S/O College students and free stuff .. quality education

[Entropymama]

That thread was veering off, so I thought I'd just start one. 

 

Regarding free education and it's success and failure, this article was very informative. 

 

http://theaquilareport.com/how-a-generation-lost-its-common-culture/

 

"Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts — whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about — have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings. The pervasive ignorance of our students is not a mere accident or unfortunate but correctible outcome, if only we hire better teachers or tweak the reading lists in high school. It is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West."

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't buy it.  I do think there are instances where the quality could stand to be improved, but I'm kinda tired of these gloom and doom articles that claim we are all just a bunch of bumbling idiots and have the worst educational system in the universe. 

[Bluegoat]

I think I would have prefered the article had been written another way - he talks about this sort of student being the goal of modern education but i isn't all that clear how it has come about, or even any way-points.

 

I think he is correct though - the ignorance of students, university educated students, about their own cultural patronage is shocking.  Even basic things like how we are governed.  Studenst have little or no history and they have no idea where these ideas they have been taught come from - their assumptions are not self-concious.

 

It reminds me a bit of a P.D. James charachter whose name escapes me - she grew up in public housing and became a police officer, and had a rather mediocre state education.  She describes the central philosophy behind her education as anti-racism.  Now, anti-racism is a nice message, but it sure as heck doesn't have anough power behind it to hold together a worldview. 

 

I think this is perhaps in part what students are missing - it isn't just that schools don't present their teaching as if it comes from a worldview, students don't even come out knowing that they have a worldview.  Their own perspective is taken for granted as being fundamental and obvious, and not as something that actually shapes their experience.  That lack of self-conciousness is pretty much the opposite of education.  They are a bit like Elliot's heap of broken images.  It's even evident among many of the people who are looked at as the knowledgeable ones in society, the public scientists. 

 

I think that some kind of sense of this has been behind a lot of the classical homeschooling movement, especially with its commitment to the importance of history.  And it has been something that educators have been pointing out as a danger for some time. 

 

But what I don't know is how it is this has been so lost from public education.  I think a few elements are the view of education being for purely utilitarian purposes,  the desire to present an education without assuming a worldview, and perhaps even alienation from true political empowerment.  But I think there is really something more to it than that.

[Entropymama]

 

But what I don't know is how it is this has been so lost from public education.  I think a few elements are the view of education being for purely utilitarian purposes,  the desire to present an education without assuming a worldview, and perhaps even alienation from true political empowerment.  But I think there is really something more to it than that.

 

I have a few thoughts. One, I think there is a big push for certain agendas, and time needs to be made for them. For example, when I was kid it was the anti-drug culture. Now it's anti-bullying. Also healthy eating and things like technology skills. When you add, you have to subtract. I think the school system looks at the curriculum and makes cuts in order to fit in these new 'subjects' and things like history get cut. After all, you can get through life just fine not knowing what Rameses II did or who invented the printing press. Spelling, handwriting and grammar are all going by the wayside because technology will do much of that for us, so why bother? 

 

I also think we've gone from whole-to-parts to parts-to-whole learning. So, for me, when I teach my kids, we grab a great book and read through it, stopping to discuss different aspects of the plot, characters, etc. Through this they learn about good character, what makes people behave the way they do, historical events, etc. (No news to anyone here). But at school they do it the other way round - they need to teach good character so they break down what good character is into easily identifiable and explainable concepts, then build stories of people who have those traits (written by committees) and each character exemplifies a trait. If the stories are vapid, or shallow, or downright boring doesn't really matter, so long as they fulfill their one purpose. 

 

On the other hand, I agree with Sparkly Unicorn that things are not exactly in a hand basket to hell just yet. The schools near me are generally quite good, and we have many options for charter schools and magnet schools. We even have something called Gateway which is seriously homeschooling at school. Multi-age groups, individual pacing, kids get to decide what they want to study and then create a project. I was cracking up at the orientation as all the teachers gushed about this 'brand new' model that was the future of education. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree with it. Nclb and full inclusion brought in the modern era of minimal ed in public school. If you were a 3 or a 4, you sat while 1s and 2s received instruction designed to put them just in to the 3 zone. The high schools that signed on did away with AP sciences, as well as honors math. The next phase is starting, and it has announced its arrival with on campus mental health clinics and addl social workers, and in some places, with the removal of 8th grade Alg. A college prep education such as I received in the rural midwest is not available here from a nonwealthy or nonTitle1 school unless one pays for one's child to DE at the CC...and even then, the math is inferior.

 

I definitely agree this was not a good move.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Then again, how can this really be?  They have history every single year in school.  At some point they are required to take a government course and an economics course.  (At least here where I live that is the requirement). 

They don't require math and science every year of high school here, but they do require history and/or social studies every single year. 

 

I do agree with the world view thing.  I suspect the goal is to nudge students into a narrow world view.  If I'm going to be entirely pessimistic, I'd say that is done on purpose to basically control people and not cultivate them to ask too many hard questions.  If I am less pessimistic, maybe it's hard to deal with these topics in a way that is balanced and fair for everyone.  Just look at stuff like evolution.  Schools can't even teach evolution in some parts of the country without people completely flipping out.  As if science courses spend 90% of their time for 14 years talking about evolution. 

 

 

I think I would have prefered the article had been written another way - he talks about this sort of student being the goal of modern education but i isn't all that clear how it has come about, or even any way-points.

 

I think he is correct though - the ignorance of students, university educated students, about their own cultural patronage is shocking.  Even basic things like how we are governed.  Studenst have little or no history and they have no idea where these ideas they have been taught come from - their assumptions are not self-concious.

 

It reminds me a bit of a P.D. James charachter whose name escapes me - she grew up in public housing and became a police officer, and had a rather mediocre state education.  She describes the central philosophy behind her education as anti-racism.  Now, anti-racism is a nice message, but it sure as heck doesn't have anough power behind it to hold together a worldview. 

 

I think this is perhaps in part what students are missing - it isn't just that schools don't present their teaching as if it comes from a worldview, students don't even come out knowing that they have a worldview.  Their own perspective is taken for granted as being fundamental and obvious, and not as something that actually shapes their experience.  That lack of self-conciousness is pretty much the opposite of education.  They are a bit like Elliot's heap of broken images.  It's even evident among many of the people who are looked at as the knowledgeable ones in society, the public scientists. 

 

I think that some kind of sense of this has been behind a lot of the classical homeschooling movement, especially with its commitment to the importance of history.  And it has been something that educators have been pointing out as a danger for some time. 

 

But what I don't know is how it is this has been so lost from public education.  I think a few elements are the view of education being for purely utilitarian purposes,  the desire to present an education without assuming a worldview, and perhaps even alienation from true political empowerment.  But I think there is really something more to it than that.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

And take something like Common Core.  One of the biggest reasons for the idea was to have schools across the country teaching mostly the same things at the same time.  Granted, there were some other parts that just were too rigid and silly and I get why people were upset, but a lot of people had a major problem with the all on the same page thing.  It makes no sense to me to not aim for that.  Why should a school in one district be teaching entirely different things?  And why should the quality vary so much from place to place?  Ultimately, that puts some students at a major disadvantage if they want to go to college. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

I reject the idea that we are seeing a generation of know nothings. Most young adults I know are smart, passionate and working on getting ahead. Just yesterday I met two high school kids who were spending their afternoon at a political rally and my 12 year old son and I had a long and interesting conversation with them.

