My latest editorial...

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Todd...

Because Todd & WH both continue to insist that complex social problems can be traced to a single source.

Todd may insist there is single source, I don't. Educational reforrm in the 60's certainly contributes to many of our current societal problems, but it alone did not cause them. I do believe that without returning discipline to the schools, none of the other problems will get solved.

Before you get aall huffy aagain, red that last statement again: Without returning discipline to the schools,, none of the other problems will get solved. NOT "Returning discipline to the school will solve all of the other problems!"

People are not math equations. A (liberal education reform) + B (the political maturity of the boomers) does not = C (School shootings). Such a simplistic model leaves no room for other factors ...

Further, where's the space for personal responsibility in this model?

If you aren't heldd responsible forr your actions by our parent and other peopl who shape the person you are, where are you going to learn it?

Not to mention that scapegoating education policy reforms that tried to eliminate violence (in the form of adults hitting students) creates a paradox in which only violence against children will keep children from committing violence against others. That's a logic I don't understand.

Elimintion of corporaal punishment is only a part of the changes, and the only one that addresses "violence" in any way. The problem with eliminating corporal punishment, is that it wasn't replaced with some other, non-violent form of discipline, and every other effective means of discipline, such as holding child back a grade for not completing the work, was eliminted as well.

Note, no all of society's problems are psychopathic. The work ethic typified by "close enough for goverment work" and the drug culturre motto of "it isn't illegal if you don't get caught," are both symptoms of a lack of enforced personal responsibility in early childhood.

So, do you think that Merriweather climbed the tower because all the education reform going on while he was in high school taught him that there were no consequences?
...
Even with the advantage of hindsight, it is impossible to say for sure, and that's the whole point.

There have always been, and always will be, crazy people who do violent things for reasons only they know -- They are called sociopaths.

There have always been and will always be, people who don't think the laws apply to them they are called criminals.

It could be argued that everyone is crazy to some degree.

In the past, in well disciplined societies, most people learnedd self-discipline and personal responsiblity from parents, church and educators.

Today, parents are too busy, religious values aren't taught as universally, and schools can't enforce discipline enough to teach.

Could it be that an educational philosophy that stresses the students feelings and either doen't or can't enforce at least a semblance of personl responsibility and discipline might maake crazzy people a bit more easy with displaying, and exploring the limits of, their craziness?

Could it be tht educational reform has not caused anything, but it has simply stopped doing what previously prevented things?

People still have all of the same drives, desires and failings they always had. Something changed around 1960 that has allowed more people to think they were free to act on their feelings and desires. More and more people in the intervening years seem to have become "infected."

I suppose it could be a virus or something that is eroding personal pride and responsibility -- The common factors missing in school shootings, road rage, poor workmanship, et al -- But I don't think it is a virus.

It could have started further back with the increasing power of Unions and Labor Laws that insured less work for more pay, but I don't think that's it either -- It does contribute to the "close enough for government work" attitude that means you have to take your car to the mechanic about six times before it gets fixed right.

You are absolutely correct that there is no one cause for any action, and the world my never know all of the causes for any one of them.

Educational reform does seem to me to have had some infuence on most of the bad things happening in America today.

"Liberals" may have figured heavily in Education Reform, but "Conservatives" helped, and "Conservative" approaches advocating a "return to the golden age" won't work either. Many educational reforms were badly needed, but it seems the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Specifically, discipline and accountability were thrown out along with institutional violence and "one size fits all" curriculims and replaced with an evironment that is outright hostile to religious values (of any faith.)

Todd may feel that educational reform is the cause of everything, where I feel that it is a factor in society's problems.

Where we agree, is that education is something that needs to be fixed, and fixing it will solve some of society's ills.

 

[riff]

As an educator, I can assure you that the "seperation of church and state" has little to do with the moral disposition of students.

The classroom is a place for learning- not proselytism.

 

[Weird Harold]

The classroom is a place for learning- not proselytism.

True, I don't advocate allowing students to spend their lunch-hours handing out _Watchtower_ or _The Upper Room_ to everyone who passes in the hall.

However, I think a school policy that goes to extremes the other way and suspends students for having a rosary in class, or a bible in their backpack, encourages students to be open about being religious either.

Church and State can be kept separate without creating a hostile environment for those who are religious (or areligious.) A student who says grace over their lunch should be allowed to do so without derision or censure by peers, teachers, or administrators.

As an educator, are you permitted to stop others from heckling of a student who folds their hands, bows their head for a moment, and whispers "amen." before taking a test? Or aare you possibly required to speak to the student and advise them on the rules regarding separation of Church and State?

 

[RisiaSkye]

I'm not huffy, dammit! I'm Gumby!

Todd may insist there is single source, I don't. Educational reforrm in the 60's certainly contributes to many of our current societal problems, but it alone did not cause them. I do believe that without returning discipline to the schools, none of the other problems will get solved.

Before you get aall huffy aagain, red that last statement again: Without returning discipline to the schools,, none of the other problems will get solved. NOT "Returning discipline to the school will solve all of the other problems!"

I'm sorry if I've incorrectly aligned you with Todd's more totalizing and simplistic rhetoric.
However, even if you're saying that returning "discipline" won't solve everything, you're still saying that unless the schools change "none of the other problems will get solved." You're still suggesting that a single place (schools) somehow holds the key to even the potential of social change.

If you aren't heldd responsible forr your actions by our parent and other peopl who shape the person you are, where are you going to learn it?

1) Parents and schools are not the same thing. The person in front of the class is a teacher, not a parent, and not a babysitter. It's not the school's job to raise anyone's kids, but to teach them--in accordance with the current knowledge and values of the society. School reforms reflect the culture as much as they shape it.
2) The suggestion that children are universally immune to consequences doesn't wash. I'm in the school system, and it's an issue, but not a totality. This is a gross overstatement of the realities. Yes, it's a litigious society, which discourages schools from correcting those children whose parents can afford to sue (and thus, whose threats of lawsuit are believed). Yes, there's an overdose of feelings of entitlement in some places, among some students. However, it's neither universal, nor universally to blame for social problems, or even for behavioral problems at school.
3) The "other people who shape the person you are" extends a long way...far beyond the school, or even the parents. Do we reform all of them too, to make sure they're promoting the "proper" values?
4) Different versions of "the problem with these kids today is..." circulate frequently, with different agendas. But, they all have an agenda. Not a condemnation, just an observation.

Elimintion of corporaal punishment is only a part of the changes, and the only one that addresses "violence" in any way. The problem with eliminating corporal punishment, is that it wasn't replaced with some other, non-violent form of discipline, and every other effective means of discipline, such as holding child back a grade for not completing the work, was eliminted as well.

I'm sorry, but it's categorically untrue that there are no alternatives. I've personally seen students held back for behavioral problems. I've also issued and/or witnessed suspensions, expulsions, enforced after-school community service work, detentions, parent-teacher and parent-student-teacher conferences, principal's office visits, extra homework assignments, and simple failing grades. The fact that not everyone uses their options to correct students doesn't mean that they have no options.

Note, no all of society's problems are psychopathic. The work ethic typified by "close enough for goverment work" and the drug culturre motto of "it isn't illegal if you don't get caught," are both symptoms of a lack of enforced personal responsibility in early childhood.

Invoking cultural attitudes (albeit stereotypical ones) of adults as evidence to support your claims about the current state of children's schools doesn't make any sense.
Not to mention, are you actually suggesting that bureacracy wasn't inefficient until the '60's educational reforms? (And thus no one made fun of it?) Or that only "the drug culture" breaks the law and expects to go without punishment? Our political and social history doesn't support that kind of generalization. Look at Clinton, OJ, Dubya's and Cheney's drunk driving convictions, the entire Kennedy family, Nixon, etc. etc. And, I notice that not all of them were educated under the "reformed" school system.

There have always been, and always will be, crazy people who do violent things for reasons only they know --
They are called sociopaths.

Actually, sociopaths break social conventions without good cause or regard for consequences, but don't necessarily commit violence. According to psych theory, the members of the Boston Tea Party and Rosa Parks were/are sociopaths. So, I agree that we may all be a little crazy. The definitions of "crazy" have a habit of changing over time, expanding and contracting to encompass people the society doesn't want to tolerate. But, leaving the nitpicking of definitions aside, why is there any compelling reason, then, to assume that previous methods were somehow preventing these already-existing psychos from acting? Isn't that rather like saying "because this happened, it had to happen"?

In the past, in well disciplined societies, most people learnedd self-discipline and personal responsiblity from parents, church and educators.

Today, parents are too busy, religious values aren't taught as universally, and schools can't enforce discipline enough to teach.

What mythic past didn't have violence and/or behavioral problems?
Why let parents off the hook with "they're too busy"? Then why'd they have kids? So the schools could raise them?
Religious values do not automatically create well-behaved, non-violent little conformists. Plenty of people with religous backgrounds commit violence, just like plenty of people without religion manage to control themselves. Instruction in ethical behavior and moral values does not flow solely from religion, nor does religious influence insure that people internalize those qualities.

Could it be that an educational philosophy that stresses the students feelings and either doen't or can't enforce at least a semblance of personl responsibility and discipline might maake crazzy people a bit more easy with displaying, and exploring the limits of, their craziness?

Could it be tht educational reform has not caused anything, but it has simply stopped doing what previously prevented things?

Again, what evidence do we have that the old model of education prevented anything? How can you measure the causes of a non-event? In other words, even if we accept that things used to be better somehow, how can we possibly measure the cause of something not happening (violence, etc.)? Even if, as you're suggesting, children were once docile and well behaved, and that suddenly behavior changed, and did so when you say it did, that still doesn't in any way prove that schools had anything to do with it.

People still have all of the same drives, desires and failings they always had. Something changed around 1960 that has allowed more people to think they were free to act on their feelings and desires...
I suppose it could be a virus or something that is eroding personal pride and responsibility -- The common factors missing in school shootings, road rage, poor workmanship, et al -- But I don't think it is a virus.

Can't "poor workmanship" just as easily be blamed on excessively Taylorized factories, which splits the job up into tiny fragments all executed by minimally skilled workers, whose monotonous and repetitive jobs encourage a lack of attention to their work? Now school reform is responsible for bad workers, and ultimately the generalized decay of western society? Come on...

