Christopher Lasch makes an interesting point about education in his essay "Schooling and the New Illiteracy." The point is that the education of school systems is declining. We have students who are failing the basic concepts of reading, writing, and arithmetic. "People increasingly find themselves unable to use language with ease and precision, to recall the basic facts of their country's history, to make logical deductions, to understand any but the most rudimentary written texts, or even to grasp their constitutional rights,"writes Lasch. Why is that? Why are some the most important and foundational subjects the weakest?
This is not a new problem our society has to deal. Through a series of changes and adjustments in our educating standards, our levels of intelligence have been diminishing. Through the rest of the essay he chronologically examines the process of development of the mass school system. It started out in America as way of preparing the students for challenges. The goal was to give students the power of being able to see if they are, in a sense, having the wool pulled over their eyes. This has changed drastically. Now there are students who are not prepared for the world. They don't even know who the first five Presidents were, which may not seem important, but it's such a simple fact that it makes you wonder what other important simple facts students don't know.
I think that facts are not bad, neither is extra curricular activities. Both are equally important, but neither superior to the other. There needs to be a balance. The schools should require, and they do, a core curriculum, and that's mostly facts. This is to provide students with necessary information to live with awareness of what's going on in the world that affects them. The extra curricular part is to balance the factual part. It's also an avenue to hone in on the type of study they want to do. This is important to have what the school wants, a well rounded citizen.
November 15, 2006
November 8, 2006
"The Joy of Living Dangerously"
Today we discussed Richard Dawkins essay entitled "The Joy of Living Dangerously." Our discussion centered mostly around the concept of teaching facts. Is this a good idea? Does teaching facts enable kids with a good education? What is the purpose of teaching facts? Should we only teach facts? These are just some of the questions raised and answered in the discussion.
Dawkins promotes looking at the question rather than the fact. To say to look at the questions means, why did something happen? Why does B follow A? Ask how the facts became facts. Discover the context of those facts and how they relate to other facts. You need a "binding thread" to hold them together, writes Dawkins.
But what is fact? Why do we need it? In class someone brought up that in schools they get in this mindset of you have to learn at the level and produce the work that you are supposed to be capable of. If you exceed this, you get punished. An example that was given was the format of writing essays, particularly the 5 paragraph essay. If a student we to broaden his horizons by including more paragraphs and bigger words with more elaborate sentences, he would get a bad grade just because he was not doing exactly what they wanted. There was this fact, this standard that had to be followed. So this is an example where it wasn't used well. But you need a balance, because you need facts. They are the foundation of learning. You cannot teach a child about imaginary numbers if they don't even know what a number is. You have to start somewhere.
Also, he mentions how Sanderson hated the lab doors being locked so students could not pursue their interests. But the doors had to be locked anyway. So the students in pursuit of getting in the lab learned all the could about locks so that they could sneak in the lab and work on their projects. The students were careful to put every they had used back where it was. I can relate to this when I would stay up late to read by the night light some book that interested me at the time. I think I became more interested in the book because I didn't have many opportunities to read verses as having all the time in the world. There's something exciting and adventurous sneaking around in order to learn. I think that if in the story the doors were unlocked all the time, that freedom could easily get abused because people would take for granted the special privileges. Somehow when something restricted and you have to go to extra measures to get it, you strive all the more for it. You know that it is worthwhile because it is locked up and restricted. Our rebellious nature isn't that bad I guess.
Dawkins promotes looking at the question rather than the fact. To say to look at the questions means, why did something happen? Why does B follow A? Ask how the facts became facts. Discover the context of those facts and how they relate to other facts. You need a "binding thread" to hold them together, writes Dawkins.
But what is fact? Why do we need it? In class someone brought up that in schools they get in this mindset of you have to learn at the level and produce the work that you are supposed to be capable of. If you exceed this, you get punished. An example that was given was the format of writing essays, particularly the 5 paragraph essay. If a student we to broaden his horizons by including more paragraphs and bigger words with more elaborate sentences, he would get a bad grade just because he was not doing exactly what they wanted. There was this fact, this standard that had to be followed. So this is an example where it wasn't used well. But you need a balance, because you need facts. They are the foundation of learning. You cannot teach a child about imaginary numbers if they don't even know what a number is. You have to start somewhere.