 

Maybe the author hangs around know nothings because people who over generalize are often o limited mental faculties themselves...

[Bluegoat]

I have a few thoughts. One, I think there is a big push for certain agendas, and time needs to be made for them. For example, when I was kid it was the anti-drug culture. Now it's anti-bullying. Also healthy eating and things like technology skills. When you add, you have to subtract. I think the school system looks at the curriculum and makes cuts in order to fit in these new 'subjects' and things like history get cut. After all, you can get through life just fine not knowing what Rameses II did or who invented the printing press. Spelling, handwriting and grammar are all going by the wayside because technology will do much of that for us, so why bother? 

 

I also think we've gone from whole-to-parts to parts-to-whole learning. So, for me, when I teach my kids, we grab a great book and read through it, stopping to discuss different aspects of the plot, characters, etc. Through this they learn about good character, what makes people behave the way they do, historical events, etc. (No news to anyone here). But at school they do it the other way round - they need to teach good character so they break down what good character is into easily identifiable and explainable concepts, then build stories of people who have those traits (written by committees) and each character exemplifies a trait. If the stories are vapid, or shallow, or downright boring doesn't really matter, so long as they fulfill their one purpose. 

 

On the other hand, I agree with Sparkly Unicorn that things are not exactly in a hand basket to hell just yet. The schools near me are generally quite good, and we have many options for charter schools and magnet schools. We even have something called Gateway which is seriously homeschooling at school. Multi-age groups, individual pacing, kids get to decide what they want to study and then create a project. I was cracking up at the orientation as all the teachers gushed about this 'brand new' model that was the future of education. 

 

I think those things are true, but I am not sure that they get to the heart of what the author of the article was getting at.  It seems to me that what he meant was not only are students not educated, but they don't really have any idea what it means to be educated.  He mentiones Allan Bloom who talked about this - rather tediously and pompously unfortunately - in The Closing of the American Mind, which is worth looking at if this is a topic of interest, just because it has been a fairly important element in discussions of this issue, even for those who don't agree with Bloom.

 

It makes me think of an article I read about a famous French deconstructionist, who was invited to visit an American campus in the 60's.  His ideas about the canon had been quite influential on the students and so he was invited to speak.  When he got there however he was horrified to find that the students were not in fact reading the canon, and gave them quite a stiff telling to about the necessity to actually know the canon in order to deconstruct it, and without putting in the work they were nor radical, only lazy.  This is somewhat the direction Bloom goes in saying that because of the direction of philosophy the value of cultural literacy is increasingly lost.

[Bluegoat]

Then again, how can this really be?  They have history every single year in school.  At some point they are required to take a government course and an economics course.  (At least here where I live that is the requirement). 

They don't require math and science every year of high school here, but they do require history and/or social studies every single year. 

 

I do agree with the world view thing.  I suspect the goal is to nudge students into a narrow world view.  If I'm going to be entirely pessimistic, I'd say that is done on purpose to basically control people and not cultivate them to ask too many hard questions.  If I am less pessimistic, maybe it's hard to deal with these topics in a way that is balanced and fair for everyone.  Just look at stuff like evolution.  Schools can't even teach evolution in some parts of the country without people completely flipping out.  As if science courses spend 90% of their time for 14 years talking about evolution. 

 

I don't know how people can do history and other topics and yet coming out so clueless.  I have really tried to figure this out.

 

Just as an example, a fairly significant political controversy in Canada is around the role of the Senate and how to fix certain problems with it.  Probably about 80% of people I hear comment about it, or who I talk to about it, seem totally unaware of how it came to exist historically, what its role in the system is meant to do, and what kind of work it actually accomplishes.  Even if people managed not to pick these things up in school, they would seem to be things one would need to know in order to form an opinion and it isn't difficult information to find.

 

It's very perplexing.

 

However - I do think that what the author here is talking about is not primarily public education but specifically university education - the idea that people educated in that way are meant to have a reflective and self-conscious understanding of their own worldview.  Which of necessity means they need to know something about the history of ideas.  I would say that while the history of ideas presupposes some lower level history, it is probably properly speaking not something that is really dug into until, perhaps, the last few years of high school and more so in university.

[FaithManor]

I agree with it. Nclb and full inclusion brought in the modern era of minimal ed in public school. If you were a 3 or a 4, you sat while 1s and 2s received instruction designed to put them just in to the 3 zone. The high schools that signed on did away with AP sciences, as well as honors math. The next phase is starting, and it has announced its arrival with on campus mental health clinics and addl social workers, and in some places, with the removal of 8th grade Alg. A college prep education such as I received in the rural midwest is not available here from a nonwealthy or nonTitle1 school unless one pays for one's child to DE at the CC...and even then, the math is inferior.

This is exactly what has been happening in most of the school districts in my county. My own is a pit of ignorance.

 

There is a small, shining bright spot that has occurred on the southeast end of the county. The district parents got so up in arms over the lack of options for their average and above average students that they went APE because of the total emphasis on remedial classes. Just crazy on the school board, and it resulted in the firing of nearly all the principals and of the superintendent. They have a new superintendent, a former college professor, a guy who really actually cares about education.

 

This is what he is doing:

 

He has successfully procured grants from private foundations to provide two years of engineering in the school which will begin the junior year after algebra 2, and will end with "Introduction to Aerospace Engineering". He has expanded funding for their TARC rocket teams, and the AP physics instructor (the very last district in our entire county that offered AP physics) is getting an assistant instructor paid for by the school district so he can handle 5 TARC teams instead of 3, and will be able to hand off conceptual (algebra 1) physics to the new person.

 

The chemistry department lab was remodeled, broken equipment replaced, updated, you name it, and instead of spending time on test prep, robust labs are being reinstituted.

 

Debate team was brought back.

 

The math department was allowed to toss the old textbooks and go get some really good college texts to use instead.

 

The history department is getting a budget for field trips and special speakers and is getting their AP's back.

 

The English department was given a budget for remodeling and updating the school library as well as given new options on textbooks. They are starting a classical literature club, and a mythology club.

 

The sports budget took a huge pay cut.

 

A music teacher was hired so that the band director was not saddled with 6-12th grade band, plus high school choir, plus elementary education music, and marching band, and pep band, and.....

 

The Art teacher got some desperately needed equipment, plus AP studio art back, and gallery spot in the main hallway with an option of a student show per year that the superintendent said he thought he could get some art professors to attend.

 

A foreign language was added. They were down to Spanish only.

 

All the elementary teachers have been sent to math class this summer with the high school math teachers where they will receive some instruction themselves, but then brainstorm about improving basic skills so students are more ready for upper math coursework, and less likely to hate math.

 

He has increased recess time.

 

I have spoken with the students who are currently on the school's rocket teams. The change seems to be pretty amazing. They speak very animatedly about how their school has changed for the better, how behavior has improved, how much the new principals have cracked down on bullying and bad behavior, yet walk the halls, sit in on classes, eat lunch with the students, etc. and make them feel like they are cared for, important. The superintendent goes into each building each week and eats with the students. Last week he was seen at lunch time applying a band aid and asking her if she was okay or did she want to go call mommy for a few minutes. He was down on one knee at her level and gave her a little side hug before she went out to play.

 

If only this would spread like wildfire!

 

But I have a feeling it won't last long. It just seems like the good ideas are always politically squashed in the end. The only hope is that parents of nearby districts use "school of choice" in Michigan and enroll their kids in that district, abandoning their own which might cause the powers that be to sit up and take notice.