Besides which, this "erosion of personal pride and responsibility" suggests that at some magical point in the past, these things held exclusive sway over the population and everyone was proud and responsible. What evidence is there of this? We have a long and ignomious history in this country of moral bankruptcy and lack of responsibility. For example, Thomas Jefferson not only held humans as slaves, but had children he refused to acknowledge with one. Even the Jefferson foundation has had to accept the recent genetic evidence to prove the family ties between Sally Hemmings' children and Jefferson's acknowledged family. This is no myth. How "proud" and "responsible" is that behavioral model? And he's one of those great "founding fathers" too, one with a stern education in the "classics" and plenty of exposure to religion.

It could have started further back with the increasing power of Unions and Labor Laws that insured less work for more pay, but I don't think that's it either -- It does contribute to the "close enough for government work" attitude that means you have to take your car to the mechanic about six times before it gets fixed right.

Labor unions hardly exploit corporations, Harold. In fact, the unions are often complicit in exploiting the work force. In order to retain their exclusive bargaining rights with the corporations, they accept deals that don't ultimately benefit their members, they crush strikes in order to maintain productivity and ensure their own position of power within industry, etc. Unless you mean the regulations against child labor and unpaid overtime, I don't know what "labor laws" you're referring to that cut down on the amount of work. Additionally, small shops (like mechanics') are very rarely unionized anyway.
If you're interested, I'll e-mail you some interesting titles on the subject, and your cross references are welcome as well.

"Liberals" may have figured heavily in Education Reform, but "Conservatives" helped, and "Conservative" approaches advocating a "return to the golden age" won't work either. Many educational reforms were badly needed, but it seems the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Specifically, discipline and accountability were thrown out along with institutional violence and "one size fits all" curriculims and replaced with an evironment that is outright hostile to religious values (of any faith.)

I agree that reform has come from both sides of the political divide, and that simple minded attempts to "turn back the clock" are doomed to failure. I, all evidence to contrary, share your frustration with some educational policies. And I know that some school districts take the separation of church and state to ridiculous levels. On the other side, some districts mix the two a frightening amount.

In a little (extremely religious and conservative) town in Arizona, I was actually taught in public school that people (though especially gays) get AIDS as God's punishment for the wicked, and creationism was given equal time to evolution. I'm only 25. This was only about 10 years ago. I can't say either that religion wasn't a part of my public schooling, or that the religion I received at school taught morals I advocate as an adult; instead, I learned a nice old-timey doctrine of bigotry and intolerance. Does that mean all religion is bad? Of course not. But it does make me skeptical of the idea that a religious influence in schools will somehow work as a quick fix for, or even necessarily a reduction in, broader social problems.

 

[riff]

I forget exactly how the law goes, but if a student wishes to pray in class, I allow it so long as it does disturb others. But after 3 years of teaching, I have yet to have a student ask me if they could pray.

There have been occasions, such as when one of our teachers died or when a student from another class died, where I have allowed "a few moments of silence for you to use as you see fit."

When students ask me about my spiritual beliefs, I usually share them quite honestly. But I don't use my position as a teacher to preach my beliefs or convert others to my way of thinking.

The truth, however, is that most students could give a shit. They are more concerned with other things, like what other people think of them, what they will do when school is over, will they get into college, when will they get laid, etc... etc...

 

[riff]

z

 

[Weird Harold]

Many questions deserve many answers

General apologies to all for the length of this reply. I had a lot of questions to answer.

I forget exactly how the law goes, but if a student wishes to pray in class, I allow it so long as it does (not) disturb others. But after 3 years of teaching, I have yet to have a student ask me if they could pray.

I think it's significant that you expect students to ask if they can pray. To me, it's indicative of a mind-set that has to constantly consider whether religious observances are "OK" on a case by case basis -- one small sign of the "hostile environment" for expossing n'ss beliefs in school.

When students ask me about my spiritual beliefs, I usually share them quite honestly. But I don't use my position as a teacher to preach my beliefs or convert others to my way of thinking.

A very proper and sensible approach. But what expression of your spiritual belief are you allowed on the job? Are you liable under strict interpretation of your school's policies for something like making the sign of the cross to seal a prayer for the strength to deal with a difficult student? Would a copy of the "Serenity Prayer" under the blotter on your desk bring censure?

If you, as a teacher, have to think about such trivial things, how difficult is it for students to get the idea that religion isn't welcome at school?

The truth, however, is that most students could give a shit. They are more concerned with other things, like what other people think of them, what they will do when school is over, will they get into college, when will they get laid, etc... etc...

Those things are all certainly things that are important to students, but what concerns might they have that they feel constrained not to express at school? Religion is not usually at the front of anyone's mind all the time. Some people filter everything in their world through their spiritual beliefs and don't care who might know they do. Most sensible people don't air opinions on any subject where they feel assured of a hostile reception.

...You're still suggesting that a single place (schools) somehow holds the key to even the potential of social change.

What other place processes and shapes virtually every citizen? What other experience does everyone have in common? What other place has the express purpose of teaching people what they need to know?

1) Parents and schools are not the same thing. The person in front of the class is a teacher, not a parent, and not a babysitter. It's not the school's job to raise anyone's kids, but to teach them--in accordance with the current knowledge and values of the society. School reforms reflect the culture as much as they shape it.

A teacher is usually the first "boss" a person has to deal with. What that "boss" expects of a "worker" (AKA student) forms the basis on which all future bosses are judged.

Cultural values shapes school reform and schools help shape cultural values. Are you familiar with the concept of positive and negative feedback loops? A positive feedback loop can have serious negative effects. (i.e. speaker squeal in a PA system.)

Parents (usually) teach children what and how as their parents and schooling taught them and want the schools to reinforce their teachings, and stop doing what they (the parents) disliked about school. The schools comply and teach a new generation of parents. The new generation repeats the cycle -- creating a feedback loop.

2) The suggestion that children are universally immune to consequences doesn't wash. I'm in the school system, and it's an issue, but not a totality. ... However, it's neither universal, nor universally to blame for social problems, or even for behavioral problems at school.
...
I'm only 25.

If children were universally immune to consequences in school, I believe that our society would have failed completely sometime after 1975. (Coincidentally, about the time you were born.)

I moved your mention of your age up here, because I think that it is relevant that you, (and I presume riff also,) are a product of a "reformed" educational system. You have seen changes in the educational system, which you consider "reform" but not the whole range of reforms that began in the 60's. (Todd is also of your generation but was apparently successfully indoctrinated by someone of mine.) I do not intend to imply that your age and experience make your views less valid. I address the age issue to make the point that you learned "reformed education" as the starting point of all your opinions about education.

3) The "other people who shape the person you are" extends a long way...far beyond the school, or even the parents. Do we reform all of them too, to make sure they're promoting the "proper" values?

YES! All of them had to go to school. Let the schools train their replacements differently than they learned!

I can't realistically expect that every person who shapes a child's life and attitudes be sent back to school for re-indoctrination, but I've met a few people I wouldn't mind sending to a forced re-education camp. <G>

I'm sorry, but it's categorically untrue that there are no alternatives. I've personally seen students held back for behavioral problems. I've also issued and/or witnessed suspensions, expulsions, enforced after-school community service work, detentions, parent-teacher and parent-student-teacher conferences, principal's office visits, extra homework assignments, and simple failing grades. The fact that not everyone uses their options to correct students doesn't mean that they have no options.

One, I said "no effective options"; not, "no options".

Two, holding a child back for "behavioral problems" is the wrong reason for holding a child back! The only valid reason for holding a child back is that the information taught in that grade was not learned. The reason for not learning the information is irrelevant, just the fact they don't know what they should for the next grade to build on should be a factor. Other corrective action should be taken on a case-by-case basis to remove the reasons for not learning (if it's possible.)

Three, I've never understood the philosophy that keeping a child away from a place he hates is a "punishment." My incomprehension dates back to High school and a friend who was exultant that he was suspended and didn't "have to come back to this dump for a whole week."

As you pointed out earlier, the problems are not universal. I would add they are not identical either. Your school system allows disciplinary actions that the local school system doesn't. (Punitive home-work assignments for example.)

I have attended parent teacher and parent student teacher conferences -- for my daughter, they were an effective form of discipline. For my daughter's friends, they were often only an imposition on the parent's time.

I have talked to other parents, both my peers and my daughter's peers. I have often heard, "the schools should do something about discipline." I've talked to teachers who lament that "the parents don't have any control over their children." Both have valid points. It takes teamwork between parents and schools to instill self-discipline in students. How much "teamwork" do you and riff see on a daily bssis?

Invoking cultural attitudes (albeit stereotypical ones) of adults as evidence to support your claims about the current state of children's schools doesn't make any sense.

You are missing the point that those adult's attitudes are the result of "reforms" that are now the standard which needs to be reformed.

You are missing the point that the current state of children's education is the result of small, incremental changes over the course of 40+ years.

If I could somehow, magically change the standards back to those of 1950 and restart the reform process on a different pattern, it would be 2050 before we could say whether the changes improved or harmed society, maybe not even then.

The changes in education have been slow and long term, because you can't evaluate long-term effects until a "long term" has passed.

Major changes in educational philosphy began before 1960, but it wasn't until then that they started becoming a wide-spread policy in school districts. I believe that something was removed from "old style" education that was not replaced with something equally effective. I think that something was "student accountability" and waas called "Peer Promotion."

Not to mention, are you actually suggesting that bureacracy wasn't inefficient until the '60's educational reforms? (And thus no one made fun of it?)

Oh Heavens, no! Today's bureaucracies are MUCH more efficient now. I do believe that is more because of better technology than it is because of better education though.

Or that only "the drug culture" breaks the law and expects to go without punishment? Our political and social history doesn't support that kind of generalization.

I used the "drug society's motto" aas n expression of a generalized lck of respect for the law, NOT to limit the attitude to a particular group. Our politicl and social history certainly do support the idea that ddisregard of A law by a large percentage of the population produces a general disrespect for ALL laws. Ever read about Prohibition?