Also, he mentions how Sanderson hated the lab doors being locked so students could not pursue their interests. But the doors had to be locked anyway. So the students in pursuit of getting in the lab learned all the could about locks so that they could sneak in the lab and work on their projects. The students were careful to put every they had used back where it was. I can relate to this when I would stay up late to read by the night light some book that interested me at the time. I think I became more interested in the book because I didn't have many opportunities to read verses as having all the time in the world. There's something exciting and adventurous sneaking around in order to learn. I think that if in the story the doors were unlocked all the time, that freedom could easily get abused because people would take for granted the special privileges. Somehow when something restricted and you have to go to extra measures to get it, you strive all the more for it. You know that it is worthwhile because it is locked up and restricted. Our rebellious nature isn't that bad I guess.
November 2, 2006
Against School
From Discussion Date: 11- 1-06
In John Gatto’s article “Against School” he slams the big school verses the little school. I really enjoyed this article, mainly because he talks about some things that my family was worried about, therefore choosing to homeschool me. Even though homeschooling is different than a little school, it still has similar characteristics.
I thought it was really interesting when he mentioned that, “what if there is no ‘problem’ with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things,l not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right?” He goes on to question whether the schools purpose is to make sure kids never “grow up.” I think this is a very scary concept. Think about it. You have a big institute designed in educating the young, easily persuaded minds. They are clumped together by age group and are shuffled through the system. Gatto does point out that historically big schools were designed to manage the masses. At a time when our country was taking in people of different cultures and ethnic groups, people were worried of revolts and uprisings. This is Gatto’s claim.
The real controversy and discourse was held more around the subject of the benefits of a giant school verses a small school/homeschool. There are pros and cons to both, but for me, smaller makes more sense. That can mean either a small school or homschool.
Some of the cons to a big school is the fact that it would be easy to hide, to brood bitterness over rejection. I just wonder if the kids at Columbine were rejected, but because it was such a big school, nobody noticed until after the incident. What I mean by noticed, because people can be very oblivious to hurting people, is that the teachers didn’t pick up on the attitudes or the grades of the boys. When you have so many students to watch, who almost all have some emotional drama with them, it’s easy to miss the kid who needs attention the most.
Another con is that students in the big schools lose their individuality. If you aren’t the most outgoing, most athletic, smartest kid in school, the likelihood of you feeling worth something is very small. Plus in a large school you can easily feel like just a number.
i personally value the low ratio of teacher to student. The fact that the teachers know you by name and not just face, and also know you’re learning style and what you’re capable of. How are teachers able to do that in big schools??? Yeah, they have a lot of teachers, but each teacher teaches a lot of students. There’s just a lot of people!
Some of the cons with small schools, or for my sake, homeschooling, is the fact that they can be very seclusive and unsocial. Also the amenities are not always available. But the shelteredness is a minority. Homeschooling is growing rapidly. And there are so many small groups within the homeschooling community. My biggest problem in homeschooling was being too social because so many things were made available to me.
when I think about what we need to prepare our future generation for, being surrounded only by a ton of people your own age does not come to mind. We need to prepare them for more one on one interaction, the ability to communicate within relationships. We all know that in big groups people act very differently. There is no one on one communicating. I’m not saying that public speaking is bad, because that is very different that being involved in a big group. Because of the fact that you are stuck with same people throughout the schooling years in a small school, you learn to deal with relationship and communication problems with them. You can’t just move on to another social group like you could in a big school. You need to learn to face your problems. I think small schools can help teach that.
In John Gatto’s article “Against School” he slams the big school verses the little school. I really enjoyed this article, mainly because he talks about some things that my family was worried about, therefore choosing to homeschool me. Even though homeschooling is different than a little school, it still has similar characteristics.
I thought it was really interesting when he mentioned that, “what if there is no ‘problem’ with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things,l not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right?” He goes on to question whether the schools purpose is to make sure kids never “grow up.” I think this is a very scary concept. Think about it. You have a big institute designed in educating the young, easily persuaded minds. They are clumped together by age group and are shuffled through the system. Gatto does point out that historically big schools were designed to manage the masses. At a time when our country was taking in people of different cultures and ethnic groups, people were worried of revolts and uprisings. This is Gatto’s claim.
The real controversy and discourse was held more around the subject of the benefits of a giant school verses a small school/homeschool. There are pros and cons to both, but for me, smaller makes more sense. That can mean either a small school or homschool.
