has largely been replaced in schools by "social studies," which teaches students absolutely nothing worth knowing, looks like wilson won out over jefferson.

BTW more than criticizing the way schools are designed, I'm just questioning the efficacy of any school at teaching "independent thinking," because anything you do in school is, by definition, not really independent. In some senses I didn't really learn to think until I had to support myself, although specific things I learned in school came in handy at that point.

Also I just wonder about the very fact of being stuck under the same system of what comes to seem like highly arbitrary authority well into one's biological adulthood. I mean the brain and the body are ready to be out hunting or building a shelter but you're stuck doing more advanced versions of the same crap you did in 2nd grade and with very little say in your own life. School is babyfying.

only college-level academics use it because MLA/APA citation format isn't much use to a plumber, an exterminator, a hairstylist, a football coach, a newscaster, a doctor, a helicopter pilot, etc etc

Are you arguing that writing papers in advanced-level high school literature and social studies classes is relevant to these people but citing sources when doing so isn't? My point was strictly about those types of classes, whose stated purpose in Ontario was (and I'm guessing still is) to prepare students for a university education. If they're to be offered at all, I think there are a lot (of very do-able things) they could do to come closer to this goal. I am not saying that every teenager needs to learn MLA/APA citation format. (And again, the other things I mentioned concern me a little more.)

I wouldn't really have a problem with making school a little more specialized after Gr 10 or so. Quebec does this to an extent.

(Proper citation format is surely relevant to students in medical sciences?)

(You never found high school unchallenging to the point of mind-numbing?)

Are you arguing that writing papers in advanced-level high school literature and social studies classes is relevant to these people but citing sources when doing so isn't?

yes

J.D. are you actually roger adultery?

judging from the fact that history has largely been replaced in schools by "social studies," which teaches students absolutely nothing worth knowing, looks like wilson won out over jefferson.

-- J.D., Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:41 AM

at least they're teaching kids rhetoric, ey?

you're right, moonship. clearly thomas jefferson had nothing to tell us about education, and anyone who thinks his opinion might be more worth listening to than some academic who comes out with reactionary anti-democratic bilge like "on-the-job training, if incorporated into present educational structures, could produce educational success" is just being silly. and clearly our public schools are in fine shape, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a right-wing nutjob.

im going to go ahead and say that yeah, the opinion of a 20th-century academic for whom schooling and school systems are a major interest is probably "more worth listening to" on this topic than an 18th-century politician who lived a century before compulsory schooling was free and widespread.

i mean dont get me wrong, thomas jefferson's not a dummy but hes been dead for 150 years and a lot has changed

yeah, the notion of every citizen deserving a well-rounded education* has clearly had its day.

*srsly this is ALL I'M SAYING and somehow it's controversial?

also lol @ the idea that a dude who owned slaves would somehow disagree with "we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific manual tasks."

i dont know that anyone thinks that we shouldn't give kids a "well-rounded" education. i think the question is "what does well-rounded mean?" aka, "do we really need to teach 10th graders MLA citation formats or is that irrelevant garbage to the 95% of them who will never use it?"

way to ad hominem the argument, dude, but you still haven't explained why "a lot has changed" to the degree that the idea of emphasizing civic education over fking job training is uselessly outdated. x-post

i dont know that anyone thinks that we shouldn't give kids "educational success." i think the question is "what does educational success mean?"

way to ad hominem the argument, dude

some academic who comes out with reactionary anti-democratic bilge

There are islands, but [Rhode Island is] mostly mainland:

The mainland is originally the "Providence Plantation" part of the state's name, isn't it?

J.D. are you actually roger adultery?

x-post

Sundar's final year lit class sounds both similar and different to mine.

I think we studied 5 texts in year 12 (final year) literature (Agamemnon, Wuthering Heights, a Henry James, a collection of Australian short stories and King Lear), which I thought was a reasonable amount. Enough for everyone to get through, but more than enough scope to actually do a lot of interesting work if you wanted to: year 12 was the year i discovered Leavis and IR Richards and Bloom on King Lear which rocked my world. It's dubious to extrapolate from personal experience in this manner, but if you were a smart kid in my class and you couldn't find ways to stretch yourself you weren't trying hard enough.

I thought this thread was going to be about kids being insane to wait until age five to ENTER school, as by then it was already too late to get on the ultracompetitive treadmill that starts in nursery school.