But, leaving the nitpicking of definitions aside, why is there any compelling reason, then, to assume that previous methods were somehow preventing these already-existing psychos from acting? Isn't that rather like saying "because this happened, it had to happen"?

More a case of "if this happened, this was allowed to happen" actually.

When previous methods change, and other changes begin shortly thereafter; one can logically be excused for seeing some connection.

A totally unrelated example: What reason would you ascribe to an increase in accidents on a city street following the removal of all traffic signs the previous month?

Would you assume an influx of bad drivers into the neighborhood?

Maybe accidents increased because everyone has older cars that aren't getting the maintenance they should?

Perhaps it's that girl's school on the corner that is distracting drivers?

The answer is, of course, none of the above, but removing the traffic signs allowed the other failings to be exposed more readily.

Religious values do not automatically create well-behaved, non-violent little conformists. ...plenty of people without religion manage to control themselves. Instruction in ethical behavior and moral values does not flow solely from religion, nor does religious influence insure that people internalize those qualities.

All true statements, if a bit one-sided in focus.

On average, (truly) religious people are less violent, better behaved, and conformist than those who do not possess deep religious convictions.

On average, people forced to spend 30+ hours in an environment that is institutionally hostile to their beliefs will tend to either abandon those beliefs, or rebel in some manner. (I'm not talking just religious beliefs here. Racism, ethnic customs, sexuality, and a host of other "beliefs" are included. It's to be hoped that racists will learn better, but religion and the others should not be suppressed.)

Again, what evidence do we have that the old model of education prevented anything? How can you measure the causes of a non-event? ...that still doesn't in any way prove that schools had anything to do with it.

see my example of traaffic signs above. Sometimes it is very eassy to see how something caan happen when controlling elements are removed or modified. I don't think there is any way to definitively prove educaation reform caused aanything. There are indeed other factors that may have contributed to the changes that followed educaational reform. One that I can think of is Dr. Benjaamin Spock's book on raaising childdren. (that just happens to fit in the timeline where it cn be "blamed" for the changes in eduction also. )

Can't "poor workmanship" just as easily be blamed on excessively Taylorized factories, which splits the job up into tiny fragments all executed by minimally skilled workers, ...Now school reform is responsible for bad workers, and ultimately the generalized decay of western society? Come on...

Well, actually -- Yes, I do blame "bad" workers on school reform. I'm not familiar with the term "Taylorized factories," but I do know that in the mid-to late 70's factories were reformed because of the lack of "good" workers entering the job market. If that is the factory reform you mean by "Taylorized"; then it is a symptom rather than a cause.

Besides which, this "erosion of personal pride and responsibility" suggests that at some magical point in the past, these things held exclusive sway over the population and everyone was proud and responsible. What evidence is there of this?

"Held Exclusive Sway" is a blatant distortion and (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of my words and position. The fact that there has been erosion in those things is something that I have personally observed over the period in question.

There is more concrete evidence in diaries and letters from eaarlier times, (notably the Civil war, WWI aand II, the Korean Conflict, and Vietnam eras.) History books, and historical novels clearly show that "an honest day work for an honest days pay" and otheer similaar expressions aabout the work ethics of the vaarious periodds do not match the attitudes of most Americans today.

We have a long and ignomious history in this country of moral bankruptcy and lack of responsibility. For example, Thomas Jefferson not only held humans as slaves, but had children he refused to acknowledge with one. ...

There are two logical flaws in bringing 18th century examples into this discussion.

One, Thomas Jefferson was a generally moral person by the standards of his time. He was NOT as perfect as the history books would have us believe, but he was esentially a moral and honest man.

Two, it is NOT the existence of "moral bankruptcy" and "ignominy" that is at issue, but the prevalence of those things. History can show you almost any degree of either or both moral bankruptcy and ignominy you want to illustrate. I mentioned Prohibition above; that time period can provide you with far more moral bankruptcy and ignominy than revolutionary days. It can even provide you with proof that we don't have as much violence now as we did then.

Labor unions ...

are a topic for another thread if you want to debate the history and effects of unionization.

I, all evidence to contrary, share your frustration with some educational policies. And I know that some school districts take the separation of church and state to ridiculous levels. On the other side, some districts mix the two a frightening amount.

My dissatisfaction with educational policies is for the AAVRAGE output of American schools. I reserve "frustration" for the local school district.

Since I'm not currently intimately involved in education, my focus in this discussion is on the aggregate educational system in the US. I will readily concede that some schools are excellent, and other specific school ought to be burned to the ground, and the students scattered to schools that are at least survivable. I will also admit that if students want to learn, no school system in the world can stop them.

My concern in this dicussion isn't even what schools teach -- my opinions on that issue can be found elsewhere on the BB.

My concern and focus for this discussion is the social environment of the (mythical) average school. All of the examples of the extremely good schools, the extremely bad schools, the extremely well disciplined schools, the extremely life-threatening schools aren't germane to this discussion. What is germane to this discussion is whether the educational system fosters asocial attitudes in students and whether that affects society as a whole.

My belief is that the public schools are the singular experience that the vast majority of US citizens have in common. That experience has shaped, and continues to shape, the society we live in. Past "errors" affect society today, and changes in this one common experience will produce the society our descendants have to deal with.

In a little (extremely religious and conservative) town in Arizona, ...

I grew up in a small town (Pop. 3000-3500) that had 37 different churches. I was in same school system from 1955 through 1968. (Yes, that's thirteen years, it's not a typo.) There was prayer permitted and corporal punishment for those who needed it. I said the Pledge Of Allegiance every school day for thirteen years. I was held accountable for my actions and for learning the material presented.

My School District was NOT the best school possible. Other schools in the county were better, and some were worse. Schools elsewhere in the US were much worse, and much better. Almost every school of that era had some things in common that many schools today don't have -- Prayer, Discipline, and Student Accountability.

But it does make me skeptical of the idea that a religious influence in schools will somehow work as a quick fix for, or even necessarily a reduction in, broader social problems.

Just above, I said that "prayer" was one of three things schools of my era had in common. I should clarify that a bit, because I don't mean to imply that "Prayer" meant "Religious Influence" in the sense that your school was religiously influenced. Nor did I mean to imply that "prayer" should mean religious influence in today's world.

What schools, up until the Supreme Court rulings banning prayer outright at any school function, had was a prayer before sporting events, "formal" assemblies (like Awards presentations, School Plays, etc) and at Graduation. They had teachers with religious items among the personal effects on their desks, and an occasional inspirational quote from a religious text on a classroom wall. (I can remember a Buddhist saying, a Bible quote or two, and a passage from the Koran in my High School.)

In short, what the schools I have direct experience with, had then was religious tolerance instead of religious suppression. It was tacitly understood that the students had, (or might have,) spiritual beliefs. There was no pressure to change beliefs or participate, only a requirement to respect those beliefs that were observed by others.

At my graduation, for example, there was an invocation by the Methodist Minister, a blessing/inspirational speech on/to the class by a Jewish Rabbi, a Baptist Hymn sung by the school choir, and a benediction by a Catholic Priest.

From discussions with my contemporaries, and other graduations I attended, I gather that was a pretty typical Graduation Ceremony for that time.

Through discussions with (ever-younger) subordinates over the years, I learned of the decline of such "religious impositions on non-believers." I also saw the growing change in attitudes about the "propriety" of the inclusion of clergy in school functions.

Either through a frustrated "what do they teach you kids in school these days?" or a bull session that turned to education, I have probably discussed education with every subordinate I ever had from 1969 through 1989, and with many of their contemporaries who didn't actually work for me. I worked in a career field that skimmed from the top ten percent of Air Force Enlistees, so I talked to (supposedly) the some of the best the public schools had to offer.

The people I talked to over the years had two things in common -- The US educational system and USAF Basic Training. It was I suppose arrogant of me to blame the US school system for the decline in knowledge and work ethics I observed over the years, but Basic Training is supposed to reinforce a work ethic (among other things).

With Airmen coming from all economic, social and ethnic backgrounds over a 20 year period, I suppose I might have missed some other common factor. However, since I heard similar complaints and explanations from other NCOs and Officers, I somehow doubt that I missed something.

What other common factor do you think I might have missed that can be associated with the observed changes in social behavior that match so closely in time with changes in education?

 

[RisiaSkye]

My apologies...long post ahead.

If you, as a teacher, have to think about such trivial things, how difficult is it for students to get the idea that religion isn't welcome at school?

I understand that inclusion of religious rhetoric and paraphenalia in the classroom seems like a minor point to you, but that's because it wouldn't offend you. My students whose religious beliefs conflict with mine (most of them) or who have none are much more likely to be offended. That doesn't mean I (or the more general system of schools we're talking about) oppress religious students by not including religious material, however. If I were telling my students not to wear their crosses or stars of David, that might be different. Attempting not to alienate any of my students by trying not to bring my personal spirituality into their school day doesn't prevent them from holding or expressing their own beliefs. This approach doesn't actively foster religious conviction (through indoctrination), but I'm not a Sunday school teacher, and that isn't my job anyway.

...but what concerns might they have that they feel constrained not to express at school? Religion is not usually at the front of anyone's mind all the time. Some people filter everything in their world through their spiritual beliefs and don't care who might know they do. Most sensible people don't air opinions on any subject where they feel assured of a hostile reception.

The removal of religious doctrine from schools was largely enacted to prevent the unfair censure of the non-religious, and those whose religions are typically excluded and/or vilified. Whose religion is good enough? Should a Satanist be able to express their religious views to the class? A Wiccan? As an increasingly culturally mixed society, we'll never all agree on a single set of "appropriate" religious beliefs, which further supports the notion that religion is best taught at home and in church.

Sometimes the pendulum swings too far to the other side, alienating students by actively suppressing religious expression, and that issue needs addressing on a case by case basis. That doesn't mean, however, that we should give the metaphorical pendulum a huge shove back in the other direction by suggesting that this reform be completely reversed, shifting schools back to the religous model. Rather, it means addressing the problems where and when they occur, and giving the pendulum time to settle to the middle.

What other place processes and shapes virtually every citizen? What other experience does everyone have in common? What other place has the express purpose of teaching people what they need to know?

