College-educated professionals could doom progressive politics 28

[drawoh]

Here is an interesting article on Salon.com...

College-educated professionals could doom progressive politics

--
JHG

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> SAT, ACT, AP, and IB are all national or international standards
The SAT and AP are both development by and administered by the College Board, which is a non-profit membership association consisting of thousands of education institutions. It is not, nor ever has been, part of the federal government. The ACT is begun by a U of Iowa professor and today is a non-profit organization which also is not part of the federal government. The IB education network was built from a group of educators out of Geneva. They're not part of the federal government either.

They're living proof of how well education standards can be created, administered, and managed by professional educator and education institutions without any help or interference from the government.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

IRStuff,
That is the standard answer. Has been since the Great Society in the 1960's. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. Federal money in education simply increases spending on administration, spending on facilities, and spending on oversight--none of which improves my granddaughter's access to information. My granddaughter gets educated by an individual. That individual has knowledge, resources, motivation--all of which can only be attributed to a person, not a corporate entity. With our current system, the teacher is held accountable for a minimum standard and is punished for exceeding that standard (because a portion of her class does worse than the the established norms due to time "wasted" on exploring topics that the class finds interesting while the portion that was going to exceed the minimums still does). Every teacher I know despises the watered-down curriculum, the common-core standards, and the mandated testing that they are required to teach to. When I was in primary school before the Great Society if a teacher sensed an interest and desire from the class to go deeper into a facet of a subject they had the latitude to do it. Today that side trip costs you his standing in the hierarchy because what the students learned does not translate to achievement on the standardized tests.

Efforts that have been under way to remove the "utter incongruity" in education for the last 50 years have succeeded in increasing the indoctrination of the students (e.g., Common Core Civics teaches that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution simply authorizes states to form militias), without improving their ability to compete. There is always incongruity in education. My oldest son went into the first grade able to read books designated for teen age children, he entered the 2nd grade unable to read at a first grade level due to the actions of his teacher. My youngest son had about the same reading ability on entering first grade, had a great first grade teacher that encouraged him and his reading ability improved over that year. Same school. Same Administration. Same state and federal mandates. Different teacher.

Teacher's facilitate learning. They create an atmosphere for exploration and discovery. Or they don't. A child learns. Or they don't. No one except the child can control that. I went to a horrible school in the second poorest county in the US. I completed that sorry excuse for an education with a grade point average under 1.0 (it was not 0.0 only because no one wanted to see me there for another year). In spite of a horrible school and a total lack of motivation, I've done very well for myself. A friend of my youngest son took all AP courses in high school with excellent grades, got a BS from MIT, is working at the Geek Squad at Best Buy 6 years out of college.

Federal mandates make life intolerable for the very best teachers and creates a warm and fuzzy place for the worst among us. Most of the above is anecdotes which I hope will illuminate the discussion. It is not intended to be a rigorous statistical analysis because in this subject (like most human interaction subjects) rigorous statistical analysis is simple bullshit. A person goes to class, or they don't. That person gains knowledge from their participation, or they don't. One person's success at becoming educated does not in any way imply that the next person in the same class with the same resources and the same teacher will have similar success. Don't give me "incongruity". We will have that no matter what. Eliminating Federal participation in education simple shifts decision making to a level that has a (remote) chance of being held accountable for their actions instead of keeping it at a level with zero accountability.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[tbuelna]

The article completely ignores the situation that exists in US public schools and universities. Here's all you need to know about progressive politics and educators: over 90% of all political contributions from education professionals goes to the Democrat party.

 

[bridgebuster]

This thread got me thinking about my grammar school education and how things have changed over 50 years. I attended a Catholic in the 60's. During the eight years, there was never less than 50 children in a class; no teachers aides but somehow we all learned the 3R's, although not everyone achieved the same level of success; someone getting left back was a rarity. I think that was partly due to personal pride. If you were left back people would look down upon you.

The good Sisters were dedicated teachers, but, that's not to say teachers today are less dedicated. A big difference then versus today is parental involvement. My parents as well as the parents of my classmates stressed the need for a good education. Many of them realized that college was the key to the American Dream. Back then, it was rare for someone to have a parent who attended college, let alone graduated from one. An adult, particularly a man, with high school diploma was one who had achieved a major accomplishment. Today, we read and hear in the media how parents have gone MIA with respect to their children's education. Tragically, we have to a degree allowed public schools to become surrogate parents. Last month the NYC mayor was criticized for keeping schools open during a snow storm, his reply (excuse?) was "we needed to provide them with lunch."