 

I find it sad that he had to write grants to get funding from private sources for a lot of this. Very sad.

 

Meanwhile, I live too far away to place my eager beaver engineering high school student in that district. So I continue to homeschool, and pay full price for DE, and struggle to find anywhere to sit AP exams, and.....

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't know how people can do history and other topics and yet coming out so clueless.  I have really tried to figure this out.

 

Just as an example, a fairly significant political controversy in Canada is around the role of the Senate and how to fix certain problems with it.  Probably about 80% of people I hear comment about it, or who I talk to about it, seem totally unaware of how it came to exist historically, what its role in the system is meant to do, and what kind of work it actually accomplishes.  Even if people managed not to pick these things up in school, they would seem to be things one would need to know in order to form an opinion and it isn't difficult information to find.

 

It's very perplexing.

 

However - I do think that what the author here is talking about is not primarily public education but specifically university education - the idea that people educated in that way are meant to have a reflective and self-conscious understanding of their own worldview.  Which of necessity means they need to know something about the history of ideas.  I would say that while the history of ideas presupposes some lower level history, it is probably properly speaking not something that is really dug into until, perhaps, the last few years of high school and more so in university.

 

Although I admit I absolutely hate politics and government.  I know this is a sucky attitude to have, but yes I barely follow this stuff and I'm unsure as to why I'm so turned off.  Well I can imagine partly why.  I often feel frustrated that it's all a series of mud slinging, finger pointing, corruption, and blame. 

 

I do feel though that in college we did spend a lot of time on this concept.  I learned a lot more in that direction (world view, self reflection, ideas, etc) than at any other time prior.  I remember a teacher mentioning that we should question authority.  I was blown away.  LOL  Sounds silly, but for years I felt the message was to trust authority, authority knows best, and how dare I question it.  

[Tanaqui]

I've never heard of this news organization before. A quick google search told me that The Aquila Report is an organization for "news and commentary from and about conservative, orthodox evangelicals in the Reformed and Presbyterian family of churches". Forgive me for saying I detect a bit of bias.

 

I note, also, that the author presumes that having these facts at the tip of your fingers is a good thing, but doesn't make any effort to show why it might be a good thing. My father not only knew who fought in the Pelopennesian War and why, he made an intense study of the individual battles, carefully modeling them out on a Go board. Which is all well and good, but he would have been the first to admit that it had no relation to anything today. (Which is no doubt why he read the NYTimes cover to cover every day, along with watching the news religiously and reading other news publications as they came up.)

 

I know all this author's little trivia questions, and let me assure you, they haven't actually benefited my life as much as he might think.

 

So since he doesn't actually bother to prove his point, I suppose I'm forced to draw my own conclusions, and they aren't pretty. All this talk about "common culture" and how "multiculturalism is bad" reads to me like a lot of racist dogwhistles.

 

Is there a value in learning the classics? Sure. But that's no more valuable a goal in education than studying modern languages, or aiming to be a polymath, or immersing yourself in science. (And he does define ignorance so narrowly! I have a few trivia questions of my own I'd like to ask him.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

Um, plus, I'm sure people noticed, but this article comes from a very specific world view. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I've never heard of this news organization before. A quick google search told me that The Aquila Report is an organization for "news and commentary from and about conservative, orthodox evangelicals in the Reformed and Presbyterian family of churches". Forgive me for saying I detect a bit of bias.

 

I note, also, that the author presumes that having these facts at the tip of your fingers is a good thing, but doesn't make any effort to show why it might be a good thing. My father not only knew who fought in the Pelopennesian War and why, he made an intense study of the individual battles, carefully modeling them out on a Go board. Which is all well and good, but he would have been the first to admit that it had no relation to anything today. (Which is no doubt why he read the NYTimes cover to cover every day, along with watching the news religiously and reading other news publications as they came up.)

 

I know all this author's little trivia questions, and let me assure you, they haven't actually benefited my life as much as he might think.

 

So since he doesn't actually bother to prove his point, I suppose I'm forced to draw my own conclusions, and they aren't pretty. All this talk about "common culture" and how "multiculturalism is bad" reads to me like a lot of racist dogwhistles.

 

Is there a value in learning the classics? Sure. But that's no more valuable a goal in education than studying modern languages, or aiming to be a polymath, or immersing yourself in science. (And he does define ignorance so narrowly! I have a few trivia questions of my own I'd like to ask him.)

 

Uh yup. 

 

I no longer completely dismiss this stuff (opinions presented from this particular world view and perspective) because the liberal stuff I've trusted for years has proven in the past to be just as lousy and narrow sometimes.  I'm willing to entertain the ideas because you never know where good ideas can come from.  But definitely it is coming from a narrow perspective. 

[Bluegoat]

Although I admit I absolutely hate politics and government.  I know this is a sucky attitude to have, but yes I barely follow this stuff and I'm unsure as to why I'm so turned off.  Well I can imagine partly why.  I often feel frustrated that it's all a series of mud slinging, finger pointing, corruption, and blame. 

 

I do feel though that in college we did spend a lot of time on this concept.  I learned a lot more in that direction (world view, self reflection, ideas, etc) than at any other time prior.  I remember a teacher mentioning that we should question authority.  I was blown away.  LOL  Sounds silly, but for years I felt the message was to trust authority, authority knows best, and how dare I question it.  

 

I think the question authority thing is very tricky.  It's not necessarily all that useful just to question it, it needs to come from a place of some understanding, or its likely to be meaningless or reactionary.

 

Just as an example, I took classes in two rather different departments of philosophy as a student.  In one, the emphasis was very much, for undergraduates, in understanding what important philosophical thinkers had taught and argued.  In order to do this well it requires a kind of mental apprenticeship, an entering into their way of thinking in order to see the internal coherence of their system. 

 

In the other department it was very much a spirit of critical thinking approach. 

 

The thing is in the latter case, the students didn't really do much by way of seeing another system of thought with internal coherence - typically they smashed out parts of every system they learned based on their own worldview.  Such and such a thinker was a sexist, say, or something he said didn't seem right, - everything was bits and pieces. 

 

Questions like - why does our culture value these things, why do I tend to assume this kind of value as opposed to another - were in the end less challenged in this approach, because they couldn't really create a coherent sense of how ideas had changed over time (which might show their own ideas to simply be assumptions) and because there were no other systems that could offer the possibility of coherent alternatives.

 

There is a real tension between learning from people who actually know more than you, and a critical disposition.

[Bluegoat]

I don't actually think I question at all that there is value in the things he has mentioned.  That being said I think they are meant to be representative examples.

 

I think what he is talking about is knowing the history of the west.  I think almost all of us here on this board are westerners, our basic ideas, including things like value in diversity and multiculturalism and confidence in science and democracy and the separation of church and state - whatever - they all come out of a history that goes back several thousand years and we can trace the threads back all along that path.

 

If to be educated is to know yourself, it means we need to know how we came to have the assumptions and beliefs we hold.

 

If we are, say, from living in China, we have a different cultural heritage, and self-understanding will depend on familiarity in that tradition.  But for Americans, and other westerners, our values and assumptions come from the western tradition.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It really is difficult to be able to step outside of one's specific POV to evaluate something without coming from that place.  And maybe you can do it as a mental exercise, but it's another thing to live it. 

