Reposting an Argument Worth Having

I try not to repost too much on this blog.  Most of it should be my thoughts, in my way of looking at blogs.  But, occasionally I find something I think fits with what I am trying to do here:  breed discussion and thought on the nature of teaching.

A modern concern has been the issue of authority in education.  Who should be “in charge” of it.  The modern liberation of the parent has resulted in the State taking over this parental responsibility.  So now we have those who believe the federal Department of Education is the all knowing, all important Nanny of education.  Others believe the whole DoE should be abolished, so much so that many voted for a candidate who promised just such a move.

us-department-of-education-building-sign-story-top

Below are two links, one is a call for such abolishment, the other a response to the first article.  You have the ability to read, to discern, to think it through.  Determine where you think the wisdom lies.

Albright Article

Gorman Response

Advertisements

Homogeneity and Other Biological Parties

The following brief meditations, or questions, come after reading this recent blog on the new SAT and how its related to Common Core.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/03/16/common-core-changing-sat/

Note in particular the final sentence, from whence I gathered most of these questions/thoughts:  “Whatever happens, one thing is sure: The homogenizing of American education continues.”

  • As with most other things in life, education demands a destination.  Common Core provides some such destinations for English and Math.
  • Where you are going does not necessarily determine how you will get there, but it does demand how you assess your progress along the way.
  • Is it de facto that all students should be given the same destination?  If so, then who determines that destination?
  • If you define education in liberal terms, then all students should be given the same basic road map, as the destination is some version of the summum bonum.  And standards for minimum attainment in the languages of word and number make sense.
  • But if you define education in practical terms, which seems the ascendant definition in our day, then you have a destination problem.  The most “marketable” graduate would be one who is unique, able to fulfill some “job” few others are fit to do.  By seeking to define all students at a “baseline” level, is the Common Core enhancing or limiting the pool of future graduates for the “job pool” – the apparent destination of the “practical” definition for education.
  • So is Common Core promoting a liberal or practical end for education?  If my assertion that the liberal end fits it better, Progressivists may be those most concerned with seeing the Core fail.  Are they shooting themselves in the foot?
  • But I mock myself, because at its heart, these standards of the CC, and all the educational industrial complex that must follow, are causing what the article implies:  students are becoming less human, and more a product, than ever.  There is no concept of learning at a local level, according to the needs of a given place, but rather more and more a move toward the “global student” who is just like every other pawn, err, I mean, person in the global village (sorry for the oxymoron, but I have to use their terms).
  • The reduction of man to a materialist animal continues.  I am not impressed.

homogeneity