I wrote:If so, then again, raising those topics in no way helps us to determine what ought to go into a compulsory curriculum, which is the topic that I've been discussing since my very first reply in this thread.

To which DH replied:

Actually it does. It helps us clarify by what values do we include or exclude subject matter. It doesn't determine what will be chosen, but it illuminates the values we utilize in making those decisions.

Unless you can give me some sort of concrete example as to how "clarifying values" leads to charting out a curriculum, it looks an awful lot to me as though you just contradicted yourself. If you're arguing for what I think you're arguing for, then just about the only outcome I can envision is a welter of confusion, out of which students come incredibly ill-prepared to deal with a society that demands an awful lot from them.

I haven't begun to discuss method, beyond bringing the student into the already existing world of developing the skills for evaluating what is put in and what is left out.

Then why don't you discuss method for a moment, so I can get some sense that your position is more than just abstract idealism. Take the two examples that you've provided: a 1st grade classroom and a 10th grade classroom. What, in a calender year, will they be taught? How will they be taught it? And what role does you GB&T paradigm play in the process? You seem to make quite a bit of their participation in determining what it is they're taught, so perhaps you can explain how that participation would work, while you're at it. The scheme you present doesn't have to be so polished that it's ready to implement, but without some sort of concrete example to go by, I'm not sure that I can make sense of the format you're suggesting.

Is that mathematics to build Hummers and Atomic Bombs, or Solar Panels and Farmer's Markets?

I wouldn't plan on structuring the program so as to coerce them to prefer one job over the other. Actually, what I had in mind was the mathematics to handle their personal finances, to understand routine technical information that may confront them, and that will, in all likelihood, be required of them in just about any job they take, regardless of its relation to environmental concerns. Personally, I'd count it as obsequious to have some message about global warning or nuclear proliferation taught to me while I was trying to concentrate on learning how to derive the square root of a number.

I don't agree that Public Education is simply an adjunct to preparing Citizens to receive the needed values and tools of acculturation. I mean, it certainly can be what you describe it to be; and in many cases it is far less. But it doesn't have to be.

No, it doesn't have to be. And at the higher, more voluntary levels, it shouldn't be. But to my mind, compulsory education stands on the borderline of injustice by its very nature. Any values that it seeks to instill, beyond those necessary to balance out the imposition placed on a citizen by the fact of their living in that specific society, are a burden that I don't think it justifiable to force upon a student.

In other words, participator democracy requires learning how to participate democratically: I think Public School is crucial for this.

And I think that a more conscientious program of civics ought to be a crucial part of compulsory education. Not, I should mention, because we want to train good little democratic participators, but because it will empower them should they choose to participate. But it shouldn't be the purpose of a mathematics class to teach civics -- nor, for that matter, morality -- anymore than we ought to expact a science class to teach theology.

I wrote:MA: Public education will, in all probability, transform your sacred questions into idols in service of the very status quo you seek to oppose. And for seeking the complicity of public education, you will have deserved that betrayal.

DH replied:

That's certainly a risk. One that your approach faces as well.

Actually, my approach is at much less risk, in large part because it's geared to support the society that is, in the first place, demanding education of its citizenry. To take an institution that is so bound up in the prevailing social forms and functions, and structure so as to question precisely those forms and functions, is to ask that institution to contradict itself. It can only tolerate that sort of contradiction to a very limited degree, and it is almost inevitable that it will turn some of those contradictions to its own purposes. Your approach is geared towards enabling students to change society, and you hardly seem bothered by the notion that, not only does society not want its students changing it in some of the ways you have in mind, but it also bodies forth the very institutions you're prevailing upon to pull of that feat.

It's a bit like trusting the tobacco industry to draft the policy that would reduce smoking. Apply enough pressure, and they certainly will do what you ask, but you can bet that they'll look for, and find, ways to protect their interests. What you're suggesting would be much less prone to corruption or compromise if emanated from some source that was less dependent on the object of its critique.

MA: I wouldn't plan on structuring the program so as to coerce them to prefer one job over the other. Actually, what I had in mind was the mathematics to handle their personal finances, to understand routine technical information that may confront them, and that will, in all likelihood, be required of them in just about any job they take, regardless of its relation to environmental concerns.

