"...at least Sally and Johnny will be sitting in energy efficient schools as they learn how not to compete in the private sector."
Riehl World View blog highlights some of Obama's job creation programs in a post entitled, "How Many "Hopeful" Workers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?" I checked out Obama's goals for schools which is as follows:
Dan at Riehl World had this to say in response:
If Obama wants to really bring change to schools, how about bringing back critical thinking to the classroom? But image over substance is much more politically advantageous these days and seems to be what the public wants.
—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”
Dan at Riehl World had this to say in response:
Ack!! Sorry, but when someone launches a job creation program and it's government-centric, I'm unimpressed. Seems we're going to find our way out of the economic darkness by changing lightbulbs. And at least Sally and Johnny will be sitting in energy efficient schools as they learn how not to compete in the private sector. No mention of Math and Science, but at least they'll be able to watch YouTube videos with High Speed access....
Yes, make the building pretty and suddenly it'll be wonderful schools for all. I'm starting to think this guy really is fixated on image, as opposed to substance. And, as usual, we'll get to pay for ten guys, eight of them standing around holding flags, while two eventually start to work fixing potholes. It isn't that we don't need to focus on infrastructure, but how about dealing with the inefficient way we approach it if you want to bring some change?
If Obama wants to really bring change to schools, how about bringing back critical thinking to the classroom? But image over substance is much more politically advantageous these days and seems to be what the public wants.
Labels: politics
posted by Helen at 6:52 AM
38 Comments:
"If Obama wants to really bring change to schools, how about bringing back critical thinking to the classroom?"
What -- and have the children discover that the emperor has no clothes?
Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.
The "foot vote" will continue to withdraw children from public schools and place them for their moral, mental, and physical well-being.
I've actually done well for myself educationally in spite of public schools.
smitty1e,
It's a quiet revolution--more and more people are homeschooling and sending kids to private school.
The State cannot create jobs. Every pothole filler and school refurbisher employed by FedGovCo will be paid with tax money. Money that left untaxed would have gone for (gasp!) expansion of businesses, goods and services all of which create more employment.
Obama is aping FDR, who managed to turn a cyclical recession into a ten-year economic debacle. Someone tell His Highness ot at least have the decency to wait until he is sworn in to start ruining the economy. There is no such office as President-Elect, it's just a term.
What? CRITICAL thinking? You mean, actually criticize and argue about ideas, even if they're PC-approved? No, we can't have that!
I mean, the kids might actually LEARN things that aren't committee approved!
The many snippy comments seem to miss the point that the programs planned are for job creation and infra structure change. What gets done or fails to gert done in teaching and education is a matter for the states to decide. We do not have and will not have a national educational system. I am not sure why the surly remarks when in fact the GOP also recognizes that we have a hell of an economic mess and that major spending is needed to fix things, or to begin to fix things. Home schooling is fine but that means that those without much education will not have it, and that in a recession hunger trumps education, and that religious education is often inferior or not the sort of education that a secular state ought to have.
Instead of the remarks that offer no change, why not suggest how we can both fix our school physically and also make them function better. sitting on the sidelines and taking pot shots is a useless game , offering nothing but satisfaction to the sitter.
Well said stuart.
This is a joke. I've worked in education at the junior high, high school and college levels, and all I can say is that the quality of instruction has deteriorated precipitously over the last twenty years. So it's no wonder to me that many parents are either home schooling or sending their children to private schools.
Only one thing can save public education, curriculum reform. Dump all this whole language, new math, poli-sci, multi-culti, PC crap, and get back to what works. That would be grammar, logic, rhetoric, literature, mathematics, science, and art.
A classical, traditional liberal arts curriculum is the best possible education. I will go to my grave believing that.
I remember when I was a kid watching on tv while NASA scientists flew men to the moon and safely back to earth, using slide rules. They were the product of the education system that emphasized classical learning.
That curriculum was replaced with the current one over the 1970s, and as a result, scarcely 20 years later, NASA scientists crashed a robot probe into Mars, using supercomputers. They couldn't even put a telescope in space with the right lens on it! They were the product of an education that emphasized self-esteem. Go figure.
Talk about a total waste of money.
Thank you to those who presented the Stuart-ordained "snippy" comments.
I'd call them fundamental, not something so superficial and dismissive as "snippy." I'd say they are looking at important alternatives, not being "yes men" and following blindly the leader's orders, following blindly a leader into some future utopia that is a utopia because he says it is.
For example, "Uncle Ken" 's comment, at 8:41 AM, December 07, 2008, identifies the fundamental laws of economics in saying that private individuals create wealth and jobs -- the government does not and cannot. Government regulation and government-backed companies are what got us into this mess in the first place. More of the same will not get us out.