 

One thing I have learned after 41 years is that a lot of what we spew out as truth has no real evidence of being in fact true.  Then again that is not a comfortable thought.  There is only so much time I like to spend thinking like that. 

 

But also (and I realize I'm being a bit scattered here), we are asked to consider these deep mature thoughts when we are 18-23ish.  As if we have this lifetime of experiences to draw from.  That is impossible when you consider we spent the bulk of that time sitting in buildings with mostly people our own age and often times with people who come from a similar socioeconomic (among other things) background.  So really maybe to expect students to be wiser than they are isn't even realistic. 

 

I think the question authority thing is very tricky.  It's not necessarily all that useful just to question it, it needs to come from a place of some understanding, or its likely to be meaningless or reactionary.

 

Just as an example, I took classes in two rather different departments of philosophy as a student.  In one, the emphasis was very much, for undergraduates, in understanding what important philosophical thinkers had taught and argued.  In order to do this well it requires a kind of mental apprenticeship, an entering into their way of thinking in order to see the internal coherence of their system. 

 

In the other department it was very much a spirit of critical thinking approach. 

 

The thing is in the latter case, the students didn't really do much by way of seeing another system of thought with internal coherence - typically they smashed out parts of every system they learned based on their own worldview.  Such and such a thinker was a sexist, say, or something he said didn't seem right, - everything was bits and pieces. 

 

Questions like - why does our culture value these things, why do I tend to assume this kind of value as opposed to another - were in the end less challenged in this approach, because they couldn't really create a coherent sense of how ideas had changed over time (which might show their own ideas to simply be assumptions) and because there were no other systems that could offer the possibility of coherent alternatives.

 

There is a real tension between learning from people who actually know more than you, and a critical disposition.

 

[Tanaqui]

Except, Bluegoat, that presumption rests on a few faulty premises, namely that the actions in  other cultures in no way influenced European history and culture (or, in the case of the Americas, that the cultural context of the Natives had no bearing on the events after 1492) and that this continues to be the case today. That's a very shaky basis to build your study of history on.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Except, Bluegoat, that presumption rests on a few faulty premises, namely that the actions in  other cultures in no way influenced European history and culture (or, in the case of the Americas, that the cultural context of the Natives had no bearing on the events after 1492) and that this continues to be the case today. That's a very shaky basis to build your study of history on.

 

Definitely.  I had this book of Chinese Folk Tales that I read to my kids years ago.  This wasn't really a kid book though.  The thinking is very very different than what I'm used to.  It was only a glimpse into the thinking, but yes even through those short stories I learned that.

[Bluegoat]

Except, Bluegoat, that presumption rests on a few faulty premises, namely that the actions in  other cultures in no way influenced European history and culture (or, in the case of the Americas, that the cultural context of the Natives had no bearing on the events after 1492) and that this continues to be the case today. That's a very shaky basis to build your study of history on.

 

 

Um, no, it really doesn't.  I don't know anyone who has studied history who would say that, it is pretty self-evident that it isn't the case. I've never heard of anyone entering into the study of western culture who would say such a thing - the fact that it actually tends to begin with a study of middle eastern cultures would seem to be a giveaway that there is no such assumption.

 

 

There are plenty of places, in the study of, say, western culture, where the influence of other cultures will enter the picture. This would be true to greater or lesser extents in other cultures as well.   But you are still talking about the influence on western culture which has its own direction and worldview (or sets of worldviews.)  Insofar as these ideas are taken into western culture, they become part of it - in some cases there may actually be a union of cultures.

 

 

The study of a whole culture to a degree that will give a reasonable background takes a fair amount of time and some level of maturity to fill it out.  It's a subject big enough to dedicate a lifetime to.  People aren't going to be able to accomplish even that lesser level of knowledge that the non-expert should have by the time they are finishing an undergraduate degree if they are trying to do it for half a dozen different cultures.  That will leave them with a shallow understanding of all of them.  They might, if they have a real work ethic, do it for two.  If public school education at least gave people a reasonable start in looking at western culture they would have a much better change at doing so effectively. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

  If public school education at least gave people a reasonable start in looking at western culture they would have a much better change at doing so effectively. 

 

I wonder if schools shy away from this because of religion. 

[Bluegoat]

It really is difficult to be able to step outside of one's specific POV to evaluate something without coming from that place.  And maybe you can do it as a mental exercise, but it's another thing to live it. 

 

One thing I have learned after 41 years is that a lot of what we spew out as truth has no real evidence of being in fact true.  Then again that is not a comfortable thought.  There is only so much time I like to spend thinking like that. 

 

But also (and I realize I'm being a bit scattered here), we are asked to consider these deep mature thoughts when we are 18-23ish.  As if we have this lifetime of experiences to draw from.  That is impossible when you consider we spent the bulk of that time sitting in buildings with mostly people our own age and often times with people who come from a similar socioeconomic (among other things) background.  So really maybe to expect students to be wiser than they are isn't even realistic. 

 

Well, there was a famous philosopher who said that no one should study philosophy before the age of 30.

 

I think it is very abstract at that age.  But that is probably ok.  It gives, in a way, a set of different paradigms that come up later as people have more experiences.

 

I think though the most important thing is really looking clearly about where some of our assumptions started.  Why do we, for example, place such trust and emphasis on the material world?  That is behind a lot of things we value, from science to money.  Or what do we assume that people really exist mainly as individuals?  Why do North Americans in particular seem to be so inclined to individualism?

 

When you see these ideas appear in history, sometimes with very different or unsettling ideas attached to them, it really makes a difference to your level of trust in them.  Most young people really need that experience.

[Bluegoat]

I wonder if schools shy away from this because of religion. 

 

It might be.  You really can't teach any culture without looking at religion pretty closely.

 

But I think it is also something I mentioned up-thread - when people became to question the supremacy of western culture, there was a leap made - not by the academics doing the questioning so much - that therefore it was not particularly important to study our own culture, we could study any, or none, or even we should try and study all or make some fair, random selection.

 

Which is a leap - one culture may not be supreme, but we would never tell someone from Japan that they should not have a thorough understanding of their own cultural origins before spending their days studying western culture.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It might be.  You really can't teach any culture without looking at religion pretty closely.

 

 

No you can't, but it can be problematic.

[Entropymama]

I reject the idea that we are seeing a generation of know nothings. Most young adults I know are smart, passionate and working on getting ahead. Just yesterday I met two high school kids who were spending their afternoon at a political rally and my 12 year old son and I had a long and interesting conversation with them.

 

Maybe the author hangs around know nothings because people who over generalize are often o limited mental faculties themselves...

 

 

Then again, how can this really be?  They have history every single year in school.  At some point they are required to take a government course and an economics course.  (At least here where I live that is the requirement). 

They don't require math and science every year of high school here, but they do require history and/or social studies every single year. 

 

Maybe things are different in your area, but here math is required every year but history isn't. In fact the elementary kids don't get any history - they get social studies. They learn about different cultures, there are units on families and neighborhoods, different religions, geography, lots and lots of United States history and an entire year devoted to our state history (and there's really not that much to talk about) but nothing on the ancients, nothing on the middle ages. Even US history seems to start at 1776 with nothing about where those ideas about self governance and individual rights come from. One kid I was talking to recently had NO idea that the French and American revolutions were connected, or even that they happened at roughly the same time. To him they were completely isolated events. 

 

I've never heard of this news organization before. A quick google search told me that The Aquila Report is an organization for "news and commentary from and about conservative, orthodox evangelicals in the Reformed and Presbyterian family of churches". Forgive me for saying I detect a bit of bias.

