I kinda thought Doug and Michael wouldn't see eye to eye. Michael says he is in the race because of his experience of failure. Doug probably had a different experience and does not see the "failure" that Michael professes to see. I didn't have an experience of failure in public schools, either. People want to say the schools don't work as well as they used to. But we have to realize that society has changed in a multitude of ways since the "good old days". Kids don't revere the kind of people I did. Parents have more interests that interfere with providing attention to kids. Business spends a lot of time distracting kids in many different ways, making it harder to concentrate. Dropouts like Bill Gates provide a rationalization to "do your own thing" instead of being an academic grind. Not too many decades ago, it was a privilege to go to school. Now its what everybody does and doesn't have the cachet of something exclusive anymore.
Michael's proposals can't deal with any of these things. They seem based on an assumption of institutional failure rather than cultural failure. But this is the kind of cultural rot that is the first stages of aging of a civilization, and our refusal to revise radically our values is a sign that we aren't going to head it off. Advertising has created a nation of materialist addicts, and the schools are just some collateral damage. A workable program for schools has to be a defensive scheme to shield the schools from this toxic environment. Business wants dependable consumers, but schools have to insure that they are anything but. Schools must be about teaching skepticism and the critical thinking process that will resist the brainwashing. Conservative thinkers will never lead in that process. They will compel the Pledge of Allegiance which is about blind followership. Jim Mork (Cooper) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/30/2002 9:20:32 AM Central > Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I can understand > > why someone would support Joe Erickson given > how difficult it is to > > understand how liberal educational > philosophy perpetuates school failure. > > I don't agree with Michael Atherton that > liberal educational > philosophy perpetuates school failure. We > don't agree > about what makes good schools good. And I doubt > that we > could agree on what a good school looks like. I > think that a majority > of students in Minnesota's public school system > are enrolled > in schools that are doing a great job of > educating nearly all of > their students. Although I engage in what some > call 'public > school bashing,' I also do a little public > school cheerleading > from time to time. > > How do public schools where 95-99% of the > students pass the > Minnesota Basic standards on the first try > differ from the public > schools in Minneapolis, leaving aside student > background > characteristics? One difference is that they > don't have a > nonacademic work-readiness curriculum. > Instruction in good public > schools is done the same way it is done in good > private schools. > Instruction is based on individualized > educational planning, not > ability-grouping. That's why a majority of > public schools in Minnesota > get about the same results as the better > private college preparatory > schools. > > Lets consider 3 policy changes proposed by > Michael Atherton > which go against the grain of so-called liberal > educational > philosophy: (See message posted by > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > dated 8/31/2002 2:46:29 PM Central Daylight > Time): > > 1. Test teachers on their knowledge of their > subjects. > Rationale: teacher training programs > overemphasize > general teaching methodology, the emphasis > should > be on curriculum content. > > 2. Promote structure and discipline. > Institutional constraints: > "a) Contemporary educational philosophy holds > that discipline > and structure inhibit student learning..." > "b) Liberal public school administrators are > unwilling to > tarnish their careers by supporting individual > teachers in > disciplinary actions." > > 3. Need a better system for weeding out bad > teachers. > "Bad teachers don't quit, they just stay on > till retirement. > The unions, weak-kneed administrators, and an > unconcerned > public are responsible for this problem." > > If the public schools in Minneapolis are > failing because of contemporary > educational philosophy, teacher training > programs that overemphasize > general teaching methodology, weak-kneed > liberal school administrators, > and teachers unions, then all of the public > schools in Minnesota > must be failing because just about all the > public schools > in Minnesota have those things in common. > > I think that the Minneapolis Public Schools > will be better off without > the kind of 'conservative' reforms which > Michael Atherton advocates. > > -Doug Mann > Mann for School Board web site > http://educationright.tripod.com > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic > Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and > more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