What is superficial is to say that "the programs planned are for job creation and infra structure change," because what happens in that case is individuals' and companies' savings and spending plans are stripped from the individuals and companies and used for something only the government wants, not for anything individuals are willing to spend their money and savings on.
In other words, the money and savings is spent short-term on an exuberant bubble that will burst adding more pain to what we already need to go through.
Listen to Obama's "speech." He said that they government bureaucracies had better spend the money, or they won't be able to use it -- if that is not a call to build useless roads and bridges to nowhere, nothing is.
The money and savings should be spent by people thinking hard about the long-term, and what is best for their lives and families, not by government officials who clearly want only to "do something."
The government officials are clearly unprincipled and have no idea what needs to be done. Just listen to them talk and watch what they do in action.
"Uncle Ken" 's comment is not "snippy." Using such a term towards "most" of the comments is turning language on its head.
Nor are the comments of people who want to turn toward homeschooling "snippy." Those are the comments of people who want to take care of their children and who care about good education. Good education comes at the price of throwing ideas, reason and logic at the problem -- not throwing money and fancy buildings and computers at people incapable of rational thought. Obama is part of the "cargo cult." (About which term, read Dr. Richard Feynman.)
Stuart, is the problem you have with some people's comments that they seem "selfish?"
I say: "Amen for those people for being selfish qua rational, responsible, long-term being." (As opposed to childish, school-marm conceptions of selfishness.)
Please think about what people are saying and what you are saying before speaking or writing. "Snippy" is rude and unjustly dismissive.
And what might your suggestions be, stuart? I'd like for you to elaborate a bit on religious education being inferior to secular education. You kind of left it hanging out there.
Having gone to a catholic school for the first through third grades, before moving to public schools, I did not have to crack a book concerning the three "r's" again until ninth grade. I used to watch a high school challenge show on TV as a kid. It was local, and showed on the local PBS channel. Christian school teams repeatedly blew the doors off the public school teams.
What then, is the NEA if we will not and do not have a national education system? The teachers' unions are quite powerful, and certainly direct the way things go in our country concerning education. Talk about a powerful lobby......
Not being "snippy". But I would certainly like to hear more on your take.
"GawainsGhost." Amen. I didn't like what I saw in the public school system either. But for that matter, I don't like what I see in many private schools -- they are all influenced by the same unprincipled pragmatism of John Dewey, and through him, of Immanuel Kant.
The German intellectual takeover of American started in the 1850's, with many American college students taking trips to Europe and bringing Kant back.
I'd say you are wrong with your comments that "NASA scientists crashed a robot probe into Mars, using supercomputers. They couldn't even put a telescope in space with the right lens on it!" are evidence of inferior education.
Sounds like the post-hoc fallacy to me.
You might be right, but I'd want to see much more evidence and a much tighter case, following the rules laid down by Euclid, Aristotle, and John Stuart Mill.
Now the Challenger disaster I'd ascribe to poor thinking (which is not exclusively a modern phenomenon), but I'm not sure about the things you point out. (See, for a start, Dr. Richard Feynman (http://tinyurl.com/8szgl) and Edward Tufte (http://tinyurl.com/57hdhs) on that point.)
I agree with you totally, though, when you say we need, not computers and better "infrastructure," but a return to "grammar, logic, rhetoric, literature, mathematics, science, and art."
With the way people talk about education today and with the priorities they spend their money on, you'd think ancient Greece, Galileo, Newton, John Locke, Michael Faraday, George Ohm, never existed, or that they all had supercomputers and million dollar school buildings!!!
Stuart wrote:
"...that the programs planned are for job creation"
Tell me stuart, are government jobs consumption or production?
"...when in fact the GOP also recognizes that we have a hell of an economic mess..."
Any moron can recognize that we are in an economic mess. The problem is that the GOP's solutions are indistinguishable from the Democrats. It's Keynesian all the way, which just pours gasoline on the fire.
"...that religious education is often inferior or not the sort of education that a secular state ought to have."
Do you plan to back up this unsupported assertion Stuart? Also, have you bothered to look at the test scores from your beloved secular education lately and compare them to parochial or homeschool products?
Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.
And the definition of 21st century schools is "energy-efficient, ... [with] new computers in our classrooms." Yeah, that'll fix everything. Really makes you wonder how, say, Newton developed classical physics without even a calculator or central heating. Don't get me wrong. I like computers. I develop software for a living. Computers aren't even very expensive any more. But it's the content being taught and the standards to which the students are held that make the difference, not whether it's being done on a computer or a whiteboard or a blackboard or . . .
