Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Foxfyre]

The only way to preserve the Constitution is to make sure that kids understand the Founding of this nation.
And the only way to preserve Free Markets is to confront the conflicting claims for Socialism vs Capitalism.

You can't indoctrinate teens. You can only arm them with the background to rapidly reach the conclusion that ignorance WILL BE EXPLOITED by politicians and the media.. Make them less susceptible to outrageous claims. They need to know HOW STUFF WORKS. And how the future of the country lies in separating truth from fiction and politicized BS..

The conditions as expressed in the video say much more about the power of mass media than anything else methinks, and its power of influence.

This is exactly why I'm always railing against the concept of television; this is its bounty.

It is my experience that when you expect certain standards from the students, many more of the students will choose to meet those standards than those who will not. If we expect students to have a reasonable knowledge of our history and the basics of economics, cause and effect, and encourage them to consider all points of view and think critically to form opinions about what they see, hear, and read, most will do it.

Absolutely.. Lower the standards or coaching them thru the test is counterproductive. HOWEVER -- teachers cannot solve upbringing issues. There WILL BE kids who fail to achieve with the higher standards because of home life. They need a different approach. One that involves more motivation and socialization.. Lots of different ways to do this separately from the mainstream. One example is "military style academies". Not the flag waving -- gun toting type --- but the longer day -- more disciplined enviro that allows for sports, music, leadership skills, etc...

All suggestions worthy of a good long look and thoughtful consideration.

There should be vocational schools for students who simply are not cut out for college preparedness academics, but even there, a basic understanding of how the real world works--economy, government, and the history behind it, should be part of the core curriculum. I don't want another college graduate, a charming and accomplished person, to look at me and ask with all sincerity: "Who was Karl Marx?" Or who didn't know that Calvin Coolidge was a President of the United States. Or who couldn't give a reasonable explanation of the concept of supply and demand.

It is also true that the government and the schools are wholly inadequate to replace good parenting skills. We will have to demand a culture with old fashioned conservative values that require people to parent their kids or lose them.

 

[Dhara]

We need to teach our children critical thinking. We have to let them challenge the prevailing view, and really debate historical events. We can't do that if we let ourselves and them talk in sound bites or tweets.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indoctrination implies force-fed education

Not necessarily. In fact not at all. Indoctrination is far more effective when it's ingested willingly.

And there's television again. It's the most effective propaganda tool ever created. And nobody is forced to watch it.

To paraphrase an old wisdom, "who controls television controls the world".

We used to say who controls the press controls the world. Bill Moyers was talking about the rise of giant media conglomerates owned by a few elite mega billionaires and his concerns about an informed populace have come true.

News spends more time on graphic violence and negativity than on civics and serious communities issues of any kind.

As well as on empty fluff that sells ratings but disseminates no useful information ----- which is why we see everybody in the video who don't know their wars, have no trouble nailing who the hell Brad Pitt was married to.

What really worries me, is that people with a political persuasion think they ought to control the thinking of citizens by what they're taught and how they're taught. They want schools privatised in order to affectmore control. They would kick kids out of school if they didn't spit back their version of history or Constitutional interpretation. They want to limit who votes. The implication is people who vote against THEIR politcal position are "duped" by "big government education and are "too stupid" to vote.

I'm not sure I understand what the argument is here but I think I likely agree with it. . I haven't argued that people should not have political positions or values based on ideology. I have argued that school is not the place to dictate what political positions or ideology is acceptable and what is not.

 

[Pogo]

It's not up to students to judge. They learn the same things today I learned when I was in high school back in the 1980's. I honestly will never understand how you anti-public school people come up with this crap.

Violation of Rule 3. Please direct comments to the member's argument and not any member or members themselves.

That was directed towards your argument. You are claiming students aren't even taught the basics. You've offered nothing to prove that other than a 3:00 minute video, by the way Carson used to do that schtick 40 years ago, and where you're getting your information from is a valid question, I hope it's from more than Facebook videos. So, I repeat, yes they should be taught the basics and fortunately they already are.

Maybe the point is that the basics they are taught may need some fluffing up. I have previously seen an argument, (not in this thread) that people should not even get to vote if they don't have a Masters level or above understanding of history and civics.

