Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
If you look outside of America, you can see that capitalism is very compatible with Buddhism. Infact many very compassionate and wise Buddhist practitioners are bankers and rich people.
Why worry about whether America changes or not? Have the Dharma actually changed your mind?
Change is coming to America, to the world, to the internet and to individuals. Same old, same old? Perhaps so. :coffee:
Yeah well, every teenager and pop rock band is promoting protest and social mayham these days. I am pessimistic that any "change" will make the world worse. Just means people want to be more frivilious and depraved. Most of the social activists out there are attached to many unwholesome habits.
Buddhism definetly does not encourage most of the protest culture thats going on out there.
Dismissive and rude responses such as "OMG. SMH. Unbelievable" and "music is wrong. again. period." aren't attacks?
Maybe the wrong word then. What I was trying to say is that I'm surprised at the dismissive responses for what was a harmless, fairly accurate observation on attitudes.
Dismissive? Yeah I'll give you that, absolutely. Much the same as I've had a post/opinion 'dismissed" out of hand now and again by others. (and way more rudely too). Actually, probably most of us have had that happen at least once somewhere along the line.
"Attacks"? Sorry, don't see it that way. Anyhow, as far as my one post goes (directed at Music), well, it seems some people are very unhappy when I don't address people to their face -so to speak - but then seem just as upset when I do and call it an attack. OK, I guess I'm in one of those damned if I do, damned if I don't situations. Got it.
By the way, @phaseSeven, I see you're only here a few days- welcome to NewBuddhist! It really IS a nice forum, 99.99% of the time
Dismissive and rude responses such as "OMG. SMH. Unbelievable" and "music is wrong. again. period." aren't attacks?
Maybe the wrong word then. What I was trying to say is that I'm surprised at the dismissive responses for what was a harmless, fairly accurate observation on attitudes.
Dismissive? Yeah I'll give you that, absolutely. Much the same as I've had a post/opinion 'dismissed" out of hand now and again by others. (and way more rudely too). Actually, probably most of us have had that happen at least once somewhere along the line.
"Attacks"? Sorry, don't see it that way. Anyhow, as far as my one post goes (directed at Music), well, it seems some people are very unhappy when I don't address people to their face -so to speak - but then seem just as upset when I do and call it an attack. OK, I guess I'm in one of those damned if I do, damned if I don't situations. Got it.
By the way, @phaseSeven, I see you're only here a few days- welcome to NewBuddhist! It really IS a nice forum, 99.99% of the time
Thanks. Wasn't just your post, but probably all the responses to Music taken as a collective I thought were a bit unnecessarily hostile. Might just be my perception as I agree with much of what he did say!
I've been on the forum before on and off but can't remember my old details.
While the issue of capitalism and what the future entails keeps coming back into the discussion, I found this video very interesting.
Zizek seems to be a bit of a weird character and has some odd views(people not believing organic food is healthier is one of them, lol) but for me he makes a very valid criticism of modern liberalism - and the animation is very cool!
You said in a post a ways back: "My prediction is that socialism will win, eventually - even in America. "
Not sure how to take that... are you thinking that might be a good thing, a bad thing, or too early to tell thing?
I'm asking because politically I lean very heavily towards a government mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Yeah I know- but I really think it can work, and does work in other places....
You said in a post a ways back: "My prediction is that socialism will win, eventually - even in America. "
Not sure how to take that... are you thinking that might be a good thing, a bad thing, or too early to tell thing?
I'm asking because politically I lean very heavily towards a government mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Yeah I know- but I really think it can work, and does work in other places....
I think it would be a good thing. Gradually I think the means of production will cease to be in private hands and that we'll be better for it.
@PhaseSeven- nobody has attacked music- painting him as a victim of a discussion is irresponsible and counterproductive- i live in america, yet i do not make excuses for what we are, but if you dont live here and you make judgement calls about what it is like to live here, wouldnt that be also an irresponsible decision? music has spoken for himself and agreed at least this much. i know people who have lived in India, but thats hardly grounds for me to make judgements about the place. And what he has said about America isn't even really accurate. Do you live in America,@PhaseSeven?
Come on, everyone. The topic of this thread isn't @music. Moreover, their opinions are just as valid as anyone else's regardless of where they live, so perhaps we can move beyond that and back to topic of change in America, or else I'll have to play the bad guy and start deleting offtopic posts or simply close the thread (which I'd like to avoid if possible).
Yes, you're correct, much of the violence was done to civil rights activists, but much was also done to civil rights activists by other every day citizens...not just by state and local governments.