So, the market will determine how and why math is taught? And not just any market, but the dominant market: the one that defines the economic systems in which the students will live, work, and consume. Your approach simply replicates the dominant model: coercion to a particular form of capitalist economy. Which means we could expect more of the same output from these mindful consumers as their parents' generation. Bleak is the best word I can find for this. Ecocide is more appropriate.

Actually, your approach to math, it seems, is analogous to having school on a boat at sea: the boat is steadily taking on water and approaching submersion. Whereas one approach would be to get the students busy fixing the seams, sails and hull and finding the best methods to carry water, and perhaps redirect the course of the boat...your approach is to keep studiously engaged with tying knots and ignoring the rising water in the hull and on the deck. Their boat is sinking, but to say out loud: the boat is sinking, we are in danger, we must change course, redirect our knot tying efforts....is coercive. The boat their parents/society has bequeathed them and sent them onto the sea with...is sinking...any education model that avoids or denies this is irresponsible, and in your words, a betrayal.

MA: I'd count it as obsequious to have some message about global warning or nuclear proliferation taught to me while I was trying to concentrate on learning how to derive the square root of a number.

Stop blathering about the rising water on deck and the jagged rocks nearby...I am busy with my knots!

MA: But to my mind, compulsory education stands on the borderline of injustice by its very nature. Any values that it seeks to instill, beyond those necessary to balance out the imposition placed on a citizen by the fact of their living in that specific society, are a burden that I don't think it justifiable to force upon a student.

I agree that Public Education as a compulsory societal demand is always at risk of becoming a tyrannical measure of State. I also think it can be an essential way to bring cross-selections of a community into a shared space and learn together how to live democratically. I don't think there ae any other venues where children and adults from all walks of life can engage common projects and shared goals; and develop the skills to debate and disagree and achieve compromise and consensus...as Public School. Unlike the Military Draft where adults are compelled to kill and be killed for the demands of State, Public Education is a venue of debate, dialogue and discovery that I think society needs its members to engage.

And, again, I don't think a value-light approach to Public Education achieves what you hope for: I think it simply replicates the dominant structures and keeps students under the spell of those values that keep those structures in place and operative, even if they are dysfunctional and ecocidal.

And I think that a more conscientious program of civics ought to be a crucial part of compulsory education.

I agree, and that means linking what is going on in math class with what is happening in science, literature, history, PE, art, economics, humanities, technology...such that all of the course work in these separate disciplines find a common ground and interconnection. I think these different domains must be bridged to bring the content of each into alignment with a shared focus, project, or problem. I think G, T and B is an excellent way to keep the separate disciplines bound togther. I think the isolation of disciplines is terrible way to learn how to live within a world that is interconnected and interrelated in the many ways that we know it to be. So, yes, a more conscientious civics and math and all classes: linked together and bridged so that the knowledge and skills in one can link with another to solve real life problems...and envision a future worth the sacrifice we can safely assume confronts our children.

MA: Actually, my approach is at much less risk, in large part because it's geared to support the society that is, in the first place, demanding education of its citizenry.

Again, I think it simply replicates the values and skills needed to survive in a dominant system ripe for disaster and needing profound change. I think society should expect its younger generations not to simply reproduce its mistakes, but to correct them and develop better, smarter, more beautiful ways to live.

As for the Public Education model you've requested from me, I think we should start a new thread and pursue what, precisely, we want, expect and desire from a Public Education system.

Dissident Heart wrote:So, the market will determine how and why math is taught? And not just any market, but the dominant market: the one that defines the economic systems in which the students will live, work, and consume. Your approach simply replicates the dominant model: coercion to a particular form of capitalist economy.

No, my approach aims at teaching students the best way to survive in the current model. Ideally, such a curriculum would be responsive to changes in the demands placed on citizens by society, such that, should the economic "model" change, the curriculum would as well.

If your complaint is that my approach doesn't aim towards using students as the implements of radical social change, then you're right: It doesn't. As I've tried to emphasize before, I don't think that's what a compulsory education ought to do, and even if I did, I think it's incapable of doing so without compromising the ideals by which you'd effect that change.

