What’s Wrong with the World

Oh, heck, while we're dreaming:

--Eliminate public school education altogether. Okay, you can do it gradually, if you must.

--Allow all schools to kick out anyone they want to kick out. No lawsuits on general grounds, unless real breach of contract can be plausibly alleged.

--Allow schools to "discriminate" however they darned well please in admissions.

--Cut all public funding to teacher's colleges. You know what they do on the first day of an education major's classes? They open up all the students' skulls and suck out part of their brains. They then administer a drug to make sure the students don't remember that this happened.

Lydia-

ANY way they please?

Hard to disagree with your final point, though. I have a little brother majoring in secondary ed--it's amazing the multicultural nonsense to which he's been subjected in his first semester.

How I loathed the time in class when we'd spend an extra 20 minutes explaining it to the one person who didn't "get it". I was sad to see this actually continued into college and sadder yet as it continues today during business meetings (Except now you might get chuckles for the quip: "we covered that 15 minutes ago, try and keep up, Sparky").

I say we put Lydia's and Steve's ideas together. We'll call it 'Most Children Left Behind'. I'm not opposed. NCLB's been a disaster.

(1) Eliminate compulsory attendance. Kids who don't want to be there shouldn't be there. They learn nothing, and they drag everybody else down with them.

At what level? It is both possible and desirable to force literacy down the throats of young children who don't understand why they should want to learn it.

Before anybody here starts flaunting their intellectual superiority and promoting their plans for greater elitism, kindly engage in some manner (even a modest one perhaps) of research concerning the lives of certain eminent literary giants as well as scientists who in their youth initially seemed to their teachers as both mentally as well as intellectually deficient.

Here's a mediocre yet adequately brief presentation concerning 450 Underachievers who in the end became famous men & women.

I don't know if it's worse than the multiculturalism or just different, but part of what I had in mind in my last point is the fact that education schools and education classes seem to teach anti-education. I have been told that the worst _teachers_ in the math department are the "math ed" people. Makes one think. But I wasn't surprised.

Consider: the schools are working just fine, just as intended. If you don't like the end-results, don't put your children into the assembly line.

As far as political indoctrination, I think that is true. As far as not being able to read, write, or perform basic arithmetic (or having delays or trouble in these areas), I think that is not true. I think the world is full of education people who are genuinely baffled at and disturbed by the fact that the schools are not teaching children basic skills. They are just so lacking in all common sense that they are unable to look at the faddish methods used, one after another, the methods they have been taught, and see for themselves that _of course_ this will produce children with entirely unnecessary difficulties in these areas.

Steve,

While I suspect you and Steve S. are already familiar with Charles Murray's , just in case you aren't, I thought you should know he shares many of the same policy ideas as you.

You should Google some of his critics though, for what those of us who broadly agree with Murray are up against.

Steve,

I goofed up the html. The below should have the correct link.

While I suspect you and Steve S. are already familiar with Charles Murray's book, just in case you aren't, I thought you should know he shares many of the same policy ideas as you.

You should Google some of his critics though, for what those of us who broadly agree with Murray are up against.

We handle the top 5% poorly. You guys are talking about the top 50-60%. As far as high school is concerned, an IQ of 70 is sufficient to handle the current material in a timely manner. Once that is recognized, most of the bell curve's applicability to education is recognized for the nonsense it is.

As for ideas for education.
1) Public education ending at 15 or 16.
2) A pre-college from 16-19. Optionally a standard 2-year vocational school. University from 19-21 resulting in a bachelor degree. Once could also enter workforce at 15 or 16, but those youths chronically unemployed or not in school would be eligible for vagrancy charges until their 19th birthday.
3) Elimination of centralized schooling through the 7th grade. 8th through 10th grade could be centralized. Middle school has proven to be a disaster for education.

Yes, the education departments at colleges are a travesty. As one who has personnaly been through an education program the vast majority of what is taught is either a waste of time or ideologically driven. What is useful or needed (such as classroom managment, legal issues, etc.) can be covered with a single one semester class.

