Underground History - American Education

[Ghost Lemur]

We seem to have some very intelligent and articulate members here on the forums which makes non-bike related topics a cheer joy.

I thought some of you might have a view point on Education. To lead off the topic, I've choosen a book I'm only part way through. Underground History - American Education by John Taylor Gatto. The whole book is included in the link (well as far as I can tell - only up to chapter 3).

Although Mr Gatto is solely focusing on the US educational system (having been a part of it for 30 years as a twice suspended, once secretly fired, four time award winning teacher), I think it also could provide insite into the NZ educational system (even western in general).

He talks, about amongst other things, the role inderviduals such as Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Ford, have played in turning the educational system into a tool for dumbing down future workers. He also discusses the well meaning albeit nieve Utopians who misguidingly played a role. I like the fact that he doesn't fall into a path leading to conspiracy theories...

"With conspiracy so close to the surface of the American imagination and American reality, I can only approach with trepidation the task of discouraging you in advance from thinking my book the chronicle of some vast diabolical conspiracy to seize all our children for the personal ends of a small, elite minority.

Don't get me wrong, American schooling has been replete with chicanery from its very beginnings: indeed, it isn't difficult to find various conspirators boasting in public about what they pulled off. But if you take that tack you'll miss the real horror of what I'm trying to describe, that what has happened to our schools was inherent in the original design for a planned economy and a planned society laid down so proudly at the end of the nineteenth century. I think what happened would have happened anyway-without the legions of venal, half-mad men and women who schemed so hard to make it as it is. If I'm correct, we're in a much worse position than we would be if we were merely victims of an evil genius or two."

I know at least one of you are in the "Education Industry", and others here have (or are) home schooling their children. So I hope we can get a lively conversation going on this topic.

On a personal level, this topic is even more important to me at the moment. Having dropped out of high school because I wasn't being allowed to learn (can explain further my reasons for saying that if asked), and with two young children who will be entering the education system in the next couple of years, I'm sorely looking for answers and options to ensure my sons have the best possible education. Which to me means they learn how to learn, they are nurtured and directed to explore the world around them. To be analytical, and not to just do things a certain way because that's what they were told.

One negative I have with the book so far, and I'm sure some of you more analytical (sceptical?) readers out there will dislike too, is he is less than vigilant when it comes to citing his sources.

[James Deuce]

Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford are what can be described as "Civic Capitalists". Bear in mind that without them a tremendous amount of research, university funding, and library funding just wouldn't have happened. Carnegie in particualr is indirectly responsible for much of the "modern" advances we take for granted.

I'd like to extend this theory a bit and suggest that the three gentlemen above only built on the work of the "great" British Industrialists and mill owners who created the modern nuclear family as way to provide generations of workers to work at t' mill. In removing family ties by creating separate towns with schools churchs and shops immediately adjacent to the breadwinner's place of work, much of family support network was removed, and the Mum, Dad, and two kids model was created. The Nuclear family was cemented by the tide of 19th century emigration, that often meant that only Mum, Dad, and 2 surviving children from 17 were left to start afresh in what ever "new country" they had chosen.

Check out Richard Florida's works for an idea of how this created an environment for the growth and development of creative and knowledge economies. Check out E.E. Schumacher for a philosophers perspective on how a seemingly meaningless Industrial or Post-Industrial existence can have meaning beyond getting up and going to work.

[Posh Tourer :P]

I would be inclined to agree with what you have pointed out in your post so far (having not read the link).

My take on the educatoin industry is thus: What we have today is a fairly efficient way of educating large numbers of people, and it is quite egalitarian. Institutionalised, non-personalised education is not good for anyone, but on average is most efficient. Kind of lowest common denominator.

So far the picture looks pretty horrible huh. A McDonalds education (for those of you who saw The Yes Men at the film festival that will have further implications....) that doesnt really suit anyone well.

So what is the alternative? A personalised, individualised education system. The obvious implication there is that it would require a large number of teachers. Where do these teachers come from? They are the parents. However, could every parent homeschool their children, and what would happen if they did? A return to the class system, of an educated, wealthy few with entrenched generational wealth and knowledge, and a relatively uneducated minority with entrenched generational ignorance.

