Arlo, I gotta run this morning, we're taking my eldest daughter off to college, her first year!
I will continue this dialogue with you. Peace On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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/ > 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/