What puzzles me about Common Core is why do we need it? Is the curriculum completely different in each state? We regularly hear teachers complaining that most of their time is preparing students for exams? Why? That's ludicrous! In grammar school we had NY state standardized reading and math tests, but no one made a big deal about them. Typically, we didn't know about them until the day before. Similarly, to attend a Catholic High School or one the five specialized NYC High Schools there was an entrance exam; again it wasn't a big deal. (As an aside, I attended one of the NYC specialized high schools. One day a kid on my block (who attended public school) said "I heard you got in to -------- ----; you must be really smart." I said "All twenty of us made it." He was shocked and told me only 2 or 3 kids from his school got in.)

Perhaps in the 60's there was less controversy in school. Self-esteem was earned; there were no participation trophies; life had winners and losers; you had to take responsibility for your actions; teachers weren't promoting class warfare or political and social ideologies; although we did learn the true meaning of "Social Justice". When it came to politics in the class room the only thing said was: Communism = Evil; America = Good. Every day we said the Pledge of Allegiance and sang the National Anthem or America, or America the Beautiful, or God Bless America . Perhaps the closest thing to political ideology was in 8th Grade - Sr. Jude Miriam made us memorize JFK's inaugural address (then again, it's obvious).

The best of all: We could play rough games at lunch time like: ring-o-leevio, manhunt, and koko professor (in ascending order of roughness).

 

[zdas04]

Bridgebuster,
The driving force behind the differences from 50 years ago and today is a perceived need for homogeneity. In the 60's the curriculum was controlled by the school district, state testing (in those few states that had it) was seen as a novel experiment that no one took very seriously (I was on the opposite coast in primary school in the 60's and California had them too, but most states didn't). When I moved from California to Arkansas in the 8th grade I never saw a standardized test again. My wife took them in Texas, but not in Washington. Looking back, it is pretty amazing that going from the Long Beach Unified School District (one of the largest in the country) to Madison County Arkansas (probably two dozen schools with 200 to 1,000 students/school) I wasn't really very far ahead or behind where I should have been. I had had California history in the 7th grade. My classmates in Arkansas had had Arkansas history in the 7th grade. I took Algebra in the 8th grade and I would have taken Algebra in the 8th grade in California. Civics in the 9th grade in both places. Pledge of Allegiance every morning in both places. Certainly not "utter incongruity in education".

As to parents being MIA. When my kids started elementary school (the 90's) parents were welcome in classrooms and my wife spent a lot of time helping out with projects and field trips for both our boys. Our grandson is going to elementary school 2 blocks from our house and my wife has offered to do the same thing for his class. She was not so politely refused with "he needs to learn to get along without Grammy". She is a bit of a conspiracy nut, but I don't think she's wrong when she says the agenda is indoctrination to the welfare-state, anti-industry, global-warming, liberal agenda. One of our granddaughters in another state called last year and asked me why I "wanted her to die". I was pretty shook up and asked her where that was coming from and she said that her teacher had told the class that "greedy oil companies were rapidly making the planet uninhabitable and that all humanity was going to die out in a couple of generations because of our greed". The agenda is mostly more subtle than that particular zealot, but everything from learning to multiply by drawing circles to "teaching" the Constitution with a bit of spin, to discouraging family from participating in the classroom, to steps afoot to ban home schooling is all piling up to spell "indoctrination" to me. Common core is the transport mechanism for that indoctrination.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[bridgebuster]

zdas04,

I had NY state history in the 7th grade and algebra in the 8th grade. We had Common Core back then and didn't know it and it didn't matter.

Similarly in the 90's my wife stayed home while I worked & she volunteered at our daughter's school. Now, our daughter has a teaching degree but no teaching job (other than no-paying work teaching ESL and Sunday school.) I don't disagree with you that schools are promoting a "welfare-state, anti-industry, global-warming, liberal agenda." What you refer to as a "perceived need for homogeneity" is similar to how I see the education system: "A false sense of fairness: No winners or losers." For example, in NYC public schools are doing away with programs for gifted children for a variety of reasons, most often cited is that it's unfair to those not in the programs and in some cases racial disparity. Also, there are some in NY who want to do away with entrance exams for specialized high schools. They claim it's unfair to children from non-affluent families. Their parents can't afford to send them programs to help them prepare for the entrance exam. I remember the day my classmates and took the entrance exam: We had school in the morning then we were excused at 11:30 to take the exam at 1:30 PM.

