Conservatives Battle Liberals In The Classroom

[PoliticalChic]

So yet again, you have no actual response to the larger point I brought up!

I've addressed it here, here, and here, as well as addressing other posters in this thread about some of the issues that have come up. In case you missed it, a few of us have had a constructive dialogue on the issues in school.

So far, all you've added is reposting your op in various forms as well as tired Liberal vs. Conservative talking points. At this point it is very clear you are not actually interested in the problem or a solution, but in assigning blame to "progressives."

When you are interested in actually debating the issues and attempting to address them, come on back. I gather from your posts so far that you're either a teacher, or are posing as one. Maybe you have something constructive to add.

I went back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"

And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.

Since it seems that you have honestly attempted to answer this- albeit unsuccessfully, I am going to answer it for you.

Progressive education, demonstrably ineffective, in the words of Professor J. Reedy, "derives from romanticism and
romanticism is more of a religion than a philosophy. It is, in fact, a secular religion with
its own creed, sacred scripture, heroes and saints, rites and rituals. Romantics transferred
God or what is divine from the transcendent realm into nature. Progressive
education is a secular religion deriving from romanticism, and as a form of religion it
cannot be refuted with empirical data nor disproved with rational arguments."

If we agree on that, it is clear why I cannot convince you: religion is based on faith, not data.

Therefore the discussion of pedagogy cannot stray far from a discussion of Liberal vs. Conservative political philosophy.

I will not change this thread into one of political philosophy, threads I thououghly enjoy, other than to repeat that Conservatives believe that data informs policy.

Especially in educational methodology.

The data is clear: traditional methods work, progressive do not.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I went back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"

I reject your definition. In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."

I do not think that drilling Arithmetic should be eliminated, in fact, I too am not happy about the lack of basic mathematical proficiency. I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall. If anything, there are numerous root causes for the educational failing we have seen, not entirely limited to but including the growing lack of parental involvement, the lack of basic understanding of subjective matter among teachers, and the mindset among teacher unions that insists on defending bad teachers.

And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.

I defend it because the underlying goal is a good one, namely: Increase interest and proficiency in mathematics. I have stated in this thread repeatedly that an algorithmic knowledge of Arithmetic will not be sufficient as students reach advanced mathematics courses, specifically Integral Calculus and beyond. A thorough knowledge of arithmetic will help avoid arithmetic errors, but it will not help a student solve a trigonometric substitution problem if the student lacks a basic intuition in mathematics. It will not help a student recognize an (inevitable) arithmetic error when working a story problem. It will not help a student make a reasoned choice based on mathematical evidence.

At some point, we need to address the complete lack of mathematical intuition that is evident among students entering the college level mathematics courses. I believe strongly that encouraging mathematical exploration and a familiarity with the underlying principles and logic could address this.

Alone, this will not fix the many issues in the current educational environment. Those issues transcend mathematics, just as the transcend Conservative vs. Liberal viewpoints. Attempting to distill them to a simple "Red vs. Blue" debate is dishonest, and will not actually lead to a solution.

All of these things I've said here, I have said elsewhere in the thread.

 

[Polk]

With local authority, school districts could demand better teachers; with current wages the only stumbling blocks are the NEA with its extreme form of "union protectionism" and the massive paperwork required by federal/state "mandates"

We could debate a lot other points in your post (in particular, I'm have issues with some of the "alternative" certification methods employed by certain states...), but one thing I think we can agree on is the need for greater local authority. I think the NEA in particular has been too gung-ho at protecting bad teachers.

I don't think increased local authority alone will resolve all the problems todays schools face. I know high school teachers (good ones mind you) that have to carry malpractice insurance because giving little Johnny a failing grade might result in a lawsuit. How does that make sense? There's also the issue that seniority is king in public schools and with that mentality comes several detrimental effects.

I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I went back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"

I reject your definition. In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."

I do not think that drilling Arithmetic should be eliminated, in fact, I too am not happy about the lack of basic mathematical proficiency. I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall. If anything, there are numerous root causes for the educational failing we have seen, not entirely limited to but including the growing lack of parental involvement, the lack of basic understanding of subjective matter among teachers, and the mindset among teacher unions that insists on defending bad teachers.

