What's the purpose of education? Part 1 in a continuing series.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

You're locking kids into a path that's going to be hard to reverse. What if some 9th grader decides he just wants to be a welder and then 3 years later decides that electrical engineering is awesome? Too bad he only took welding classes and decided that Algebra II and Physics were unnecessary.

Then he would have the skills he needs to work while he pays for his education.

Originally Posted by bheld

Not everybody is going to have the same background, just like not everybody is going to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives in high school. The purpose of our educational system should be to keep as many doors open to all kids for as long as possible, not to continually filter them out until we have a stratified system by 12th grade.

You have to show that we should have a public education system in the first place before deciding what its purpose should be...

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

I agree with you on content choice, but not on subject choice. Somebody that is not going to college doesn't need to know the specifics of the Holy Roman Empire, but they should at least have an understanding of history and how it affects us. I'm all for choice on what to study, but they need to study something.

As long as that history class teaches how public education has ruined education, I am all for it.

Oh wait, but now you are going to tell me that that is not the history that should be taught.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Well, there is plenty of evidence that people in academics are Democrats (Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism - Peter G. Klein - Mises Institute). Now, please try to tell me that Democrats are not big government advocates.

There's also plenty of evidence that my neutered dog can't make puppies. What's your point?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

But they were forced to waste time on English, History, Math, and Science classes...

Waste time.............ok, sure.

And again, the poorest neighborhoods have the highest drop out rates. So the school system obviously is not designed to give everyone an equal chance.

And you're making the assumption that what the school is designed to do and what funding allows are the same.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

As long as that history class teaches how public education has ruined education, I am all for it.

I thought you didn't want kids lied to?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

Are you saying those are the only two options?

because as a private citizen I can go to a town meeting and influence the school curriculum, and when i was a teacher no industry and/or industrialists intervened in my classroom.

I can't wait for "they did you just didn't know it"

Have you ever heard of the Rockefeller Foundation?

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Have you ever heard of the Rockefeller Foundation?

Yes.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 7960

You have a completely different definition of "indoctrination" than I do.

This is not indoctrination. If you were telling him what to think then you'd be indoctrinating him. If you were telling him "your teacher supports this so you should write about supporting this" then you'd be indoctrinating. But you're not. You're telling the kid proper tense, subject/verb agreement, helping him find more colorful language to talk about what he's already thinking. That's not indoctrinating, ESPECIALLY because he's not a native english speaker.

Sorry, but if you believe this and teach like this then you shouldn't be teaching, tutoring, helping, or otherwise interacting with learners. A teacher's job is not to tell a student what to think. If you believe you're doing that, please quit your TA job.



Real brilliance comes from study. Whether it's first-hand, out there watching shit grow or reading about others' work and internalizing or expanding on it......the "paper" only shows what you went through. It lets me hold up a piece of paper to prove what I learned, rather than having to derive formulas over and over in interviews.

-5, incomplete/incoherent thought ........ Please report to the Writing Center so they can help you expand on this.

When you do not understand, you get snippy. And it is unappealing.



I do not tell people what to think. When I tutor someone's essay, it is my job to teach them what the expectation of the college is. There are rules to language, and writing, and grammar, and I am there to decode it for students, so when they write, they are attaining a replication of "the ideal text". It is a standard of academic writing. Occassionaly, this style shows up even on this website.

I teach this to people, who may be perfectly comfortable with their level of diction. But, because THEIR level of diction is not the standard, they are attempting to change into the ACADEMIC level of diction. I can not tell them not to write a certain way, but when a students paper reads:

"I think prom was fun. It was an important day for me. My shoes were cool."

I have to explain to them why they are not achieving the standard of the institution I work for. And I can even go so far to tell a student "You will not pass if you do not improve your fragmented sentences."


When I state that it is a method of indoctrination, it isn't like it was made up. The very start of compulsary education was not to make the educated and wealthy, more of that, it was to train a working class. Which is further why the socio-economic boundaries of school impacts the level of education one may recieve from a given institution.

As for the subjects that people learn, those have ALWAYS changed throughout time. Why on earth would young people learn latin? Or read Victorian Literature? The mainstream education that students learn is watered down and basic compared to the previously mentioned 19th century test. But, I think it is because the government is not going to fund some kind of extravegent education for EVERYONE because most people aren't going to use it. So, now kids learn as much as they really need to. And there of course is always going to be a brainy percentage of the population, and there are going to be people who aren't interested.





So, to sum it up, compulsory education, in some theorists, and I may agree with them to some degree, can be percieved as a mass indoctrination of citizens, starting from a young age, and the very idea of "educating" is to change or catch up their perception of the culture. The culture defines which topics are important and necessary for the average student to learn.

