Re: Congrats Texas board of education...
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:50 pm
We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...
America
Ist wunderbar...
Move along Paulo's boss. Nothing to see here.
http://www.reeelapse.com/
Early to mid 1900's. You think before that, people did not want their children educated? That's strange since pretty much every person, parents, non-parents and children, in a bad school or no school area, whether it's an American ghetto, or the segregated south, or Afghanistan seem to always place a pretty high priority on education. You think education would have been provided to all, eventually equally, through any other mechanism than government? Through the market? Sheesh....neckbeard wrote:It wasn't superior, whenever that was, but maybe it's not lack of state what made it so no one bothered to learn to read.Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:ha, maybe one day you'll be an hero in their textbook. I'd love to hear your take on how education was superior when schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates,neckbeard wrote:putting government in charge of education whatcouldpossiblygowrong
He, I notice this all the time too, with the difference being the left in the US sold:Pisscubes wrote: Call me paranoid but this is how I feel about it: The far Right has a contingent of it that placates the poor by demonizing academia and education while simultaneously calling an almost God-like status toward those that work shitty jobs and "keep this country moving". They do it through religion and they do it through claiming anyone who wants to go beyond that blue collar lifestyle thinks they're too good for it. I've always found it ironic that their heroic posturing about the "common worker" is right on the line with the same images used by communists to keep the workers in line. Changing the curriculum as they have suggested re-enforces these ideas.
What they gain through this is an underclass of people who equate education with lies and Ivory Towerism and look at themselves as the "real people" while the top 1% keep their money and the workers under foot.
The end game of unfettered, laissez-faire, "libertarian" (note, that this term is in quotes, before any of you self defined "libertarians" get your panties in a bunch) capitalism is corporate feudalism......Bored, Esq. wrote:It's difficult for me (given all my weird biases) to see this as a purely conservative/religious right movement and/or victory. I keep wanting to sniff around and detect Evil Capitalists behind the whole thing but at the same time I have trouble believing that any Evil Capitalist really DOES want to return to the middle ages.
But anyway...yeah, embarrassing for Texas and for our entire country in the eyes of the world. Democracy really sucks sometimes, esp. when all your neighbors are fucking assholes.
No matter how you look at it, both sides say you're an idiot and to blame other people while taking pride in who you are. Both sides want to instill hope into the future generations but don't want anyone to amount to anything for fear that it will destroy their perfect world in their head.Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:He, I notice this all the time too, with the difference being the left in the US sold:Pisscubes wrote: Call me paranoid but this is how I feel about it: The far Right has a contingent of it that placates the poor by demonizing academia and education while simultaneously calling an almost God-like status toward those that work shitty jobs and "keep this country moving". They do it through religion and they do it through claiming anyone who wants to go beyond that blue collar lifestyle thinks they're too good for it. I've always found it ironic that their heroic posturing about the "common worker" is right on the line with the same images used by communists to keep the workers in line. Changing the curriculum as they have suggested re-enforces these ideas.
What they gain through this is an underclass of people who equate education with lies and Ivory Towerism and look at themselves as the "real people" while the top 1% keep their money and the workers under foot.
"You're an idiot, but you don't have to be an idiot, those in power are forcing you to be an idiot, so through learning, you can empower yourself and you can give the finger to those in power" - When I was at NYU, along with all the spoiled typical college brats you often tell stories about (i'll include myself), you had kids from the poorest places in the US and around the world who took this message to heart and will be able to have successful careers and hopefully lift up those they left behind.
While the right sells:
"You're an idiot, but be proud of being an idiot, adhere to the dogma of idiocy and know that anyone who questions the purity of your vacant stare is an elitist, communist homosexual who hates Christ" - Instead of elevating the discourse we degrade it, affirmative action targeted at the stubbornly stupid, in a sneaky way not only did the right usurp the fetishization of the working class, they also have used the multicultural PC loophole to sneak in/force tolerance of their ideals and lip service to their talking points into the public dialogue.
The power elite want it both ways, they want skilled technical workers, who adhere to pre-scientific social philosophy. They see a division of labor so that the knowledge of the science in whole is solely possessed by the elites, that the working and middle classes are not interested in that, or better hostile too it, but that they know how to be a gear in the hi-tech machine.