And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.

I defend it because the underlying goal is a good one, namely: Increase interest and proficiency in mathematics. I have stated in this thread repeatedly that an algorithmic knowledge of Arithmetic will not be sufficient as students reach advanced mathematics courses, specifically Integral Calculus and beyond. A thorough knowledge of arithmetic will help avoid arithmetic errors, but it will not help a student solve a trigonometric substitution problem if the student lacks a basic intuition in mathematics. It will not help a student recognize an (inevitable) arithmetic error when working a story problem. It will not help a student make a reasoned choice based on mathematical evidence.

At some point, we need to address the complete lack of mathematical intuition that is evident among students entering the college level mathematics courses. I believe strongly that encouraging mathematical exploration and a familiarity with the underlying principles and logic could address this.

Alone, this will not fix the many issues in the current educational environment. Those issues transcend mathematics, just as the transcend Conservative vs. Liberal viewpoints. Attempting to distill them to a simple "Red vs. Blue" debate is dishonest, and will not actually lead to a solution.

All of these things I've said here, I have said elsewhere in the thread.

Why do you keep tap-dancing around the data vs. faith argument.

Since traditional, conservative, time-honored methods result in higher achievement, no matter the test, why are you not on board?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Why do you keep tap-dancing around the data vs. faith argument.

Since traditional, conservative, time-honored methods result in higher achievement, no matter the test, why are you not on board?

Simply put, because the attempts to test achievement aren't taking into account success in later advanced mathematics courses.

It is understandable that no one is measuring this, as this would require tracking a large number of students through 10+ years of education with a chance that a large number of your data set might not even take a higher level mathematics course.

However, what I have seen, what colleagues have seen, and what is discussed frequently over coffee at AMS, MAA, and ICTCM meetings is the lack of mathematical intuition we see in entering freshmen, and how to combat this problem.

At the college level, we have some things we're trying. Specifically programs like Geogebra offer free manipulatives to help guide the development of intuition. Programs such as Maple and Mathlab have proven useful in creating exploratory lab exercises, akin to what is done in college level Chemistry and Biology. Undergraduate research programs are heavily funded by well spent grant money and the AMS and MAA offer money and opportunities for undergraduates willing to work on involved mathematical problems a chance to shine.

But it would be nice to see an attempt to instill mathematical intuition early on. I do not want to see exploration replace drilling in Arithmetic, as trading Arithmetical knowledge for mathematical intuition will probably not help 90% of the population. However, where possible, I think it is worthwhile to point out the mindset and underlying structure of the algorithms and the numbers used on a daily basis.

 

[Bfgrn]

I went back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"

I reject your definition. In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."

I do not think that drilling Arithmetic should be eliminated, in fact, I too am not happy about the lack of basic mathematical proficiency. I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall. If anything, there are numerous root causes for the educational failing we have seen, not entirely limited to but including the growing lack of parental involvement, the lack of basic understanding of subjective matter among teachers, and the mindset among teacher unions that insists on defending bad teachers.

And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.

I defend it because the underlying goal is a good one, namely: Increase interest and proficiency in mathematics. I have stated in this thread repeatedly that an algorithmic knowledge of Arithmetic will not be sufficient as students reach advanced mathematics courses, specifically Integral Calculus and beyond. A thorough knowledge of arithmetic will help avoid arithmetic errors, but it will not help a student solve a trigonometric substitution problem if the student lacks a basic intuition in mathematics. It will not help a student recognize an (inevitable) arithmetic error when working a story problem. It will not help a student make a reasoned choice based on mathematical evidence.

At some point, we need to address the complete lack of mathematical intuition that is evident among students entering the college level mathematics courses. I believe strongly that encouraging mathematical exploration and a familiarity with the underlying principles and logic could address this.

Alone, this will not fix the many issues in the current educational environment. Those issues transcend mathematics, just as the transcend Conservative vs. Liberal viewpoints. Attempting to distill them to a simple "Red vs. Blue" debate is dishonest, and will not actually lead to a solution.

All of these things I've said here, I have said elsewhere in the thread.

Why do you keep tap-dancing around the data vs. faith argument.

Since traditional, conservative, time-honored methods result in higher achievement, no matter the test, why are you not on board?