I never said the state was the sole source of violence directed against civil rights activists, so I'm not sure what you're point is exactly. All I said was that the movement itself was a relatively peaceful and non-violent in an attempt to bolster my initial statement that "not all revolutions and forms of direct action need to be violent on the part of the people outside of acting in self-defense."
Now I'm going to say something to you that you'll at first think I'm talking down to you...but then I want you to read this paragraph again and see that there is balance: There are two groups who are usually substantially wrong when they talk about history. The first group are those who are young enough that they are reading about the time in question in books and other documentary evidence, because they are simply learning about the time, rather than living through it. The second group are those who are old enough to have lived through the time, but lack the perspective of reading about it and looking at other documentary evidence.
I think you make a good point. That said, I'm not sure If you're implying that I'm a part of the first group and "substantially wrong" when I talk about history pre-1978; but if so, what can I say? I can't help my age. But for what it's worth, I think it's possible to understand something without having to have physically been there when it happened; and maybe it's naive, but I'd like to think that I have a fairly decent grasp of US history despite my relative youth.
In my view, there was a lot of violence on both sides of the civil rights issue. There was an evil Ku Klux Klan on one side. There were also the Black Panthers on the other side. We can talk about Martin Luther King (a man I consider a hero of mine), but we tend to mostly forget about Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. And I remember the 1965 race riots in Watts (LA), and 1967 riots in Newark and Detroit...not to mention smaller race riots in Rochester, NY (close to where I lived), Cleveland, Chicago, and Cincinnati, and 5 days of race riots in Washington, D.C.
And no, as a former long-time card-carrying member of the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center, and probably the only person here who has sat down in a very small group with Julian Bond for a 2 hour chat, I don't say it would have been better for American society to accept racial discrimination and civil disobedience...and I resent any implication that I would advocate that position. After all, I remember often traveling through the Carolinas and Georgia and northern Florida and experiencing "colored water fountains" and "colored toilets", and restaurants and motels that were "whites only". I remember attending an all-Black church in central Florida in 1961.
Sorry, @vinyln. I wasn't trying to imply anything. I simply asked if you'd classify the movement as whole as a predominately violent one, and if so, whether you think it would have been better if society just accepted legalized racial discrimination and segregation instead of organizing against it because I'm trying to better understand the point you're trying to make. As for the rest, I never said that it wasn't a turbulent period, only that the civil rights movement itself was a relatively peaceful/non-violent one considering it's size and scope. I honestly didn't think that was a controversial statement.
But to be purely objective about it, other than during the American Revolution and the Civil War, I don't think there has been a more violent period within America than during the Civil Rights struggle.
Again, I never said that it wasn't a turbulent time, and it should also be noted that a lot of other things were going on at the time that helped contribute to the turbulence (e.g., the 1960s counterculture movement, the Vietnam War and the growing anti-war movement, the New Left movement, etc.). That said, I think there have been equally as violent periods, from the War of 1812 to the 19th century policy of Indian removal that took place under the US's westward expansion to the institution of slavery itself.
okay fine- i work in school systems in america, and i do not see this "change" as a widespread, sweeping, overhauling revolution. the change is subtle, generationally linked, and it overlaps with regressions. the american media is doing more harm than good, and materialism is at all time high. the youth is informed, but not necesarilly well informed. they are essentially being taught to be consumers, and much of their sense of self worth lies within what they perceive is successful: making money, buying things, keeping up with the Jonses, winning, etc. The only glimmer of potential hope is the recent rise of charter schools, that attempt to approach education in a slightly different manner. but even they are far away from anything that resembles drastic change. if you want to take the temperature of the American population, stick the thermometer in the mouth of the school aged children... you will find that they are not very hot, yet.
Interesting what you say about charter schools @TheBeejAbides. In my community the highschool of my youth is being closed along with several other schools and they are expanding on charter schools. I didn't realize there could be a good side as it seemed a huge loss to leave several well constructed buildings empty. I believe the reason for the change is that many of the students had fled to schools outside of the interior of the city. So I have only seen the negatives. I also have a friend who is a teacher with her school closing so that hits closer to home than just the abstract analysis.