 

Are Presbyterians known for criticizing public education? I didn't notice anything in the article that told me he was biased because of his faith. Even if that's true, I find his points interesting, including the ones I don't entirely agree with. 

 

It really is difficult to be able to step outside of one's specific POV to evaluate something without coming from that place.  And maybe you can do it as a mental exercise, but it's another thing to live it. 

 

One thing I have learned after 41 years is that a lot of what we spew out as truth has no real evidence of being in fact true.  Then again that is not a comfortable thought.  There is only so much time I like to spend thinking like that. 

 

But also (and I realize I'm being a bit scattered here), we are asked to consider these deep mature thoughts when we are 18-23ish.  As if we have this lifetime of experiences to draw from.  That is impossible when you consider we spent the bulk of that time sitting in buildings with mostly people our own age and often times with people who come from a similar socioeconomic (among other things) background.  So really maybe to expect students to be wiser than they are isn't even realistic. 

 

Or is this the purpose of education? To help young people think outside their POV? 

 

ETA: I can't remember what I was going to say to Katie, but I can't figure out how to delete her quote without messing up all my formatting.  :laugh:

Edited March 21, 2016 by Entropymama

[SparklyUnicorn]

Maybe things are different in your area, but here math is required every year but history isn't. In fact the elementary kids don't get any history - they get social studies. They learn about different cultures, there are units on families and neighborhoods, different religions, geography, lots and lots of United States history and an entire year devoted to our state history (and there's really not that much to talk about) but nothing on the ancients, nothing on the middle ages. Even US history seems to start at 1776 with nothing about where those ideas about self governance and individual rights come from. One kid I was talking to recently had NO idea that the French and American revolutions were connected, or even that they happened at roughly the same time. To him they were completely isolated events. 

 

 

Are Presbyterians known for criticizing public education? I didn't notice anything in the article that told me he was biased because of his faith. Even if that's true, I find his points interesting, including the ones I don't entirely agree with. 

 

 

Or is this the purpose of education? To help young people think outside their POV? 

 

ETA: I can't remember what I was going to say to Katie, but I can't figure out how to delete her quote without messing up all my formatting.  :laugh:

 

Yeah I guess it is different place to place.  Math is not required every year, but social studies/history (stuff within that realm) is.  I have seen a few public school history texts.  Yuck.  Lot of pointless crap in them.  Pages and pages of zillions of pictures with captions.  Side bars.  Text boxes.  Very little coherent information.  It's painful to look at! 

 

No, but it is a site with a conservative Christian POV.  So that's one POV.  KWIM?  Nothing wrong with that, but it will influence opinions.  Of course a lot of liberals assume liberal publications are all true and well thought out.  Nope. 

 

I don't think it is the purpose.  If it is, well they are not doing a good job with that then. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

Which is a leap - one culture may not be supreme, but we would never tell someone from Japan that they should not have a thorough understanding of their own cultural origins before spending their days studying western culture.

 

That's a good way of looking at it. 

[LucyStoner]

Truthfully though, there are a lot of Americans of all ages who are fuzzy ondifferent subjects and can't answer basic questions about, say, the Constitution or correctly identify how many presidents we have had or who lack basic scientific literacy. I'm not seeing any solid evidence that rates of academic ignorance are skyrocketing or that this "know nothing" crap is limited to under 20s, under 30s or under 40s.

 

I sort of dismiss claims that western history is ending. Changing times =\= "End of History for the West". Doomsday much?

 

Do we have so little faith in ourselves and in our children that we think our kids will mark THE END?

 

My 12 year old knows a lot more about history that an average adult. I'm not going to trash my kid and the generation just a bit older than him.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Truthfully though, there are a lot of Americans of all ages who are fuzzy ondifferent subjects and can't answer basic questions about, say, the Constitution or correctly identify how many presidents we have had or who lack basic scientific literacy. I'm not seeing any solid evidence that rates of academic ignorance are skyrocketing or that this "know nothing" crap is limited to under 20s, under 30s or under 40s.

 

I sort of dismiss claims that western history is ending. Changing times =\= "End of History for the West". Doomsday much?

 

Do we have so little faith in ourselves and in our children that we think our kids will mark THE END?

 

My 12 year old knows a lot more about history that an average adult. I'm not going to trash my kid and the generation just a bit older than him.

 

Although do we need to know how many presidents we have had?  That hardly seems like a useful piece of information.

 

One thing I feel they do a lousy job with is being honest.  For example, in school we'd talk about elections and we'd have elections.  The emphasis was all about how great this process is.  And aren't we so lucky to be given this privilege.  It was very idealistic.  Very rainbows and unicorns.  And then you get out into the real world and you realize politicians can't even talk to each other like human beings.  Not only can the members of congress not come to agreements half the time, they act like major jerks. It's disgusting. 

 

Although I do think that as chaotic as some of it is sometimes, it mostly works.  I guess this constant tug of war is what it is about.  And if nothing comes of it or no decision can be made maybe it is because the best decision is to not do anything.  I'm just rambling now though. 

[LucyStoner]

Although do we need to know how many presidents we have had? That hardly seems like a useful piece of information.

 

Well, clearly since I personally can list all the U.S. presidents and their year of election, summarize pretty much each election, summarize the major policy priorities, problems and successes of each administration, elaborate on the relative success of each, discuss the state of the economy throughout each presidential tenure and then tell you what they did after their presidency AND precisely how they died PLUS name most of the Vice Presidents and many cabinet members, it is critically important that everyone else also know all of that. Or else they are a know nothing. Everyone must have the same interests as me and what I consider interesting and important is critical key knowledge FOR ALL. Since I read political history voriferiously and have a strong memory, I am smarter than those who prefer to study Asian Art history or Russian Literature or Human Geography. Right?!

 

/sarcasm

 

My son adores history and studying classical history like it's his daily bread and butter. That doesn't mean he is superior in knowledge to young people with other interests. What the link seems to overlook is that people can and do have diverse interests, aptitudes and priorities. My so-so knowledge of ancient Greek history hasn't hurt me yet. Different people are different. That does not make them a "know-nothing" since they may or may not know what some people consider essential.

[LucyStoner]

^^^ Nerd who sat around reading books about presidential deaths and economic history? Guilty! Was I surprised when I had a son with HFA who would also similarly absorb tremendous volumes of knowledge on random preferred topics? Not really! :P

Edited March 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SparklyUnicorn]

LOL.  Yeah I'm not that good when it comes to history!!

 

I had all I could do to tolerate it as a student in school.  I enjoy it a lot more now!

 

 

[LucyStoner]

LOL. Yeah I'm not that good when it comes to history!!

 

I had all I could do to tolerate it as a student in school. I enjoy it a lot more now!

Well, and it's a fairly narrow subect all things considered. I guess I have the major points of a western world history timeline but seriously, aside from being a pretty decent quiz bowl member what the heck does my knowlege of American political history really matter? It doesn't. It's just a random bit of knowledge that gets dragged out when elections roll around or my son is curious about random anomalies in American political history.

 

ETA: once it got me double stamps at a pizza place good towards a free slice because I recalled which state had produced the most Presidents. So there's that.

Edited March 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, and it's a fairly narrow subect all things considered. I guess I have the major points of a western world history timeline but seriously, aside from being a pretty decent quiz bowl member what the heck does my knowlege of American political history really matter? It doesn't. It's just a random bit of knowledge that gets dragged out when elections role around or my son is curious about random anomalies in American political history.

