vision2020
Re: On test, students can get 77% of answers wrong
Visionaries
Yet again I feel compelled to share my opinion. I'd like to comment on a
number of things from a number if issues brought up in recent emails. You
must excuse the disorganization of my thoughts because I'm responding to
emails in cronological order, as I have recieved them.
First of all I'd like to commend everyone on their ideas and thoughts. I
think its great that everyone is concerned about the education of the
children to want to discuss it with such a group as the Vision2020 group.
The fact that this issue brings you to write about it is a credit to this
group.
Now to the nitty gritty. Mr. Harrell, why is it "nonsense" for boys to
wear fingernail polish? Is there something intrinsict to boys or to the
difference between girls and boys that it is only appropriate for one sex
to wear something like fingernail polish and not the other? Please
clarify this difference for me. I do not see it. What is wrong with
diversity training? Now I wasn't exposed to the diversity training in
Pullman so I can't comment on that particular incendent, but diversity
training in general, as I see it should be, is just an effort to expose
children to the differences in people they may not know about. Having
this exposure allows them to be confident in a situation they don't know
much about and helps them to avoid offending others. How is helping them
to be sensitive to differences "garbage?" Do you fear that your children
might realize you don't have all or the only answers? Are you afraid they
may see that other ideas may make some sense, more or less so than your
own?
I must agree with Joe Probasco's assertation that althought scholastics
are an important part of the life experience, in particular of education,
it is not all encompassing. Learning about anything in any capacity is
valuable. My recent exchange in Spain was the most valuble experience I
have had, although not as academical rewarding as other experiences,
simply because I learned a ton about humanity, especially about myself.
A quote from John Harrell:
"As a parent, I should get to decide whether or not I want my children to
be exposed to certain "activities." In the following situation, I would
say, "not in front of my children."
Now I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, however, you must
realize that you can't stop your children from being exposed to anything.
However you can help your children to understand certain topics, and to
understand how you feel about them. Having a more "open door" policy
could help your children to see that they can come to you for anything and
that you can be trusted, not feared. This can help you make sure your
children are well-informed about something and avoid negative aspects of
certain issues, while enjoying all the positive.
Jim Wallis, in his "77% of answers wrong" email made good point.
Standardized testing is often greatly flawed because there no way a
multiple choice test can be accurate. Prehaps a child may know a great
deal about American History in general, expect for somethings about, for
example, Lincoln and his presidency. A standardized test could easily put
a higher value on that detail and the student, excellent as he may be,
could fail the test. Standardizeds tests really aren't worth the paper
they are printed on. They only measure a person's ability to take a
standardized test.
A quote from Douglas Wilson:
"I tried to go away, but a few more questions have arisen. I will try to
keep my answers brief so that no "hate-filled" stuff spills out."
Please don't go away. I've valued a lot of what you've had to say.
Everyone has the right to talk about things. Only you can truly know if
your answers are "hate-filled." Political correctness sometimes punishes
certain people (Not necessarily Douglas, but also me) for having honest
thoughts. How could anyone learn from anything is they were not allowed
to have honest thoughts? If you have an honest question to ask or an
honest opinion to give it doesn't become "hate-filled" until you start
deciding someone else doesn't have the same rights you have to expression.
"But I do think, within the context of a society that has its basic moral
bearings, the market is a good way to sort out many goods and services,
including education."
I think I agree. There are positive aspects about a market system that
could be used to strengthen schools. Like being effecient and all.
Although I'm sure there are disagreement on which aspects of a market
system could be used or are good for education.
"I do not believe there is any naturalistic way to account for the
formation of the first information required for genetic encoding and
subsequent reproduction. The jump between inorganic and organic matter had
to occur when there was no reproductive competition at all, and hence
natural selection could have done no selecting."
Your first statement is inaccurate. There are theories that have been
proven to be POSSIBLE (this is not a statement of what actually happened).
For example, the RNA World Theory states that the primative environmental
conditons of the earth contained gases like methane and ammonia in very
high concentrations and that electric storms provided the energy to the
molecule present on earth at the time to generate the first polypeptides
and nucleic acids, probably most likely RNA. RNA have catalytic
properties and can replicate itself. Eventually, as the theory states,
there was a separation of the information function and the catalytic
function into DNA and RNA respectively due to its benifits. It is really
only at this point that natural selection can be thought of, where the RNA
most able to replicate would dominate. Before this natural selection is
nonsensical, because, as Douglas stated, there was nothing to be selected.
Still I don't know if I see a conflict in this and then believing that a
creator started it all (maybe the source of lightening).
"I am only Rev. on my good days, and am happy to be called Douglas, or, if
you prefer, the Hate-monger."
I prefer Douglas.
"What I do maintain as a generalization is that cultural discipline is
part of the process of educational discipline. And while debating this,
let us not forget that many involved parents agree with this correlation
and put their kids in private schools where there is cultural discipline."