I'd be interested to hear what the advantages of charter schools are as this is something I know little about. Thanks.
okay fine- i work in school systems in america, and i do not see this "change" as a widespread, sweeping, overhauling revolution. the change is subtle, generationally linked, and it overlaps with regressions. the american media is doing more harm than good, and materialism is at all time high. the youth is informed, but not necesarilly well informed. they are essentially being taught to be consumers, and much of their sense of self worth lies within what they perceive is successful: making money, buying things, keeping up with the Jonses, winning, etc. The only glimmer of potential hope is the recent rise of charter schools, that attempt to approach education in a slightly different manner. but even they are far away from anything that resembles drastic change. if you want to take the temperature of the American population, stick the thermometer in the mouth of the school aged children... you will find that they are not very hot, yet.
Glad to see a fellow educator!
I think your analysis of change in America is right on target.
Re charter schools...I will reserve judgement until we have a little more data on which to base our conclusions. But, I do applaud anything (well almost anything) in American education that challenges the validity of the structure of American education.
Interesting what you say about charter schools @TheBeejAbides. In my community the highschool of my youth is being closed along with several other schools and they are expanding on charter schools. I didn't realize there could be a good side as it seemed a huge loss to leave several well constructed buildings empty. I believe the reason for the change is that many of the students had fled to schools outside of the interior of the city. So I have only seen the negatives. I also have a friend who is a teacher with her school closing so that hits closer to home than just the abstract analysis.
I'd be interested to hear what the advantages of charter schools are as this is something I know little about. Thanks.
One of the things that always disappointed me about my teaching staff was that they just wanted to keep doing what we always did...regardless of the results. Most wanted to teach the way they were taught...regardless of the results.
I see the changes in education that are being forced on schools and teachers a rather natural progression of consumerism. I think it really began with the decline in quality of the American auto industry back in the 1970s. Consumers got fed up and did something about it. I think that's similar to what's happening with American education today. Education consumers (parents) are saying that you just can't say you're (teachers and schools) doing a great job, you have to prove it.
charter schools are not bound to a state-wide or county-wide curriculum. they have to follow certain guidlines and meet certain standards to receive public money, which they more often do to an acceptable outcome than traditional public schools. one thing that is worrisome about charter schools is that corporate sponsorship is a potential poison. just imagne sending your children to "Martin Luther King Elementary School brought to you by: Mountain Dew". that thought is terrifying, but given that US public schools are ranked somewhere in the 30's, worldwide, its certainly possible. its a shame that your friend is losing his/her job, but if they are a good teacher, they will find another job. we need teachers, badly. good ones. ones with heart. and loving kindness. and smaller classrooms. and better school lunches without partially hydrogenated everything.
When my oldest started Kinder. he started in a charter school and it was amazing. I loved their setup and the way they organized the kids. i wish we could have stayed, it was in a poor area us for economy wise, so we ended up moving and they are now in regular public school (because we have no other choice where we live other than homeschooling) and I wish we could have stayed with the charter school.
At the one my son was in, they grouped kids by learning style and put them with a teacher that catered to that style. They had uniforms, which were black or khaki pants and one of 4 colors of polo shirts. I really like the uniform idea, too. They really did a much better job catering to the kids learning type as well as they could, and recognizing kids for their strengths instead of teaching to the test, which is all they do here.
I do have to disagree a little bit in what I see here though. Kids are much more aware of things I never was 20 years ago. They are involved in volunteering (on their own, not just because boy scouts tells them to) they look out for one another, they are more aware of politics and issues facing society than I ever was. I have faith that they will make a difference sooner than most people do, and a lot of that is because they have parents who are not ok with their kids being nothing but cogs in the economy. Parents who are my age, who I interact with and have known since they were little kids, are much more aware and involved themselves. They are much more apt to tell their kids to do what makes them happy and contributes to making the world a better place, than to solely look for their own success.
@karasti- i am a huge advocate a tailoring the teaching to the students. we all learn differently: some of us are visual learners, some can learn by listening, others by reading, others by doing, etc. when we send a child to school and ask them to learn the info the way we ask them to and only that way, what we are really doing is weeding out the followers from the creative/free thinking students. the followers can conjugate the verbs, show up on time, and never challenge the status quo. those people make great employees, but they dont make a better world. when we get to know a child, create a curriculum that they can flourish under, and show them that we care, we are in student-teacher cooperation, and thats what starts to make a better world. it all starts with the kids.
@TheBeejAbides, just remember, followers are usually followers because that's what they learned. And they can learn to be...well, what shall we call it -- out of the box thinkers, as well.