I do not believe that this is negative. I hope that any child who is able to reach opportunity to learn, get that chance.

But, I am not going to pretend that the institution does look out for students. The institution looks out for itself, and it always has, and it always will.






And just so we're clear, I am incredibley helpful to my students, highly requested, and regarded as such.

[7960]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

When you do not understand, you get snippy. And it is unappealing.

I get snippy when I ask the same question 5 times and get "pretending the elephant isn't there isn't benificial" and "brilliance can not be obtained by a piece of paper" and "Language is reality." Those are all non-answers. I could reply to your/this post with "The boat sails at midnight" and "the banana is ripe" and say I replied to you, and I did. But I didn't answer you.

I asked a very specific question. Do you indoctrinate your students? Read below:

I do not tell people what to think. When I tutor someone's essay, it is my job to teach them what the expectation of the college is. There are rules to language, and writing, and grammar, and I am there to decode it for students, so when they write, they are attaining a replication of "the ideal text". It is a standard of academic writing. Occassionaly, this style shows up even on this website.

You do not teach people what to think.

You do not teach people what to think?

I thought teachers (and a tutor is a teacher) indoctrinated people.

I teach this to people, who may be perfectly comfortable with their level of diction. But, because THEIR level of diction is not the standard, they are attempting to change into the ACADEMIC level of diction. I can not tell them not to write a certain way, but when a students paper reads:

"I think prom was fun. It was an important day for me. My shoes were cool."

I have to explain to them why they are not achieving the standard of the institution I work for. And I can even go so far to tell a student "You will not pass if you do not improve your fragmented sentences."

And what is this student's goal? Is it to tell someone about their prom and shoes? I doubt it...that essay is a lesson in english grammar and diction. If that student just wants to get his message across he obviously can do that. But I'm guessing he doesn't just want that. I'm guessing he wants to do more than just be understood. In other words he's in school specifically to learn more of our language, its use, and how to better express himself.

When I state that it is a method of indoctrination, it isn't like it was made up. The very start of compulsary education was not to make the educated and wealthy, more of that, it was to train a working class. Which is further why the socio-economic boundaries of school impacts the level of education one may recieve from a given institution.

Did you just say that some schools give a lower level of education because they only train the working class? Are you talking public schools or private universities, colleges, and secondary schools? Because I've never seen a public school have the mission "to train the working class."

As for the subjects that people learn, those have ALWAYS changed throughout time. Why on earth would young people learn latin?

I did, in a public school no less

Or read Victorian Literature? The mainstream education that students learn is watered down and basic compared to the previously mentioned 19th century test.

Watered down? 8th graders today may not specifically learn exactly "what are the 9 rules of capitalization?" but my THIRD grader would get most of them right. When I student taught 7th grade I was teaching them algebra and some trig. They didn't know it and I wasn't about to tell them, but they were learning it. Given a few basic conversions that 7th grade class could have easily answered any of the arithmetic questions. And for the years I taught 9th grade algebra I can assure you nearly all of them could do anything in that arithmetic list when they walked in my class (so they learned it in or before 8th grade). Exactly how does that show "education that students learn is watered down and basic compared to the previously mentioned 19th century test"?

But, I think it is because the government is not going to fund some kind of extravegent education for EVERYONE because most people aren't going to use it. So, now kids learn as much as they really need to. And there of course is always going to be a brainy percentage of the population, and there are going to be people who aren't interested.

Extravagant? That 19th century test is basic. It seems difficult because the test uses terms from their era. Give one of them the algebra and trig 8th graders learn today and see how they'd do.

So, to sum it up, compulsory education, in some theorists, and I may agree with them to some degree, can be percieved as a mass indoctrination of citizens, starting from a young age, and the very idea of "educating" is to change or catch up their perception of the culture. The culture defines which topics are important and necessary for the average student to learn.

WHOA! Now you're throwing in culture? Like I said, if the teacher is telling them "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" then the teacher is indoctrinating. Or if the teacher is telling them "America sucks for getting involved in iraq/kuwait/vietnam/korea/grenada/etc" then the teacher is indoctrinating. If the teacher is telling them that we got involved and they're reading and learning about it then how is that indoctrinating?

I do not believe that this is negative. I hope that any child who is able to reach opportunity to learn, get that chance.

I think the problem is we may be using two definitions of "indoctrination." To me indoctrination is rarely, if ever, positive. I'd use "indoctrinate" to talk about Palestinians teaching kids to hate jews. I'd use "indoctrinate" to talk about al-queda perverting a religion so their followers fight for their cause. I would not talk about a teacher "indoctrinating" a student because he taught him algebra I.

