"Education and Socialization and as Individualization"

I like fuzzy. (...I like room for interpretation. And liberty to do with suggestions as you likesort of like speed limits. guidelines. right...) or as you believe to be best. And the picture seemed appropriate (it's an avatar, so you know.)

This article comes up with an interesting approach to dealing with the issue of "What should our school teaches?" It contrasts the views of the (political) right with the (political) left. I won't paraphrase it or anything, since I know you all have read it (and that this is not an ARP) but I'll pull out the points I had something to say about and discuss them, sound good? (I like how I can't hear your answer o_o)

----"If you have truth, freedom wil follow automatically...only the truth can make us free."
Hmm... No. Unless you're accused of a crime and only the telling of the truth will absolve you, truth does not equal freedom. The ability to choose to believe in the truth would though, assuming that there's only one truth. Sometimes I wonder, when the people around me are really fundamentalist-ly Christian, about how Nietzsche pointed out that the most vehement opposers of something can be those most afraid of falling pray to it, like someone vocally completely opposed to gambling being a high roller in their guilty free time. For one it seems like they are so afraid of a life of "sin" because they want to keep themselves away from it (I'm not trying to offend anyone! So if I do...) But for two, a lot of those people were taught exactly what to believe. And to keep believing in it (without question, which isn't the way most people believe) they need the support of other people. So, even if that's the truth (spiritually) is it any kind of freedom? Not understanding the truth? It's my opinion that truth and freedom have no causational relationship.
But, I can also go a bit to the contrary. You know "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"? by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Russian names are so much harder to remember than German ones...) Well, in it our main character, Ivan, leads an insanely controlled life in one of the apparently many Siberian (I think, as it's been a while) concentration camps, but finds a religious freedom, a truer freedom than his physical captivity would lead us to believe possible. Anyway, the next point....

----"The right has pretty much kept control of primary and secondary education and the left has gradually got control of non-vocational higher education."
This seems kind of funny to me. Wouldn't it make sense that if primary, our earliest school (which helps us to build the premises upon which we form the rest of our world!), were where all the "right" influence is shaping us we would choose to go on to a semi-"right"ist college? Therefore screwing the entire system... I've seen generally in people, especially the dumb ones, that they don't like changing their opinions. It's too threatening. And if they don't get exposed to some variety early on they're not going to even see it later on! So why don't we have a bit of variety in primary, too? Where would be the harm? If we stick with the major "socialization" themes, too. But, you know, stick an oddball teacher in, a "loose cannon." I'm so grateful for them.

----Ah, also, in the Rights truth is achieved after society is embraced and we live in a certain way (remember the word society.) And in the Lefts truth is what's found when the shackles of society and tradition are thrown off (still, society.) Both sides seem to require society. What if we didn't have a society? What if we were almost completely alone? I mean, Rorty says "There is only the shaping of an animal into a human being by a process of socialization, followed (with luck) by the self-individualization and self-creation of that human being through his or her own later revolt against that very process." but I think it should read that "There is only the shaping of a child into an adult..." It's insulting toward the animals, you know. Human beings are animals, but we start off as whining, self-centered, selfish, babies. And some people stay babies for their entire lives (oh no, Gatto!) But some grow up. Animals grow up in the same way... o_o

----Why do we have this desire to know the "truth"? Why do we call it the truth? I've seen, lately, especially as I meet more people who want to know (or say they pretty much know) about the truth and such, that a whole bunch of people on this earth are looking for the truth. But why is is so important? To know from where we came, why we're here... For me, it doesn't change much. Maybe I'm too stuck in the here-and-now? But, then again, I think as a kid I had a unique perspective, a look into, realit(ies). I mean, so many people are walking around in this world without of clue of the reality they live in. So I always figured that reality was somewhat self-formed. And, like Charles de Lint writes (in most of his books) our's is somewhat of a consensual reality. We agree that things are this way. And that teaches us what to see, how to interpret things so that our reality remains the same. Ahh, off this vague topic!

-----"...Dewey's failure of prescience do not count against his account of truth and freedom. Nor should they prevent us from accepting his notion of the socialization American children should receive."
Before I hit the idea Dewey does have about the narrative (god :P) we should have, why do we do that? That is, read or see something beautiful, shocking, eye-opening, obviously true but threatening--why do we see things like that and write them off because of one incorrect idea? Or statement? Or detail? Oh. Wait. I have the answer... we want an excuse to get it out of our heads!
But about the main point of this essay (one interpretation, at least), that of Dewey's idea of the socialization process we should go through, and therefore the narrative we should instill in our youth. It's beautiful, I think, to recognize our mistakes, our shortcomings, and to not justify or ignore them. And, at the same time, to see and be proud of those things we've done right. To not feel overwhelmed of the size of the task, but to change the situation little by little. And to always hope that we can be better than what we are. (Like warriors of the light!)