Well, it was in 1996, and I know they went over that stuff when we went to parent meetings, but I don't remember what they said other than I had no concerns over anything they said. Also, he only attended half a year, so I can't speak from his experience. They are still in operation, and I can tell you that looking now, they score above the state average in reading and math, while our local public school was below average every year except this year (for some reason this year has a 15% increase, which is interesting)
I don't like how a school is defined as failing, relative to an afluent school, when just as examples many of the kids started out education after fetal alcohol syndrome or no english spoken in the home. You can't put all the blame on the teacher. My mom gets on her soap box if I ask her about this topic. She was a school psychologist and all of the teachers were trying to get her to put problem students into special education, whereas she had to follow the rules of her profession as set down.
of course they can... i dont mean to say that it is bad to follow, per se, but its certainly not a great strategy fir fixing the pertinent issues facing us today- the american school system is the german system, brought over in the 19th century by Horrace Mann, right? well, i dont even think the germans still use the system. :screwy:
there is a horace mann quote that i love, though. he says, "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for mankind". maybe a little dramatic, but the sentiment is glorious!
@vinlyn were you asking me? Our school here, yes, there are only 2 public schools within 45 miles of here, so they have to take everyone. We do have open enrollment and there is another school 15 miles from here, so there is some cross enrollment but that has been going on for several years. If you meant the charter school he attended, they operated as a public school, there was no testing or anything to determine enrollment, but you did have to apply. As far as I remember, it was just in order to establish a waiting list, and applications were accepted on a first come first serve basis.
@Karasti, thanks. That makes the results more impressive.
My middle school was one of the top performers in Virginia in terms of public schools, and there was virtually no pupil placement...pretty much all based on boundaries.
There were some private schools that did better than did we, although they got to select which students they wished to have, so I never felt the standards were fair.
@jeffrey- yes, you wre refering to the political game that is also our school system. george w bush and his "no child left behind" cronies muddled the mess even farther than it had already been muddled... yay democracy? sigh. my personal opinion is that we should fragment everything into smaller schools, smaller classrooms, and that the federal government should not be involved in the decision making process of curriculum or standards. why, you ask? re: fiscal bailout. numbskulls, all of them!
@The BeejAbides, keep in mind that the No Child Left Behind act passed the Senate in a bipartison vote -- 91-8.
When my teachers realized we had to pass the standards, it was remarkable how many more students began getting individualized attention and passing not only the standardized tests, but school in general. Regular ed teachers were spending far more time with special ed kids, instead of just the special ed teachers doing so.
The degree to which it appears that the feds should be involved in education depends very much on what kind of state and school district you live in.
Interesting turn of discussion. I have family who teach and just recently my cousin sent me a video from Sir Ken Robinson, who from the Sir bit I'm guessing is good at his job. She's working in Qatar at the moment as there wasn't much doing in England and is always emailing me stuff.
Seemed a cool talk to me but I'm not a teacher so what you all make of it I don't know
My only criticism would be that I think he's overstating the impact of students on drugs for ADHD and our educational system. The latest data I've seen is the 3-5% of kids are identified as ADHD and having drugs for it. That means 95-97% of the kids are not on such drugs.
But I think he makes some very good points. And I think this goes back to some studies (which I can't place at this time) that showed how institutions (in general...not just educational institutions) operate and age. I think it's important to remember that the educational system we have once was innovative...but innovation is not something almost any organization continues to do over long periods of time.
So the question is, how do we reinvigorate innovation in education.
okay no child left behind may have produced "results" of a sort, but how much of those results are linked to the afforementioned federal standard, which is far less concerned with practical application of the information as oppossed to real learning. if you set a bar, its easy to figure out how to get over it, but does that really improve what is being taught/learned/reciprocated? in my opinion, no it does not. it politicizes learning in a negative way. you end up teaching to a test, and not to a student. yuk for that.
@vinlyn- and when i said "cronies" i was refering to politicians, not repubs vs dems bcs i dont see a definable difference worth mentioning betweenvthe two. and that is another reason that vast change isnt coming to america: the two party system. if you really want to see some sort of vast change, and you want to see it happen under our current political system, then elect a third party candidate. because dems vs repubs is political samsara, over and over and over again.
okay no child left behind may have produced "results" of a sort, but how much of those results are linked to the afforementioned federal standard, which is far less concerned with practical application of the information as oppossed to real learning. if you set a bar, its easy to figure out how to get over it, but does that really improve what is being taught/learned/reciprocated? in my opinion, no it does not. it politicizes learning in a negative way. you end up teaching to a test, and not to a student. yuk for that.
I guess that would depend on how your school handled No Child Left Behind.
