Re: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: trained dependency

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 16:47, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The teachers are what
> they are; I don't see any reason to ask them to be different, and I
> really rather doubt we can make them change anyway.  But Gatto was by
> your own admission three times New York State Teacher of the Year,
> he's way out on the right-hand tail!  He is going to have a view
> strongly biased toward what can be done by a dedicated teacher, as
> opposed to what will be done by a school system employee.

He states very clearly that (he believes) the system cannot be fixed by
any band aids or measures from within; that it must be scrapped
altogether and replaced. The stand out soundbite is "a free market for
education", putting the spending power to purchase teaching, into the
hands of parents, and ensuring an entirely free market.

> All _I_ said was that the total resources required will be larger, and
> I want to know (a) what effect will they have, and (b) what the cost
> will be.  In particular, all my own experience says that improving the
> educational system will require dramatically more teacher effort per
> child per hour.  If, as you and Gatto apparently believe, improvements
> in educational efficiency could cut the amount of time spent in the
> (improved) formal educational establishments dramatically, and thus
> not require more teachers, there's still a huge hidden cost: many
> billions of USD annually for lost baby-sitting services.

Stawman; jobs-projects; of course you can sustain jobs projects with bad
schooling - do you really want to do that? Like, who are you kidding?

>     Zenaan> A free market for education (! schooling), would have
>     Zenaan> teachers competing to educate, and learning from each
>     Zenaan> other what works, _and being able to use techniques that
>     Zenaan> work_.
> 
> We have a free market for education.  I'll teach you all you want to
> know about economics, at your pace, where you want, when you want, if
> you will pay my travel and lodging, USD 500/hour, and guarantee me an
> income of USD 100,000 for the next year in case my current employer
> fires me.  That's pretty expensive, but I'm sure you can find less
> expensive educators if you look.  They won't be as good, but they will
> be cheaper. ;-)
>
> Funny thing is, there's no demand in that free market.  _Most people
> are satisfied with what they get at school._  Those who aren't, go out
> and get more, and pay handsomely for it.

We don't have a free market in education. You are wrong. The teacher
purchasing power, paid for in tax dollars, is a Government mandated and
controlled monopoly? Do you have any idea what a free market is? (It's
rhetorical - I'm sure you do, but I'm not taking too kindly to your
arguments in case you hadn't noticed.)

> Indirect or not, there
> is no evidence that the kind of reforms that you, Gatto, and company
> advocate can be successfully implemented at reasonable cost.

There is one school in the US (the ? Free School - I'll look it up if
you're really interested) - very unstructured, students ask for teacher
help and direction when and if they need it, learning completely at
their own pace. I'll look it up and post some notes (it's in one of the
earlier books I read).

You're simply wrong. I can only refute you by providing a data point,
which is frustrating, but I'll do so in this particular case.

> Don't get me wrong: I'm very much in favor of programs to improve
> educational choice, such as tuition vouchers and opt-outs for home
> schoolers (provided their children pass the admittedly imperfect
> achievement tests we have).  However, these are in general only going
> to do much good for people who already have relatively good
> educational environments, in particular strong support from parents
> and siblings.  School reform must be primarily focused on what's going
> to do good for the rest of the population.

You are thoroughly indoctrinated in the assumption that the current way
is the only efficient way. You are wrong. It is too much for me to
present all the historical background, alternative examples, quotes and
detailed stats.

> see whether there was a reason why I need to read Gatto et al _now_.

Obviously never a need. Only ever a possible desire. Clearly I
have not provided anything that could create such a desire for
you.

> And any alternative system has to deal with the fact
> that humans have limited capabilities, and some humans are more or
> less limited in some dimensions than others.

It is my belief that the current system creates this perception, and
that on the whole people can be far more literate and "learned" if not
confined by the current system. On the whole.

>     Zenaan> it was designed to keep us normalized and minimize our
>     Zenaan> actual education!
> 
> By whom?  What do "they" gain from it?

A distinct Utopian dream (Plato's Republic) of a conformant and
mouldable society. There are some classic and amazing quotes saying
directly this, but my books are at home right now. I'll dig one up in
time.

The gain is simply wealth. It's a deal we make in society: we agree to
submit ourselves to the system(s) and in return we reap the material
benefits of a wealthy society. Unfortunately the lack of individual
sovereignty means that wealth gets concentrated in ever fewer hands
(percentage wise) and the mojority of people are all too willing to give
up their freedom for security when things like 9/11 happen. And so we
have the rise and fall of modern Rome (the US, which in terms of liberty
you'll probably agree is well in decline - despotic state abuse
historically follows such a decline, albeit over the period of a century
or three).

> I've said elsewhere, these things _do_ "just happen" and are
> predictable based on our current knowledge of social dynamics.

That's one clear point where the limitation of space has limited this
conversation. I simply don't have the resources to summarize and quote
and pull stats for all sides of the argument. You'd be surprised. I was
amazed, and I thought I was reasonably "outside the system" in my
perspective.

> They will happen to a system designed by Gatto, too, unless he pays
> attention to those same dynamics.

State-granted monopolies enforced by statute are generally a little
antithetical to free-anything (free markets, personal freedom). Surely
this is obvious. If not carry on...

> I just don't think it's realistic to suppose that financial costs
> can be reduced nationwide and still achieve improvements in
> universal schooling, let alone true universal education.

Well if you're convinced of that, there's not much point me asking
you to suppose otherwise then is there :)

> Simple mathematics says that if some are better than others, the worst
> cannot be as good as the average.  Maybe there's just a limit to how
> good the average can be, and the fact that there's a spread on the
> upside just about guarantees that there's a downside, too.
> 
> Poor students (as such) don't harm anybody else, but a poor teacher
> can be a setback for hundreds of students.

And yet thanks to statistics, everyone fits perfectly into the bell
curve. And as a result, a poor system cannot be seen as such from
within.

We can grade "current fact regurgitation ability" but how can you grade
"missed potential"?

> If the system is more flexible, you will
> need more, and more highly skilled, managers to monitor the
> performance of teachers and students,

This is complete rubbish. This statement only means you cannot (as
you've said above) suppose the existence of such a system.

And as I keep trying to put it to you - the fact that we are products of
the system is what makes it so hard to even _consider_ such
possibilities.

There's two ways to go here - consider possibilities and explore them,
or fight to the bone before you've even explored such possibilities.

>     Zenaan> I believe Gatto when he says that this is by design.
>
> Radicals always say that.  They give their enemies too much credit.

He backs up his position with many raw quotes from early modern
schooling history. Quotes that are often astounding to hear that they
were uttered (in most cases written) at all.

It's obviously too much for me to recreate his thesis, history, quotes,
stats, background and his personal experience. So I resorted to a few
(to me) interesting tidbits and conclusions, obviously poorly intermixed
with my own beliefs. I'm sorry I couldn't do a better job but that's the
best I could do in any reasonable sort of time, and given my current
ability.

There doesn't seem to be much point going further in this thread, it's
getting repetitive and that seems counterproductive to me. I just keep
falling over stupid points and don't seem to be able to get any relevant
point across as I _feel_ it. Obviously you don't agree with the thesis,
and equally obviously, I can't put into email format what I guess (given
my poor performance) you could only get by reading the books.

Good luck
Zen