Actually, your approach to math, it seems, is analogous to having school on a boat at sea: the boat is steadily taking on water and approaching submersion.

Lovely metaphor. I just don't see how it corresponds to anything I've said. Maybe that's it's strength as a symbol: That it's so vague that you could apply it to any idea you dislike.

The boat their parents/society has bequeathed them and sent them onto the sea with...is sinking...any education model that avoids or denies this is irresponsible, and in your words, a betrayal.

Actually, that misrepresents at least one of two things that I've said: I'm not sure which. I said that I thought compulsory education, by its very nature, bordered on injustice -- which might be what you're trying to indicate by betrayal here. In which case, the betrayal wouldn't be an "educational model that avoids or denies" the implication that the boat i sinking; rather, it's a betrayal that the parents put the children in the boat in the first place. On the other hand, you might be referring to my statement that the educational arm of a society would betray any solicitation on your part to have that arm serve to undermine the status quo that implements it. Your word choice makes that seem more likely, but at the same time, you've twisted around so as to make it sound as though I meant that it would be betraying the students. What I meant was that it would betray your agenda, would turn it to its own ends, would make bolstering the status quo look like a noble attempt to engage it. The students would be betrayed only in so much as they had taken your agenda to heart -- though, personally, I don't take it for granted that they would.

I don't think there ae any other venues where children and adults from all walks of life can engage common projects and shared goals; and develop the skills to debate and disagree and achieve compromise and consensus...as Public School.

There are plenty of places where they can. The sad fact is that, more often than not, they don't. Forcing them to doesn't seem particularly equitable to me, and if that's your justification for an educational system, I find it sorely lacking.

And, again, I don't think a value-light approach to Public Education achieves what you hope for: I think it simply replicates the dominant structures and keeps students under the spell of those values that keep those structures in place and operative, even if they are dysfunctional and ecocidal.

You know, it's funny, the way you put those two clauses on either side of a colon almost makes it look like the second clause is what you mean when you talk about what I hope to achieve through Public Education. (Why the capital letters? is it s person? are you German?) It isn't. I don't know how to make it any clearer: All I expect of compulsory education is that it facilitate the student's survival within their society and that it compensate for some of the detriment participation in a society will invariably cause. What you're talking about are the things you hope to achieve through public education, and talking about them as though they form an agenda that we share does nothing to bring our perspectives into agreement.

As for the Public Education model you've requested from me, I think we should start a new thread and pursue what, precisely, we want, expect and desire from a Public Education system.

Then, by all means, start it. I'll be interested to see how you respond to my request.

So this is where this thread ended up! I was searching in the older sections. It really wouldn't have occurred to me to look in this section. I had to search.

Incidentally, it's probably about time we started breaking this thread down into some less lengthy side threads. I'll let your interest decide where the joints are since I find myself, at this point in the discussion, in the position of defending a point of view.

With this in mind, I'm going to take a streamlined approach to this so that hopefully this reply isn't all that long. I'm going to concentrate on the question of why I think even within the education system you support, evolution should be taught*. Side threads are a nice idea, and unless someone has bet me to the punch, I want to start one or two in the coming days.

*I notice having finished replying that my discipline was lacking and I didn't focus on this question in the way I probably should have!


Mad

What I think would be most beneficial would be to present fewer "facts" but to be more thorough in dealing with the information that is presented, so that students come away with some sense of solidity -- not solidity in the sense that things simply exist and cannot be questioned, but solidity in the sense that information is something that can be handled, worked with, deconstructed if need be.

Acting as a dispensory for the current state of knowledge is self-defeating. For decades laypeople denied that smoking was dangerous, despite the changing state of scientific knowledge, in large part because they were weaned on a more tolerant view of the habit, and partly because their education left them ill-suited to the task of assessing new information that was coming in.

This doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I am a little bit confused as to why you think that we should teach people about the circulatory system so that they understand their health better, but not evolutionary theory which would help them understand all of the bodily systems better. Why draw the cut off here?

I said:

It's useful to know about evolution and genetics if you want to understand [how] the human body works.