I think people did want their children educated but they were too busy working 18 hour days and such. If every person places a pretty high priority on education as you say, wouldn't they go get it from whereever it is available?Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:Early to mid 1900's. You think before that, people did not want their children educated? That's strange since pretty much every person, parents, non-parents and children, in a bad school or no school area, whether it's an American ghetto, or the segregated south, or Afghanistan seem to always place a pretty high priority on education. You think education would have been provided to all, eventually equally, through any other mechanism than government? Through the market? Sheesh....neckbeard wrote:It wasn't superior, whenever that was, but maybe it's not lack of state what made it so no one bothered to learn to read.Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:ha, maybe one day you'll be an hero in their textbook. I'd love to hear your take on how education was superior when schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates,neckbeard wrote:putting government in charge of education whatcouldpossiblygowrong
The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]
But they do.... they teach their children everything they know, their trade, and will put them in any school, even if 'equally' bad, as you say below that is available - see Madrassahs in the Arab world, the bulk of which students go to for lack of any affordable publicly available education.neckbeard wrote:
I think people did want their children educated but they were too busy working 18 hour days and such. If every person places a pretty high priority on education as you say, wouldn't they go get it from whereever it is available?
No, it's not perfect, we should have a lot more national standardization in public schools in terms of general curriculum, including any effort - as the guy Helene quotes above says - to depoliticize the teachings of facts - literacy, math and science can be taught in a completely non-partisan way being wholly fact based. History and Literature are a little trickier but still a good textbook and teacher can center in on the facts and then provide narrative context in an even-handed way in the former case and provide a decent survey of literary movements while being somewhat sensitive to regional values. We should also have a lot more funding to provide the best materials, teachers and buildings to all students.You think what we have now is provided to all, equally? From here it looks like complete failure for anyone that can't afford private school or to live in the richest neighborhoods. At least everyone is Texas gets an equally bad education?
I asked what could possibly go wrong. You don't think there's any issue with putting politicians in charge of curriculum?
It says here that in Boston before Horace Mann invented public school there was 96% literacy (in Boston)
Well yeah, because it's one biased libertarian source linking to another with no actual citation of this fact, and how it was arrived at. Literacy can be defined a variety of ways from barely functional to totally functional and who knows what group was surveyed and how to arrive at that number. Also the fact that the survey was done in Boston and is then compared to a study done in Massachusetts is intellectually suspect. I won't make fun of the factoid if you can provide a legit source for it and these bloggers didn't simply cherry pick whichever numbers best suited their argument, but as of now that factoid looks out of whack, and cherry picking seems to be exactly what they did.neckbeard wrote:
edit: I know you'll just make fun of the source, but...
http://mises.org/daily/1425#_edn7The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]
I always laugh when I hear this song. Its so terrible....father of lies wrote:We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...
Those sources don't reference the original fact. They reference that the 'facts' quoted by one libertarian came from another libertarian's paper. Watch I can do it too:neckbeard wrote:And I should believe your numbers why?
There's links to 7 or 8 real sources at the bottom. I don't know what you want.
more from the smae article
blahblah.
derpThe First Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You have a pussy! I have a dickah! So vats de prrroblem?Iron Goldie wrote:I always laugh when I hear this song. Its so terrible....father of lies wrote:We're all living in America
America
Ist wunderbar...
You do this to everything you don't agree with. "It came for a source with an agenda opposite of mine, it can't possibly be true."Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:Those sources don't reference the original fact. They reference that the 'facts' quoted by one libertarian came from another libertarian's paper.neckbeard wrote:And I should believe your numbers why?
There's links to 7 or 8 real sources at the bottom. I don't know what you want.
more from the smae article
blahblah.
Yeah, and if the chart when back to caveman times you could really see how important public schools are; Nobody could read back then!Chevalier Mal Fet wrote:Did hs and college graduation rates crash down from their startling libertarian non government peaks in the mid 1800's before the scope of this chart?
schools were few and far between, completely exclusionary and 90% of adults were functional illiterates