To sadly state the obvious (but George Orwell aptly put it "we have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.") teachers today need to follow what William Bennett summarizes as the three C's: Content, Communication, and Character. First and foremost, the teacher must master the material that they are teaching, secondly, they must be an effective communicator of that material, and last, they must have a character of upright being. In short, this is just Aristotle's philosophy of rhtetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Heather MacDonald has done a fine job exposing the problem with education schools at college in her article "Why Johnny's Teacher Can't Teach" at: http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a1.html.

Jacques Barzun has also provided some helpful comments on education in his short essay titled "What Is a School? An Institution in Limbo."

Part of the problem is also employer's demanding college level education/degrees for essentially non-college positions. Most management positions really don't need college degrees - practical experience would be far more helpful.

I would wholeheartedly agree with more "skills" type classes/electives in high school, and would include some general business classes as well.

In response to what C Matt says, I would add that colleges are teaching things that seem "basic" and that employers understandably want--the ability to write coherently, for example. These _are_ necessary skills for a large range of jobs in the contemporary world, but they _should_ be taught in high school. This is why it is on the one hand frustrating that so many employers demand a bachelor's degree as a credential and yet on the other hand understandable that they do so. It is not that they actually need students who have taken a whole range of university courses, know calculus, or what-not (at least not for many jobs) but that it is difficult to get someone who is good even at a fairly low-level white-collar-ish job right out of high school, because the high schools are so dismal, and the colleges are doing remedial work.

Gintas: Consider: the schools are working just fine, just as intended. If you don't like the end-results, don't put your children into the assembly line.

Don't make me pay taxes for public schools I don't use and we have a deal.

I may be mistaken, but I think Gintas might have been using a somewhat ironic tone. I think he is saying that the schools are doing exactly what the liberal weltanschaunng intends for them to do.

Well, yes, I think that's what Gintas was saying, too. But is it really true that the liberal weltanschaunng wants kids not to be able to read very well?

I'm thinking here of Rudolf Flesch, for example, who wrote the original _Why Johnny Can't Read_ and the sequel _Why Johnny Still Can't Read_. Flesch was very concerned to argue his liberal credentials in the sequel (he was European, I believe Austrian), and he was annoyed as could be at the implication that phonics reading methods are "conservative." He was contemptuous of the claim, in fact. And I see his point. Unless as conservatives we want to claim that every method of technical mastery that actually works is "conservative," I think we have to admit that the connection between phonics and conservatism is an historical accident. The only sense in which it isn't is that in education, unlike in auto mechanics, the liberal hatred of anything that's been around for a long time is able to wreak untold consequences. But in and of itself, there's nothing "conservative" about teaching kids to spell rather than use text-message spelling or "inventive spelling" (a real educational fad), to read by phonics rather than look-say, or to learn the multiplication tables. The troubles with our schools are multifaceted. Certainly multiculturalism often _does_ act as a cause of sheer educational insanity, as in the Ebonics and "out of Africa" fads, but often the connection between political correctness and anti-education is more indirect, and I think the results do disturb some liberal educators themselves, even though they are too foolish to know how to fix the problem.

Lydia nails it with "the colleges are doing remedial work"

Just as the credit bubble divorced nominal values from their real values in the immovable assets markets, the fiduciary media "bubble" has seriously interfered in education, divorcing the nominal worth of our "moveable" assets from their real worth. We are all the poorer for it, since now kids are in hock to their eyeballs to attain simple credentials they could have received in apprenticeships, as still practiced in some parts of the world, Germany for example.

As Catholics,de universali vocatione ad sanctitatem, ought we not embrace a far-sighted sense of "vo-tech" literally as envisioning "The Far Side"? What use conjugating verbs if we risk conjugating with our Maker in Heaven? As a catechist, I would advocate for formation (better catechetics) of those juvenile souls (& their parish elders) enslaved to the public school system (and sacrificing after hours for the real remedial work). Most pressing IMHO, the materials for CCD must be overhauled/redrafted with the critical nature of the wound to be medicated in mind. (Currently the texts are the same for kids in Catholic school and those in public schools, but these cohorts operate in VASTLY different milieus). Do our pastors know what is being taught in public school? It is as if they think the contents of a first-aid box will suffice to rescucitate the occupants of the ICU - farcical if were not so tragic!