Don't get me started with "Zero Tolerance" policies. To me, that's a way fro teachers and administrators to punt away decision making. It's sad that we live in a country that put men on the moon and brought them back safely several times, in an age where the technology was primitive by today's standards. We know so much more than we did then but we don't seemed to have gained wisdom.

 

[moltenmetal]

In Canada the issues are a little different. What has troubled me recently as a dyed in the wool leftie is the consequences of tax cutting on the redistribution of wealth. While we do still have a "progressive" income tax system here, with those who earn more paying proportionately more, we have also seen the retention of pay and benefits by the unionized public sector far more effectively than those in the private sector and hence the average citizen. This shift has gone to the point where the median salary of an Ontario teacher is $95,000, which when adjusted for an equal working year, is on par with that of a level D engineer- forgetting about the other benefits the teachers have (banked sick days, defined benefit pension backstopped by the provincial government etc.). What has resulted is that whereas we once had the rich (via income taxes) funding a portion of the middle class (workers in the public sector), what we now have is the working fraction of the lower middle class funding the upper middle class who work in the public sector...Whereas you once understood the choice of a public vs private sector job as a sacrifice of up-front salary for a better pension and benefits, now the public sector out-does the private sector in salary too.

Given the growing disparity between rich and poor, I'm not sure that chopping the public sector compensation levels is the right way to solve this. Rather, I'd like to see corporations and the top 10% of earners paying more- less to fund the public sector salaries and more to fill in the massive infrastructure deficit that has been growing over the past two decades or more.

 

[IRstuff]

" Federal money in education simply increases spending on administration, spending on facilities, and spending on oversight--none of which improves my granddaughter's access to information."

And that's the pat answer from the other side. I put two of my kids through a private school for a while. $10 K/yr, with the result that my elder son struggled in high school pre-calc because the so-called Algebra 2 that they taught was woefully inadequate, and the younger struggled through middle school and now, high school, math, because he needs more than what they gave him. The current level in public school for the same grades runs about $7.5 K/yr. So, assuming that public school is so inefficient that only $5 K/yr is going to education, then I paid and extra $5 K/yr and essentially got nothing useful out of that.

So, while there is this notion that "individual teachers, etc., etc.," why do we need API standards, and ISO standards; why do we need structural codes? Why not "Engineering is only ever facilitated by individual engineers?" So why do we, as a society, expend any money to create and enforce codes? The simple answer is that there is a greater wisdom, and there is a minimum acceptable standard for design. Why are there governmental bodies tasked with enforcing PE laws? Why are we spending state tax money badgering engineers; shouldn't we just let engineers do their engineering and leave them be?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[bridgebuster]

IR,

There should be standards, but, once again the Federal government is butting in where it doesn't belong. Let's use your example of engineering codes: AASHTO is a national standard for bridge design. However, many if not all states have the modifications to AASHTO. This country is spending more and more on education at all levels of government but test scores aren't improving. Obviously money isn't the answer. In NYC the mayor is making a major issue out of creating universal pre-K. What for? There are studies indicating that it doesn't enhance education but the jury's still out. It's just another example of liberals who think government should replace the family.

There was in a column in Time Magazine recently by Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, in which he stated that the SAT is BS; he said it doesn't prove anything; he said it's just a money maker for the college board and a way for elite colleges to make more money. Dr. Botstein is a liberal! (although he's a liberal in the classical sense, which is why I respect his opinions.)

While I'm ranting, let's take a look at the Great Society and "The War on Poverty". After 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, we have a higher percentage of the population living in poverty now than in 1964. Obliviously money isn't the answer.

 

[IRstuff]

" Obliviously money isn't the answer."

Of course, it is; money has been well spent in creating and environment where the bottom 80% have less than 5% of the wealth, so obviously, money applied effectively is the answer. It's simply a question of whose money won out.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[bridgebuster]

The bottom 80% have a bit more than 5%, but who cares? You can't take it with you.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> This country is spending more and more on education at all levels of government but test scores aren't improving. Obviously money isn't the answer.
Right premise, but wrong conclusions. Obviously, government isn't the answer.