If your state and school saw it as "teaching to the test", then you didn't quite get it.
@vinlyn- and when i said "cronies" i was refering to politicians, not repubs vs dems bcs i dont see a definable difference worth mentioning betweenvthe two. and that is another reason that vast change isnt coming to america: the two party system. if you really want to see some sort of vast change, and you want to see it happen under our current political system, then elect a third party candidate. because dems vs repubs is political samsara, over and over and over again.
I don't want a "vast change". I want a slow, evolutionary change.
Change is coming to America, to the world, to the internet and to individuals. Same old, same old? Perhaps so. :coffee:
Yeah well, every teenager and pop rock band is promoting protest and social mayham these days. I am pessimistic that any "change" will make the world worse. Just means people want to be more frivilious and depraved. Most of the social activists out there are attached to many unwholesome habits.
Buddhism definetly does not encourage most of the protest culture thats going on out there.
I have to agree here.
Most (not all, most) of the social activists I've met are total assholes. They're all really, really smart which freaks me out, but it's like they're all brain and no sense.
@vinlyn- i didnt make myself clear in the previous post- when i said "you" i meant us, or any person that wants a vast change, not specifically vinlyn, though i understand why you took it that way, because i did address it to you. my mistake and please acceept this clarification as apology. you clearly stated earlier in the thread that you didnt want abrupt change, and i totally understand why. i was really just expressing my opinion that you can't expect a different result by doing the same thing over and over again- which is essentially the hampster wheel of our democratic process. thats not a complaint as much as it is a value judgement, which might be as worthless as bull with no balls.
i havnt been on the site very much in the past couple of months, but its good to be back. thanks for the discussion.
oh and as far as no child left behind, i was working in inner city schools in philadelphia, so teaching to the test is definately a strategy that is employed, just to try to keep a school open. and still, schools are closing every year and more charters are opening. some school districts are broken and crappy politics ensure that they cant be fixed. this is why i support the charter movement.
I like stressing aesthetic values in education as much as Sir Robinson does. One thing I always admired about communist countries was their production of artists. I am not kidding. I think we could do it here in the USA too. But producing bakers who are also dancers ,or bank tellers who are sax players ,means other aspects of a child's education would be eclipsed. To produce artists requires a great deal of time. For example, a young dancer , as young as eight, is able to dance 25 to 30 hours a week. There are many who will gladly do that and more for their passions which I believe Robinson was addressing. A guy who is going to be a baker (no small art I might add) who dances may get in the way of a talented , passionate dancer. The Eastern Bloc and Cuba set up special schools for those whom excelled in these arts but I do not want that here. So here in the USA I think small charter schools on the model of The Da Vinci Academy would be best. It requires much parental involvement and time to participate in this model but the objective of their curriculum is close to Sir Richard's. Then to the Da Vinci model add more public and private funds for music, dance, writing, etc. Again, parental involvement in crucial . I guess Sir Robinson want to produce happy bakers whom dance. I like it. But if you stress this sort of curriculum, you must allow for the true artist or excellent mathamatician to emerge. Ultimately, I think we do produce here in the USA many lawyers who play a mean ax and bakers who dance , and teachers who sing like birds. I know many . We are offered the means to become dancing bakers but perhaps need more lessons in its value.
Teachers here definitely teach to the test, to the point when the tests are coming up, they stop teaching and review only material that'll be on the test, and make it clear that if the kids don't do well, the teachers suffer even if it's of no fault of their own that the kids don't do well. My kid isn't a test taker. He's incredibly bright, has a high IQ, reads 5 levels above his grade level, gets exceedingly bored in school. Hates taking tests. Hates taking reading tests even more because they only do them on the computer and he, like me, does not do well in reading long passages on a computer. So, he scores in the 70% in reading, even though he is capable of far, far better than that. The fact they will not allow testing (not here anyhow) in other formats, is ridiculous, and only screws up the testing that is supposed to prove something. They will give him an ipad to play angry birds when his work is done, but they can't find another format for him to take a test? Like verbally? written? It even specifies in his IEP that he does poorly in certain testing circumstances, and they still can't do anything to ensure he succeeds. So, my kid is left feeling like he is failing just because he isn't a good electronic test taker. Makes no sense to me. So he suffers, the teacher suffers, the school suffers...all for what?