The home and the family.

A teacher is usually the first "boss" a person has to deal with.

That's a tragedy, if it's true. I would hope that parents begin using discipline, acting as a "boss" to their children, well before the time they enter school.

Cultural values shapes school reform and schools help shape cultural values. Are you familiar with the concept of positive and negative feedback loops? A positive feedback loop can have serious negative effects...

I understand what you're saying, but electronics metaphors, like math relationships, are ill fitted to explaining human interaction. Human "feedback loops" are a lot more complex than just teacher-student-parent-teacher, etc. Add in federal, state, and local government; textbook publishers, school book readers and selection committees; extended, step- and foster-families; PTAs and other community programs, and there's actually an enormous loop with very complex interactions, complicating the whole picture much further.

...I address the age issue to make the point that you learned "reformed education" as the starting point of all your opinions about education.

I hope this isn't another version of "get back to me when you're older," because I respect you too much to expect such a reductive rebuff. Assuming that it isn't, however, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. Invoking my youth is no more helpful than me saying "because you are neither in school nor part of the school system, you don't know how it really works." I consider us both capable of seeking information, even about those things outside of our immediate experience. Don't underestimate me by assuming that everything I know about schools I've been fed by them. I don't just naively assume that the model I witness is the only, or best, system that exists.

Similarly, as I've written about before, my education was more complicated than you suggest. I received home schooling some of the time, attended public school in San Francisco, was bussed out of the inner city into a suburban school district, attended a religious academy, and went to public school in a tiny town with only 2 churches. I attended a total of 12 grammar schools, 2 junior highs, and 2 high schools, in 4 different states. I also attended 3 universities, and currently teach in a fourth. My sample of contemporary schools and their policies is wider than my age might lead you to believe.

...Other corrective action should be taken on a case-by-case basis to remove the reasons for not learning (if it's possible.)

Why is the case-by-case approach not also appropriate for addressing possible abuses of the removal of religion from the classroom?

You are missing the point that those adult's attitudes are the result of "reforms" that are now the standard which needs to be reformed.

No, you missed my point that these attitudes predate the educational reforms you're blaming them on.

If I could somehow, magically change the standards back to those of 1950 and restart the reform process on a different pattern, it would be 2050 before we could say whether the changes improved or harmed society, maybe not even then...
Major changes in educational philosphy began before 1960, but it wasn't until then that they started becoming a wide-spread policy in school districts...

Why, then, do you date this "erosion" to the time frame you've suggested? If it takes a hundred years or more to determine any real effects on society, how can you already be so sure that the 1960's had such a deleterious effect on education? If it's such a slow and gradual process, why do you allege that schools (and society) are so different from when you went to school? (I assume you aren't more than 100 years old )

I used the "drug society's motto" aas n expression of a generalized lck of respect for the law, NOT to limit the attitude to a particular group. Our politicl and social history certainly do support the idea that ddisregard of A law by a large percentage of the population produces a general disrespect for ALL laws....

My point was that this attitude predates the changes you blame it on. As you exhibited by adding a historical example, flagrant disrespect for authority goes far back, well before the '60's. Sometimes it leads to violence and other problems, sometimes it produces innovation.

In fact, it's largely responsible for the foundation of this country, isn't it? I imagine George III (if he were a little saner than he was) scratching his head and saying to himself, "These kids today...they have no respect for authority. Why, when I was a kid, we followed the Crown's rules." Does that mean I don't believe in rules and order? No. However, I think that as a culture we tend to hypocritically value an independent and rebellious spirit, as long as it doesn't inconvenience us.

On average, (truly) religious people are less violent, better behaved, and conformist than those who do not possess deep religious convictions...

I have several problems here. Who counts as "truly" religious? Do you get to decide who qualifies? Do I? Further, because religious sentiment is held so near and dear to people's hearts, can't it actually incite people to action as much as encourage them to conform? Why else did European settlers fleeing religious persecution risk life and livelihood to come here; why have people fought for thousands of years over possession of a single piece of land they deem religiously significant, but for different reasons? Etc. Finally, religious practices and the behaviors the religions suggest vary significantly. For instance, some religions encourage people to prosyletize everyone, and encourage followers to either accuse those who resist indoctrination of persecution or dismiss non-believers as valueless and damned.(I won't name names, but they seem to end up on my doorstep on occasion ).

Well, actually -- Yes, I do blame "bad" workers on school reform. I'm not familiar with the term "Taylorized factories," but I do know that in the mid-to late 70's factories were reformed because of the lack of "good" workers entering the job market...

I agree with you that the discussion of labor, law, unions, and factories should be taken up elsewhere. It'll only get more complex from here, as we clearly have vastly different views on the subject. Email?

...The fact that there has been erosion in those things is something that I have personally observed over the period in question...History books, and historical novels clearly show that "an honest day work for an honest days pay" and otheer similaar expressions...

History (and especially the novelization of history) written in the contemporary moment is often as much about nostalgia as reflection of "the way things were." Are you suggesting that all throughout time, people have wanted to work, have been excited about acquisition, in essence that the "Protestant Work Ethic" is some kind of constant in other historical moments, suddenly disrupted by education reform in the '60's? And personal, subjective experience is subject to similar nostalgia, which I'll come back to later.

It was I suppose arrogant of me to blame the US school system for the decline in knowledge and work ethics I observed over the years, but Basic Training is supposed to reinforce a work ethic (among other things).

Ah, but age and experience breed an (understandable) arrogance, don't they? It's not terribly surprising that less work-experienced subordinates with different beliefs and social settings than your own might surprise, exasperate, and/or trouble you. My own students' experiences already seem very different from my own. And that alienation from their lives tends to breed nostalgia for the "golden age" of youth, even if the actual experience of that time wasn't so hot.

What other common factor do you think I might have missed that can be associated with the observed changes in social behavior that match so closely in time with changes in education?

1. The prevalence of single-parent families as divorce rates spiked, then retained their new, high levels (starting in the late 60s to early 70s)
2. Continually decreasing parent involvement in children's lives, particularly as two-working-parent households (in cases where there are two parents) in even families with very young children became more necessity than choice.
3. Disillusion with government (the mother of all authority figures in many ways, and a place of role models for many earlier children) as the society witness the murder of one president, and the exposure of another as a crook, in just a decade.

And, perhaps most importantly:
4) The omnipresence of television, which reached the market much earlier, but reached cultural saturation (in most every home) somewhere between 1955 and 1960, depending whose timeline you trust. The reason I say this is important is that, in my experience, my students' world views are shaped by television more than any other single factor, including both school and their parents. Interestingly, students even watch corporate sponsored TV in schools as a part of their daily routine, in the form of the Channel One network. Talk about a pervasive medium!


On a semi-related note: I've really enjoyed this discussion, Harold. While ultimately I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, it's been a thought provoking exchange. So, thank you for being willing to enter into a debate without letting it turn into a flame war. Maturity has advantages.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: My apologies...long post ahead.

On a semi-related note: I've really enjoyed this discussion, Harold. While ultimately I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, it's been a thought provoking exchange.

It's not over just yet, but I don't have time to formulate a decent response right now. I'll post something more tomorrow.

 

[morninggirl5]

Two points haven't really been brought out in this discussion about the changes in education. First, Special Education provisions were brought about in the 1970's as parents sued schools using the Civil Rights Laws to force all schools to provide a "free and appropriate" education for every student. Previously, principals told parents, "I'm sorry, but we aren't equipped to teach your child." If a child had a disability or had failed two or more grades, he/she was simply removed from the school. Since the 1970's schools haven't had that option, and schools already facing a lack of resources have seen those resources drained providing extremely expensive services for special needs students. And it is the local schools paying these bills. When the Special Education provisions were first passed in Congress (Public Law 95-142 in 1972) the federal government was supposed to provide 40% of the funds needed to provide Special Education services. That amount has never been met. The result has been increased class sizes for regular education teachers, smaller materials budgets and older textbooks.

Second, social promotion was instituted because retention was proven not to be effective. Students retained in 2nd grade do perform up to expectations during their second year in 2nd grade, but when they move up to 3rd grade the following year, they generally fall behind once again. Social promotion has been shown to be a failure as well. This continued debate (and it's one of the never-ending debates in education) just highlights one of the boggest obstacles facing education today. Simply put, educators tend to resist any suggested changes either because "we've always done it this way" or "no one has proven that that works." For far too many of us the debate overshadows the real reason for education -- the children. Rather than taking the child who's not meeting expectations, studying him and determining why he's not learning, we bring out the same old cliches -- There's noone at home giving him enough attention, he watches too much TV, he spends too much time playing video games, and my personal favorite, he's just not working hard enough.

Changes in our education system are a reflection of many of the fundamental changes in our society as a whole. Each election (no matter what the level) brings promises to reform education. The debates about which reforms will work are endless. Unfortunately the politicians and business leaders are the ones leading these debates and reforms (I won't even start on the latest brilliant plan, Teach for Georgia), with no real knowledge of what exactly happens in a classroom each day and they are basing all their measures of success on standardized test scores that cannot measure the success of any effort designed to improve the discipline, thinking skills, and character of students.

 

[Weird Harold]

long delayed, long reply

Now that my edit job is done, and the BB format is shaking down, back to a serious discussion.

I understand that inclusion of religious rhetoric and paraphernalia in the classroom seems like a minor point to you, but that's because it wouldn't offend you. My students whose religious beliefs conflict with mine (most of them) or who have none are much more likely to be offended.

In a way, this makes my point for me. You are absolutely correct that it would not, and did not, offend me to have representations from Christianity and other religions present in my school. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my school was offended.

That is because tolerance of personal beliefs was the official policy of the Oregon State school system at the time. A policy that lasted until Supreme Court decisions forced a change to a policy officially banishing all religious expression on school grounds during the school day.

In other words, the tolerance taught by my Church and Parents was reinforced by official school policy.

The standards that you work under reinforce teachings of intolerance -- you have to insure that not one single person in your classes is confronted by anyone's spiritual beliefs.

Hypothetical scenario:

Johnny decided Suzy's story about how wonderful yesterday's church service is offensive, and complains that Suzy is "preaching."

