[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:38 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>
>
> You know, you actually had me laughing out loud at this post.



Yeah?   I get that a lot.


You say you favor
> "diversity", and your solution to encourage that is to set up schools so
> that
> every particular "culture" can isolate itself away from the presence of
> anyone
> who is not like them.
>


Ah, no.  That is not what I "say", nor is it what I write.  It is what you
write, probably construing what I mean by what you read of me.

See how I define and describe "accurate"?  It looks like we'll have to work
on this some, as it arises.

Possibly you don't think I really mean that, but you are presenting my
thought back to me in this extreme because you're just hoping to score some
points in front of this audience of lurkers you hold in your head.   because
...  well, we already established - you like doing this combatitive
rhetorical game.

Good.  Me too.



> You've been talking about "religion" as the only real "cultural" marker so
> far.
> I gather then you see "vouchers" setting up schools based on segregating
> the
> various religions in America.
>
>


It is interesting, your terminology here.  Vouchers as an objective entity,
over-lording the programming of the populace. Very big brother-ish of you
Arlo.

My terminology is different. I'd say Vouchers rectify the unfairness of
taxing people to support ideas antithetical to their core values.

How this works out on each individual school or student is a fair guess.  My
guess is that some of your fears would be realized.  There would be cultural
isolationism.  But over time, the effects of these educational systems with
the myriad other options available would provide the kind of empirical
evidence that informs our ongoing intellectual evolution of "Good
Education".  You can't experiment when you have just one vast entity of
knowledge.  We call it the "Church of Reason", but when the Christian church
was monolithic, there was limited innovation or development in thought.  The
break up of the big monolithic beast was called "the enlightenment" for a
reason.

And the priests and popes fought the changes just as fiercely as teacher's
unions fight vouchers, and for pretty much identical reasons - and they
ain't intellectual ones.

Still laughing?



>
> [Arlo]
> I think the presence of multiple cultural populations enhances learning
> personally, but at the worst it shows that it does not HINDER it, as
> appears to
> be your claim.
>
>

I agree.  I think the best schools would offer the kind of diversity you are
idealizing here.  I think a non-diverse school is weak for the exact same
reasons that a non-diverse educational system is weak.  BIG brother, the
GIANT, It's the over-quantity that produces the low quality.  Bigness is
badness.  Breaking up the bigness into many competitive smallnesses is much
more dynamic.  That is my reasoning.

What kind of schools would evolve?  I don't know.  That's what I mean by
"dynamic", ya know.  It means "I can't predict".  And neither can you.

That's what really bugs intellectuals. When they can't control.


> [Arlo]
> Oh man, do YOU need a Tokyo vacation! I would say that a large segment of
> the
> Japanese culture values social conformity, as does a large population of
> Americans (conservatives, for example). There are static and dynamic
> elements
> in BOTH cultures, but Japan is rich in intellectually diverse thinking. As
> is
> Finland.
>
>
Sigh.  Well getting into an anthropological debate would be going pretty far
afield.  And is fraught with inaccuracy anyway.  If you just can't concede
my point about religious diversity in America vs. Japan or Finland ...



> [Arlo]
> Really? Jeez. From what I hear the "media-education complex" has been a
> corrupting element because it does NOT foster "homogenization". Every
> complaint
> I hear about "diversity" revolves around how "education" has stopped the
> "melting pot" by creating subcultures that retain their unique distinctions
> despite achieving citizenship....
>
>

No doubt there are lots of viewpoints on the issues.  I listen to talk radio
too.  Write to Michael Savage if you don't like what he has to say.


And YOU are telling me that its the opposite! That education CAUSES a
> melting
> pot where everyone "homogenizes"?! Yowza!!!
>
>
Same imperialistic function it served in the former Soviet State. - binding
the country up into one pattern of intellectual understanding.  Giants are
bad no matter the color of their uniform.




> But let me stop and say, from what I can tell, we both favor diversity in
> intellect and social mannerisms. Correct?
>
>
sure.



>
> [Arlo]
> I agreed with your points about bioregionalism. I have no problem with
> schools
> attending to the unique, geographically-driven cultural needs of a local
> population. THAT is quite a bit different from saying that catholics and
> jews
> would learn better segregated away from each other.
>
>
My assertion is that Catholicism and Judaism would survive better, I
aknowledge that possibly the individual Jewish and Catholic schoolgirls
might do better (lots of reason they would) they might do worse.  They might
do better emotionally and socially and worse academically.  You think that's
a horrendous outcome?   But it seems wrong to me for the Govt to come in and
take the Catholic or Jewish taxes and use the money to impose a VFM upon
their kids.