@vinlyn- i didnt make myself clear in the previous post- when i said "you" i meant us, or any person that wants a vast change, not specifically vinlyn, though i understand why you took it that way, because i did address it to you. my mistake and please acceept this clarification as apology. you clearly stated earlier in the thread that you didnt want abrupt change, and i totally understand why. i was really just expressing my opinion that you can't expect a different result by doing the same thing over and over again- which is essentially the hampster wheel of our democratic process. thats not a complaint as much as it is a value judgement, which might be as worthless as bull with no balls.
i havnt been on the site very much in the past couple of months, but its good to be back. thanks for the discussion.
Absolutely no need for any apology. I love reading your posts!
Teachers here definitely teach to the test, to the point when the tests are coming up, they stop teaching and review only material that'll be on the test, and make it clear that if the kids don't do well, the teachers suffer even if it's of no fault of their own that the kids don't do well. My kid isn't a test taker. He's incredibly bright, has a high IQ, reads 5 levels above his grade level, gets exceedingly bored in school. Hates taking tests. Hates taking reading tests even more because they only do them on the computer and he, like me, does not do well in reading long passages on a computer. So, he scores in the 70% in reading, even though he is capable of far, far better than that. The fact they will not allow testing (not here anyhow) in other formats, is ridiculous, and only screws up the testing that is supposed to prove something. They will give him an ipad to play angry birds when his work is done, but they can't find another format for him to take a test? Like verbally? written? It even specifies in his IEP that he does poorly in certain testing circumstances, and they still can't do anything to ensure he succeeds. So, my kid is left feeling like he is failing just because he isn't a good electronic test taker. Makes no sense to me. So he suffers, the teacher suffers, the school suffers...all for what?
You make some good points here.
And the first issue one has to examine is the quality of the state tests, and that varies a great deal from state to state. I'm not sure about now, but for quite a while Maryland's standardized tests were highly respected...and different than the run of the mill state tests. In Virginia, I felt we had pretty good state tests. The first thing to consider as a state develops tests is -- does the test test what is in the curriculum? Does the test get beyond memorization of facts...and admittedly, considering the format of the tests, this is a tough one. If the test tests the curriculum, then teaching to the test is not necessarily a bad thing. And, the other side of that is teachers who teach what they, as an individual, thinks is important, rather than what a broader group of teachers think who develop a local or state curriculum.
As to whether or not "it's no fault of their own that kids don't do well...well...sometimes it is the teacher's fault. For example, in my school students were placed in teacher's classes randomly within general education or two levels of gifted classes. Math teacher V's students failed the state tests (and her own quarterly grades at a rate of about 30%...every year for 5 years. Math teacher V taught the same level of students and had a failure rate of about 7%...every year for 5 years. What does that say to you? Or, let's take my school's special education students. At the elementary level they passed at a satisfactory level . At the high school level, those same students passed at a satisfactory level. But at our niddle school (until the pattern was identified and I stepped in) those same students failed at an unusually high level. So, sometimes it is the fault of the teachers.
vinylyn, I am curious about a matter. Is it a concern to get teachers involved in developing the state tests? Can it get in the hands of government people who aren't at the contact point actually having experiences of what the classroom is like? My fear would be that it would be a 'higher up' without consultation with actual teachers.
@Jeffrey, I can only speak for Virginia. We had teachers from our school who were included in work groups who helped develop the state tests. And, after testing, our teachers were given a very detailed report on the success level of each question, and from year to year the tests evolved as poor questions were deleted and revised questions were added. And part of that was based on the feedback of teachers. Virginia was a state which took quite seriously the need for the state to provide a framework for education, while local districts (each was a county-wide district) developed detailed curriculum. So I would say that, in general, the answer to your question was that teachers were relatively involved in the process.
This same kind of involvement was common in the selection of textbooks at the county level. I served on textbook adoption committees several times, and each time the committees included teachers, administrators, and parents. It wasn't a vote situation, but the committee results were major factors in selecting texts.
Oh I agree, @vinlyn, sometimes it is the teachers, or the kids (and parents). I'm just saying that alot of the time here, it seems like the teachers are blamed and punished for things they have no control over, and they are afraid of what will happen if the kids don't do well. I don't think that is any way to teach.
Teachers -- in general -- are awfully resistant to change, and the further along in their careers they are, the more resistant they tend to be. If there was ever a group that fits into the "if you keep doing the same thing you always did, you'll always get the results you always got" mindset...it's many teachers. I hate to say it, but teachers tend to not like to learn anything new. Our system spent a lot of time and money bringing in people with proven results with new concepts in teaching, and we'd force teachers to go to the inservices. Mostly it was pretty good stuff. And the most common responses we would get would be things like, "Oh, I'll do it while it's still on their (the administrators) mind, then it'll go away". And there was a lack of understanding that yes, this years it's technique A, then that will go away and it will be on to technique B, and then that will go away and it will be on to technique C...instead of once I have mastered teaching technique A, then I can learn teaching technique B, and later technique C, and down the road when I have a student who isn't being successful I can open my little bag of teaching techniques and find the one that will fit his need.
