[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

Arlo,
I gotta run this morning, we're taking my eldest daughter off to college,
her first year!

I will continue this dialogue with you.

Peace

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [John]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> By this same logic, schools in America in regions of "less diverse culture"
> should do better than both schools in America and schools in F/J in areas of
> "largely diverse populations".
>
> Why is this not so?
>
> What "largely diverse populations" are found in rural Oklahoma, Wyoming, or
> many, many other areas of the US that account for the failure of "central
> planning"?
>
> So far, John, the only "diversity" you have talked about is "religious".
> But there are areas of the USA with very, very "less diverse culture"
> regarding religion that fare worse than schools in areas with much more
> religious diversity. By your logic, schools in largely "uni-religious" areas
> should fare much better than schools in  "poly-religious" areas. Hence, a
> school in rural Oklahoma should fare better than here in State College, as
> State College is quite a bit more "religiously diverse" (in many ways, as
> well).
>
> In fact, I can point to two local school districts; State College and Bald
> Eagle. One (SC) is very diverse, has many, many students from a number of
> ethnic and international populations. The school has Muslims and Christians
> and Jews and even Hindus. The other (BE) is nearly exclusively "white",
> mostly all rural, and nearly 100% Christian. SC consistently fares better,
> among the top, while BE fares much worse.
>
> By your reasoning, BE should outperform SC across the board. By virtue of
> it having a "less diverse culture" is should respond much better to "central
> planning". Why is this not the case?
>
> [John]
> Reasons for failure are probably too numerous to elucidate.
>
> [Arlo]
> Oh but we can. And my pointing the success of the public schools in Finland
> and Japan point to the single biggest "reason for failure", and that is lack
> of community investiture and community involvement/support, as well as a
> lack of real integration of the schools and the local communities.
>
> [John]
> First.  The government doesn't provide public education.  The taxpayers do.
>
> [Arlo]
> Same thing. The government is "we the people".
>
> [John]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> The "government" is "we the people", and yes we have been wrong in assuming
> one learning environment fits all (damn that Fordist worldview!). And we
> need to change that. We need greater diversity in how we offer education,
> from charter schools, to integrating vocational education, to allowing
> students to gain credit by volunteering, working, apprenticing, taking
> college courses, workshops, etc. But this is reforming public schools. And
> that is what we should do.
>
> [John]
> 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]
> Give me some examples here. I assume "secularism" is one, that "religious"
> populations don't want their kids to learn about evolution, or geology, or
> astronomy, or other ways that "science" contradicts "the book" (of whatever
> religion).
>
> But this is where it ceases to be about what education best serves the
> student, and what best serves the parents. THAT is an important change in
> the argument, and if that is where we are going, let's stop even bothering
> to talk about how to improve "learning" and let's just talk about "funding".
>
> [John]
> Yes, even if American Schools did well academically, I'd encourage a system
> of open choices.
>
> [Arlo]
> OK, so its not really about improving learning. It is about funding.
>
> [John]
> Some kids don't need or want high academic learning. Some kids do well in
> shop.   The world needs more shop classes.
>
> [Arlo]
> Amen. One of the single biggest problems here is that "vocational"
> education is seen by many parents as "those that are not good enough for
> college". This is ridiculous. This "stigma" just has to end.
>
> [John]
> Wait.  Isn't "stupid intellectual" a  self-contradictory term?
>
> [Arlo]
> Are you accusing me of being oxymoronic? ;-)
>
> [John]
> 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]
> I think we are a bit off from putting "interlictials" before firing squads.
> But if some had there way...
>
> [John]
> Ok, I admit it.  I'm  prone to excessive rhetoric now and then too.
>
> [Arlo]
> When done in good humor, even partial good humor, there is nothing wrong
> with it all.
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>