Some of the cons to a big school is the fact that it would be easy to hide, to brood bitterness over rejection. I just wonder if the kids at Columbine were rejected, but because it was such a big school, nobody noticed until after the incident. What I mean by noticed, because people can be very oblivious to hurting people, is that the teachers didn’t pick up on the attitudes or the grades of the boys. When you have so many students to watch, who almost all have some emotional drama with them, it’s easy to miss the kid who needs attention the most.
Another con is that students in the big schools lose their individuality. If you aren’t the most outgoing, most athletic, smartest kid in school, the likelihood of you feeling worth something is very small. Plus in a large school you can easily feel like just a number.
i personally value the low ratio of teacher to student. The fact that the teachers know you by name and not just face, and also know you’re learning style and what you’re capable of. How are teachers able to do that in big schools??? Yeah, they have a lot of teachers, but each teacher teaches a lot of students. There’s just a lot of people!
Some of the cons with small schools, or for my sake, homeschooling, is the fact that they can be very seclusive and unsocial. Also the amenities are not always available. But the shelteredness is a minority. Homeschooling is growing rapidly. And there are so many small groups within the homeschooling community. My biggest problem in homeschooling was being too social because so many things were made available to me.
when I think about what we need to prepare our future generation for, being surrounded only by a ton of people your own age does not come to mind. We need to prepare them for more one on one interaction, the ability to communicate within relationships. We all know that in big groups people act very differently. There is no one on one communicating. I’m not saying that public speaking is bad, because that is very different that being involved in a big group. Because of the fact that you are stuck with same people throughout the schooling years in a small school, you learn to deal with relationship and communication problems with them. You can’t just move on to another social group like you could in a big school. You need to learn to face your problems. I think small schools can help teach that.
The Fallen Angel
Time to play catch up.... this is from 10 -11-06
In Neil Postman’s chapter on The Fallen Angel he talks about how one needs to fall, make mistakes, in order to learn and to learn from the mistakes. He also talks about how knowledge is limited and that it foolish to think that one can achieve ultimate knowledge. But that should not discourage anyone from striving for knowledge.
He also talks about his idea of switching it up for the teachers. He suggests that teachers not use textbooks, teach outside of their specialty, and that students should monitor the teachers for liberalism. His reasoning for this is that teaching can become and is mundane and boring. Sometimes teachers that teach subjects for long lose the passion they once had for that subject, no longer making it interesting to the students.
I think this is a strange concept. I can see where he is coming from. I understand the logic behind it. But in reality, this is probably going to go nowhere. I really like his suggestion of getting rid of text books. I just remember as a kid hating the text book reading part. A lot time there was so much useless information or it was written in a redundant manner. I think this would force the teachers to form their own curriculum that would not include just assign reading and giving out tests. I would think more discussion would come from this. That is where I got a lot of my learning, from having to communicate my thoughts and ideas, and also listening to others opinions.
I’m not exactly crazy about the idea of teachers teaching outside of their expertise. This could definitely cause some major problems, like mixed up information. I could see where Postman gets the idea because it would pretty cool if the teacher was learning right along side the student. But I think loses the concept of what teachers are for. I mean aren’t they there to educate others on something they know a lot about. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought that was the meaning behind “teach.”
In Neil Postman’s chapter on The Fallen Angel he talks about how one needs to fall, make mistakes, in order to learn and to learn from the mistakes. He also talks about how knowledge is limited and that it foolish to think that one can achieve ultimate knowledge. But that should not discourage anyone from striving for knowledge.
He also talks about his idea of switching it up for the teachers. He suggests that teachers not use textbooks, teach outside of their specialty, and that students should monitor the teachers for liberalism. His reasoning for this is that teaching can become and is mundane and boring. Sometimes teachers that teach subjects for long lose the passion they once had for that subject, no longer making it interesting to the students.
I think this is a strange concept. I can see where he is coming from. I understand the logic behind it. But in reality, this is probably going to go nowhere. I really like his suggestion of getting rid of text books. I just remember as a kid hating the text book reading part. A lot time there was so much useless information or it was written in a redundant manner. I think this would force the teachers to form their own curriculum that would not include just assign reading and giving out tests. I would think more discussion would come from this. That is where I got a lot of my learning, from having to communicate my thoughts and ideas, and also listening to others opinions.
I’m not exactly crazy about the idea of teachers teaching outside of their expertise. This could definitely cause some major problems, like mixed up information. I could see where Postman gets the idea because it would pretty cool if the teacher was learning right along side the student. But I think loses the concept of what teachers are for. I mean aren’t they there to educate others on something they know a lot about. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought that was the meaning behind “teach.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)