 

And there will always be gaps.  Sometimes my kids just don't know something that I think ohhh I guess I should have gone over that.  I can't cover everything.  They can't cover everything or absorb everything. 

 

My husband's family was big into classical music (and music in general). He's upset that the kids aren't so well versed in it. Well dude then get cracking.  I'm only one person.

[Entropymama]

Truthfully though, there are a lot of Americans of all ages who are fuzzy ondifferent subjects and can't answer basic questions about, say, the Constitution or correctly identify how many presidents we have had or who lack basic scientific literacy. I'm not seeing any solid evidence that rates of academic ignorance are skyrocketing or that this "know nothing" crap is limited to under 20s, under 30s or under 40s.

 

I sort of dismiss claims that western history is ending. Changing times =\= "End of History for the West". Doomsday much?

 

Do we have so little faith in ourselves and in our children that we think our kids will mark THE END?

 

My 12 year old knows a lot more about history that an average adult. I'm not going to trash my kid and the generation just a bit older than him.

 

Your kid is homeschooled.  :D

[LucyStoner]

Your kid is homeschooled.  :D

 

Yes and no.  He's attended a wide variety of classes (public, private, community based, online) and we live in an area where the public school system has both PT enrollment AND a campus for homeschoolers to take a variety of classes.  He spends one morning a week in enrichment classes (topics range from math to philosophy and much more) with almost entirely public schooled and private schooled students and they are just as academically motivated and driven as he is.  He did a 4 week class last summer in the same program and was the only homeschooler.  This summer he will do 5 weeks there with other kids in 7th-10th grade in a pretty esoteric topic and again, I expect he will be the only kid in that particular class (they have a LOT of offerings) who is technically a homeschooler.  He wants to attend a special public high school where the work that the teens do is phenomenal.  They take 100+ kids a year, maybe 2-3 of those are homeschoolers.  They select qualified applicants and then run a lottery so it's kind of a crapshoot as to if he will get in.  If he doesn't, we are considering having him do 2-3 classes at the local well regarded high school and then the rest of his work at home for a year and then enrolling in the free community college for high schoolers program here.  

 

Also, I shouldn't need to point out that not every homeschooler is, er, academically outstanding (nor do I think they all should be or need to be).   

 

ETA- Please note I am not saying that our approach to his education is one all homeschoolers should take.  I just have a lot of options at my disposal and I found that it works best for us to outsource classes I have no serious means to teach (I am not, for instance an artist or art teacher) or which I just think are more fun with groups (not so much fun to build a battle bot and have no one to battle!)  

Edited March 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

Well, and it's a fairly narrow subect all things considered. I guess I have the major points of a western world history timeline but seriously, aside from being a pretty decent quiz bowl member what the heck does my knowlege of American political history really matter? It doesn't. It's just a random bit of knowledge that gets dragged out when elections roll around or my son is curious about random anomalies in American political history.

 

ETA: once it got me double stamps at a pizza place good towards a free slice because I recalled which state had produced the most Presidents. So there's that.

 

Do you think that is really the kind of knowledge he is talking about though?  I don't really think so.  It probably really isn't necessary for most people to have the detailed knowledge of American political history you do, or to know the details odf classical civilization to the level a classicist would.

 

But It would probably be important for the people who are the ones who are going to constitute the educated class or the intelligensia or whatever you want to call it, to know why you have the form of government you do, what the worldview and experiences that made people think it was a good idea were, how it differed or drew from what came before, what kind of values it espoused.  They should probably know what the people who created the system understood the nature of human society to be, the purpose of government, what they thought human nature was and the good life.

 

Without knowing things like this, how will they be able to look at the values the culture seems to support in a self-conscious way, or be able to rethink those values, or assess (or solve) problems in the system?

[LucyStoner]

Do you think that is really the kind of knowledge he is talking about though?  I don't really think so.  It probably really isn't necessary for most people to have the detailed knowledge of American political history you do, or to know the details odf classical civilization to the level a classicist would.

 

But It would probably be important for the people who are the ones who are going to constitute the educated class or the intelligensia or whatever you want to call it, to know why you have the form of government you do, what the worldview and experiences that made people think it was a good idea were, how it differed or drew from what came before, what kind of values it espoused.  They should probably know what the people who created the system understood the nature of human society to be, the purpose of government, what they thought human nature was and the good life.

 

Without knowing things like this, how will they be able to look at the values the culture seems to support in a self-conscious way, or be able to rethink those values, or assess (or solve) problems in the system?

 

I see zero evidence that people are so much less likely to know the basics in this generation than another.  

 

The cold hard truth is that a lot of kids have always fallen through the educational system or not had access to school at all or after, say, 6th or 8th grade.  

 

Many of the metrics often used to indicate some great decline are flawed.  In my dad's generation, you only took the SAT if you were college bound and there wasn't a community college system anywhere near what is offered today.  So that a small group of high school graduates from an already decreased pool of students (since so many didn't start or finish high school) outscored the huge group of students from all levels that take that same exam now?  Doesn't mean much, if anything.  

 

Has no one ever met a fairly uneducated or undereducated or flat out ignorant (academically speaking) older person?  I'm guessing we all know someone a lot older than ourselves who doesn't have a lot of book smarts.  

 

Also, the detail that I added to that post was to highlight the snobbery and even hysteria I feel is present when ANYONE announces that "the kids these days" mean the "THE END of history for the West"  Say what?!  Good grief.  

 

ETA:  My niece is a year older than my son. Thanks to a rough start in life and a mediocre at best public school, she was and, to a degree still is, one who lags behind many kids in Language Arts.  

 

If better teaching and more opportunities make zero difference why then is it that after a year of schlepping her to the same high quality enrichment classes my son takes and a year plus of helping her read and write more that she was moved from remedial to honors English?  

 

What we put into our students matters.  

 

Even coming from the worst sort of poverty and dysfunction she sits in a room with some of the most educationally privileged kids in our community, who mostly all attend the stellar public schools and the elite schools which cost $30K+ a year (which is 3x what her family lives on for a year), and not only keeps up, excels.  How?  Because someone registered her for the class, made sure she got enough sleep the night before and drove her there week in and week out, never discounting her ability because of her unfortunate background.  Also her teachers there never wrote her off as a know nothing lost cause.  Can she make a good timeline of western history?  I don't think so.  But she is learning Japanese, can talk intelligently about Japanese art AND she has zero trouble sitting in philosophy class or at our dinner table while demonstrating that she very much can  "look at the values the (her) culture seems to support in a self-conscious way, be able to rethink those values, and assess (or solve) problems in the system."  

 

Some of the most self reflective and startlingly wise young people I have ever met were kids and teens I met team leading poetry workshops in some of the worst schools in my half of the state.  

Edited March 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

I see zero evidence that people are so much less likely to know the basics in this generation than another.  

 

The cold hard truth is that a lot of kids have always fallen through the educational system or not had access to school at all or after, say, 6th or 8th grade.  

 

Many of the metrics often used to indicate some great decline are flawed.  In my dad's generation, you only took the SAT if you were college bound and there wasn't a community college system anywhere near what is offered today.  So that a small group of high school graduates from an already decreased pool of students (since so many didn't start or finish high school) outscored the huge group of students from all levels that take that same exam now?  Doesn't mean much, if anything.  