And by the way, 3 caveats -- yes, there are very innovative and successful and open-minded teachers. And yes, there are some lousy administrators. And no, not every new teaching technique is valid.
@vinlyn, yeah that's a good point, and something we do deal with here. Some of the teachers my kids have, had been teaching for several years when I was their student. Most of them teach for 40 years. Some of them are pretty good at seeking out new methods and innovations. Others, yeah, not so much, lol. On one hand, it can be nice to retain the familiarity. Even if my kids struggle, the teachers know me, and my family and they know they aren't struggling because I'm not being a decent parent, etc. They know me well and know how to work with me, and me them. But people here overall are very resistant and slow to change and accept new ways of doing. Thankfully all it takes is a couple people with new methods to set them on a better path, and we have made some progress.
Which to keep it topical, lol, helps encourage change in the right direction for all people. When young people change, communities change, and then counties, areas, states, etc.
Comments
Why worry about whether America changes or not? Have the Dharma actually changed your mind?
Same old, same old? Perhaps so. :coffee:
Buddhism definetly does not encourage most of the protest culture thats going on out there.
Dismissive? Yeah I'll give you that, absolutely. Much the same as I've had a post/opinion 'dismissed" out of hand now and again by others. (and way more rudely too).
Actually, probably most of us have had that happen at least once somewhere along the line.
"Attacks"? Sorry, don't see it that way.
Anyhow, as far as my one post goes (directed at Music), well, it seems some people are very unhappy when I don't address people to their face -so to speak - but then seem just as upset when I do and call it an attack.
OK, I guess I'm in one of those damned if I do, damned if I don't situations. Got it.
By the way, @phaseSeven, I see you're only here a few days- welcome to NewBuddhist! It really IS a nice forum, 99.99% of the time
I've been on the forum before on and off but can't remember my old details.
While the issue of capitalism and what the future entails keeps coming back into the discussion, I found this video very interesting.
Zizek seems to be a bit of a weird character and has some odd views(people not believing organic food is healthier is one of them, lol) but for me he makes a very valid criticism of modern liberalism - and the animation is very cool!
You said in a post a ways back:
"My prediction is that socialism will win, eventually - even in America. "
Not sure how to take that... are you thinking that might be a good thing, a bad thing, or too early to tell thing?
I'm asking because politically I lean very heavily towards a government mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Yeah I know- but I really think it can work, and does work in other places....
I'd be interested to hear what the advantages of charter schools are as this is something I know little about. Thanks.
I think your analysis of change in America is right on target.
Re charter schools...I will reserve judgement until we have a little more data on which to base our conclusions. But, I do applaud anything (well almost anything) in American education that challenges the validity of the structure of American education.
I see the changes in education that are being forced on schools and teachers a rather natural progression of consumerism. I think it really began with the decline in quality of the American auto industry back in the 1970s. Consumers got fed up and did something about it. I think that's similar to what's happening with American education today. Education consumers (parents) are saying that you just can't say you're (teachers and schools) doing a great job, you have to prove it.
At the one my son was in, they grouped kids by learning style and put them with a teacher that catered to that style. They had uniforms, which were black or khaki pants and one of 4 colors of polo shirts. I really like the uniform idea, too. They really did a much better job catering to the kids learning type as well as they could, and recognizing kids for their strengths instead of teaching to the test, which is all they do here.
I do have to disagree a little bit in what I see here though. Kids are much more aware of things I never was 20 years ago. They are involved in volunteering (on their own, not just because boy scouts tells them to) they look out for one another, they are more aware of politics and issues facing society than I ever was. I have faith that they will make a difference sooner than most people do, and a lot of that is because they have parents who are not ok with their kids being nothing but cogs in the economy. Parents who are my age, who I interact with and have known since they were little kids, are much more aware and involved themselves. They are much more apt to tell their kids to do what makes them happy and contributes to making the world a better place, than to solely look for their own success.
there is a horace mann quote that i love, though. he says, "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for mankind". maybe a little dramatic, but the sentiment is glorious!
My middle school was one of the top performers in Virginia in terms of public schools, and there was virtually no pupil placement...pretty much all based on boundaries.