The moral fiber of our nation faces untoward hazards, and very few of our children are equipped to even recognize them (those being taught by Prof. Michael King at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas:

... a voice in the back row of the classroom, where a rather quiet and normally imperceptible student began the following exchange with me:

"You know, we hear all about these bailouts and stimulus packages coming out of Washington."

"Yes, I know."

"Hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars, right?"

"That's right."

"They don't really have the money, though, do they?"

"No, they don't."

"And so they are just going to print it, aren't they?"

"Yes, the banking system is going to print it and loan it to the government."

"Out of nothing, right?"

"That's right."

"But that's not right, is it?"

Just to be clear, the student was not suggesting that the premise was not right, as in not correct. He was asserting that this massive production of money out of thin air was not right, as in not ethical.

Most heads in the class were either nodding in agreement or shaking in disbelief. These students may not understand exactly what is happening to the economy in general and the banking sector in particular, or they may not be able to articulate a sophisticated explanation (not yet, at least), but they instinctively know that something is not right.

cited from "The Right and Wrong of Money Production" at http://mises.org/story/3335

are in with a fighting chance!

Although a large portion of the population still interacts with their kids, they cannot overcome the effect of a 6-8 hour day of government school bungling. Actually as Clare states above, that many Christian schools are barely different--not just because of the book selections, but because of the method of teaching employed. The idea that the population needs to be manageable attains a higher spot on the priority list than does the idea that people need to be able to reason to original conclusions. The modern school day is filled with busy work, endless busy work which includes multiple hours of homework with much of it just being a process of regurgitation of facts. The Calvary Chapel High School in Costa Mesa is respected as being a good college prep school, and after having 1 daughter spend 2 years there [after home schooled solely til that point], I've personally spoken against the experience to anyone who'd listen because of the "rote method", memorization/regurgitation of approved input for the purpose of geting a high SAT score, regardless of whether or not you actually understand what trivial tidbits occupy space in your brain.

My opinion may be wrong, but Dewey gets a fair amount of credit/blame for this sad state of education. Many kids have never come up with an original thought--I dont mean original in the history of mankind, but original to them. A thought that was the conclusion from deductive reasoning. But, the populace is manageable because they are conditioned to beleive what the authority says and then regurgitate it to those that they influence.

Although a large portion of the population still interacts with their kids, they cannot overcome the effect of a 6-8 hour day of government school bungling. Actually as Clare states above, that many Christian schools are barely different--not just because of the book selections, but because of the method of teaching employed. The idea that the population needs to be manageable attains a higher spot on the priority list than does the idea that people need to be able to reason to original conclusions. The modern school day is filled with busy work, endless busy work which includes multiple hours of homework with much of it just being a process of regurgitation of facts. The Calvary Chapel High School in Costa Mesa is respected as being a good college prep school, and after having 1 daughter spend 2 years there [after home schooled solely til that point], I've personally spoken against the experience to anyone who'd listen because of the "rote method", memorization/regurgitation of approved input for the purpose of geting a high SAT score, regardless of whether or not you actually understand what trivial tidbits occupy space in your brain.

My opinion may be wrong, but Dewey gets a fair amount of credit/blame for this sad state of education. Many kids have never come up with an original thought--I dont mean original in the history of mankind, but original to them. A thought that was the conclusion from deductive reasoning. But, the populace is manageable because they are conditioned to beleive what the authority says and then regurgitate it to those that they influence.

Perhaps the solution to the education problem lies in a history lesson. Around 1900 Sigmund Freud introduced American educators and writers to his theories of human behavior. His basic premise was that human behavior was simply the product of early childhood experiences. Implicit was the notion that all behavior could be molded by experience and reasoning. Well, genetic research now reveals that basic human behavior is likely inherited and fixed in our chromosomes.