Money is required, but the mistake is first filtering that money through the federal government.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[TomDOT]

While I'm ranting, let's take a look at the Great Society and "The War on Poverty". After 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, we have a higher percentage of the population living in poverty now than in 1964. Obliviously money isn't the answer.

Please share your data. It looks to me like we're at a very similar rate to 1965 (which was lower than 1964) - and we had a bump up of several percentage points due to the recession.

 

[swall]

Yes, TomDOT, but the quality of life under poverty is greatly improved.

 

[PEDARRIN2]

It is not good to use broad strokes in saying "government" or "money" is not the answer.

Governments that are accountable and the proper use of money would go a long way.

We elect our government, so if we do not like them, do not vote for them.

If we complain about how the government uses the money, we should also look at how individuals use money. Debt issues are not exclusive to governments.

I am not a big fan of extra government intervention on any scale, but when the local (or states) cannot do it in an equitable and/or just way, then the federal (or state) government has to step in to make it happen.

While I agree the federal government has gone past its constitutional constraints, we have to remember the first government of our post Revolutionary War land failed because the federal government was too weak and the state governments were too powerful.

I am too young to remember it, but wasn't it the federal government that stepped in when Gov Wallace would not allow for desegregation in the schools. If that had not happened, would we have segregated schools today.

And how many times has a state government had to step in when a local government has not done what it should.

We can all pontificate about how the government is bad and how control should be given to the individual, but history has shown that individuals are not much better at doing the right thing when they have no restraints imposed on them from their government.

I think it is called anarchy.

There must be a balance.

 

[imcjoek]

So if we do not like them, do not vote for them.

I don't. People keep getting elected. Absolutely baffling.

I brought it up in another thread of a similar vain so I won't go nutty into the details, but
the mathematics of our voting system are fundamentally broken. (Speaking of the US system).

I am convinced the root cause of all of our government's disfunction can be distilled to this maxim.

 

[bridgebuster]

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first - that in relation to wrongs - embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government." Abraham Lincoln c.1854 (A proponent of subsidiarity!)

CajunCenturion - I should have worded my earlier statement a little; more on the order of: government and money make a bad combination.

 

[JohnRBaker]

...government and money make a bad combination.

And Supreme Court Rulings like 'Citizens United', and potentially 'McCutcheon vs FEC', are going a long ways to make it a disastrous combination. If the Supremes rule in favor of McCutcheon, we can all but kiss our representative democracy goodbye.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> If that had not happened, would we have segregated schools today.
No, we wouldn't. At most, the state of Alabama would have segregated schools for at least the duration of Gov Wallace's term in office. It was a federal court that stepped in because Gov Wallace's actions would have violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. And that IS the job of the federal judiciary - to ensure that federal, state, and local governments do not over-reach Constitutional limitations.

==> Governments that are accountable and the proper use of money would go a long way.
And the closer the government is to the people, the more accountable they are. As suggested earlier, the federal government is not so much accountable to the people as it is to a select privileged few - on both sides of the isle. In order to reduce the influence of the selected few, reduce the power and scope over those they influence. And to increase the accountability of government, bring it closer to the people.

==> And how many times has a state government had to step in when a local government has not done what it should.
As it should. I have no problem with a state government doing what it should. I may not agree with the state's action, but it is the state's action to take. My problem is with the federal government exercising powers that have been reserved to the states.

==> We can all pontificate about how the government is bad and how control should be given to the individual,
I don't hear anyone saying that. I don't hear calls for no government; I hear calls for limited and distributed government.

==> we have to remember the first government of our post Revolutionary War land failed because the federal government was too weak and the state governments were too powerful.
Failed? By what measure?
What is true is that between 1776 and 1789, while operating under the Articles of Confederation, there was considerable debate between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists about finding the right balance between the powers that the federal government should have and those that should remain with the states. Those debates led to the Constitution which defined that balance by alloted certain powers to the federal government, leaving the rest to the states and the people.

==> While I agree the federal government has gone past its constitutional constraints,
Indeed it has. We no longer honor that balance called for in the Constitution.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[bridgebuster]

Interesting how the person who made the biggest stink about "Citizens United", on national TV no less, changed his tune rather quickly. Call me a cynic.