What do you mean "cultural discipline?" This term is problematic for me
because I'm unsure how you intend its use. Are you saying that behaving a
certain way (adhering to the traditional cultural customs of an area, ie
girls in pigtails and dress and boys in dressy suits) is what education
needs? You must conform to something in order to be educated properly?
Isn't that sounding like indocturination of one way of thinking rather
than embracing all as valid?
"The religious nature of education: It is true that Marx said that
religion is the opium of the people. But of course we now know that
Marxism is the crack cocaine of the people."
I'm not sure how you know that Marxism is so bad. Its never been tried.
If you are referring to Lenninism and Maoism, I would agree they were
horrible events. But they weren't what Marx had in mind according to his
writings. They were authoritarian dictator with opressive idealogies.
Communism, as defined by Marx, has never been a form of government in the
modern world. Any assertations that communism does or doesn't work are
baseless.
"The Chinese have a wise proverb that says if you want to know what water
is, do not ask a fish. In the same way, if you want to know the nature of
Enlightenment categories, it would be hard to learn them from anyone born
in the last 250 years. The neutral "facts" that are supposedly the
foundation of all "secular" education have done a superb job in hiding
their fundamentally religious nature, and they now constitute an invisible
and authoritative orthodoxy. It has taken a while but this orthodoxy is
now having to deal with some true heretics."
WHAT??
The next email I'm responding to is the one from Lois Melina in which she
described her experience with growing up in Catholic school. She said it
was not her experience that my assertation that attending a religious
school of one particular faith limits one's worldview was true. Yet she
went one to say, "My social life was made up of the Catholic girls in the
neighborhood who went to school with me. When a new family moved in, the
first question I asked was, "Are they Catholic?" because I knew if they
weren't, I wouldn't go to school with them and wouldn't socialize with
them outside of school." So based on whether or not they were Catholic
was how she decided (or how it was decided for her) whether on not she
would socialize with them? And this wasn't limiting her experiences with
other people? Did I miss something?
She went on to talk about how today she is more open-minded, which I don't
dispute (she is, after all a part of this discussion group, a clear plus
mark for Ms. Melina in the open-minded department.) But I don't attribute
this quality to her "liberal arts education." The terms "liberal" or
"liberals arts" or "education" are not synonymous with and don't
automatically lead to open-mindedness. I can't comment on the literature
Ms. Melina read (as she didn't cite references which are "banned in public
schools today") nor on her theology class disscussions (as I was not
there, however if they only centered on differing views in Christianity,
they were limited).
A quote from Lois:
"I value diversity, but I don't think it necessarily follows that greater
exposure to diverse viewpoints and people leads to greater understanding
and tolerance. Sometimes it has quite the opposite effect. Sometimes the
schools with the greatest diversity have the greatest isolation of
different "groups" with the corresponding fear and distrust that Daniel
Kronemann describes."
I agree. But at least there is opportunity for diversity of ideas to
interact. In a school where everyone is of one faith, you don't have
anything of diversity to work with. But I have run into the problem of
people of differing ideas auto-segregating themselves. Being a Spanish
Major I am involved with a lot of international students and their issues
and my training leads me to seek out non-American experiences and to learn
about them (something not only a quality of being a Spanish major, but
that is the source of my inqueries). I have found it really hard to get a
lot of them to meet people outside of their nationality. Its even hard to
get them to talk to me sometimes, much less other people. But at least I
can find people of differing nationalities to contact here. This would
not be the case with a religious private school of one faith. Not with
respect to differing nationalities being present but with respect to
non-Christian ideas (in the case of a Christian private school) being
present, at least not viewed in a positive light.
Lois Melina said:
"I think it is what helps children process differences, evaluate
conflicting viewpoints, and learn to think for themselves in a world with
many beliefs and a wealth of information. To expose children to
conflicting, diverging ideas without helping them learn how to process
differences is, in my opinion, what really leads to fear and distrust and
hate."
I agree. A reason that could be used to argue for diversity training.
Lois Melina said:
"However, not everyone agrees that this is the purpose of education. I
think the trend in public education is to deliver information and make
sure students know the answers. Schools are increasingly restricted in
their abilities to push children to "ask more questions" because teachers
put themselves at risk if they discuss controversial issues, encourage
children to read controversial books, or show controversial films.
I think we do need to have some discussion about what we want the purpose
of our public schools to be in this community and what kinds of trade-offs
we're willing to make to achieve that purpose."
I agree, teachers are very limited, especially in the areas of theology
and philosophy, which is a very valid concern of Douglas Wilson and must
advocate for the release of these restriction, provided that theological
disciplines are allowed to be discussed. (Of course only to the abilities
of resources of a community. For example, if a good Buddist resource
can't be found, then it would have to be omitted until the resoures for
that source could be included. Yet it would be possible to have the
disclaimer that not every single theory or idea was discussed, providing
the students with the knowledge that more exists, more questions are
needed.)
I would very much enjoy a dialogue on the purpose of our school and its
nature as Ms. Melina suggested.
Well this is enough for one email. I still have more to say!! ;o) Stay
tuned!! (This is exciting)
With Love and Respect,
Daniel Kronemann
Back to TOC