1960: Johnny and Suzy are sent to the principle's office and Questioned. Johnny gets a lecture on tolerance.

2000: Suzy is suspended, pending investigation.

Question: In which era would you rather be a student with a strong personal faith?

That doesn't mean I (or the more general system of schools we're talking about) oppress religious students by not including religious material, however. If I were telling my students not to wear their crosses or stars of David, that might be different.

I DO NOT advocate inclusion of religious material in schools as an official policy. I propose that schools stop the policy of EXCLUSION! There is a difference between tolerating religious expression and including religious material.

Let us consider one specific item that is currently involved in several Separation of Church and State lawsuits: The Ten Commandments.

Exactly which religion is supposedly being foisted on unwilling people by a display of the Ten Commandments on public property? Christianity? Well maybe, but the en commandments are found in the Torah s well, and I believe they are part of the Koran as well.

If the purported author of the Ten Commandments were anyone other than God, would the sentiments expressed rouse any outrage worthy of notice?

Attempting not to alienate any of my students by trying not to bring my personal spirituality into their school day doesn't prevent them from holding or expressing their own beliefs. This approach doesn't actively foster religious conviction (through indoctrination), but I'm not a Sunday school teacher, and that isn't my job anyway.

I wouldn't think of asking you to actively foster religious conviction, or act like a Sunday School Teacher.

I would however, ask "your boss" not to fire you because you weren't afraid to risk offending a student by using an inspirational "though for the day" calendar that happened to have religious quotations as some of the inspirational thoughts, or saying grace before you eat. I would also ask "your boss" to extend the same courtesy and tolerance to all of his students and staff. I would ask "your boss" to expect the same courtesy and tolerance from them. ("Your Boss" being anyone one in authority at a school.

I don't know how students feel about overt expressions of personal beliefs. I do know how I feel when I have occasion to go on school grounds -- I feel like I have to watch every word I say, lest someone get offended at what I believe. I'm not even a particularly sensitive or religious individual, although my speech carries traces of my Methodist upbringing in it. Even so, I feel that even those few traces of religion in my daily speech are enough to make school grounds hostile environment for freedom of expression.

The removal of religious doctrine from schools was largely enacted to prevent the unfair censure of the non-religious, and those whose religions are typically excluded and/or vilified. Whose religion is good enough?

There was no religious doctrine in the schools to remove! At least, not in the Oregon school system, circa 1955 through 1968. There may have been in other regions such as the "Bible Belt" or some southern states.

What there was, was exactly as much tolerance of religious differences as existed outside of school grounds -- No more, No less. Can you honestly claim the same is true today?

What other place processes and shapes virtually every citizen?

The home and the family.

[/b]

This would lead one to expect the same wide variance in work ethic and attitudes as is found in homes and families. That is NOT what my experience found. Yes, there were a wide variety of differences in individuals traceable to their family lives. However, those differences remained relatively constant over 20 years of supervisory duties.

A teacher is usually the first "boss" a person has to deal with.

That's a tragedy, if it's true. I would hope that parents begin using discipline, acting as a "boss" to their children, well before the time they enter school.

I really think you're being intentionally dense on this point. I simply cannot believe that you don't see the difference between the relationship a person has with a work supervisor and the relationship with a bossy parent.

...electronics metaphors, like math relationships, are ill fitted to explaining human interaction. Human "feedback loops" are a lot more complex than just teacher-student-parent-teacher, etc.

Electronics feedback loops and recursive program code are both much more complex than you give them credit for. Yes, "Human Feedback Loops" are more complex, but the principles of controlling feedback or recursion work the same, no matter how complex the loop is.

An immediate example of "human feedback loops" that we both have direct experience with is "Troll" behavior on this BB. If you create a hostile environment for trolls by ignoring them, they go away -- you have interrupted a feedback loop. If you feed them, (by giving them the attention they crave,) they grow -- the feedback loop continues to amplify trollish behavior.

Assuming that it isn't, however, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. ... Don't underestimate me by assuming that everything I know about schools I've been fed by them. I don't just naively assume that the model I witness is the only, or best, system that exists.

The relevance, is that you have no direct experience with any other model of handling religion or discipline in schools. Just as I have no direct experience with attending the kind of schools you attended.

What I do have, is direct experience dealing with Graduates of each stage of school reform from 1969 through 1989 -- personal, "hands-on," experience in training a significant statistical sample of the changing national educational system's output.

Similarly, as I've written about before, my education was more complicated than you suggest.

I do not doubt the thoroughness of your education, but you seem to be discounting the value of personal experience Vs intellectual knowledge.

The relevance of your age and education is only as an indication of the difference in the way we gained our knowledge on this issue. We are like a Hydrologist and a flood victim arguing over what happened during a flood.

Why is the case-by-case approach not also appropriate for addressing possible abuses of the removal of religion from the classroom?

Because it is NOT abuses of "removal of religion" that create the hostile environment! It is "Removal of Religion" that creates the hostile environment. A case by case approach to abuses of an essentially intolerant policy will solve nothing. I would much rather that a case by case approach to intolerance and offensive behavior was required.

No, you missed my point that these attitudes predate the educational reforms you're blaming them on.

They did NOT exist on the same scale as they do today. The attitudes had to exist on some scale to gain a foothold in the educational reforms to start with.

An illustration of the difference, (unfortunately based on our respective ages):

When I meet a person of my generation or older, I automatically expect that they subscribe to the theory, "If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well," and "A fair Day's Work for a Fair Day's Pay." I automatically assume that they can make change without reading it from the cash register and balance their checkbook. If I am supervising them, I don't feel a need to check every step of their work, nor do I expect them to "baby-sit" me if I'm working for them.

When I meet someone of your generation or younger, I always count my change, even if they read the amount off the register. I reverse every assumption I make about the elderly, because experience has shown me that I must assume the worst about your generation's education and work ethic.

Like all generalizations, the assumptions I make about people based on their age are sometimes proven wrong. I am always pleasantly surprised when that happens with one of your generation and younger and sadly disappointed in those of my generation.

...magically change the standards back to those of 1950 ...it would be 2050 ...

If it takes a hundred years or more to determine any real effects...

[/b]

I apparently wasn't clear enough. If the changes were reset to 1950 standards TODAY, it would take another 50 years to see the same scale of effects generated by new and different reforms from the same starting point. (In order to be a valid comparison, society would have to magically reset to 1950 norms as well.)

Whether the scale is 50 years or 100 years, the point that the full effects of a change can't be known immediately. It requires at least two full generations for any change from any source to permeate a society. The "Old Guard" (usually) has to die off before changes in philosophy can be codified.

...a generalized lack of respect for the law, ...

My point was that this attitude predates the changes you blame it on. As you exhibited by adding a historical example, flagrant disrespect for authority goes far back, well before the '60's.

If I remember correctly, at one point earlier in this discussion, someone mentioned cycle. You mentioned pendulums earlier in your post. We are a low point with regards to respect for the law that is as low, if not lower than, where it was in the 1920s or 1870s, the two previous low points in US history (if memory serves.)

Education reform is, by no means, the sole cause of widespread disrespect for the law and the rights of others. I do wonder how well Prohibition and its effects were taught to those who are managing the "War on Drugs"?

I have several problems here. Who counts as "truly" religious? ... because religious sentiment is held so near and dear ... can't it actually incite people to action ... Finally, religious practices and the behaviors the religions suggest vary significantly. ...

A "Truly Religious Person" is easily defined so that almost anyone can recognize one. Truly religious person is one who follows the teachings of their religion as an integral part of their daily lives. They are NOT sheep who necessarily follow the dictates of their church, but do follow the dictates of their religion. Since most major religions teach philosophies which are "peaceful" and conform to the general consensus of what morality and courtesy are, those who follow those philosophies are generally "conformists" in the sense they conform to what the majority considers proper.

Religion can certainly be used to incite those who blindly follow church leaders rather than the teachings of their faith.

This digression into the definition of "truly" religious is just that, digression. The reason I used parentheses in he first place, is because the reality of a person's faith is irrelevant as long as they give public lip-service" to their faith's teachings. With very few exceptions, every religion has some equivalent to the spirit of the Ten Commandments. If "believers" follow those tenets in public, they will be, on average, "good citizens."

I agree with you that the discussion of labor, law, unions, and factories should be taken up elsewhere. It'll only get more complex from here, as we clearly have vastly different views on the subject. Email?

Nah, it's better if it's a thread everyone can join in on. Both of us are going to need moral support on that one.

History (and especially the novelization of history) written in the contemporary moment is often as much about nostalgia as reflection of "the way things were." Are you suggesting that ... in essence that the "Protestant Work Ethic" is some kind of constant in other historical moments, suddenly disrupted by education reform in the '60's?

I was referring more to diaries and novelizations from in or near the times they depict -- More _the Red Badge of Courage_ than _North and South_. Charles Dickens wrote about Victorian England, IN Victorian England and what he didn't put in his books is as informative as what he did. The casual assumptions an author o fiction makes about his characters and contemporary settings are always based on what he expects readers of his own time to instinctively understand because they too are living with those same casual assumptions every day. The "Racism" which gets _Tom Sawyer_ banned from school libraries today was the normal speech and attitudes of Mark Twain's time.

The "Protestant Work Ethic" is your term, not mine. Whatever...

I do NOT suggest that any attitude, work ethic, respect for the law, Common Courtesy, etc, is a constant throughout History. I merely observe that the current downturn in several attitudes commonly cited as examples of "the decline of society" follow the "reform of education" with about a 12-year lag.

...the decline in knowledge and work ethics I observed over the years...

It's not terribly surprising that less work-experienced subordinates with different beliefs and social settings than your own might surprise, exasperate, and/or trouble you. My own students' experiences already seem very different from my own.

Aha, but the decline I observed over the years, was not my subjective assessment. The decline was quantified in the initial evaluation scores on entry into the Air Force, and of some concern to those tasked with assigning new recruits to appropriate career fields. The decline in work ethic was quantified in the average time taken to certify a trainee as "Able to perform task without supervision."

The objective facts are that over the entire spectrum of beliefs and backgrounds, the quantitative assessment of the declining educational levels and work ethic occurred equally.