You're confused PC...you forward a dubious opinion as manifest and when no one is willing to swallow your right wing bluster; you are indignant...the ONLY "data" you supplied we all agree on: America is falling behind the rest of the world in math and education...the cause is not a simple ideological monolith that needs to be removed.

If it could be traced to a singular in-classroom cause, it would be the right's belief that testing, threats and punishment will address the problems...

In the last 20+ years we've witnessed a united and focused dismantling of the public infrastructure that started with Reagan...we are now witnessing the consummation...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[midcan5]

Did your wife have an opinion on the OP?

Asking serious teachers questions that stem from ideology perspectives is like an evolutionary psychologist asking boys at play why they roughhouse. But I did raise the question during her braindead time watching 'Fastforeward,' and she told me to more or less go away.

Coincidentally I was in her classroom yesterday, she teaches middle school, and she pointed out a few of the very bright students and it occurred to me these students will have no trouble in life, or should I say maybe they still will, but they are gifted and learning is not the issue.

Back to calculators, she thinks they should be introduced early, but used in class after the fundamentals sink in, around seventh grade.

I sent your query out as we have lots of teachers in the family at all levels, but if you want a single word answer which several teachers have given me, 'LAZY.'

Why, hmm, maybe it the American way today, play sports make millions. Sing well, make millions. Teach, make 35K. Some groups still do well. Why? Values maybe. In Philly today we have Charter Schools that only take the good students, where will this lead us I wonder. Few Americans face the issues of class and affluence. I'll let you know the replies.

Check out Cliff and others on learning. See other Ted videos.
http://www.ted.com/talks/clifford_stoll_on_everything.html

 

[Charles Stucker]

I reject your definition. In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."

I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall.

Which teacher is teaching this material and what sort of class do they have?
A brilliant teacher with a class of 6 year old children which includes a couple of bright students, and has the troublemakers, crack babies and other difficult cases removed, might be able to do what you suggest. If they had full control of the classroom without too much oversight.
But those conditions do not apply.
In particular, we don't have enough brilliant teachers.
I don't think we ever could.

Until we have a large number of superior educators we cannot allow more generations to be lost because we aspire to something unobtainable. I've read about a kid from China who could speak several languages and do calculus by age 7 or so. That child was a prodigy who was given a specific curricula.

Education faces a particular dilemma; if all the best and brightest go into education, who is left to make the advances? If you have average education majors, they cannot manage the same success as the best and brightest.
To resolve the dilemma I suggest we should stick with a curriculum understandable and teachable by the typical educator - drill on the basics through 4th grade or so, and start teaching more advanced conceptual mathematics once we have assured that students do understand those basics.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.

Federal mandates create enormous amounts of paperwork. They typically do nothing constructive. I only included Typically on the off chance that someone has an example of a good federal mandate.

Local control creates the opportunity to see different philosophies put to the test. Those districts which choose the best methodology will get the best results. Other districts will notice and follow suit for fear of losing populace as all the affluent people with children flock to those districts.
A kind of social evolution mechanism to find the demonstrably best method of teaching.

 

[Polk]

I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.

Federal mandates create enormous amounts of paperwork. They typically do nothing constructive. I only included Typically on the off chance that someone has an example of a good federal mandate.

Local control creates the opportunity to see different philosophies put to the test. Those districts which choose the best methodology will get the best results. Other districts will notice and follow suit for fear of losing populace as all the affluent people with children flock to those districts.
A kind of social evolution mechanism to find the demonstrably best method of teaching.

I would agree they don't do anything constructive currently, but that's because the so-called "federal" mandates are really a series of vague guidelines which it's left up to the states to report. The result: the states cook the books to preserve their funding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did your wife have an opinion on the OP?

Asking serious teachers questions that stem from ideology perspectives is like an evolutionary psychologist asking boys at play why they roughhouse. But I did raise the question during her braindead time watching 'Fastforeward,' and she told me to more or less go away.

Coincidentally I was in her classroom yesterday, she teaches middle school, and she pointed out a few of the very bright students and it occurred to me these students will have no trouble in life, or should I say maybe they still will, but they are gifted and learning is not the issue.

Back to calculators, she thinks they should be introduced early, but used in class after the fundamentals sink in, around seventh grade.

