plainoldme wrote:timberlandko wrote:Accountability is not "The Enemy", beaureaucratic gameplaying in lieu of actual accountability is the enemy. What is necessary is a single, unified, result-oriented, nation-wide core curriculum. On that basis alone may legitimate accountability be achieved - as it must be.
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, that I have demonstrated my level of frustration with this totally inane comment, let's discuss what is wrong with from two points of view, the philosophical and the practical.
The philosophical first. We all agree that timber espouses the conservative point of view. Supposedly, or so 'they' say, the foundation of contemporary, American conservatism is small government. Here, timber is calling for the implementation of the biggest boondoggle ever, the implementation of a curriculum under the direct control of the federal government. Apparently, he does not see the contradiction.
Straw man and red herring - there is no requirement that I - or my philosophy - need fit into some pocket constructed to suit your convenience, and there is no reason an effective national education system need be or even might be any less achievable here in the US than such have been shown to be in the nations having such, nations the students of which consistently are outperforming the products of the antiquated, patchwork, inefficient, ineffective, culkturally entrenched boondoggle which is the current US education system. Again - the matter of educating a nation's youth to permit effective competition and achievement in the real world is every bit as mach a matter of overarching national importance, and responsibility, as are national defense and national commerce. There are some things best done at a national level, and standard education is one of those things. Effective performance - achievement monitored and assured by strict accountability, as in any good quality control process, is what is needed, and the only way to get that dome at a national level is to establish a system of national standdards, national rewards, and national sanctions. Perform to standard or above, and benefit thereby, fail to perform to standard, pay the price ... not beaureaucracy, not boondogle, but actual achievement through rigorous, objective accountablity. The beginning of your argument collapses.
Quote:Another point to make under the aegis of philosophy is that if every community contributes to the stew that is American education, then the size of the pot and the richness of the ingredients will be more than they would be if there is a national curriculum.
More bullshit - we've seen the results of that, and its a huge part of what's gotten us into the mess we're in. That approach denies the existence of the problem and argues for nothing more, less, or other than doing it the same old way.
Quote:Now, let's address this from a practical standpoint.
That, from one given to the nonsense you appear to endorse, would be refreshing.
Quote:Let's look at our rich and varied stew with its complex layers of flavor not from philosopher's seat but from the magnifying glass of the pragmatist. I take the position of the English teacher, my own field. Does a national curriculum mean that every child in America reads exactly the same book at exactly the same time? If it does -- and, if you are thinking at all, you know this will be a consequence, intended or not -- then you will effectively reduce the cultural experience of all children in America, discourage reading and severely limit critical thinking. Of course, the latter is exactly what conservatives want.
Straw man - first, that is not, and cannot be demonstrated to be, "what conservatives want", it is a red herring argument, a falsehood, a lie. A national curriculum would include both a core of minimum requirements - which all should master - and a broad assortment of electives, allowing for diversity, different intrerest and ability tracks, and a rounded, well-founded, solid education.
Quote:Consider, too, that during the late 1950s, there was a dust up over Johnny who could not read. Ironically, or, perhaps not so ironically, this brush fire was ignited by a novelist, writing for a literary publication, who advocated the traditional phonics as championed by Rudolf Flesch (I believe that is correct). Flesch, who began writing during the 1930s, disliked the "see it-say it" or "whole word" method. While this tempest was brewing, I was in Catholic schools where the phonics method of reading was taught. Many other Boomers were taught in the same way. There followed wave upon wave of different ways of teaching reading and grammar. Some work well for most kids, while others work well for a few. There have always been people who can not learn to read well in terms of comprehension. How will a national curriculum address those who have always fallen through the cracks?
More straw; "the cracks" are simply a crackpot "it isn't my fault" excuse construct. Certainly a proportion of those to be educated will have legitimate special needs, and for those, there must be effective special considerations. However, statistically the greatest proportion of the entire youth demographic is mentally competent to learn the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, and civil responsibility. Some will excell, and for them too there must be special accommodation, allowing their individual superiorities to be developed to the fullest. None the less, the thing about averages among very large samples (such as the youth of a nation of 300 Million) is that the average is a very large group. Minimum requirements structured to challenge and encourage the average student while allowing for appropriate special considerations pertaining to both abovew and below average students simply is what - and only what - makes sense.
Quote:Now, each state is ranked according to how well the children learn and how effective the schools in that state are. Is the national curriculum to be based on Massachusetts schools or on Alabama schools? Guess what? These national movements generally gravitate toward the lowest common denominator. Those initial tests generated under NCLB were hokum. Should a national curriculum be developed, it, too, will be hokum.
Straw man - you assert that any future paradigm be congruent with, developed from, demonstrably failed past paradigms. Such simply is not the case, and "lowest common denominator" does not apply. What is necessary is an overall overhaul of the educational system and its institutions. A minimum curriculum should be based on that which is required to permit the student to compete and achieve effectively in the real world - the real whole world - regardless how it might in the past have been done in which state or what district. Again, what has been done hasn't worked, and our students are falling further and further behind students from nations with rigorous, accountable, responsible, well developed, national standard curriculae
Quote:Finally, timber decries "bureaucratic gameplaying" but fails to see what level of gameplaying he invites by proposing a national curriculum. One of the problems in education today is the for-profit companies that are behind the tests and NCLB. There are also corporate schools taking over some communities and just ask the people who kicked them out of a charter school in Lowell, MA about the damage one corporation did there.
More straw - you merely point to examples of the beaureaucratic gameplaying which is at the core of the problem and which must be eradicated. There must be no room for games, period; strict standards and absolute accountability, not half measures and accommodations, are called for.
Quote:What timber fails to realize that it takes years to assess the effectiveness of any educational system. My former husband, raised in a Republican family, thought looking at the per capita expenditure was a measure of a school system but that might tell you how high their heating bills are and what their construction costs are. To judge a school system, you have to look at what colleges accept what percentage of its graduates and how many go on to study math, engineering, science and medicine.
More straw; I don't "fail to realize" anything - I know it will take years to determine, develop, and bring about the required changes, and I know the sooner we get to it the sooner we'll get it done. I know also that the first and most critical measure of a school system is the number of its graduates able to function effectively in the real in the world of commerce, industry, and technology, and I know our current system of public education is failing by that measure.