Without the programmed CMOS in a computer MB, a computer has no idea what it is, what components are in it, how to find out, and what to do after that. Like earlier versions, you fired it off and it sat at the C prompt until the user gave it further instructions.
Computers are fast, not smart. It continues to take the human mind to make stuff happen. Or not happen.
Critical thinking is becoming a lost art. I'd prefer see a lot more of critical thinking than better school buildings. Besides, every public school building I've seen in the past 20 years is in better shape that the schools I attended for my first ten years of school.
But I have been largely disappointed with the uncritical teaching methods in science. This year my son's biology teacher showed "An Inconvenient Truth" and taught is as if it was fact. He and I printed out 35 Inconvenient Truths about Al Gore's movie. The teacher just said she was going to talk about that too but never did.
There's also been other cases of erroneous teaching in the scientific method, etc.
Of course, the liberal position on much science is that if you don't accept their position, you're a denier or some other form of idiot. They don't want critical thinking. They want unquestioning acceptance of their point of view. Fancy buildings and new computers mean nothing if you can't think on your own.
"If Obama wants to really bring change to schools, how about bringing back critical thinking to the classroom? "
Yes. But first, find teachers who can.
stuart --
"Home schooling is fine but that means that those without much education will not have it,"
No. It means they will attend public schools if their parents don't feel up to it.
"and that in a recession hunger trumps education, and that religious education is often inferior or not the sort of education that a secular state ought to have."
Home schooling is not religious. Good spin at the attempted slur though. I do wish to point out your ought.
Oligonicella - good points about homeschooling and religious education.
My oldest daughter homeschools. They are Unitarian which is most likely not the type of religion to which Stuart refers.
In the greater Cincinnati area (southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky) people pay thousands, often more than many public universities cost, for their children to attend Catholic schools because of the superior education. I strongly doubt Stuart can back up his "religious education is often inferior" claim with facts.
I still claim that if liberals are so pro-choice why don't they endorse school vouchers and give all parents/children the choice of where to attend school, not just the rich.
@ "I'm starting to think this guy really is fixated on image, as opposed to substance."
Starting to think Obama is about image and not substance? Obama is pretty much a fad, and was fortunate enough to be in style during a presidential election. I'm amazed when I frequent airports that half the magazines in the airports had Obama's smiling face on the cover.
Now, before I get accused of "snippy" comments, I have nothing personal against Obama and I refuse to treat him in the same manner that the left has so disgracefully treated Bush. Agreeing that Obama's political presence is more about style than substance is not a personal attack or snippy comment.
That said, I do think Obama will be a two term president. He has (to his great credit) managed to reach unlikely voters and has a huge constituency of support among people who dont' pay attention to the issues.
Let me say that I had one of the best students I ever taught at a college level who was home schooled and her mother was a public school teacher. But I can also say that I had a college (college techer) whose wife home schooled because she disliked what she perceived as poor morality in the public school systems. I have nothing per se against decent home schooling. I am wary of school vouchers--I know of one school getting govt money that is in fact run by what most people in the field have for some years labelled a cult. Further, in my area, some parochial schools are filled with inadequate and underpaid teachers. And what they teach is often of a more relgious agenda than a secular one--ie, evolution etc.
My point is that those many people with little or no education to speak of and little or no money resources to speak of are hardly in a postion for home schooling. My own anti-religious bias leads me to not want religious schools getting taxpayer money...why should I be taxed to support a view that is distasteful, ie, women's role is to be subservient, sharia law is ok etc?
If "liberals" believe in free choices--libertarians too--I can but note that not all choices ought to be funded. Call me elitist or dogmatist, but if you believe so, then by all means pay your taxes (your duty) and exercise your conviction as you will...just do/t assume the rest of the nation wants to do away with public education.
stuart --
My own anti-religious bias leads me to not want religious schools getting taxpayer money...
Too bad. The question is, do those schools produce students educated to a certain degree? If they do, you have no footing. If secular schools don't, they shouldn't be funded either.
You guys can't criticize Obama! Don't you realize he's BLACK? He's our first black president! It's historic! You must ALL be racists! There's no other explanation!
Z. lol. Yeah...I don't remember how many times, when I was teaching in the public schools, I heard "You're just saying that 'cause I'm black."
Wow...get me the hell out of here...
But the issue is not a racial one, it's an issue of evasion of personal responsibility.
I'd also have students who, when you told or asked them to stop talking, would turn to you and say, with all sincerity, "I wasn't talking." They have a very different conception of "cheating," too. Oh, and they thought they were owed at least a B for sitting in class doing nothing. I guess they thought I owed them for looking at their face or for being in their presence?