That I disagree with. That's elitism.

The argument is that the basics are not being taught. And while I agree that a civics or history exam is not practical to establish criteria for voting, and a master's degree required to vote is ridiculously elitist, I am horrified that some people are given a name and a promise of some reward if they will go into the voting booth and vote for that name. They have no clue who are what they are actually voting for or what the implications of that might be,

So since a voter qualification test is not practical as a requirement to vote, how about we have an education system that best encourages students to be reasonably informed about these things when they graduate, so we will have a better chance to have an informed electorate not to mention a people who are smarter about what kind of people they want to trust with the government.

I'd say the basics are being taught but they aren't taught in way that engages all students equally. Some students are more disadvantaged than others and I walk away from this post wondering if the position expressed in this post cares about them or would leave them behind possibly even limit their voting opportunity.

It comes across as elitist or classist. Well meaning or intentioned perhaps, but not respectful of the range of citizens we have in our country and how o really address informed citizenry.

I have yet to see any evidence that the material is "not being taught" as the OP asserts. What is demonstrated is that it's not being learned.

But that is a different statement, and puts the onus in a different place.

 

[flacaltenn]

Other. They're already learning these things.

Are they? What evidence is there for this?

They teach it in my school and they have ever since I've been there. Sometimes I'm baffled by where you people come up with this stuff.

WHERE do WE get this stuff??? Why HERE of course.. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011468.pdf

From National Testing results. Stuff that leftists don't like. But if you're not gonna let the Feds MEASURE the problem -- then you shouldn't have a Dept of Education..

In those reports we learn that 12th grade are averaging WELL below the BASIC level of History Comprehension. And cannot answer these questions.

During the Korean War, United Nations
forces made up largely of troops from the
United States and South Korea fought
against troops from North Korea and
A the Soviet Union
B Japan
C China
D Vietnam

Only 22% answered that correctly..

OR

Why did Missouri’s application for
statehood in 1819 cause a political crisis?
A The United States had equal numbers
of slave and free states, and Missouri’s
entry would have upset the balance.
B The United States had never before
established a state west of the
Mississippi, and Missouri’s entry
would have likely caused conflict
with American Indians.
C Missouri was a center of abolitionist
activity, and its admission would have
antagonized southern states.
D Missouri was a center of secessionist
activity, and its entry would have
antagonized northern states.

An amazing 44% got that one..

They USED to publish the correct percentages for EVERY question on the tests in all categories. Probably still there -- go look them and weep.. Don't need YOUTUBE --- you go to the scientificallly collected data..

 

[flacaltenn]

Violation of Rule 3. Please direct comments to the member's argument and not any member or members themselves.

That was directed towards your argument. You are claiming students aren't even taught the basics. You've offered nothing to prove that other than a 3:00 minute video, by the way Carson used to do that schtick 40 years ago, and where you're getting your information from is a valid question, I hope it's from more than Facebook videos. So, I repeat, yes they should be taught the basics and fortunately they already are.

Maybe the point is that the basics they are taught may need some fluffing up. I have previously seen an argument, (not in this thread) that people should not even get to vote if they don't have a Masters level or above understanding of history and civics.

That I disagree with. That's elitism.

The argument is that the basics are not being taught. And while I agree that a civics or history exam is not practical to establish criteria for voting, and a master's degree required to vote is ridiculously elitist, I am horrified that some people are given a name and a promise of some reward if they will go into the voting booth and vote for that name. They have no clue who are what they are actually voting for or what the implications of that might be,

So since a voter qualification test is not practical as a requirement to vote, how about we have an education system that best encourages students to be reasonably informed about these things when they graduate, so we will have a better chance to have an informed electorate not to mention a people who are smarter about what kind of people they want to trust with the government.

I'd say the basics are being taught but they aren't taught in way that engages all students equally. Some students are more disadvantaged than others and I walk away from this post wondering if the position expressed in this post cares about them or would leave them behind possibly even limit their voting opportunity.

It comes across as elitist or classist. Well meaning or intentioned perhaps, but not respectful of the range of citizens we have in our country and how o really address informed citizenry.