I no longer have access to the hundreds of training records that document the decline and Privacy Act considerations would keep me from revealing specific scores anyway. The USAFs concerns about declining test scores are matter of public record in several different places. (The Congressional Record. Unclassified USAF, USN, and US Army reports and studies. AP, Reuters, and other news service archives, etc.)

1. The prevalence of single-parent families as divorce rates ...

Not common to all recruits. The decline covered single parent, two parent, fur parent, and every other family arrangement.

2. Continually decreasing parent involvement in children's lives,

Again, not in common to all recruits. Strong family ties were no predictor of educational or ethical achievement in recruits

3. Disillusion with government ... as the society witnessed the murder of one president, and the exposure of another as a crook, in just a decade.

Probably not a factor in people who volunteered for military service. Those disillusioned with government, generally don't voluntarily serve it. This is probably a factor that I was not exposed to the effects of.

And, perhaps most importantly:
4) The omnipresence of television, ...The reason I say this is important is that, in my experience, my students' worldviews are shaped by television more than any other single factor, including both school and their parents.

TV is certainly a common factor for generations younger than I am.

I would argue that while TVs are in most homes, the same level of programming is not. The availability of even basic broadcast channels is not total even today. I worked with many, although by no means a majority, of young Airmen who had never had the opportunity to see _Sesame Street_ until they went through technical training in Denver, CO at age eighteen or nineteen.

When you factor in the wide variations of program availability and parental control, (or lack thereof,) there doesn't seem to be a correlation between TV and the changes I observed. That could easily be different for civilians.

Two points haven't really been brought out in this discussion about the changes in education.

Welcome to the mud-pit -- err, debate.

First, Special Education provisions were brought about in the 1970's ...and schools already facing a lack of resources have seen those resources drained ...The result has been increased class sizes for regular education teachers, smaller materials budgets and older textbooks.

As the ex-husband of one special-Ed graduate, and the father of another, I feel compelled to add that many special-Ed programs are little more than baby-sitting services.

Even so, I am in favor of special education programs that work. Educators have learned a great deal in the last forty years about conditions that inhibit learning ability and have developed techniques and procedures o correct or cope with them. Medicine has learned much about learning disabilities also.

On the whole, Special Education is "good thing" that deserves the funding promised.

Second, social promotion was instituted because retention was proven not to be effective. ... Social promotion has been shown to be a failure as well.

I have always maintained that the only reason I made it to the sixth grade before I was held back, is that Mrs. P was the first teacher who would not have had me in class for two years. (That is only about 25% facetious.)

The point is, that for me, being held back worked, but I wasn't held back because I didn't know the material, I was held back for not demonstrating I knew the material.

I was not, strictly speaking, being "peer promoted" but the effect was the same. I was allowed five free years to learn poor study habits which have affected me ever since. Luckily, I seldom needed good study habits.

This continued debate ... just highlights one of the biggest obstacles facing education today. Simply put, educators tend to resist any suggested changes either because "we've always done it this way" or "no one has proven that that works."

Educators sound a lot like old "lifers" that think, "The Korean Conflict went pretty well, why change now?"

For far too many of us the debate overshadows the real reason for education -- the children. Rather than taking the child who's not meeting expectations, studying him and determining why he's not learning, we bring out the same old cliches

The point you made about funding earlier explains part of this failing. My daughter was classified as "learning disabled" and shuffled of to Special-Ed. It was only in her junior year that her problem was identified any closer than that -- she has something similar to Dyslexia. Funding was always given ass a reason why no better diagnosis could be done.

Each election ... brings promises to reform education. ... Unfortunately the politicians and business leaders are the ones leading these debates and reforms ... with no real knowledge of what exactly happens in a classroom ... they are basing all their measures of success on standardized test scores that cannot measure the success of any effort designed to improve the discipline, thinking skills, and character of students.

I don't remember if you joined in either of my threads on defining the line between ignorant and literate or how much Math is used in everyday life. I think you did. Both of those proved to me, that there is very little chance of defining a national standard for what content is to be tested for on a standardized test. There doesn't seem to be any sort of standardization in the standardized tests being used by the various states.

I do believe that a single test (or tests) for a national minimum standard of information content would be a step in the right direction. I'm not talking here, about a national standard test like the SAT, which tests for how much a student knows and no one is expected to even finish completely. I'm talking about one like a driver's license test which everyone is expected to pass -- a test that asks, "is this person safe to turn loose on society?" instead of the current tests which ask, "How much better i this person than the others?"

Discipline, thinking skills, and character are not things that can be tested directly. However, they are things that will cause more students to pass a minimum knowledge test. They can be tested indirectly, and they can be rated subjectively by teachers who have the final say on who passes or fails.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: long delayed, long reply

Welcome to the mud-pit -- err, debate.

Thank you, I think. My viewpoint here is that of a teacher in a classroom and much of what has been said here is true in theory but the reality of a classroom is quite different. Perhaps I should qualify that, the reality of a classroom of young children is quite different.

The standards that you work under reinforce teachings of intolerance -- you have to insure that not one single person in your classes is confronted by anyone's spiritual beliefs.

This is utterly impossibleto do. Our students reflect the diversity of our society at large and they bring their experiences into the classroom. They ask questions and those answers very often bring religion into the discussion. Naresh brings his religion into the classroom every day, and we accomadate that religion when we provide him with a vegetarian meal. We discuss that religious practice when another students complains that it's not fair that Naresh gets a grilled cheese instead of yucky meatball casserole. D.J. brings his religion into the classroom any time there is a holiday or birthday celebration or a discussion of one of these. We discuss his families beliefs when someone feels sad for D.J. and thinks he's being excluded from the party as a discipline measure.

The social studies curriculum has numerous references to religion. The first history students learn is the story of the first Thanksgiving. I cannot conceive of teaching the very fundamental concepts of American History without dealing with the religious aspects involved.

One of the latest educational buzzwords is multiculturalism. For teachers, the easiest way to integrated different cultures is through literature. And that literature very often contains references to religion. As a teacher who is committed to encouraging thinking, I cannot stifle a child who is trying to understand a selection and needs some religious context by refusing to answer his/her questions. This inevitably leads to the child disagreeing with the religious views stated because "that's not what my Mommy (Sunday School teacher, preacher, grandma, Daddy) said. Each child will then offer his/her own views, each convinced that the way they were taught is correct. This previous experience provides the platform for the children to understand something new (one of the very basic tenets of Constructivism), without it learning cannot occur.


Even very young children, perhaps especially young children, can accept that we have different religious/spiritual beliefs. They are quite tolerant and respectful of those differences.

I don't know how students feel about overt expressions of personal beliefs. I do know how I feel when I have occasion to go on school grounds -- I feel like I have to watch every word I say, lest someone get offended at what I believe. I'm not even a particularly sensitive or religious individual, although my speech carries traces of my Methodist upbringing in it. Even so, I feel that even those few traces of religion in my daily speech are enough to make school grounds hostile environment for freedom of expression.

I think this perception may be in part to your strong convictions about this. Religious expression is quite common with younger children. In my opinion the decrease in this expression as students move into middle school and high school is partly a function of their inclinations to distance themselves from their parents and identify more strongly with their peer group.

There was no religious doctrine in the schools to remove! At least, not in the Oregon school system, circa 1955 through 1968. There may have been in other regions such as the "Bible Belt" or some southern states. [/B]

Definitely keep that "Bible Belt" exclusion in there. I had Bible classes in my elementary school in grades 4-6 (1978-81)

What there was, was exactly as much tolerance of religious differences as existed outside of school grounds -- No more, No less. Can you honestly claim the same is true today?
[/B]

In the majority of schools, I would say yes. The reaminder are the ones that invariably attract the attention because a small group of very vocal parents (from both ends of the religious or political spectrum) become influential in school policy.

That's a tragedy, if it's true. I would hope that parents begin using discipline, acting as a "boss" to their children, well before the time they enter school. [/B]

Me too, me too. Unfortunately, there are entirely too many parents who believe that parenting means picking their child up from daycare/after-school program/babysitter, throwing together a meal to be eaten in front of the television, bathing them and putting them to bed for the night. Another segment of parents feel guilty because they devote more of their time, attention, and energy to their careers, so they think always saying "yes" to their children will negate their inattention.

Educators sound a lot like old "lifers" that think, "The Korean Conflict went pretty well, why change now?"

[/B]

Somewhere, I have a copy of the reforms necessary to improve our methods of beating a dead horse.

I don't remember if you joined in either of my threads on defining the line between ignorant and literate or how much Math is used in everyday life. I think you did. Both of those proved to me, that there is very little chance of defining a national standard for what content is to be tested for on a standardized test. There doesn't seem to be any sort of standardization in the standardized tests being used by the various states.

I do believe that a single test (or tests) for a national minimum standard of information content would be a step in the right direction. I'm not talking here, about a national standard test like the SAT, which tests for how much a student knows and no one is expected to even finish completely. I'm talking about one like a driver's license test which everyone is expected to pass -- a test that asks, "is this person safe to turn loose on society?" instead of the current tests which ask, "How much better i this person than the others?".

In my opinion, high school seniors should have to pass the GED test before receiving their diploma. From my discussions with adult educators, it's the test that you're looking for. One high school teacher I work with had two students return to school this year after dropping out. Their plan was to take the GED test, get their equivalency diploma, and be done with school. After taking the practice tests and failing miserably at the Adult Ed center, they returned to school, made up their missed assignments and graduated with their classes.

Discipline, thinking skills, and character are not things that can be tested directly. However, they are things that will cause more students to pass a minimum knowledge test. They can be tested indirectly, and they can be rated subjectively by teachers who have the final say on who passes or fails.

I agree that discipline, thinking skills, and character may contribute to passing a minimum knowledge test. I would not under any circumstances ever rate any of my students on these characteristics subjectively. I would be opening myself up to a law suit and losing my position faster than I could complete the "evaluations." Rarely, do teachers have a final say in who passes or fails. In most instances that is now decided by a "panel," scale or some sort of testing, all of which can be thrown out the window when the parent objects.