So are we using different definitions? And if we are can I say women are chattel because I had "Mine" engraved inside my wife's wedding ring?

But, I am not going to pretend that the institution does look out for students. The institution looks out for itself, and it always has, and it always will.

Why did you type this?

And just so we're clear, I am incredibley helpful to my students, highly requested, and regarded as such.

I guess that just means they like how you indoctrinate them?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

Now, what is the purpose of education? Does every child need to be educated? Is education a societal responsibility or a parental one?

Does every child need to be educated? Here I assume you mean does every child need a formal education? Clearly, the answer is no. All children learn to speak without a formal education. And what more do you need to get a job?

Is education a societal or parental responsibility? Again, here I assume you mean a formal education. First of all, there is no responsibility on either society nor parents to provide a formal education. It is like asking if it the responsibility of government or parents to provide children with lavish vacations.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Then he would have the skills he needs to work while he pays for his education.

ZZZZAAAAANNNNGGGG!!!!!!!



Regarding Socialists in Education, are you familiar with Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon?

He was the father of Sociology and Marxist thought. He envisioned a world where academia and scientist were elevated to a priest class, and the intelligencia would control commerce and direct resources.

His legacy intoxicates the educator and bureaucratic classes with utopian arrogance and lust for power.

Socialism is adored by academics and scientists because it is designed to direct the resources of society toward achieving their goals.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Does every child need to be educated?

Does every teacher need to be educated?

Not in a public School:


OCEANSIDE, Calif. -- John Corcoran graduated from college and taught high school for 17 years without being able to read, write or spell.

Corcoran's life of secrecy started at a young age. He said his teachers moved him up from grade to grade. Often placed in what he calls the "dumb row," the images of his tribulations in the classroom are still vividly clear.

"I can remember when I was 8 years old saying my prayers at night saying, 'please, God, tomorrow when it's my turn to read please let me read.' You just pretend that you are invisible and when the teacher says, 'Johnnie read,' you just wait the teacher out because you know the teacher has to go away at some point," said Corcoran.

Corcoran eventually started acting up to hide his illiteracy. From fifth through seventh grade he was expelled, suspended and spent most of his days at the principal's office.

The former teacher said he came from a loving family that always supported him.

"My parents came to school and it no longer was a problem for me reading because this boy Johnnie the -- native alien I call him -- he didn't have a reading problem as far as the teachers were concerned. He had an emotional problem. He had a psychological problem. He had a behavioral problem," said Corcoran.

Corcoran later attended Palo Verde High School in Blythe, Calif. He cheated his way through high school, receiving his diploma in June 1956.

"When I was a child I was just sort of just moved along when I got to high school I wanted to participate in athletics. At that time in high school I went underground. I decided to behave myself and do what it took. I started cheating by turning in other peoples' paper, dated the valedictorian, and ran around with college prep kids," said Corcoran.

"I couldn't read words but I could read the system and I could read people," adds Corcoran.

He stole tests and persuaded friends to complete his assignments. Corcoran earned an athletic scholarship to Texas Western College. He said his cheating intensified, claiming he cheated in every class.

"I passed a bluebook out the window to a friend I painstakingly copied four essay questions off the board in U.S. government class that was required, and hoped my friend would get it back to me with the right answers," Corcoran said.

In 1961, Corcoran graduated with a bachelor's degree in education, while still illiterate he contends. He then went on to become a teacher during a teacher shortage.

"When I graduated from the university, the school district in El Paso, where I went to school, gave almost all the college education graduates a job," said Corcoran.

For 17 years Corcoran taught high school for the Oceanside School District. Relying on teacher's assistants for help and oral lesson plans, he said he did a great job at teaching his students.

"What I did was I created an oral and visual environment. There wasn't the written word in there. I always had two or three teacher's assistants in each class to do board work or read the bulletin," said Corcoran.

In retrospect, Corcoran said, his deceit took him a long time to accept.

"As a teacher it really made me sick to think that I was a teacher who couldn't read. It is embarrassing for me, and it's embarrassing for this nation and it's embarrassing for schools that we're failing to teach our children how to read, write and spell!"


Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48 - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego


I am not sure what is worse?

The fact that he was pushed through the system with such ease, or that he was able to become part of the same system and I guess nobody ever had a clue or bothered to confront him?

[bheld]

GTST

There's too much hyperbole.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I am not sure what is worse?

The fact that he was pushed through the system with such ease, or that he was able to become part of the same system and I guess nobody ever had a clue or bothered to confront him?

I can see someone bullshitting his way through high school and possibly even college. But with all the paperwork I was required to do I can't see how he was a teacher and couldn't read/write.

Wait.........he's selling a book! What a fantastic way to get some publicity!!