Mad said:

Can you give me some concrete examples to demonstrate that? I don't think it's at all obvious that it does. For certain purposes, naturally, seeing the function of the human body in an evolutionary context is useful, but I'm not at all convinced that those are purposes the average student will ever have use for.

So, again, I ask -- what good does it do to teach third graders evolution? The majority of them will never use what they've been taught, and the minority that will use it will, in all likelihood, have to relearn it at the upper levels of education anyway.

Well, one concrete example would be in regards to explaining our sense of taste. If you argue that knowledge of the structure on the heart should be provided in order to help students understand their health better, then surely a knowledge of why certain potentially harmful foods appeal to us so strongly would benefit students in the same way?

I'm not certain what age a third grader is, I'd guess maybe 7, so if I'm right I don't think that there's any point to teach a 7 year old biology at all. The focus should be on language, writing, mathematics and the like.

But, a solid working knowledge of some very fundamental physical premises, geared towards application, would have gone a long way towards giving these workers more flexibility when it comes to the machinery they work on. Understanding, say, hydraulics, or tensile strength would enable them to learn the machines as the embodiment of physical forces, rather than as simple working parts that are necessary to a particular task (when in fact, the working parts are quite dispensible, and their replacement with something that works in another way is practically inevitable).

I don't know. How many people end up working in factories dealing with hydraulics? Of course, it depends on where you live I suppose, but this seems like a stretch. This sort of physics syllabus you seem to be proposing here would only be of benefit to those drop-outs who were working on certain types of task where the machinery changed often. And in most cases, the nature of machinery doesn't seem to change all that often.

I can't see that even a significant minority would have need for this sort of information. I've got a friend who just finished his Masters in physics. His father is an electrician and all throughout college, my friend and his brother worked with their father at the weekends. He has remarked that the two knowledge sets have never really interacted and that his brother - a business student - is probably a better electrician than he is.

One of the major problems I have with most systems of education is that they tend to encourage problem solving rather than reasoning. People use certain strategies when problem solving - heuristics that do not lend themselves well to the development of expertise but which tend to get people from point A to point B. In the case of my friend, he probably has the same skill set as a competent electrician, but he has acquired that knowledge though problem solving to a point where he doesn't automatically see the connection between the two.

In order for a knowledge of physics to be of benefit to the factory workers you referred to, they would have to learn how to reason about the way in which it works, but they're more likely to approach it as a series of problems to be solved.

I think that there are probably better uses of time if you plan to equip drop-outs to be able to function in society. For one thing, it would probably mean placing an emphasis on civics, business skills (particularly sales skills), driving skills and computer skills. A good working knowledge of Microsoft Excel would probably benefit someone more than a physics education in hydraulics.

Knowing the period table is probably not all that useful for most people. But to say that most people "will not need any knowledge from either science during their lives" is to ignore the extent to which we interact with the products of science on a daily basis.

Again, you're right. We interact regularly with the products of science on a daily basis. However, it seems to me that we could get by without an education in physics or chemistry. I have next to no knowledge of chemistry, but I can't think of any situation in life where this has put me at a disadvantage. In contrast, I have found myself in situation where a lack of sales skills, a lack of computer skills and a lack of driving skills have put me at a disadvantage. I don't see how you can argue that physics should be included, but not evolutionary theory.

I want people to be able to think about the matters most immediate to their survival and happiness. Exposing them to Marx and Plato isn't going to make most lives any easier.

Well, on one level, I agree. Knowledge of Marx and Plato will be useless if they're examining any problem at a surface level - but this is also true of knowledge of inertia or the circulatory system. It's when people start to look at things a t a deeper level that knowledge of such philosophies can be useful.

I said:

And I think there is a large amount of merit in your arguments but I'm not certain why you've drawn the line where you have. Why the circulatory system but not evolution? Why "Candide" but not "Hamlet"?

Mad said:

Because evolution wil not pose a problem for most citizens; all citizens have circulatory systems, though, and a fair percentage of those circulatory systems will cause problems for their owners. Because "Candide" is emblematic of a school of thought that directly informed the view of human nature that undergirds the American Constitution, while knowing the impact that "Hamlet" has had on Western culture is less likely (note the relativity here) to enable the average person to do anything they would like to do in the first place.

