[John]
I say that to the extent Finland and Japan succeed, much of that
success is due to matchup between their culture and their education
system - that serving a less diverse culture is easier to do a
central planning way, than serving a largely diverse population with
a one-size-fits-all education system.
[Arlo]
By this same logic, schools in America in regions of "less diverse
culture" should do better than both schools in America and schools in
F/J in areas of "largely diverse populations".
Why is this not so?
What "largely diverse populations" are found in rural Oklahoma,
Wyoming, or many, many other areas of the US that account for the
failure of "central planning"?
So far, John, the only "diversity" you have talked about is
"religious". But there are areas of the USA with very, very "less
diverse culture" regarding religion that fare worse than schools in
areas with much more religious diversity. By your logic, schools in
largely "uni-religious" areas should fare much better than schools
in "poly-religious" areas. Hence, a school in rural Oklahoma should
fare better than here in State College, as State College is quite a
bit more "religiously diverse" (in many ways, as well).
In fact, I can point to two local school districts; State College and
Bald Eagle. One (SC) is very diverse, has many, many students from a
number of ethnic and international populations. The school has
Muslims and Christians and Jews and even Hindus. The other (BE) is
nearly exclusively "white", mostly all rural, and nearly 100%
Christian. SC consistently fares better, among the top, while BE
fares much worse.
By your reasoning, BE should outperform SC across the board. By
virtue of it having a "less diverse culture" is should respond much
better to "central planning". Why is this not the case?
[John]
Reasons for failure are probably too numerous to elucidate.
[Arlo]
Oh but we can. And my pointing the success of the public schools in
Finland and Japan point to the single biggest "reason for failure",
and that is lack of community investiture and community
involvement/support, as well as a lack of real integration of the
schools and the local communities.
[John]
First. The government doesn't provide public education. The taxpayers do.
[Arlo]
Same thing. The government is "we the people".
[John]
And what I think is wrong, is for the government to mandate one
educational system for all, regardless of how it impinges upon their
family and cultural values.
[Arlo]
The "government" is "we the people", and yes we have been wrong in
assuming one learning environment fits all (damn that Fordist
worldview!). And we need to change that. We need greater diversity in
how we offer education, from charter schools, to integrating
vocational education, to allowing students to gain credit by
volunteering, working, apprenticing, taking college courses,
workshops, etc. But this is reforming public schools. And that is
what we should do.
[John]
But to mandate an education antithetical to one's beliefs AND to
force one to pay for it, seems like it's going just that much too
far; an angry backlash can be expected.
[Arlo]
Give me some examples here. I assume "secularism" is one, that
"religious" populations don't want their kids to learn about
evolution, or geology, or astronomy, or other ways that "science"
contradicts "the book" (of whatever religion).
But this is where it ceases to be about what education best serves
the student, and what best serves the parents. THAT is an important
change in the argument, and if that is where we are going, let's stop
even bothering to talk about how to improve "learning" and let's just
talk about "funding".
[John]
Yes, even if American Schools did well academically, I'd encourage a
system of open choices.
[Arlo]
OK, so its not really about improving learning. It is about funding.
[John]
Some kids don't need or want high academic learning. Some kids
do well in shop. The world needs more shop classes.
[Arlo]
Amen. One of the single biggest problems here is that "vocational"
education is seen by many parents as "those that are not good enough
for college". This is ridiculous. This "stigma" just has to end.
[John]
Wait. Isn't "stupid intellectual" a self-contradictory term?
[Arlo]
Are you accusing me of being oxymoronic? ;-)
[John]
And while I'm at it, I feel sorry for academic intellectuals in
revolutions. It doesn't matter if it's rightists or leftists, the
first to go up against the walls are the academics. So I can see
your nervousness.
[Arlo]
I think we are a bit off from putting "interlictials" before firing
squads. But if some had there way...
[John]
Ok, I admit it. I'm prone to excessive rhetoric now and then too.
[Arlo]
When done in good humor, even partial good humor, there is nothing
wrong with it all.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