The current education system acts to prevent that to some extent. Perhaps a better sompromise would be to teach with trained professionals, as we do currently, but halve or even "third" the class sizes. This happens in new-entrants classes commonly - why? Perhaps because the students prefer it that way. Slowly we increase the class size to a standard 30-35 over the next few years. The problem with this system is that it would require a doubling to tripling of the education budget, with 2-3x as many classrooms etc etc.

I know that is hugely summarised but there you go.

So. Do I advocate the latter recommendation? Not really... I dont think it is efficient enough. Do I advocate the second option? Not that either, for obvious reasons given above.

That leaves the current system. So it has some gaping failures. However, what it does is allow most people to grasp or memorise some of the concepts that it has taken civilisations centuries to develop. The majority of people are taught some basics about the world, which hopefully contributes to a more peaceful society (knowledge leads to understanding leads to peace - yes simplified I know, throw einstein's war weapons back at me, go on, I dare ya :P). Those that are interested and have inquiring, analytical minds, on the whole, can continue into further study after that which may allow them to exercise their minds. For these students, they are told about every significant discovery in the field of knowledge, and this avoids the chore of having to experience the entire gamut of human discovery before you can progress in novel discoveries. It speeds up the process.

The system could do with some fine tuning. There ought to be more analytical thinking taught earlier. The school system is loaded with people who are good at remembering. They get good marks. It is the analytical ones who will provide the novel discoveries. However, the system is not fundamentally flawed.

At present, post gradutate study is where the analytical thinking is taught.

To apply all that in a relevant setting, I think that the analytical thinking, while being taught more from age 5 onwards, ought to be strongly emphasised at University. First year of Uni, and even second year (BSc) was a relative waste of time and money. The current climate says produce more degrees=more educated. What has happened instead is dumbing down and mass produced degrees (of which I almost have one). Why have a need for higher education? Why not upgrade secondary and primary school a little and then let undergraduate University be a place for analytical thinking and personal development, rather than an extension of the school system. Why, for example, did my first year paper have 700 students in one lecture, and three streams? Crazy... concentrate on teaching the best at that point, and allow the university staff to lead by example and actually do some research like they were trained to do, rather than being school teachers.
I think that school is for general education, and University is for the best. I want my BSc to be worth something. Instead, I've wasted $13000 to get myself a piece of paper that will allow me to get something that is useful and intellectually stimulating (post graduate degree). I suspect I will be doing a PhD, but I would prefer to be stretched doing a MSc, and tested doing a BSc.

Perhaps I'm smarter than I give myself credit for and if I could only make it to Masters, then PhD would be almost impossible. That would certainly invalidate the above point. :spudwhat: (in deference to the smiley generation).

So that is a rough rambling summary of my position.... Please take it to bits...

[Quasievil]

sorry wake me when youre finished

[Posh Tourer :P]

Short attention span typical of the education systems processes!!!!

[Quasievil]

Short attention span typical of the education systems processes!!!!

[Posh Tourer :P]

Part of the smiley generation!!!!!!

[mangell6]

Are we talking about training or education, there is a difference. The current system is designed to train the students and a few teachers educate their students.

The current system is designed "To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance" and/or "To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice" two definitions of "train". The definitions for "educate" all have the words "to Develop" at the beginning of each.

[Motu]

''Dumbing down the workers'' Yeah,ok - My high school in the late 60s was situated in what was then the largest industrial centre in New Zealand,it might be easy for some of you to guess what school I went to.We were fodder for the industry around us,we lived in the area because our fathers worked there,we went to the school and most of us went to work there - us technical boys for the factory floor,the commercial girls too,but they were also set up for being mothers of working families,the kids in academic classes were destined for the offices of the industries.

As a technical boy,I was just taught the basics,enough to get us through exams,and ultimatly in the 5th form,to get a certain number through School Cert.It was a difficult task and some of the less bright were given the option of dropping maths as a subject,I did that,good choice - maths was fun then,sit around and do nothing,maybe a bit of homework,but I never did that anyway.