I have yet to see any evidence that the material is "not being taught" as the OP asserts. What is demonstrated is that it's not being learned.

But that is a different statement, and puts the onus in a different place.

See post 105... It's been measured and it sucks.. In ALL grades nationwide..

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. Yes the smart phone and similar technology has significantly changed the culture, especially for the younger boomers and subsequent generations. And, in my personal opinion, not in a good way. But I also believe human nature has not changed. Only what the modern culture has made important has changed. IMO, if we make those history and economics grades important for the student's future, he/she will develop a sufficient interest to learn something about them. You overcome one compelling power with a better, stronger one.

I think it's possible you may have had a better education than is availabe to my kids at this time. High school credits involve accumulating points, not competencies. At the very least, even Spanish classes for four years ought to result in fluent Spanish literacy.

It's not happening. Only the elite, two parent middle or upper class kids are accessing what they need to compete.

Again no harm, no foul, but a gentle reminder not to address me personally. Address my post.

I know I got a far superior basic education in high school and college than what my children got. They got a far superior education in high school and college than many modern day students are getting. It is rather alarming.

Ok Foxfyre. I'll try not to address you personally. It's hard when you mention your own experience or your families experience. I know my own experience, my experience working in the rural school district I live in and my children's experience.

Otherwise I'd have to be constantly studying and referencing other people's works and opinions rather than writing my own.

Maybe I'm not up to speed enough for your thread.

It's uh, kind of impossible to address the topic without an accompanying examination of one's own experiences, as well as reflection on someone else's. I did it myself in probably every post here.

You may have done it in every post but you haven't had a warning for every post you did it in, LOL. Lucky you.

Ahem. There is a difference between commenting on the member's post and commenting or addressing the member. There is no rule about our citing our own experience or position.

 

[Pogo]

WHERE do WE get this stuff??? Why HERE of course.. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011468.pdf

From National Testing results. Stuff that leftists don't like.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
...
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

Your move, Foxy.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We need to teach our children critical thinking. We have to let them challenge the prevailing view, and really debate historical events. We can't do that if we let ourselves and them talk in sound bites or tweets.

In another thread, you indicated that liberal, westerners should not consider themselves any better than those who mutilate the genitals of their female children, marry them off without their consent to lecherous uncle Omar, slap them in a Burqa and kill them for "honor" lest they have a mind of their own.


Might I suggest that some critical thinking skills might be employed when comparing one's own culture to those of others? Extreme moral relativism bordering on nihilism is the avoidance of critical thought rather than a manifestation thereof. .

 

[Dhara]

Indoctrination implies force-fed education

Not necessarily. In fact not at all. Indoctrination is far more effective when it's ingested willingly.

And there's television again. It's the most effective propaganda tool ever created. And nobody is forced to watch it.

To paraphrase an old wisdom, "who controls television controls the world".

We used to say who controls the press controls the world. Bill Moyers was talking about the rise of giant media conglomerates owned by a few elite mega billionaires and his concerns about an informed populace have come true.

News spends more time on graphic violence and negativity than on civics and serious communities issues of any kind.

As well as on empty fluff that sells ratings but disseminates no useful information ----- which is why we see everybody in the video who don't know their wars, have no trouble nailing who the hell Brad Pitt was married to.

What really worries me, is that people with a political persuasion think they ought to control the thinking of citizens by what they're taught and how they're taught. They want schools privatised in order to affectmore control. They would kick kids out of school if they didn't spit back their version of history or Constitutional interpretation. They want to limit who votes. The implication is people who vote against THEIR politcal position are "duped" by "big government education and are "too stupid" to vote.

I'm not sure I understand what the argument is here. I haven't argued that people should not have political positions or values based on ideology. I have argued that school is not the place to dictate what political positions or ideology is acceptable and what is not.

I completely agree that school should not be indoctrination into a political position or ideology. I don't agree with limiting who gets to vote by some test made up by someone who may have an agenda. I don't think peopl e always know what they're voting for. I'm thinking myself of ballot measures that are VERY trickily worded to seem the opposite of what you'd vote for. I have to read it with my mate and discuss the ballot and research which groups are for and against the measure and whether I trust them or the measure itself. That is a VERY high level of competency. People get to vote. Even "stupid" or uneducated people get to vote. That is the intention of the Founders. LOL at least my understanding.