I sent your query out as we have lots of teachers in the family at all levels, but if you want a single word answer which several teachers have given me, 'LAZY.'

Why, hmm, maybe it the American way today, play sports make millions. Sing well, make millions. Teach, make 35K. Some groups still do well. Why? Values maybe. In Philly today we have Charter Schools that only take the good students, where will this lead us I wonder. Few Americans face the issues of class and affluence. I'll let you know the replies.

Check out Cliff and others on learning. See other Ted videos.
Clifford Stoll on ... everything | Video on TED.com

How does 'lazy' respond to the OP?

BTW, in NYC senior teachers make over 100k, unrelated to student learning.

According to the Fordham Foundation, between 2003 and 2005, 20 states have seen dramatic improvement in the “proficiency” rates on state exams that determine whether states meet federal guidelines for adequate yearly progress. But children in these same states have not posted similar gains on the federally mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress, leading some experts to declare that NCLB has started a “race to the bottom” in terms of lower state standards.
Here, from the New York City Teacher’s newspaper is the spin to ‘explain’ why kids seem to be improving, on state exams, but when exposed to the NAEP, show where they really stand:

“Teachers have been telling the UFT that there is too much emphasis on teaching to the state standards as measured by state tests. Now, the results of the national math tests this year support their claims.
Students in New York State showed no real progress on these tests this year despite big gains on statewide exams.
Flat scores on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in math stood in stark contrast to large gains on the state test, where an unprecedented number of students have met state standards over the last two years.
Education experts and commentators questioned whether schools have become so focused on teaching to the specifics of state tests that they have sacrificed broader and more challenging curriculums. Others wondered if state tests have misled educators about how much students actually know.”
National tests show no progress in math - United Federation of Teachers

So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching ‘to the [State] test.’

 

[Charles Stucker]

So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching ‘to the [State] test.’

Teaching to a standardized test is always a bad idea.
Standardized tests are invariably scantron multiple choice tests.
Multiple choice tests fail because they give you the answer.
Multiple choice tests fail because they succumb to strategies to eliminate obviously wrong answers followed by a guess.
Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching ‘to the [State] test.’

Teaching to a standardized test is always a bad idea.
Standardized tests are invariably scantron multiple choice tests.
Multiple choice tests fail because they give you the answer.
Multiple choice tests fail because they succumb to strategies to eliminate obviously wrong answers followed by a guess.
Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency.

Not true.

1. If the standardized test does not measure what you wish it to measure, the problem is with the test. Revamp.

2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.' Also untrue.
NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.

3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.

4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."

Largely untrue; you have succumbed to a tenet of progressive education, i.e. a rejection of subject matter.

In true education, there will be a body of knowledge and factual material to be handed down and mastered by students.

Among progressives the emphasis is on “process,” and there is disparagement
of “mere facts.” One could takes courses in “How to Think Like a Scientist” and then be considered a scientist without having to study chemistry or biology or physics. Or one could become an expert in problem solving and offer to help the public with their legal problems without having studied law. The fact is that knowledge is needed even to understand the problems themselves, whatever the field.

Multiple choice tests have a place in the traditional education universe!
Objective tests provide incentives for both students and teachers, that tests provide ways to “monitor progress” and “remedy deficiencies,” and ways to evaluate students,
teachers and schools.

And grading non-standardized tests tends to be subjective and therefore unfair. Abolishing tests and grades completely would be unfair to those who work harder and/or are more intelligent.

Testing, ranking and competition are unavoidable aspects of education
and life. as E. D. Hirsch says, “one can understand that
progressives would want to bash tests when their methods consistently fail to improve
test scores.”

Let us focus on the falling scores, and knowledge, of those taught by progressive methods, and watch for terms such as 'social justice' when used by educrats.

And then explain why traditional methods are so much more successful, and question why we no longer use them.

 

[Charles Stucker]

2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.' Also untrue.
NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.

3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.

4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."

Testing, ranking and competition are unavoidable aspects of education
and life..