Discussion of Gatto's "Against School"

Asides from the obvious appeal of the title, this essay has a lot to offer to someone who really reads it (which, apparently based on the quality of our schooling, could be a rare thing). It talks about the blatant ties between the Prussian and American school systems, about how our own school system was based on "an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens in order to render the populace 'manageable.'" It makes me wonder, though, those that fight the system (of school) and become their own, intelligent, people…where do they go on to? To be writers, like Gatto? Becuase they don't fit any of the other slots that society makes for everyone that comes out of school. Maybe they "turn to the dark side," (to continue with Gatto's own Star Wars comparison…) and are recruited by the government to run everyone else in the next generation. Maybe that's why the cycle of boredom continues--some people actually rig it so that it can continue. (This sounds so conspiracy theory, it's hard to go on.)

Anyway, he goes on to describe more about the Prussian (and therefore, American) system of education. He explains that public schooling, with all its systems of division (grading, separating the students into different years, etc.) is designed to keep “the people” (I can’t resist) from realizing they’re all being put down in different ways and coming together to end that.

I have to think out loud a bit (that is, on-line…) It seems we do a crazy good job of dividing ourselves, into cliques (I hate that word. I never knew how to say it. It still screws me up. At the least the i should be said like an e. If it’s a “click” why can’t they say it that way? Wait, is that how you say it? Shit…) based on how popular you are (which is loosely based on how you dress, or who you know), what grade your in, what you’re most interested in… And even in the general “middle class” there’s upper-middle, middle-middle, and lower-middle class. But I suppose that school can highlight those differences and make them more pronounced the longer children are kept in the systems.

The way he pulls in Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” act and relates the act to keeping children… well, children, isn’t only comical, but sort of relates to the whole conspiracy thing at the same time. School does not allow them to grow up, to become mature and intelligent adults that can participate productively in society and the governing of it. So power is kept in certain hands…

Along with this declaration about the truth of schooling, he points out that “if we wanted we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling”, something he says that he, and probably many other teachers, have recognized. So if they can, why don’t they? That must be the worst part of being an educator, being “trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children.” Maybe, as Gatto says, that’s the reason everyone’s so bored. Their natural brilliance isn’t allowed to shine, and they’ve been conditioned to believe it doesn’t even exist. Maybe…

Going in no particular order: "The Joy of Living Dangerously"

To begin with, I really love the TV Guide Channel. It makes the gap between 3:00 and 3:30 seem so much longer. Also, is this size good to read? I suppose I like the smaller sizes, they make me feel less visible... (That doesn't make much sense, I know.)

But, to business: "The Joy of Living Dangerously"

I believed that the anecdote of Sanderson and his famous academy was truly beautiful. Sanderson's perspective on teaching, the way it should be done, the importance that should be placed upont it--I believe he must have been an amazing man, and a brilliant teacher. Like "[disliking] competition and "posessiveness" as a motive for anything in education." Who, in our modern school system, lives by that system? There would be two types of people: those that don't "play to win," and therefore don't win at all, or those rare geniuses that don't even have to work at succeeding because it merely comes naturally. And since the latter are extremely rare I have to say that a school system where an individual is not the most highly-prized commodity is refreshing, and so idealistic it hurts. (But obviously not too idealistic, as at least one passionate man managed to make it a true system.) I know in my school, however, people were singled out as special, brilliant, worthy of our attention, if they made it big on some standardized test or won a contest. I thought it was nice, of course, seeing my classmates be praised for their own achievements. For the most part they deserved it (ja, that is to say some people could have done without it o_o.) I mean, our school was so desperate for funding our principal would "award" the kids who scored "advanced" on the MAP test fifty dollars (it was one-hundred dollars the first MAP test, but once everyone figured out they could be winning and started doing better, it was lowered to fifty...) It could be considered despearte by some, a dirty trick by others.
I just wondered, about all the people who were "normal," and who rarely or never brought up their ideas because they were bever used, or never taken seriously because one of the "bright" kids shot out theirs. I spent plenty of time being "normal" even in the technically "bright" kid group, so i have a pretty good idea of how it feels to be ignored. What if people don't grow because no one cares enough about them to grow? I always wondered that. So what if we were forced to do things as a group, to not receive noteriety--would we still do it? Would it seem worth the thinking? I think, though, if you're passionate enough about something you do it just because you can. Not because you have to...

*Ahem*, on to my next topic. Sanderson put trust in his students. That's so amazing!! Can you imagine any school but a private one placing so much faith in their students? I got in trouble if there was a sticker on my I.D. badge, or if I took it off at the end of the day and hadn't yet exited the building. It got to the point that when I was driving I'd feel for it around my neck, my own safeguard against the terrors of authority figures. But it wasn't an unfounded one. I once tried to skip out on a "Beginning of Winter Break" speach before we were allowed to leave for home early and was chased down the hall by the assistant principal. Luckily, though, he couldn't recognize me from behind. The point is, in a society where we put high school students through metal detectors (and close the library directly after school hours--what's the point of that? You don't have much opportunity to leave class for the library when you only have so many "passes" in your schedule book. Grr...) I don't see anything like Sanderson's ideas being put into place. No free reign for your (academic) passions, kids, you could scratch the floor varnish. Thanks. Love you, too.