It's just not fair.  its just not fair.  It's just not fair  (c'mon mob,
chant with me) It's just not fair.




>
> [Arlo]
> Again, decentralize education, make it serve the local and specific needs
> of
> learners. Reform it. But keep it public. Privatization is not the answer.
>
>
I don't really think of it as privatization.  I think of it more as
elimination.  Elimination of the bigness.  Elimination of the centralized
control.


> [Arlo]
> Because privatization is not the answer. It ignores the root problem. The
> educational needs of our society is best served by a strong, reformed,
> public
> education system, one that is valued and integrated and supported into the
> local communities.
>

The only way to get communities to value the system, is to get them to buy
into it.  Give them a choice.

I think the voucher system grew out of the charter school movement here in
California and there was a lot of change in laws and almost chaos during
that period.  I was involved heavily at the time, part of the parent's
council to a 20 year old charter school and home study program here on the
Ridge.   Same school as Gary Snyder's kid went to!

Anyway, being on that council during that time was an education itself.  A
group of about 5 or 6 parents - self selected as the ones most concerned and
informed, the teachers of the school and their boss, the district
supervisor.  All around a table and discussing the latest changes,
ramifications and how to bend the system to our will.  An hour and half a
week, for a year.

And we were able to achieve what I describe and envision as ideal.   From
within the system too.  But so much energy is expended.  So much creative
fudging that can only be done with a helpful administrator, all necessitated
by outworn and outmoded bureau of legislative work creation that could be
waved away with the magic wand of vouchers.  Empower the parents to make
their own choice.  That's how you get community investment.  Give them
control.


> [Arlo]
> Parts of it, but the question is not Grass Valley. The question is, if
> "uni-culturalism" is the answer, why do the schools in Oklahoma and
> Nebraska do
> worse than the schools in Tokyo, an international and diverse city?
>
>
Well I'm not going to concede totally that "doing worse on academic
standards" is necessarily doing worse in life,  but since we are focusing on
academics, it's a good point.  For my side.  It's the very  fact of Japanese
cultural "monosity" that makes it much less problematic to offer up a
centralized educational system.

It's the wildly varying needs of diverse cultures that is met by a "one size
fits all" system of education that fits nobody, that is a big part of the
reason for the disparity.


> Are you suggesting this difference can be attributed to the variety of
> religious orientations in Oklahoma? Again, are you saying that the PROBLEM
> here
> is that baptists are forced to learn side-by-side with episcopalians? That
> it
> is "religious diversity" that makes the Oklahoma public schools fail?
>
> [John]
> You don't think that all these seriously religious people don't have a bit
> of
> an axe to grind against the imposition of a values free metaphysic upon the
> impressionable minds of their children?
>
> [Arlo]
> Ah, so the problem is "secularism"? The reason why public education fails
> is
> that there is no "God" in the schools? By your charge, the catholic schools
> in
> America should be better than the public schools in Japan, right?
>
>
No silly arlo, trick are for kids.  I am saying that for a seriously
indoctrinated fundamentalist kid, the struggle of social forces in
confronting this other metaphysical reality probably impedes his academic
growth.  There's lots of evidence that girls do better in girls school, just
to break off a huge "minority" right there.  It's not just religion that
creates difference.

Tell me Arlo, do you really think the world would be a better place if
everybody was just the same?  Do you think society would be served by
everybody thinking like you?

I picture the huge academic machine stamping out little Arlo copies...
Bliss!



> [John]
> Nah.  you don't see this as a form of social control imposed by centralized
> authority upon diverse cultures.  Or if it is, it's "for their own good" in
> your eyes.
>
> [Arlo]
> Wait, what are you accusing me of again? Forcing cultural homogenization?
> Or
> encouraging cultural diversity?
>
> [John]
> No wonder you get so upset with Platt.  He'd rip this to pieces.  Or
> rather,
> pull out his Zen bow and ZING 'em into your bulls.
>
> [Arlo]
> Riiiiiight. That's funny. By the way, Platt has always accused me of the
> opposite of what you appear to be doing. He tells me my system encourages
> diversity, when it SHOULD be encouraging homogeneity. Your telling me I
> encourage homogeneity, when I should be encouraging diversity.
>

Well centralized controlled definitions of "diversity" as a panacea are one
thing.  Actual diversity in choice for the helpless parents is quite
another.

Choice.  That's my mantra in this.  I'm not telling you what you should do
beyond what many liberals would also say is a worthy value - a woman's right
to choose -  encourage choice.



> And your solution to encouraging diversity is to segregate all the various
> "cultural groups" into their own schools?? Ai yi yi...
>
>
And yours is to simply wipe them all out so there is no differing worldview
from your own.