I was not familiar with the NY tests, sorry about that.
You may be misunderstanding my post's intent, so I apologize for being unclear.
My experience in Texas with standardized State tests has been that teachers are forced to teach strategies which ONLY address taking the standardized (multiple choice) test. Nothing else.
I should qualify the Multiple Choice part - English now has an essay portion, but I know only of its existence, not its contents.
Students who know nothing about math can pass the tests because they are primed to take the test, not because they know anything about math.

You are right, the tests need to be restructured. Otherwise, as they currently exist, they are detrimental to teaching math and its applications to real problems.

Competition is definitely needed. Students who do well should be praised, those who fail should be held back.

I hope I was clearer this time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.' Also untrue.
NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.

3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.

4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."

Testing, ranking and competition are unavoidable aspects of education
and life..

I was not familiar with the NY tests, sorry about that.
You may be misunderstanding my post's intent, so I apologize for being unclear.
My experience in Texas with standardized State tests has been that teachers are forced to teach strategies which ONLY address taking the standardized (multiple choice) test. Nothing else.
I should qualify the Multiple Choice part - English now has an essay portion, but I know only of its existence, not its contents.
Students who know nothing about math can pass the tests because they are primed to take the test, not because they know anything about math.

You are right, the tests need to be restructured. Otherwise, as they currently exist, they are detrimental to teaching math and its applications to real problems.

Competition is definitely needed. Students who do well should be praised, those who fail should be held back.

I hope I was clearer this time.

Thanks.

It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.

I've tried to broaden the discussion to include the question of progressive vs. traditional education, but, alas, it seems that everyone wants to remain in their own baileywick.

But, it's been fun.

 

[Bfgrn]

2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.' Also untrue.
NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.

3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.

4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."

Testing, ranking and competition are unavoidable aspects of education
and life..

I was not familiar with the NY tests, sorry about that.
You may be misunderstanding my post's intent, so I apologize for being unclear.
My experience in Texas with standardized State tests has been that teachers are forced to teach strategies which ONLY address taking the standardized (multiple choice) test. Nothing else.
I should qualify the Multiple Choice part - English now has an essay portion, but I know only of its existence, not its contents.
Students who know nothing about math can pass the tests because they are primed to take the test, not because they know anything about math.

You are right, the tests need to be restructured. Otherwise, as they currently exist, they are detrimental to teaching math and its applications to real problems.

Competition is definitely needed. Students who do well should be praised, those who fail should be held back.

I hope I was clearer this time.

Thanks.

It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.

I've tried to broaden the discussion to include the question of progressive vs. traditional education, but, alas, it seems that everyone wants to remain in their own baileywick.

But, it's been fun.

And your bailiwick is starting a thread that was never about education...merely pretext for your real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...

 

[random3434]

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was not familiar with the NY tests, sorry about that.
You may be misunderstanding my post's intent, so I apologize for being unclear.
My experience in Texas with standardized State tests has been that teachers are forced to teach strategies which ONLY address taking the standardized (multiple choice) test. Nothing else.
I should qualify the Multiple Choice part - English now has an essay portion, but I know only of its existence, not its contents.
Students who know nothing about math can pass the tests because they are primed to take the test, not because they know anything about math.

You are right, the tests need to be restructured. Otherwise, as they currently exist, they are detrimental to teaching math and its applications to real problems.

Competition is definitely needed. Students who do well should be praised, those who fail should be held back.

I hope I was clearer this time.

Thanks.

It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.

I've tried to broaden the discussion to include the question of progressive vs. traditional education, but, alas, it seems that everyone wants to remain in their own baileywick.

But, it's been fun.

And your bailiwick is starting a thread that was never about education...merely pretext for your real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...

Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: he’s Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the ‘golden goose’ of a place to post…but then he’s not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical ‘meat’.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, let’s hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 8772

Salute to American education system:

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks.

It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.

I've tried to broaden the discussion to include the question of progressive vs. traditional education, but, alas, it seems that everyone wants to remain in their own baileywick.

But, it's been fun.

And your bailiwick is starting a thread that was never about education...merely pretext for your real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...

Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: he’s Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the ‘golden goose’ of a place to post…but then he’s not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical ‘meat’.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, let’s hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.

Well PC, I wouldn't show your post to anyone you hope to gain friendship with...

You level descriptions of "the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger", then you exhibit it.

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."
Thomas Jefferson