 

Has no one ever met a fairly uneducated or undereducated or flat out ignorant (academically speaking) older person?  I'm guessing we all know someone a lot older than ourselves who doesn't have a lot of book smarts.  

 

Also, the detail that I added to that post was to highlight the snobbery and even hysteria I feel is present when ANYONE announces that "the kids these days" mean the "THE END of history for the West"  Say what?!  Good grief.  

 

He isn't talking about kids in 7th or 8th grade, he is talking about kids in university, and perhaps even a specific kind of university, and he may be thinking primarily of the liberal arts rather than professional kinds of training.

 

I think its also fairly clear from the writers that he mentions that he is seeing this as something that has been ongoing for some time - many of the people he mentions would put it at least to the early 20th century.  That being said, humanities professors I know have said they have noticed a change in the backgrounds the students and their ability to begin to take on that kind of teaching.  Not that all fail, they don't, but they seem to think they are coming to the university with less.  This is in an institution that specializes in that kind of education.

 

ETA - I thought the end of the west business was a bit far out too, but I think what he means is that a culture where the people who are supposed to be the ones who reflect upon the nature of society are increasingly incapable of doing that is going to lose its ability to maintain itself as a thinking civilization. 

 

I don't think that is really that far out an idea - I look south of the border at the moment and things look pretty Handmaid's Tale.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Bluegoat

[LucyStoner]

Bluecoat- note that some of the knowledge is is lamenting a loss of is fairly unnecessary to many.  

 

 

 

But ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?

Who was Saul of Tarsus? What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? Why does the Magna Carta matter? How and where did Thomas Becket die? Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? His first Inaugural? How about his third Inaugural?  What are the Federalist Papers?

 

I can answer more than half the questions correctly and answer that yes I have read most of those books.  It is not some accident either, nor did the answers get dumped into my otherwise know nothing self by what he calls old fashioned teachers or a serendipitous course selection.  Of the things he raised which I know, I know because I read a lot and went to a fabulous PUBLIC school with some amazing (and even fairly young) teachers.  And why did that happen?  Because I WANTED to read and WANTED to go to school.  Yes there are kids who don't read or don't like school.  But you know, there have always been kids like that.  

 

It seems some make a second career out of (or catch bylines) by calling young people vapid and pronouncing them lacking in the moral fiber and intellect departments.  

 

I don't doubt that the professors of his college years said similar things about his generation.  Everyone thinks they are smarter than those whippersnappers!  

 

There's just so much wrong about this article but I won't pick the whole thing apart.  For one, there's this thing called dinner to cook.  For two, why bother?  There are thousands of other self satisfied snotty articles like it and there will be thousands more for each and every future generation.  

Edited March 22, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Garga]

.

 

Without knowing things like this, how will they be able to look at the values the culture seems to support in a self-conscious way, or be able to rethink those values, or assess (or solve) problems in the system?

This reminds me of a thread going on right now with a title about "fuming about my ridiculous inlaws." In the thread, the OP is upset that her SIL asked her to change the date of a birthday party.

 

Some hivers wrote, "SIL was WRONG. That was RUDE."

 

Other hivers wrote, "Nah, SIL was ok. It's ok to ask family to accomodate if you can't make something--it's being OPEN with each other."

 

And one hiver pointed out that those two points of view (Rude vs Open) are both correct. Both correct...at the same time! How can this be?? Because they're just different "cultures."

 

That thread seems to perfectly illustrate the quote above. Is is possible to stand back and understand why you think something is rude vs open? Is it possible to acknowledge that perhaps neither are wrong? Perhaps they're just different? And different doesn't always mean "wrong." It just means different?

 

That's a simple example, yet it is real. Getting along with each other individually and getting along with each other as entire societies is based on being able to see the differences, understand why you believe the way you to, and recognize that you might not be right or wrong--just different from another.

 

If we can't accomodate differences in the "culture" between "it's rude to ask for a date change for a party" vs "it's ok for families to work together to find the best time for a party" and if we can't step outside of ourselves long enough to not bicker over small things, how in the world are we ready to tackle the big things?

 

I hope to teach my sons how to step outside of themselves and realize that different isn't wrong, even if it *feels* like it is. It's important to know why you feel that something is right or wrong.

[SKL]

I think we put too much energy into teaching political correctness and encouraging narcissism.

 

I think we fail to teach kids the point of what they are learning / how to apply it to life.

 

The same thing taught year after year only counts one time IMO.

 

I think my kids learn more in summer camps than they learn throughout the school year.  And they go to a good school.

[DawnM]

Then again, how can this really be?  They have history every single year in school.  At some point they are required to take a government course and an economics course.  (At least here where I live that is the requirement). 

They don't require math and science every year of high school here, but they do require history and/or social studies every single year. 

 

I do agree with the world view thing.  I suspect the goal is to nudge students into a narrow world view.  If I'm going to be entirely pessimistic, I'd say that is done on purpose to basically control people and not cultivate them to ask too many hard questions.  If I am less pessimistic, maybe it's hard to deal with these topics in a way that is balanced and fair for everyone.  Just look at stuff like evolution.  Schools can't even teach evolution in some parts of the country without people completely flipping out.  As if science courses spend 90% of their time for 14 years talking about evolution. 

 

Not sure how much government is actually taught.

 

My son is currently in a charter school.  He is taking Government and Econ this year.  There is no textbook, well, there is one, but it isn't issued to the students, and DS says they have barely used it.  Since this is an election year, the teacher has taken to mostly discussing the election and has definitely made known his choice candidate.  His candidate of choice's initials are B.S., no pun intended I promise!

 

It has been interesting, but not all that informative of a class.

[TranquilMind]

I reject the idea that we are seeing a generation of know nothings. Most young adults I know are smart, passionate and working on getting ahead. Just yesterday I met two high school kids who were spending their afternoon at a political rally and my 12 year old son and I had a long and interesting conversation with them.

 

Maybe the author hangs around know nothings because people who over generalize are often o limited mental faculties themselves...

 

 

Well, a plethora of television interviews in "man on the street" situations interviewing even college students would belie your assertion.

 

"Who won the Civil War?"

 

"Um, We did?"

 

 

http://eagnews.org/video-college-students-struggle-to-name-vp-who-won-civil-war/

Edited March 22, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Entropymama]

Bluecoat- note that some of the knowledge is is lamenting a loss of is fairly unnecessary to many.  

 

 

I can answer more than half the questions correctly and answer that yes I have read most of those books.  It is not some accident either, nor did the answers get dumped into my otherwise know nothing self by what he calls old fashioned teachers or a serendipitous course selection.  Of the things he raised which I know, I know because I read a lot and went to a fabulous PUBLIC school with some amazing (and even fairly young) teachers.  And why did that happen?  Because I WANTED to read and WANTED to go to school.  Yes there are kids who don't read or don't like school.  But you know, there have always been kids like that.  

 

It seems some make a second career out of (or catch bylines) by calling young people vapid and pronouncing them lacking in the moral fiber and intellect departments.  

 

I don't doubt that the professors of his college years said similar things about his generation.  Everyone thinks they are smarter than those whippersnappers!  

 

There's just so much wrong about this article but I won't pick the whole thing apart.  For one, there's this thing called dinner to cook.  For two, why bother?  There are thousands of other self satisfied snotty articles like it and there will be thousands more for each and every future generation.  

 

I don't think he was criticizing the students at all, in fact he had quite a few good things to say about them. His issue, in my eyes, was with the education they received and whether it prepared them to lead our nation. 