Not only were the early educators and writers infatuated with Freud, so was Karl Marx and all manner of socialists and communists. This soon morphed into the greatest elitist cult in our history. These 'elitists' dominated institutions and writings with their ideas that ideal societies could be formed of individuals who were properly indoctrinated with socialist dogma and all would be wonderful. Well, these Freudian Fools still dominate most institutions of higher learning and the main-stream press because no one has unmasked their charade. E. Fuller Torrey, MD in his book Freudian Fraud, makes the case in great detail.

Until the great elitist cult is confronted with genetic facts of life and made to renounce their dependence on Freud and accept the fact that their phony incentive and motivation concepts cannot be twisted to make people do what they inherently will not do, not much will change. History, except for the last 100 years, has always shown that hungry people will hunt and cold people will build a fire. So it appears that education reform has to start with determining what needs to be taught and firing teachers who cannot or will not do the job. It won't be long until the self-appointed elitists in the colleges of education get the message and start teaching real-world skills instead of left-wing propaganda. Educators are not basically bad people, they have just been fed a Freudian bill-of-goods that has corrupted the entire education system in this country. Sorry for the long post.

Single-sex schools, at least at the middle and secondary levels.

Andysan: I do not think that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was particularly "infatuated" with the thought of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).

Steve: You are right. What I should have said instead of "Karl Marx" was the "Marxists."

Interesting link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism

The end result was the same .. an elitist cult of far-left enthusiasts who still dominate significant regions of higher education and the media.

the colleges are doing remedial work.

That's what I'm paid to do in my introductory classes, and the lack of basic knowledge of American government, American history, and rudimentary English among all too many students astounds, frightens, and depresses me.

the education departments at colleges are a travesty. ...First and foremost, the teacher must master the material that they are teaching,

Ditto. I have found that education majors are among my worst students, and I have no compunction against failing them (I do not even give them the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases on the belief that the next generation deserves better). I blame Cartesianism run amok for the belief that teachers need only learn the right method rather than master the material. This doesn't mean that learning pedagogical technique is useless, but I think that apprenticeship and experience are a far better way to do that.

"the education departments at colleges are a travesty. ...First and foremost, the teacher must master the material that they are teaching"

Among other neverendingly frustrating results of education school courses (mandated by the state, and not always happily introduced by the colleges themselves) is the fact that we have to reduce the number of courses that ed majors take in the actual major itself -- i.e., the ones who will be teaching English take fewer English courses than those who will use their degree for something else. We do have many -- most now, I think -- of our English majors who wish to teach in high school doing a regular degree, not an ed degree, and seeking alternate certification after they graduate. We tend to encourage this.

Thomas Sowell has written a number of times about studies that show that it is the lowest-ability college students, as a rule, who are in the education major. This, too, is a travesty. But if you are going to pile on semester-long courses in how to use AV equipment, and reduce the courses they can take in the subject matter, and then create a poisonous PC atmosphere in the schools where they teach . . . well, it stands to reason that many serious, excellent students will decide to do something else for a living.

I believe that feminism is a seriously bad influence on mathematical education as well as other fields. Departments in universities are encouraged to hire in a sub-discipline where there are a lot of women candidates, and women are in turn encouraged to go into sub-disciplines specially set up for them. This is bad for everyone, including the female students/job candidates. "Math ed" is apparently the one in math. So some profs are publishing hard stuff in statistics while others are publishing papers in "teaching math methods." That's a travesty. And as I mentioned, apparently the math ed specialists have a reputation as poor teachers, which is one of those unsurprising ironies. Faddish teaching methods do not a good teacher make.

M.Z. writes:

1) Public education ending at 15 or 16.
2) A pre-college from 16-19.

Absolutely. Liberal arts should be finished by 19 or 20.

Perseus - so you're teaching now!

That is good news.

Please be careful.

Steve: It's merely an adjunct position at the moment. But it does have the advantage of being at a state university with a relatively strong faculty union, which means that I'm sucking the lifeblood out of taxpayers. :o)