See I think that these two arguments contradict eachother.

If something like Candide is taught because it helps people to understand the basis of the American Constitution, then surely you can argue that evolution does the same for our biological systems?

Niall: If something like Candide is taught because it helps people to understand the basis of the American Constitution, then surely you can argue that evolution does the same for our biological systems?

Yes, and if you're going to teach students about potential problems with circulatory systems (to use one of Mad's examples), it seems worthwhile to teach them about the evolution of circulatory systems and how that evolution has led to some of the problems.

Teaching high school students biology without teaching them about evolution is akin to teaching physics without any mention of the structure of atoms.

George

Niall001 wrote:This doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I am a little bit confused as to why you think that we should teach people about the circulatory system so that they understand their health better, but not evolutionary theory which would help them understand all of the bodily systems better. Why draw the cut off here?

I'm not saying that teaching them evolution won't provide some sort of understanding about their bodily systems. But the only question that is really germaine to the educational principle that I have in mind would be, What does that understanding enable them to do? If teaching students evolution will provide them with some observable means of bettering their health, then my objection more or less disappears. But as it stands, I think there are more practical ways of teaching students to manage their health.

If you argue that knowledge of the structure on the heart should be provided in order to help students understand their health better, then surely a knowledge of why certain potentially harmful foods appeal to us so strongly would benefit students in the same way?

I suppose it might, but I'm not sure it would add all that much to an education which explained why certain foods are harmful. Armed with the knowledge that they are harmful, I'm not sure it's really necessary to know why they're so appealing.

I don't know. How many people end up working in factories dealing with hydraulics?

Well, in the two I grew up in, there were about 600 people working in either one of two factories, not to mention an additional 100 or so people working in various machine shops and automechanics. That's about 800 people in a town with the population that never exceeds 3000 people. Twenty percent is a higher proportion of the population than biological careers are ever likely to meet. In the center of a major metro area, like the one where I live now, there are definitely going to be fewer people working in factories, but that's mostly because the factories in cities tend to be located on the periphery. I don't have any figures handy, but I would suspect that the number of people working with heavy machinery doesn't drop all that much when you consider the city as a whole -- even if you have fewer factories per capita, the transportation industries tend to be heavier near metro areas, with things like port authorities, national and international airports, railroad terminals, and so forth. More to the point, jobs working with or around heavy machinery tend to be the sort of jobs available to people who don't pursue an education beyond the compulsory level, so it's critical than any education about the general principles they'll be working around every day come in at that level of education.

I can't see that even a significant minority would have need for this sort of information.

It would be, at the least, less a minority than those who would need to know the periodic table, which is taught to every student who passes through the American educational system. I suspect that it would also be less a minority than those who would need to know the specifics of evolutionary theory.

I think that there are probably better uses of time if you plan to equip drop-outs to be able to function in society. For one thing, it would probably mean placing an emphasis on civics, business skills (particularly sales skills), driving skills and computer skills.

I agree; those probably will be more useful to the majority of people passing through the compulsory educational system. My discussion of the need of some education in physical science was primarily in response to the question of whether or not I thought science should be taught at all. I think it should, but only with an eye towards what practical use the students are likely to get from it.

It's when people start to look at things a t a deeper level that knowledge of such philosophies can be useful.

Surely you don't think I'd disagree with that statement, do you? And yet, I don't think there's any particular need to teach philosophy at a compulsory level. Most people just aren't going to find a need to look at society through that perspective. To that end, most philosophical education should be reserved for voluntary educational systems. You could certainly try to teach it at a compulsory level, but you'd mostly be wasting time and resources.

If something like Candide is taught because it helps people to understand the basis of the American Constitution, then surely you can argue that evolution does the same for our biological systems?

