[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

[Arlo]
> Okay, rather than comment on all this, let me back up.
>
> My understanding was that you said the public schools in Finland and Japan
> succeed because they serve a "monocultural" population.
>


Not really.  I say that to the extent Finland and Japan succeed, much of
that success is due to matchup between their culture and their education
system - that serving a less diverse culture is easier to do a central
planning way, than serving a largely diverse population with a
one-size-fits-all education system.




>
> I take it, from this, that the reason public schools in America are failing
> is because they serve a "multicultural" population.
>
>

Reasons for failure are probably too numerous to elucidate.  I'd rather not
dwell on them.  My urge is to see freedom reign and let the devil take the
hindmost.



> So far, you've defined "cultural" as only "religious". Indeed, you
> suggested that the reason schools in Japan do better than schools in
> Oklahoma is due to the "religious diversity" in Oklahoma.
>
> Am I correct so far?
>


Not really.  I'd not even make any solid claim about which school "does
better".  I do make the claim that when you have an educational system that
is antithetical to your core values, your "education" suffers.  Lining up
the education system with the core values is simpler when the number of
differing core values are fewer.  So a monocultural society would have a
much easier time designing an central educational system that the nation's
parents could be happy with.

I also claimed that Japan has less cultural diversity than America, but
that's just a side note opinion and not really germaine to the main point of
my argument and not something that I'm much of an expert on.  Japanese
culture is not simplistically encapsulated by anyone!




>
> Because on one hand you seem to be suggesting that schools do better, than
> children learn better, when they are in "monocultural" environments.
>
> On the other hand you're arguing that regardless of whether or not children
> learn better in "monocultural" environments, it is morally wrong for the
> government to provide public education.
>


First.  The government doesn't provide public education.  The taxpayers do.
 The government administers and controls the education system and like any
big entity in control of things, does an often crappy job.  But let's not
forget who is actually paying the bills.

And what I think is wrong, is for the government to mandate one educational
system for all, regardless of how it impinges upon their family and cultural
values.

But to mandate an education antithetical to one's beliefs AND to force one
to pay for it, seems like it's going just that much too far;  an angry
backlash can be expected.



> [Arlo]
> See, you jumped from why the public schools in other areas top the world,
> even our own American private schools, to a moral argument about the uses of
> taxation. Would I be correct in assuming that even IF American public
> schools topped the world, you'd favor abolishing the public schools in favor
> of "vouchers"? Because it seems like that would be what you'd be for based
> on this statement.
>


yes, even if American Schools did well academically, I'd encourage a system
of open choices.  Some kids don't need or want high academic learning.
Some kids do well in shop.   The world needs more shop classes.  More
choices for educating the future body workers and ditch diggers... ok, you
don't need much training to be a ditch digger, but you get my point.




>
> [Arlo]
> And yet you just said that the success of Finnish and Japanese schools
> resulted from their LACK of diversity. If "non-diverse schools" are weak,
> why do the public schools in Finland and Japan exceed even our private ones?
>
>
Well I hope I explained that sufficiently with my "match up" argument.  If I
didn't, I can do it again.




> [Arlo]
> Well, you know I am a control-freak despotic tyrant. I hate dynamic
> quality. I want everything to be controllable and static. That's me. Enemy
> of freedom, hater of things I can't control. You know, being a stupid
> intellectual and all.
>
>
Wait.  Isn't "stupid intellectual" a  self-contradictory term?


stupid intellectual.:)





> [John]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> Savage? My point, in case you missed it, was that your condemnation of the
> "media education complex" and what you accuse ME of runs 180 degrees
> opposite of the condemnations leveled against me by Platt, whom you seemed
> to turn to for support.
>
>
Me turn to Platt for support?  When?  I'm a big boy.  So is Platt.  Kindly
restrict the dialogue to the person at hand.

You are right in that the heart of my dissertation is against the monolithic
"media/education complex"  a riff off Eisenhower's Military Industrial
 Complex, of course.  And in my view, far more dangerous in its power to
perpetuate itself and evolve social patterns of humans into heretofore
undreamt of permutations, disconnected from anything real or natural and
heading toward unfixable catastrophe.

But that's just my problem.  Nothing that can't be fixed with a little
proper attention.




> Okay. So with you I am condemned for being anti-diversity, a great
> homogenizer. With Platt (in line with talk-radio) I am condemned for being
> pro-diversity, a great  heterogenizer. You condemn me for tossing everyone
> into a melting pot. Platt condemns me for pulling everyone out of a melting
> pot.
>
> Man, that's quite a trick! I really get around!
>
>
Well the only connection my thoughts have with Platt's, is that we both
think vouchers are a good idea.  Other than that, I don't really know
Platt's thinking.