By some fluke in the grading system that year I managed to pass SC,I didn't find a job,so went back to school,so did some of my mates.Oh dear,we were in 6Tech,the school had never had a 6Tech before,we had about half a doz in our class.6th Form came as a shock to me - I went to the English class,they had a nice looking lady teacher....and she taught English! I obviously hadn't been taught English,they had spent years learning stuff I didn't know about,I didn't have a clue what was going on - I walked out and made it a free period.I went to Geography,and found they were learning geography,something I had spent 3 years ignoring - I was pissed off because it was a subject I was interested in,the teacher never caught my interest - in anger I walked out and made it a free period.I went to the engineering shop,and they locked the door on me - for real! Engineering was not a 6th form subject.I would stand at the door to the engineering shop and look inside,I wanted to go in and practice my job in life,but the teacher told me to piss off.Pretty soon I had nothing to do at school,they didn't know what to do with me - I spent my time with the caretaker,emptying the bins and burning the rubbish,I got a pedestrian roller and spent my summer days rolling the cricket pitch and going around the running track with it.Um....I kinda stopped going at some stage....

I'm one of those who Home School their kids - my kids are 8,11,19 on saturday and 23,even if they learn nothing they will know more than me,and believe it or not I was in an ''A'' class and did better than some of my school mates.My wife comes from the other end of the system altogether,a high acheiver,if she got less than 95% in a subject she would be depressed...a cultured rose and a wildflower left to go to seed - but our minds work on a similar level,or sumfin.

My wife does the teaching,even my 8 yr old knows more about maths than me,I'm not really the sort of person who could homeschool by themselves,nothing to teach but my own stupidity - but I support her the whole way in this endevour,it's what I want for my kids - to learn because they want to learn,to learn what they need .

[Posh Tourer :P]

This column in the herald this morning sums up my position fairly well.... Some highlights?

Now a bachelor's degree or at least a diploma seems to be the minimum for the sort of job the middle classes want for themselves or their children. Tertiary institutions are stuffed with teenagers who don't really want to be there.

Wolf goes further: "There is no evidence that more education would lift productivity growth."

Part of her point is that the rush to educate throughout the Western World during the past 15 to 20 years has overqualified large numbers for the jobs they do. A degree or a diploma has for considerable numbers become a measure of minimum intelligence on which employers rely in recruiting rather than a stock of useful knowledge that automatically lifts the enterprise's productivity.

That is, a degree or diploma is a sort of modern school certificate or university entrance. (And, incidentally, while they are getting these scraps of paper, the young people are not economically productive.)

undergraduates are EFTS-fodder and the able are sorted out from the plodders at honours or master's level yep thats me people.... 3 years and $13000 spent to be EFTS fodder because there are few other options to get through to the real work.... Fuck!!!

However,

At a basic level, the "tertiary" system is picking up adult dropouts and getting them on the bottom rung of the educational ladder.

BUT

The bad news is that putting adults on the ladder is an expensive way of doing what schools have failed to do

There is similar perverse news in universities teaching some courses more expensively than polytechnics teach the same courses and polytechnics likewise teaching courses more expensively than schools teach them. There is also much duplication.

That relates exactly to my points....





Oh and Motu, thanks for your story. It sounds like you are one of those people who dont fit the school system. Or didnt when you were there. What do you think of the school system now? Would you have the same experience? I know it depends on the school. I count myself lucky having gone to Mt Roskill Grammar. I know I saw many people in your situation in that school too. My solution is to make SC worth something, and then you get a less qualified popultion, but lower expectations. By the time you are three years into high school, lots of people just want to finish their education. So provide technical institutes or suitable tertiary training to let these people get the skills they want to get. Why stay another two years at school just to get Bursary? Go on apprenticeship or something...I want to be able to (have time to) go on apprenticeship in any number of trades. Its just that I want more to do the thing I'm most interested in.

I know a number of highly intelligent people who arent at Uni because they dont want more damned education. If apprenticeships were a common and valid option, they'd be laughing.

My other complaint about education in NZ is that there are a large number of people who are going through uni getting a "bullshit" degree because it will earn them money. Why are people discouraged from following their dreams and encouraged into doing something boring and money earning so that they can earn enough to have fun with the time they dont have? Do a job you love and worry about the money later.
Is this a symptom of discouraging independent, inquiring minds?
I dont know but I suspect it might be....

[Hitcher]

Another issue is the current obsession with "qualifications", especially "degrees du jour" and, to a lesser extent user-pays education.

New Zealanders appear to have worked themselves up into a lather over qualifications: qualifications = good/desirable; no qualifications = bad/undesirable. Multiple qualifications = excellent. What a crock! Most of the stuff that adds value to individuals can't be measured by a qualification: diligence, honesty, ability to work as part of a team or as an individual when required, integrity, work ethic, ability to speak coherently and present a reasoned point of view, etc.