But maybe that's what it is about. Anyway Sundar and J.D. otm mostly. Sundar, I couldn't hear intervals until around the time of this thread. Well, maybe a little before that.

lot of interesting stuff going on in this thread. i should point out that you badly misinterpreted what becker's saying. he's not arguing for vocational training in schools, he's arguing that the ways in which people learn *at work* should be included in schooling, so that you might learn shakespeare the same way you learn to play football.

way to ad hominem the argument, dude, but you still haven't explained why "a lot has changed" to the degree that the idea of emphasizing civic education over fking job training is uselessly outdated. x-post

thats, uh, not what becker is saying

i also dont really have any fucking clue what "civic education" means

Is anyone actually arguing that US/Cdn high schools are doing enough to challenge and engage academic-track students? I can't tell. That was my basic gripe. I'm not an expert on or an educator in the high school system so I don't really have a well-devised programme laid out for how to reform the curriculum. (moonship, you're a high school teacher IIRC?) I just have a feeling that more could be done in some key areas and have memories of being bored and unengaged. I'm kind of throwing things out there wrt more specific suggestions.

I'll drop the citation format thing since people have focused on that one point rather than the others concerning e.g. basic grammar, writing coherently, the possibility that 16-17-year-old Gifted students could stand to read 5 books in a year rather than 3 and might not read every word read aloud in class, the idea that people could stand to be better informed about world issues and some of the most basic ideas that have shaped them, the idea that maybe people should come out of public school music courses able to sing a major third and perfect fifth (I can do this BTW but it wasn't until grad school in music that someone sat me down and made me learn it really solidly.)

I think it would be worthwhile for academic-track students graduating from Canadian high schools to be able to easily e.g. explain what the Geneva Convention is, summarize the basic differences between the Cdn and US systems of government, name some of the major accomplishments of Rene Levesque, or discuss one of the major anti-colonial movements of the 20th century in cursory depth. I don't think high school is useless in this regard but I think there's more it could do. Not J.D. but this would be part of my concept of civic education.

I'll read the Becker when I get a moment.

Anyway, I better stay away from this thread before I screw up my current education!

I never let school threads interfere with my education.

I never let school threads interfere with my education.

basic grammar, writing coherently, the possibility that 16-17-year-old Gifted students could stand to read 5 books in a year rather than 3 and might not read every word read aloud in class, the idea that people could stand to be better informed about world issues and some of the most basic ideas that have shaped them

i think more people *can* write coherently than ever before!

but why 5 rather than 3? why not read every word aloud?

should we discuss here the probably detrimental aspects of all parents having to work? since we're bringing up preschooling

we try not to because 1) educators don't like people telling them how to teach, so we don't want to tell people how to parent and 2) that line of argument very quickly ends up (like many, many historical arguments in education) disproportionately blaming poor parents, black parents, latino parents, immigrant parents.

B-b-but Sundar, when did you learn to sing a tritone?

Was that your yearbook quote, Laurel?

I can't believe you guys' weak ass reading requirements in high school
I took the "gifted" english in HS and we had to go through 6-7 books in SUMMER, then another seven or eight over the course of the school year

made me hate hemingway and faulkner, I can tell you that

Perfect training for an interweb hardman.

i actually would love to teach or take an english class were we focused, in serious depth, on a single book for an entire semester or even an entire year

ok, the book is

ETHAN FROME

have fun

lol

thats, uh, not what becker is saying

i was responding to your "a lot has changed" remark, not becker.

i also dont really have any fucking clue what "civic education" means

here's a hint: ask any kid why they're going to school, and chances are they'll respond "to get a better job." if this were actually the purpose of school, any private company could do it better; as i've said, the only defensible purpose of public schools is to give future citizens a strong, rounded education - in science, in the arts, in history, whatever - in order to allow them to participate in public life. once you start thinking "why should we be teaching calculus to future construction workers?" you've totally lost sight of what public schools are for.

calculus helps people become better citizens and participate in public life?

I know we've done this like three hundred times already, but the idea of public jr high and high schools teaching kids anything positive/productive about group dynamics and civilization and constructive socialization is hilarious to me.

every person between the ages of 14 and 20 should be given part-time jobs and allowed to spend the rest of their time smoking and having sex. then when you turn twenty you go to a five-year combination high school/college program and graduate with a degree.

OTM, and xpost also OTM

http://www.fys.uio.no/~hkippe/gifer/crazy_mouse.gif

and chances are they'll respond "to get a better job." if this were actually the purpose of school, any private company could do it better

is this actually true, though? don't a lot of jobs presuppose that you come prepared with things you learned in high school? i mean, "to get a better job" you could teach kids how to talk, how to present themselves, how to dress, some job skills, etc etc

there's a lot of stuff that goes into getting a job, but school works one part (basic cognitive skills) and i wonder whether a private company could do a better job of it.

I was SO BORED with the insane easiness and busywork in fourth grade that I would spend hours trying to pull out my remaining teeth for a reason to get out of class for 15 minutes.