 

I have always believed that there are things that educated people should know. I'm not talking about the kind of in-depth knowledge you spoke of regarding the presidents, I'm talking about general knowledge. Begin aware of certain people and events. That would include knowing why Roman civilization has impact on today's Western culture, for example, but I wouldn't limit it to Western culture either; I think everyone should know who Gandhi and Confucius were. So in that respect, I agree with him. Our high school uses the Twilight books in one of its lit classes. I'm sure there are plenty of lessons that can be drawn from them, but I don't think that our current crop of students (as a rule) is learning about Socrates or reading Paradise Lost, and I think that's a shame. 

 

On the other hand, I have a child in a classical school right now and I find myself struggling with the amount of information she is required to process. This week she has quarter finals, and her history test today is going to ask her to name a dozen WWWII battles, their locations and dates, the armies involved, casualty numbers and major effects of each one. It's daunting and feels really unnecessary. I've become the parent I never thought I'd be - telling her I don't care if she doesn't get As as long as she's learning and growing. I love how tough this school is because I think it is really preparing her for college, but I find myself frequently wondering why we're putting in so much effort when, as you mentioned, none of it is going to actually make her life any better or help her in the real world. 

 

As I teach my younger kids, this is something I'm really struggling with - the balance between a solid, rigorous education and, you know, a life. 

 

Also - you mentioned your son hasn't been entirely homeschooled, but the argument can be made that he hasn't received the typical public school education either. 

[luuknam]

Well, clearly since I personally can list all the U.S. presidents and their year of election, summarize pretty much each election, summarize the major policy priorities, problems and successes of each administration, elaborate on the relative success of each, discuss the state of the economy throughout each presidential tenure and then tell you what they did after their presidency AND precisely how they died PLUS name most of the Vice Presidents and many cabinet members, it is critically important that everyone else also know all of that.

 

But you could know all that and still have to count the number of presidents on your fingers by reciting them all in order, rather than knowing the number, which then might cause you to make an error in counting. Seriously, what's the point in knowing the *number* of presidents?

 

On the other hand, I have a child in a classical school right now and I find myself struggling with the amount of information she is required to process. This week she has quarter finals, and her history test today is going to ask her to name a dozen WWWII battles, their locations and dates, the armies involved, casualty numbers and major effects of each one. It's daunting and feels really unnecessary. I've become the parent I never thought I'd be - telling her I don't care if she doesn't get As as long as she's learning and growing. I love how tough this school is because I think it is really preparing her for college, but I find myself frequently wondering why we're putting in so much effort when, as you mentioned, none of it is going to actually make her life any better or help her in the real world.

 

That sounds a little over-the-top to me too, but then and again, I think that it's good to spend some time analyzing some part of history on more of a micro level and not spend all 12 years of school on a macro level. Yes, it's important to know the major events in world history and their causes and consequences, but history ultimately consists of lots of little things adding up. So, I wouldn't want to go through all of world history at the level you're describing, but going through a couple of time periods like that might actually be worthwhile. Which doesn't have to be WWII, but WWII has a nice place of being recent but not too recent, having had a huge impact, having lots of resources available (both primary and secondary sources), etc. So, no, knowing the casualty numbers of a dozen WWII battles is unlikely to be ever useful per se, but neither would analyzing Twilight or Paradise Lost in depth be useful per se (I seem to get by just fine without having read either of them).

 

With a bad teacher any of the above could be hell though. With a good teacher, it might all be interesting and quite worthwhile (and I'd hope that the casualty numbers for the battles would be multiple choice to just show you've got a rough idea - I'm not a huge fan of multiple choice, but for that, yes).

[Bluegoat]

But you could know all that and still have to count the number of presidents on your fingers by reciting them all in order, rather than knowing the number, which then might cause you to make an error in counting. Seriously, what's the point in knowing the *number* of presidents?

 

 

That sounds a little over-the-top to me too, but then and again, I think that it's good to spend some time analyzing some part of history on more of a micro level and not spend all 12 years of school on a macro level. Yes, it's important to know the major events in world history and their causes and consequences, but history ultimately consists of lots of little things adding up. So, I wouldn't want to go through all of world history at the level you're describing, but going through a couple of time periods like that might actually be worthwhile. Which doesn't have to be WWII, but WWII has a nice place of being recent but not too recent, having had a huge impact, having lots of resources available (both primary and secondary sources), etc. So, no, knowing the casualty numbers of a dozen WWII battles is unlikely to be ever useful per se, but neither would analyzing Twilight or Paradise Lost in depth be useful per se (I seem to get by just fine without having read either of them).

 

With a bad teacher any of the above could be hell though. With a good teacher, it might all be interesting and quite worthwhile (and I'd hope that the casualty numbers for the battles would be multiple choice to just show you've got a rough idea - I'm not a huge fan of multiple choice, but for that, yes).

 

Yes, actually I think that is probably true - to get a feel for how history is studied, it probably means going in depth in a few areas.  And while knowing all of history in detail isn't so important (or possible) understanding how the study of history is done, what kinds of procedures are followed, is important in the same way that knowing how scientists work is important.  You want to be able to read something and think "It seems like this person is talking out of his backside, something doesn't feel right about it."

[Bluegoat]

It's not directly linked to this rticle, but it came up in the original thread - what about the state of vocational training?

 

Thinking about the two together - universities in general are finding the kids who are university bound are not well-prepared, totally apart from what the guy in this article said.  But at the same time, kids are not coming out of high school with job skills for fields that do not require university either.

 

In some systems kids used to have (and in some countries this is still true) the option of learning real job skills and getting qualifications in high school.  Here, the "vocational" school was right next to the high school, and kids could enter as early as grade 10, and so be qualified at a trade of some kind by the time they were 18 or 19.

 

It seems to me there is some kind of link, maybe, between these problems?  It seems to me that to some extent it is that the school doesn't seem to know what it is actually trying to accomplish, apart from giving out diplomas.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Entropymama]

It's not directly linked to this rticle, but it came up in the original thread - what about the state of vocational training?

 

Thinking about the two together - universities in general are finding the kids who are university bound are not well-prepared, totally apart from what the guy in this article said.  But at the same time, kids are not coming out of high school with job skills for feilds that do not require university either.

 

In some systems kids used to have (and in some countries this is still true) the option of learning real job skills and getting qualifications in high school.  Here, the "vocational" school was right next to the high school, and kids could enter as early as grade 10, and so be qualified at a trade of some kind by the time they were 18 or 19.

 

It seems to me there is some kind of link, maybe, between these problems?  It seems to me that to some extent it is that the school doesn't seem to know what it is actually trying to accomplish, apart from giving out diplomas.

 

I've been very happy with the philosophy of the high school we chose for dd next year. They have a college track, but also a couple of options for skills training in various fields, as well as an art track. And you can switch from one to another without jeopardizing graduation because those classes are the electives. We'll see how it works in practice, but in theory it sounds good. 

 

They aren't teaching the classics, rhetoric or philosophy, but kids will leave with either really great math and english skills, or the ability to do car maintenance, use a 3d printer or build websites. 

 

Possibly part of the problem is that the general population has such high expectations of high schools. They're supposed to graduate almost everyone with excellent verbal and math skills, an understanding of Western culture as well as a global perspective, have read the classics and also be computer literate and tech savvy and have job skills that allow them to land good-paying jobs right out of high school. No wonder it's tough.