I'll return to the issue of thinking skills in a couple of weeks. One of my summer classes deals with this exclusively and I'm interested to see what the professor and text have to say about the issue of not only assessment, but also teaching these skills to children.



I'll figure the quote thing out eventually. Can't be any harder than teaching 20 5-year-olds to write their name.

 

[Weird Harold]

The standards that you work under reinforce teachings of intolerance -- you have to insure that not one single person in your classes is confronted by anyone's spiritual beliefs.

This is utterly impossibleto do. Our students reflect the diversity of our society at large and they bring their experiences into the classroom. They ask questions and those answers very often bring religion into the discussion.

My original comment was in response to Rissia's statement about having to make sure that she doesn't offend anyone with a display of her beliefs. As such, it was probably misstated by saying "anyone's religious beliefs" when I was specifically addressing policies which limit teacher's displays of spiritual beliefs.

Naresh ... accommodate that religion when we provide him with a vegetarian meal. We discuss that ... it's not fair that Naresh gets a grilled cheese instead of yucky meatball casserole. D.J. brings his religion ... someone feels sad for D.J. and thinks he's being excluded from the party as a discipline measure.

Accommodating dietary restrictions isn't really a good example, because there are many reasons for the dietary restrictions students may have -- Medical, Religious, Ecological Concerns, Allergic Reactions, etc.

D.J. is a better example of accommodating religious differences. I do wonder whether it is an example of your good sense, or n example of an official school policy that should be emulated by other school districts? I also wonder if your school district's tolerance policy extends beyond the elementary grades in the same way?

Since I'm divorced, I wasn't directly involved in either of my daughter's schooling until they were nearly past the elementary grades (the youngest was in sixth grade when I got custody after retiring.) From both the middle school and high school level, I got an official notice of school policy to the effect that, "overt displays of religious beliefs are not appropriate behavior." It's been several years, so that isn't an exact quote but the intent of the policy is there.

I believe that sort of policy has the effect, intended or not, of making students self-conscious about admitting any religious convictions.

One of the latest educational buzzwords is multiculturalism. ... As a teacher who is committed to encouraging thinking, I cannot stifle a child who is trying to understand a selection and needs some religious context by refusing to answer his/her questions.

Agian, this appears to illustrate your personal reasonability more than it does an official school policy. "Multiculturalism" is probably a good policy, assuming that it is implemented as part of a general curiculim revision rather than a "political fix" that is more about "Something Must Be Done" than it is about improving eduction. Like "Zero Tolerance" policies Vs the principle of zero toleraance debted here a few weeks ago, multiculturism is a good priciple to add to the teaching process that can be be hyped into absurdity.

Even very young children, perhaps especially young children, can accept that we have different religious/spiritual beliefs. They are quite tolerant and respectful of those differences.

Now, if we could only get them to carry that tolerance into adult life.

I think that policies like my local school district's help to stifle that childhood tolerance as students pass through the system.

I don't know how students feel ... I feel that even those few traces ... are enough to make school grounds hostile environment for freedom of expression.

In my opinion the decrease in this expression as students move into middle school and high school is partly a function of their inclinations to distance themselves from their parents and identify more strongly with their peer group.

You are probably right about my perceptions about the hostile environment being due to my sensitivity to the issue, although I'm not actually seriously passionate about it.

There is certainly a tendency for children to experiment with rebellion against their parent's value system. You could say, "a stereotypical tendency to rebel." While very common, it is not a universal trait of teenagers though.

A typical student spends about thirteen thousand hours in school over twelve years. That's thirteen thousand hours spent in an environment that, as an official policy puts increasing limits on expressing religious beliefs lest other students be offended.

I believe that sends subtle signals to the student that 1) religion isn't "officially" acceptable and 2) it is OK to be offended by others' religion.

What there was, was exactly as much tolerance of religious differences ... Can you honestly claim the same is true today?
[/B]

In the majority of schools, I would say yes. The reaminder are the ones that invariably attract the attention because a small group of very vocal parents (from both ends of the religious or political spectrum) become influential in school policy.

Unfortunately, that minority shares all of the news with the abuses of policies like suspending students because their Rosaries resemble gang paraphenalia and Supreme Court Rulings against student led prayers before sporting events.

Students of school systems with reasonable and tolerant policies compare their school's policy with the news stories and say, "I'm glad my school isn't like all those others," or "I better be careful about taking ... to school, 'cause I didn't know it was illegal." In other words, students either doubt their knowledge of school policies, or feel that their's is somehow unique.

That's a tragedy, if it's true. I would hope that parents begin using discipline, acting as a "boss" to their children, well before the time they enter school.

Me too, me too. [/b]

The quote above is incorrectly attributed to me. It was Risia's response to my assertion that teachers are a student's first "Boss."

Unfortunately, there are entirely too many parents who believe that parenting means picking their child up from ...

Maybe I was too harsh when I accused Risia of being deliberately dense, because you seem to have missed the point too.

There is a BIG difference between a child's relationship with a parent and the relationship they should have with a teacher and the school system.

School is normally a child's first experience with "working" to a schedule, "working" for someone they may or may not like, performing a task (learning/homework) for a reward (good grades), and other factors that closely parallel the routine of a typical workplace. School is often the first place a student encounters where punctuality is not just expected, but required and tardiness is punishable.

Parents most certainly should exert enough discipline to prepare their children for such an environment and many fail to do so. That does not alter the fact that what a student learns about what "school" expects in regards "work," discipline, punctuality, accountability, rewards commensurate with work performed, etc, gets carried into later life as expectations of all workplaces.

In my opinion, high school seniors should have to pass the GED test before receiving their diploma. From my discussions with adult educators, it's the test that you're looking for.

That is exactly the sort of test that should be applied nation wide to standardize the minimum educational level. Let the tests like the SAT go bck to their intended purpose of ranking students for admission to colleges.

I agree that discipline, thinking skills, and character may contribute to passing a minimum knowledge test. I would not under any circumstances ever rate any of my students on these characteristics subjectively. I would be opening myself up to a law suit and losing my position faster than I could complete the "evaluations." Rarely, do teachers have a final say in who passes or fails. In most instances that is now decided by a "panel," scale or some sort of testing, all of which can be thrown out the window when the parent objects.

But you do make subjective evaluations on all of your students every reporting period when you decide between circling N, S or E on their report cards. Most are easy decisions that few would decide otherwise, but those that are on the borderline between "excellent" and "satisfactory" are grade by your subjective assessment as to which side of the line they fall on. Subjective evaluations are part of what teachers are paid for. Who is better qualified to assess discipline than someone who deals with a student's self-discipline (or lack of) every day? Who better to assess thinking skills than a teacher who has to tailor presentations to fit the student's learning skills.

Assessing character is a slipperier subject, but it's also easier to test for. I'm sure psychologists already have several different batteries of tests created that measure "character." The problem is just in deciding which test produces the results desired. (and deciding who gets to decide which results are desired, etc)

 

[RisiaSkye]

another round..

...I do wonder whether it is an example of your good sense, or n example of an official school policy that should be emulated by other school districts? I also wonder if your school district's tolerance policy extends beyond the elementary grades in the same way?

As we've discussed before, I think that school policies about religious expression vary a good deal more than you suggest. I'm sorry that your children attended school in such a restrictive environment, but I (like morninggirl) still don't know how reflective of all public school policy that experience is. I know that there have been court cases, etc. which can be used to justify stifling policies--I just don't know how many districts actually do so.

Now, if we could only get them to carry that tolerance into adult life.

I think that policies like my local school district's help to stifle that childhood tolerance as students pass through the system.

I'm totally with you here. It seems like the older people get, the less tolerant they become (as a general rule). This frequently results in extremism, on both ends of the political spectrum. Children, on the other hand, usually haven't reached the conclusion that their views are the only ones...yet.

You are probably right about my perceptions about the hostile environment being due to my sensitivity to the issue,...

You're not alone here...I've found myself defending a school system that I find deeply flawed in many ways. That defense comes largely because I'm a teacher, and one who tries to be sensitive and effective, despite the many obstacles. However, I spend a lot of time hearing variations on the theme of "Teachers are a bunch of underqualified liberals trying to indoctrinate our kids...", and so anti-school sentiments tend to get my hackles up. There, my already implicit bias is acknowledged. Feh.

Maybe I was too harsh when I accused Risia of being deliberately dense, because you seem to have missed the point too.

Yeah...I'm not being dense, dammit! And certainly not deliberately. I like to feel smart; I rarely feign ignorance or misunderstanding. Where's the fun in that?

There is a BIG difference between a child's relationship with a parent and the relationship they should have with a teacher and the school system.

School is normally a child's first experience with "working" to a schedule, "working" for someone they may or may not like, performing a task (learning/homework) for a reward (good grades), and other factors that closely parallel the routine of a typical workplace. School is often the first place a student encounters where punctuality is not just expected, but required and tardiness is punishable....

I do understand what you're saying here, and I agree...but only to a point. Of course a parent's relationship with a child is different than the relationship between teacher and student. However, I have found that students with the greatest respect for deadlines, etc. tend to be those students whose parents exercise the principle of accountability in their parenting. Task performance and reward often come in the form of chores-->allowance, grade performance-->special permission for events or other student-desired rewards, etc. Similarly, students whose parents both set and enforce curfews and other limits tend to have more understanding of the importance of punctuality, attendance, etc. That's not to suggest that the relationships or environments are the same; rather, parental failure to set and consistently enforce limits creates an enormous obstacle for teachers to overcome. Having to teach students the importance of rule observance, etc. (providing ethical instruction) at the same time that we teach information (subject instruction) becomes difficult when ethical instruction is so lacking that we have to basically start from scratch.

Parents most certainly should exert enough discipline to prepare their children for such an environment and many fail to do so. That does not alter the fact that what a student learns about what "school" expects in regards "work," discipline, punctuality, accountability, rewards commensurate with work performed, etc, gets carried into later life as expectations of all workplaces.

I understand and agree that school experiences help shape the expectations students place on future workplaces and other environments. I would just take it a step further and suggest that home environments exert a powerful influence on how students perceive and how much they value/respect school itself. It's all part of the same process. Schools shape students, to be sure. My point is/was that they don't do it in a void, nor do they exert the only substantial and systemic influence on students' lives and ethics.