There were some private schools that did better than did we, although they got to select which students they wished to have, so I never felt the standards were fair.
When my teachers realized we had to pass the standards, it was remarkable how many more students began getting individualized attention and passing not only the standardized tests, but school in general. Regular ed teachers were spending far more time with special ed kids, instead of just the special ed teachers doing so.
The degree to which it appears that the feds should be involved in education depends very much on what kind of state and school district you live in.
Seemed a cool talk to me but I'm not a teacher so what you all make of it I don't know
My only criticism would be that I think he's overstating the impact of students on drugs for ADHD and our educational system. The latest data I've seen is the 3-5% of kids are identified as ADHD and having drugs for it. That means 95-97% of the kids are not on such drugs.
But I think he makes some very good points. And I think this goes back to some studies (which I can't place at this time) that showed how institutions (in general...not just educational institutions) operate and age. I think it's important to remember that the educational system we have once was innovative...but innovation is not something almost any organization continues to do over long periods of time.
So the question is, how do we reinvigorate innovation in education.
If your state and school saw it as "teaching to the test", then you didn't quite get it.
Most (not all, most) of the social activists I've met are total assholes. They're all really, really smart which freaks me out, but it's like they're all brain and no sense.
i havnt been on the site very much in the past couple of months, but its good to be back.
I like stressing aesthetic values in education as much as Sir Robinson does. One thing I always admired about communist countries was their production of artists. I am not kidding. I think we could do it here in the USA too. But producing bakers who are also dancers ,or bank tellers who are sax players ,means other aspects of a child's education would be eclipsed. To produce artists requires a great deal of time. For example, a young dancer , as young as eight, is able to dance 25 to 30 hours a week. There are many who will gladly do that and more for their passions which I believe Robinson was addressing. A guy who is going to be a baker (no small art I might add) who dances may get in the way of a talented , passionate dancer. The Eastern Bloc and Cuba set up special schools for those whom excelled in these arts but I do not want that here.
So here in the USA I think small charter schools on the model of The Da Vinci Academy would be best. It requires much parental involvement and time to participate in this model but the objective of their curriculum is close to Sir Richard's. Then to the Da Vinci model add more public and private funds for music, dance, writing, etc. Again, parental involvement in crucial .
I guess Sir Robinson want to produce happy bakers whom dance. I like it. But if you stress this sort of curriculum, you must allow for the true artist or excellent mathamatician to emerge.
Ultimately, I think we do produce here in the USA many lawyers who play a mean ax and bakers who dance , and teachers who sing like birds. I know many . We are offered the means to become dancing bakers but perhaps need more lessons in its value.
And the first issue one has to examine is the quality of the state tests, and that varies a great deal from state to state. I'm not sure about now, but for quite a while Maryland's standardized tests were highly respected...and different than the run of the mill state tests. In Virginia, I felt we had pretty good state tests. The first thing to consider as a state develops tests is -- does the test test what is in the curriculum? Does the test get beyond memorization of facts...and admittedly, considering the format of the tests, this is a tough one. If the test tests the curriculum, then teaching to the test is not necessarily a bad thing. And, the other side of that is teachers who teach what they, as an individual, thinks is important, rather than what a broader group of teachers think who develop a local or state curriculum.
As to whether or not "it's no fault of their own that kids don't do well...well...sometimes it is the teacher's fault. For example, in my school students were placed in teacher's classes randomly within general education or two levels of gifted classes. Math teacher V's students failed the state tests (and her own quarterly grades at a rate of about 30%...every year for 5 years. Math teacher V taught the same level of students and had a failure rate of about 7%...every year for 5 years. What does that say to you? Or, let's take my school's special education students. At the elementary level they passed at a satisfactory level . At the high school level, those same students passed at a satisfactory level. But at our niddle school (until the pattern was identified and I stepped in) those same students failed at an unusually high level. So, sometimes it is the fault of the teachers.
And all for what? Actual evidence of achievement.
This same kind of involvement was common in the selection of textbooks at the county level. I served on textbook adoption committees several times, and each time the committees included teachers, administrators, and parents. It wasn't a vote situation, but the committee results were major factors in selecting texts.
And by the way, 3 caveats -- yes, there are very innovative and successful and open-minded teachers. And yes, there are some lousy administrators. And no, not every new teaching technique is valid.
Which to keep it topical, lol, helps encourage change in the right direction for all people. When young people change, communities change, and then counties, areas, states, etc.