The question is one of how their understanding is helped. For most American citizens, understanding that their political system presupposes that humans are base, immoral, and self-interested is knowledge that can immediately impact any number of decisions that they will be called upon to make in the course of their life as a citizen. Most of them will probably never be called upon to make any sort of decision that requires them to know how natural selection functions as a mechanism -- or even a decision that would simply be easier to make if they knew more about evolution. I'm not advocating that anyone know more about the basis of the American Constitution simply for the sake of knowing more about the basis of the American Constitution. If you can argue that familiarity with "Candide" won't actually help any significant portion of American citizens, then its suitability as a candidate for a compulsory curriculum will diminish immediately, and I for one won't mourn its passing.

garicker wrote:Yes, and if you're going to teach students about potential problems with circulatory systems (to use one of Mad's examples), it seems worthwhile to teach them about the evolution of circulatory systems and how that evolution has led to some of the problems.

Worthwhile in what sense, though? If 99% of the students who pass through a compulsory science class never use what they've been taught about evolution, wouldn't it be better for them to have spent that time learning something that they will use?

Teaching high school students biology without teaching them about evolution is akin to teaching physics without any mention of the structure of atoms.

Why do they need to know the structure of an atom? Most people only need to understand physics at the macro-level. The micro-level is used almost exclusively by specialists in scientific fields, and they can learn that at non-compulsory levels. Unless you can give me some example of how your average American citizen would actually make use of it, the structure of the atom is one of those science lessons that I would advocate dropping from the curricilum, or at least de-emphasizing in order to make room for something more practical.

Mad: If 99% of the students who pass through a compulsory science class never use what they've been taught about evolution, wouldn't it be better for them to have spent that time learning something that they will use?

Well, here in Florida, we apparently have the sort of education system you would love, then, because students aren't taught much, if anything, about evolution. That's what the new science standards may change.

But who knows what high school students may or may not use later in life? That's one of the problems in designing curricula. I always thought one of the goals of public education ought to be to expose students to the broad base of knowledge, so that they will have a foundation from which to pursue the areas they do find of interest later in life. That's important for the ones who are headed off to college. It's even more important for those who aren't. Of course, if you think the "common" folk should be content with diminished expectations and diminished lives, then I guess there's no need to try to expose them to much beyond basic job skills.

If we take your guidelines to heart, we could simply operate trade schools to teach children how to flip hamburgers and clean machinery. They really don't "need" any of that high-falutin stuff like knowledge about science, or history, or literature or art or music or, even, government.

This will be my last comment in this thread, by the way. Like most of these discussions, this one just doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

George

garicker wrote:Of course, if you think the "common" folk should be content with diminished expectations and diminished lives, then I guess there's no need to try to expose them to much beyond basic job skills.

Actually, what I do think is that they are being subjected to diminished expectations and diminished lives, in large part because so much emphasis is being put on topics that will only be of use to them if they enter careers that are only profitable so long as only 1% of the population fills them.

If we take your guidelines to heart, we could simply operate trade schools to teach children how to flip hamburgers and clean machinery.

How much have you read of what I've written in this thread? I've tried to addess points like these already, and it would be tedious and redundant for me to try repeat what I've already said in regards to accusations like that.

They really don't "need" any of that high-falutin stuff like knowledge about science, or history, or literature or art or music or, even, government.

Right; 'cause that's really reflective of what I've argued so far. Actually, what I have said is that I think an education in science, mathematics and especially civics are particularly important, but that students aren't receiving remotely practical educations in those subjects. They may be able to describe the Bohrs model of an atom to you, but they're still applying chemicals to their kitchen sink without knowing what those chemicals are likely to do to them. It's an absurd situation, and one that's only exacerbated by insisting that teachers spend even more time prepping students for a career in science that 99% of them will never have.

This will be my last comment in this thread, by the way. Like most of these discussions, this one just doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

And it's not likely to go anywhere if you're content to simply assume what I mean and DH is content to talk past everyone else as though we all took his starting position for granted. I suggested "Candide" as part of a prospective curriculum in part because I expected most of you to be taken aback at how radical a notion it was that we should prefer to teach students a book that trafficked in rapine and murder, but no one can seem to get past the notion that we shouldn't teach science, which is, incidentally, something I never claimed. Thanks for dropping in to make a final comment, though. Glad it's a closed subject for you.

Show a child what to learn, and he will learn what you show him.....teach a child how to learn, and he will learn for a lifetime.