"Degrees du jour" (by my definition) are things like "qualifications" in fashion, film and fotography, fisiotherapy, tourism, and a variety of things where previously a good old trade certificate or diploma was all that was needed. I am talking about so-called "university" degrees with no accompanying intellectual rigour or research base. All such "degrees" do is dumb down and devalue "proper" degrees.

"User-pays education" -- now here's a thorny mulberry bush! I believe that students should pay for some of the cost of their education/training as to an extent they may derive some material benefit from this. However society is the richer from educated and learned folk, whether they are brain surgeons or philosophers. A balance has to be struck in terms of what is a reasonable investment by individuals and taxpayers -- I don't believe the "balance" is currently in the right place.

An outcome of all of the above is a skills shortage. An increasing number of folk with meaningless "qualifications" yet no: builders, plumbers, mechanics, dairy herd managers, shearers, fencers, cable jointers, etc. I suspect the country will have to grind to a halt before some action is taken. Meanwhile the roman-sandal-wearing, handknitted-hemp-underwear, GM-free, organic, professional victim brigade will be encouraging their children to get degrees in basket weaving.

[Steaming hobby horse returned to gargre]

[Posh Tourer :P]

"User-pays education" -- now here's a thorny mulberry bush! I believe that students should pay for some of the cost of their education/training as to an extent they may derive some material benefit from this. However society is the richer from educated and learned folk, whether they are brain surgeons or philosophers. A balance has to be struck in terms of what is a reasonable investment by individuals and taxpayers -- I don't believe the "balance" is currently in the right place.

Read the article below - it has something to say on that topic

[Pwalo]

Oh, and don't forget the perceived need for tertiary education provides an awful lot of people with a means of earning a living.

I really enjoyed my time at Varsity back in the ........... but I'm not convinced that it made me better qualified for working. Don't accountants, lawyers effectively have to do an internship (apprenticeship??) after they have completed their degrees. I've dealt some bloody stupid people who've managed to get degrees.

Both of my sons are in the NCEA system and I really can't see any benefits that this has over the old SC/UE system (now I know I'm old as I can't believe that I just wrote that).

Sorry now I'll climb down off my hobby horse. Need another coffee.....

[Mongoose]

Oh, and don't forget the perceived need for tertiary education provides an awful lot of people with a means of earning a living.
Both of my sons are in the NCEA system and I really can't see any benefits that this has over the old SC/UE system (now I know I'm old as I can't believe that I just wrote that).

Sorry now I'll climb down off my hobby horse. Need another coffee.....

The NCEA system is one that I A) Dont fully understand and B) the little I do understand I dont like it.
It seems all part of the anti-compeitive idealology to me. Why if some one fails can they not be told, "You failed"? Conversley there is not enough praise for the well doing kids. Becuase of how the system wortks these days, at High School anyway, there seems to be no room for a truely inquisitive mind. If its not strictly on topic it does not get covered.
It is now apparent that it has caused compition with in schools "We got more "A" passes than you" To try and get "rich" people to send their kids to that school, Rich kids = rich parents - more to be fleeced for the school.

[James Deuce]

The NCEA system is one that I A) Dont fully understand and B) the little I do understand I dont like it.
It seems all part of the anti-compeitive idealology to me. Why if some one fails can they not be told, "You failed"? Conversley there is not enough praise for the well doing kids. Becuase of how the system wortks these days, at High School anyway, there seems to be no room for a truely inquisitive mind. If its not strictly on topic it does not get covered.
It is now apparent that it has caused compition with in schools "We got more "A" passes than you" To try and get "rich" people to send their kids to that school, Rich kids = rich parents - more to be fleeced for the school.

You've utterly nailed it on the head. I have a 4 year old at Kindergarten and to avoid CYF intervention I've had to provide a food diary (He has too much energy we've been told. He eats way better and now chooses to eat way better than I do thanks to his Mum's insistence on only feeding our kids fresh food) of what he eats and send him to speech therapy, because he is ebullient, outgoing, and won't do every thing he's told to - especially if it makes no sense. We've just managed to catch the teachers physically restraining him, so we're about to use some of the PC crap in our favour. Whatever you do, don't have kids who behave or perform outside the norm.