And last on the Sanderson portion, he worked hardest for the boys without a passion. No one does that now, unless your teachers happen to be your parents, or really care about you (which, in a class of thirty students, is sometimes hard to do.) Now, at least in public schools, I can't speak for private, you have to fit into certain niches if you want to be able to pursue your true passion. And if you can't find it in school, tough luck. We're paying for standardized education....

Now, onto the evolution bit, and how angry it makes me. I see no reason to not teach a completely valid theory of the development of every living being! I wouldn't even say theory, but I don't think it's been proved as a complete fact (not that anything is :/ ) so I don't want to jump the gun. I can't stand the rigidness our school systems have been placed into if they want to continue educating children. At least, those who truly reap the benifits of that education, not those who "the system fails." This seems like such a sad blog entry. But the next will be worse...

Mids 101 "Final"

An issue that grabbed my attention (and kept it) that I encountered in Mids 101 was that of standardized testing in schools, and the nationwide standards we now have in place, affecting every public school in the United States. Since I attended a public school (and know its great value, especially for children who wouldn’t be able to receive an education otherwise), complete with horribly condescending standardized “MAP” tests, I think I can speak on this and not be completely off the mark.

Standardized testing (brining with it standardized curriculum) has obvious advantages, but carries with it disadvantages that have to be recognized. Of course, parents know their children are receiving a satisfactorily rounded education—not too much time spent on one subject, nothing neglected completely. We also can be assured that students are indeed being taught, not sat down in a room for seven hours a day without something to show for it, and that they are generally well-informed adults. But the problem comes when a subject, or facet of a subject, must be ignored completely in favor of those standardized teachings.

In the International Baccalaureate program at my own high school, for example, rigorous methods of standardized testing are employed—each subject has an exam to be taken at its end, an exam that’s rewritten every year, yes, but one that still demands certain standards of knowledge. In psychology, for example lower level classes teach the development of psychology over the years, and leave mental disorders and treatments to those who chose to advance to the next level. For the exams knowledge of studies was paramount—when and by whom it was conducted—in receiving a good score.

Teachers in these situations must teach for an exam if they want their students to be “successful” and in many cases if they want any funding for their own school. They must ask themselves, “Should I teach this? Can I teach this? Is it in the best interest of my students?” Many times in their career a teacher may find subjects completely itnored, or barbarously maimed; subjects with real academic value and validity. Richard Dawkin’s essay, “The Joy of Living Dangerously”, presents an example of teachers forced to teach to someone else’s standards. This is not to say that teachers do not teach to standards other than their own—they must, there is too much in the world to be contained in the beliefs of one person. But some standards can be disappointing. In this case, the teachers lament that they barely cover the subject of evolution in their higher level biology classes because of its exclusion from the exams and syllabus. They simply can’t risk covering it, or they would risk the future of their own charges.

In these situations I believe that the true goal of education is forgotten. Passion is forgotten. Students who want to follow a path not included in the courses offered by their school are denied the chance, teachers not allowed to teach what they love lose interest in the subjects they do have to teach and lose faith in the system that moves them. Maybe that's how we stifle creativity, by not allowing deviation from what a "higher power" has mandated. It's definitely a problem public schools now have to deal with.

First, our presentation, then this blog shall be moving backwards...

Our group, who's topic was "Large v. Small schools; Which does the better job?" consisted of Sarah, Alexis, Boby, and me. My role in the project was first, to do a portion of the surveys--I did 12 surveys in the international population of our school, and Boby did the rest of the 25 (Alexis and Sarah split the national students.) We chose Panera for our meeting place, where, in our fist session, we decided on the large versus small school debate, and wrote up a draft of the questions we wanted to ask. Then we wondered if school systems in other countries were the same as ours, and how international students thought of the large v. small school debate, and also how they thought of their high school years (or equivalent) and whether or not they learned during said years.
So we distributed the survey, catching the interntionals as they sat down to eat, and got them all back to Boby, who put the information together into an excel spreadsheet. Sarah and Alexis did found the articles for the research, while Boby and I did took care of the technological aspects of the project. We all met in my dorm room to put our information together, and made the collaborated on the powerpoint. We all discussed our information and decided what we would put in and what we would leave out, and I took care of the actual making of the powerpoint.
The most enjoyable aspect of the research was the actual work with the surveys, and getting everyone's opinion on their schooling, though many of the internationals said that the questions were not well geared toward their educational experience, and that they didn't feel that some of the questions applied to them. One of the things we found most surprising was the drug usage in other countries, how it really didn't exist. One theory was that all the drugs get sold overseas so that the U.S. can buy them, but that was said in jest... It would make sense, though, that drug usage would be higher in countries that could readily afford them, such as the United States, than in smaller or less prosperous contries. Also, maybe, the students that can afford to come here from their home countries have different backgrounds than those who couldn't? It may be worth investigating, but probably for someone more passionate about the subject of education than I... -_-
I personally hypothesized that large schools would generally be preferred to smaller schools, but only becuase I had such a good high school myself! Central was "diversified," I guess you could say, and we had very good relationships between students (of the same grades and between grades) and teachers. There were so many classes, and most of the teachers were very passionate about their individual subjects.