The evasion was insane...
why should I be taxed to support a view that is distasteful,...
But, ALL of us are taxed to support a view this is distasteful, to us at least. There are tons on PC dogma being taught at all levels of education and my taxes are helping pay for it. I have the benefit of being better educated and smarter than most of my kids' teachers. My kids realize this and value my input more than their teachers.
But what about the kids with less educated parents or parents that won't confront teachers when needed. I've noticed that teachers and administrators really only want parental involvement when that involvement is parents doing exactly what the school systems wants. No rocking the boat.
There would be problems but vouchers would help parents get their children the education they want. Vouchers would also help avoid being "taxed to support a view that is distasteful."
Obama will be criticised, for sure, and the Right has already begun that. To say he can't be because he is black --he is mixed unless you believe in the old Southern drop of blood stuff--is just being snippy.
A religious school that teaches that Darwin is worthless but the Bible is truth is not a place that is educating people. Period.
nathan --
And their students would fail national science tests, eh? They may pass math and English with flying colors, but the ACT, FCAT, etc are full-range tests.
Stuart said: :by all means pay your taxes (your duty)"
It was the duty of the colonists to pay George III's tea tax as well.
Can anyone find the word "education" in the Constitution? I can't. Perhaps we should obey the law as Stuart suggests and leave matters of public education to the states.
The computer in classroom idea is bankrupt. Even my kids, who like to use computers, think its stupid.
Have any of these proponents actually tried to use a computer for general education? It's terrible. Heck, even for general math education its terrible.
(Having a computer lab with Windows [that's what the business world uses] is valuable, but a waste before Jr. High.)
If we had better critical thinkers in this country, Obama would have never gotten elected. The last thing he wants to do is provide real education. The end goal is as it's always been - turn out the little brainwashed automatons that will reliably vote Democrat when they turn 18.
We can start to fix public education by getting rid of it. It has provided nothing except a breeding ground for Democrats.
Want an uplifting view of the success of public education in this country? Go to Town Hall dot com and read Walter Williams' December 3rd column "Ignorance Reigns Supreme". Unbelievable. Hell, infuriating.
And with that, Alex wins the thread.
smitty1e said...
And with that, Alex wins the thread.
4:25 PM, December 08, 2008
Don't want to engage a little critical thinking? I tell the truth.
You have a very narrow view, nathan.
If you're not teaching Darwin, you're not educating, period?
And Obama is actually Caucasian, I would believe. Is not the race of the mother the race "assigned" to the child at birth?
In the early 1980s, the South Side of Chicago was falling apart. The steel mills were closing, putting thousands of working-class breadwinners out of jobs. And so much went along with that--secondary job losses, rising crime, home ownership declining.... Obama's "community organizing" from this strained and unhappy period involved helping a residents' group remove asbestos from the Altgeld Gardens housing project.
So, his idea of fixing education by making classrooms more energy efficient shouldn't surprise anyone.
www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
I scored 84.85% Sad.
If you want to learn a whittle about what Pres.-elect Obama really has in mind for U.S. schools, look at this NY Times magazine article...
"a “conveyor belt” of social programs, beginning with Baby College, a nine-week parenting program that encourages parents to choose alternatives to corporal punishment and to read and talk more with their children. As students progress through an all-day prekindergarten and then through a charter school, they have continuous access to community supports like family counseling, after-school tutoring and a health clinic, all designed to mimic the often-invisible cocoon of support and nurturance that follows middle-class and upper-middle-class kids through their childhoods. The goal, in the end, is to produce children with the abilities and the character to survive adolescence in a high-poverty neighborhood, to make it to college and to graduate."...
....Promise Neighborhoods, be run as private/public partnerships, with the federal government providing half the funds and the rest being raised by local governments and private philanthropies and businesses. It would cost the federal government “a few billion dollars a year,” [Obama said].
Imagine neighborhoods sponsored by corporations.
There's already a program like this in Harlem. And the national roll-out would be based on it. Until recently, hedge funds were sponsoring its squash lacrosse teams "to mimic the invisible cocoon."
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道a片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色視訊sex85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aaa片免費看短片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片5278論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片
小魔女免費影片色情聊天室 ut我愛78論壇辣妹哈拉視訊聊天室台灣論壇女生免費視訊辣妹北台灣視訊aaa的滿18歲卡通影片視訊交友90739a片欣賞本土自拍天堂aa片免費看影片 情色小說免費成人卡通kiss168成人電影視訊妹 aa片免費看aa 片免費看sex888sex999免費影片免費視訊聊天a性感用品維納斯視訊交友網080中部人聊天室
Post a Comment
<< Home