Going back a bit, to the previous resonses...
I understand your objection to the claims about divorce rates and parental involvement affecting people unevenly. However, I'm not suggesting that everyone's parents are divorced, etc. I am suggesting, however, that the cultural prevalence of divorce and detached parenting has an effect, even on those students whose families stay together. Friends, other family members, and peers' families also provide models for behavior and conduct, ones which affect children and shape their views of what's acceptable. It's certainly not universal, but it does take its toll.

You suggested in your last response that television doesn't have the same effect on conduct and beliefs as school, because programming and available channels vary so much. However, that logic doesn't really make sense. School systems, policies, and level of student involvement also vary immensely--some go to public schools, some private/academic, some private/religious, some are home schooled, some attend foreign schools (even when U.S. citizens) through military, diplomatic, or corporate relocation. If those vastly divergent school experiences can be lumped together into one assessment, why not television as a widespread cultural phenomenon? Even allowing for significant variation, it's tough to find a person who's completely unaffected by it.

Also, I certainly understand your point about the recruits you've seen over the years. However, I would be wary of using a strictly (or even largely) military sample for determining the state of public education and work ethics. Like most insular and highly regimented systems, it attracts a particular segment of the population, one which doesn't necessarily accurately reflect the whole. That is neither good nor bad, and certainly isn't meant to pass an evaluative judgement on the subordinates you've trained. However, I've also lived around military bases and attended high schools with inordinately high enlistment rates. Based on what I've seen, many of those enlisting as an E-1 through E-3 without plans for a career in the military do so for very specific reasons: to learn a skill, support a young and financially unstable family, to get out of their home environment, to earn money for college, etc. Their level of commitment to the military, and the work they produce as a result, may not reflect their attitude or work in other areas, ones to which they have a deeper personal commitment, or from which they derive greater satisfaction. Also, I've known quite a few people who went in the military precisely because they lacked work ethic, and needed the rigid structure and very strictly enforced environment the military provides in order to retrain themselves.

Again, that's not to suggest that the people in the military are any better or worse than those who aren't. However, the ability and desire to participate in the military applies to only a select portion of the ex-student populace. There's a reason they call it "the military mindset", in other words. And I just wonder whether that might skew the sample somewhat, in any number of ways. What do you think about this? In your experience, is it at least possible?

This is probably my last on this for a while. (Don't burst into tears or anything ) The end of the quarter has arrived...time to stop philosophizing about my students and start grading them. Not to mention finishing my own school work.

Feh. I'd rather just keep talking about it!

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm sorry that your children attended school in such a restrictive environment, but I (like morninggirl) still don't know how reflective of all public school policy that experience is.

Clark County Schools are not as restrictive as their official policy makes it sound. That particular bit of the policy is only enforced if someone complains, and I don't actually know of anyone who has suffered because of it.

I think it reflective of all schools, because it is present because of, and based on the wording of, US Supreme Court decisions. It would not surprise me at all if there was some similar wording in your teaching contracts and school's official rules of conduct for students. It is the kind of clause that is easily overlooked as, "Well, of course, everbody knows that!" While simultaneously envisioning some personal standard of what might constitute "overt religious expression." (ie what would offend the person reading the clause.)

I've found myself defending a school system that I find deeply flawed in many ways. ... so anti-school sentiments tend to get my hackles up. There, my already implicit bias is acknowledged. Feh.

I only want two things from schools and teachers. I want official school policies that enforce discipline effectively, allow teachers the same freedom of expression that other careers would allow them, and hold students accountable for their performance. I also want teachers who not only can teach, can but afford to stay in the profession.

A curiculim that is suited to teaching students skills and knowledge needed to be a "productive"* member of society wouldn't hurt either.

(* Productive as in "able to hold a job they can make a living wage at".)

I do understand what you're saying here, and I agree...but only to a point. ... rather, parental failure to set and consistently enforce limits creates an enormous obstacle for teachers to overcome. Having to teach students ... becomes difficult when ethical instruction is so lacking that we have to basically start from scratch.

Nevada has bill in the State Assembly right now that would require greater parental involvement in their children's education. It probably hasn't got a snowball's chance... of passing, or surviving a court challenge if it does. I think it's significant that a State legislator feels such a law is needed -- and not just in Nevada either, I've seen news reports of other states that are considering something similar.

Unfortunately, there is no "driver's test" for parenting, and kids don't come with owner's manuals

I would ... suggest that home environments exert a powerful influence on how students perceive and how much they value/respect school itself. It's all part of the same process. Schools shape students, to be sure. My point is/was that they don't do it in a void, nor do they exert the only substantial and systemic influence on students' lives and ethics.

Some philosopher said, "Give me a child for his first six years, and I shall mold the man he will be," or something close to that. (I suppose I could look it up and be precise. ) Teachers probably understand the truth of that more than anyone else can.

Schools, especially public schools, have to accept children from many different six year molds and teach them a "standardized" amount of knowledge intended to prepare them to live in a democratic republic. There is a great deal of debate and disagreement about what "The Three R's" consist of, but almost every educator, parent, and politician can agree that "The Three R's" are what scholls are there for. The educational system is "standardized" at least to the degree that students are required to attend (approx) 13,000 hours of schooling over 12 years. With Kindergarten included it's closer to 13,500.

Education is also "standardized" to the extent that most if not all States are signatories to various agreements on minimal educational standards, and subject to Federal guidlines that are intended to insure uniformity throughout the country. The agreements and guidlelines are very flexible, and allow a lot of variation in curiculims and official policies.

However, there is no other activity that absorbs as much of a US citizen's life through age 18 as schooling does. Especially, not one that is as closely similar as public and private schools are.

If those vastly divergent school experiences can be lumped together into one assessment, why not television as a widespread cultural phenomenon? Even allowing for significant variation, it's tough to find a person who's completely unaffected by it.

Some purely arbitrary values for the range of influence TV has Vs the 13,000 hrs of schooling:

Worst case, a child who watches 12 hours every day until age 6 and six hours a day from 6 to 18, watches 52,400+ hours of TV, or just over four times as much time as they spend in school.

Best case, a child whose TV watching is strictly controlled by parents, who only allow an average of one hour a day (of carefully selected) TV for all 18 years, watches 6,570 hours of TV, or just half the time they spend in school.

Between those two extremes, lie a much wider variance in exposure to TV's influence than there is in the leeway in curiculim and school policy agreements.

In addition to the simple time factor, personal preferences, parental control, peer reviews, and as host of other factors make TV viewing a significant, but far more varied influence.

There is no other single experience of 13,000 hours duration that everyone shares. School is a "controlled environment" that takes up the same 8% of every graduate's life. Almost everyone can name their favorite and most hated teacher; their favorite and least favorite classes; Hated or loved "Jocks" and "cheerleaders"; etc. Not everyone has a favorite TV show or favorite video game.

However, I would be wary of using a strictly (or even largely) military sample for determining the state of public education and work ethics. Like most insular and highly regimented systems, it attracts a particular segment of the population, one which doesn't necessarily accurately reflect the whole. ... Their level of commitment to the military, and the work they produce as a result, may not reflect their attitude or work in other areas, ... However, the ability and desire to participate in the military applies to only a select portion of the ex-student populace. There's a reason they call it "the military mindset", in other words. And I just wonder whether that might skew the sample somewhat, in any number of ways. What do you think about this? In your experience, is it at least possible?

There is no doubt that my sample is skewed -- not only in favor of the "military mind-set," but in the specific educational/intellectual qualifications for my specific career field. I don't think that invalidates the data however.

First, the sample is the same skewed slice of military mind-set and top ten percent scores on military aptitude tests for the entire 20 years. Essentially, I was dealing with some of the best educated people in the country who were NOT inclined to,(or financially able to,)attend college right from high school, and people who were most inclined to accept military ideas of discipline and work ethic.

In some ways, it is like quality control samples taken from the same point of an assembly line for twenty consecutive production cycles.

There were changes in the demography of military enlistees over those 20 years, there is no denying that. During Vietnam, we drew from a pool of potential draftees wanting to avoid Army service that was large enough to be selective. After Vietnam -- during the recession years -- we drew from a pool of people that needed a job that was also large enough to be selective. In the periods between the draft and the recession, when the USAF couldn't be as selective, the requirements for my career field stayed a constant that always picked from the best available. Even in the "fat years" my career field was short of qualified candidates and undermanned.

Even with the variations in motivations for enlisting, life experiences, economic levels, number of parents, hours of TV watched, and everything else, basic knowledge levels dropped, and the "work ethic" declined in synch with educational reforms, increasing discipline problems in schools, and court cases about religion in the schools. I should point out, that the decline was NOT linear, and up-swings (or a check in the decline) also followed (roughly) twelve years behind "positive" changes in education that dealt with discipline problems, and court decisions that favored religious expression.

I only know the changes in education second-hand from a limited sample, but the changes in that sample followed educational changes too closely for me to believe there is any other significant factor that applies to every case. There are most certainly other factors in society that shaped the changes in education. Some of those factors were shaped by changes in education also.

TV in the classroom, for example. Audio/Visual aids have always been a part of education, which led to the belief that television should be educational, which led to TV replacing more traditional A/V equipment, which led to a subconscious association of TV and education, which lead to more calls for educational content, which led to "Cable In the Classroom," which is bound to lead to the next generation calling for more educational content, etc, ad nauseum.)

This is probably my last on this for a while.

I'll probably be around. (BTW, My daughter asked me if she should be concerned about the number of teachers I know from discussions on Literotica. )

 

[morninggirl5]

Thought this was relevant

Court rules school must allow Christian group to meet


Washington --- The Supreme Court ruled for a Christian youth group today in a church-state battle over whether religious groups must be allowed to meet in public schools after class hours.

In a 6-3 decision that lowered the figurative wall of separation between church and state, the justices said a New York public school district must let the Good News Club hold after-school meetings for grade-school children to pray and study the Bible.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_b352305a148950eb00f1.html

And WH, tell your daughter not to worry, we remain a miniscule minority and those pesky morals clauses in our teaching contracts will keep us "in the closet" for years to come.