[John]
> My assertion is that Catholicism and Judaism would survive better...
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, certainly. You isolate something, and you strengthen it. It doesn't
> have anything to adapt to, and change with, or anything like that. I'm not
> sure why "preserving Christianity" should be a function of schools though.


And I'm not sure "destroying Christianity" should be a function of schools
either.  But the secularization of society and the imposition of a VFM upon
young kids can certainly be seen to have that effect.  Perhaps some
amelioration would
not be amiss.

The reason for vouchers is not to protect any segment of society or to pick
any one cultural winner or losed, the reason for vouchers is to give parents
choice.


Cultural customs are always in flux. The more diversity, the greater the
> flux. If you are advocating "diversity", why would preserving any one
> particular static pattern be of great concern?
>


Well Arlo, on one level, I'm not at all concerned.  I live in the country
with a nice garden.  You city folks go ahead and have all that mob rioting
starving apocalyptic armaggedon stuff if you want.   Fine with me.  But I
would point out, (and have before) that all this prosperity y'all are
currently enjoying the tail end of, well it came about because of a specific
system of values... and if you just toss those values in the trash of
history, don't think you can go on with the materialistic prosperity without
the values.    There are "particular static patterns" that ought to be of
great concern to you.  You're the one shuddering over the potentially angry
mobs of gun-totin' redneck intellectual-haters.

And while I'm at it, I feel sorry for academic intellectuals in revolutions.
 It doesn't matter if it's rightists or leftists, the first to go up against
the walls are the academics.  So I can see your nervousness.


>
> [Arlo]
> Okay, again with the back and forth. Are you saying that schools offering
> "monocultural" populations would do better, or not?


First, I'm saying that opening up schooling to be more freedom and
experimentation will benefit all in the long run.  Exactly which kind of
schooling works best, I can't say for sure.  I think diversity is important.
 I also think conformity to the same worldview of your parents is
comforting.  I think there are a lot of factors in education and I can't
control them all and say what would be best for everyone.  The best I can
guess at, is choosing what seems best for my kids.

I'd like a system that allowed me more choices than the politicians and the
NEA wants to provide.





> At first you said they would, and the argument was about what is BEST in
> terms of learning. Now you seem to be suggesting, again, that whether they
> do better or worse is not the issue, its about the moral idea of public
> funded education. Which exactly are we arguing here?
>
>
"we" is always a bit tricky for me to define on my own.




> [John]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> Okay, now it does seem to me you are moving the argument from what schools
> foster learning the best to an anti-tax argument.
>
> Let me ask, what do you feel is the "purpose" of education? Why do we
> educate? Why do you have "compulsory" education? (Do you think we should
> eliminate that?)
>

I argue for vouchers because it makes education of some sort, compulsory.
 But I'd rather have no education than a bad education.



> [Arlo]
> To clarify, you find the schools in Tokyo to be less diverse than the
> schools in, say, rural Oklahoma?
>

To clarify, I've never been to Tokyo or Oklahoma.   I have some ideas from
friends who've lived both places.  I've read books.  My impression is that
Japan is less diverse and the Japanese do not get caught up in say, abortion
debates or protests and such because the culture of Japan is less overtly
confrontational, the religious differences are fewer and more subtle than
between our Mormons, Catholic, Jews and a B'hais. And designing a
centralized educational system is simpler to craft without stepping on
anybody's metaphysical toes.


> [Arlo]
> Oh, yes, John! Everyone should think just like me. That's my motive, here.
> That's what I want, a world of clones. How very astute of you!!
>
> No, I think learning for all is enhanced when more students are exposed to
> more diversity. I do not think that isolating or segregating "subcultures"
> into their own little worlds serves this at all. In fact, I'd say it does
> the opposite.
>
>

So your solution is to eliminate their little subcultures and blend them
into your big, diverse campuses with the top-down -approved, politically
correct agenda programmed into their malleable brains.

What happens to this  "diversity" you say you value  when you steamroller
the generations of quaint cultures you despise?  Kill them all and put them
in a book to study, like a pinned butterfly.  "Look kids.  This is what a
Mormon looked like.  Aren't they interesting?"  Is that your idea of
diversity Arlo?  A quantity of pinned butterfly in your academic collection?



>
> [Arlo]
> A page from Platt's playbook. Kudos! You know us "willing executioners",
> after all.
>
>
Not just Killers!  I accused you of pinning and displaying as well.

Ok, I admit it.  I'm  prone to excessive rhetoric now and then too.