 

[Dhara]

We need to teach our children critical thinking. We have to let them challenge the prevailing view, and really debate historical events. We can't do that if we let ourselves and them talk in sound bites or tweets.

In another thread, you indicated that liberal, westerners should not consider themselves any better than those who mutilate the genitals of their female children, marry them off without their consent to lecherous uncle Omar, slap them in a Burqa and kill them for "honor" lest they have a mind of their own.


Might I suggest that YOU learn some critical thinking skills, as this form of extreme moral relativism borders on nihilism.

You sound very young, so I imagine there is still time.

YOUR MOVE FOXY>

 

[flacaltenn]

Indoctrination implies force-fed education

Not necessarily. In fact not at all. Indoctrination is far more effective when it's ingested willingly.

And there's television again. It's the most effective propaganda tool ever created. And nobody is forced to watch it.

To paraphrase an old wisdom, "who controls television controls the world".

We used to say who controls the press controls the world. Bill Moyers was talking about the rise of giant media conglomerates owned by a few elite mega billionaires and his concerns about an informed populace have come true.

News spends more time on graphic violence and negativity than on civics and serious communities issues of any kind.

As well as on empty fluff that sells ratings but disseminates no useful information ----- which is why we see everybody in the video who don't know their wars, have no trouble nailing who the hell Brad Pitt was married to.

What really worries me, is that people with a political persuasion think they ought to control the thinking of citizens by what they're taught and how they're taught. They want schools privatised in order to affectmore control. They would kick kids out of school if they didn't spit back their version of history or Constitutional interpretation. They want to limit who votes. The implication is people who vote against THEIR politcal position are "duped" by "big government education and are "too stupid" to vote.

It's more like "cheated by Big Govt" than duped.They have empathy for the kids who were mis-served by public schooling. And things would get BETTER with higher expectations, more parental CHOICE, and getting the "fluff" out of the curriculum. All pretty much common sense conservative views of the problem. CERTAINLY won't get better if the Dept of Ed is prevented from requiring National testing.

 

[Unkotare]

We need to teach our children critical thinking. .....

We do.

 

[flacaltenn]

WHERE do WE get this stuff??? Why HERE of course.. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011468.pdf

From National Testing results. Stuff that leftists don't like.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
...
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

Your move, Foxy.

Did I flubb up the rules? There was a question asked and I answered it.. Kinda hard to have a convo if questions/answered are considered "addressing the poster directly"..

If I did wrong -- I'll apologize and address all posters thru an elaborate mirror system that disguises whose questions I'm answering.. Or I'll leave if I'm asked..

 

[Foxfyre]

Violation of Rule 3. Please direct comments to the member's argument and not any member or members themselves.

That was directed towards your argument. You are claiming students aren't even taught the basics. You've offered nothing to prove that other than a 3:00 minute video, by the way Carson used to do that schtick 40 years ago, and where you're getting your information from is a valid question, I hope it's from more than Facebook videos. So, I repeat, yes they should be taught the basics and fortunately they already are.

Maybe the point is that the basics they are taught may need some fluffing up. I have previously seen an argument, (not in this thread) that people should not even get to vote if they don't have a Masters level or above understanding of history and civics.

That I disagree with. That's elitism.

The argument is that the basics are not being taught. And while I agree that a civics or history exam is not practical to establish criteria for voting, and a master's degree required to vote is ridiculously elitist, I am horrified that some people are given a name and a promise of some reward if they will go into the voting booth and vote for that name. They have no clue who are what they are actually voting for or what the implications of that might be,

So since a voter qualification test is not practical as a requirement to vote, how about we have an education system that best encourages students to be reasonably informed about these things when they graduate, so we will have a better chance to have an informed electorate not to mention a people who are smarter about what kind of people they want to trust with the government.

I'd say the basics are being taught but they aren't taught in way that engages all students equally. Some students are more disadvantaged than others and I walk away from this post wondering if the position expressed in this post cares about them or would leave them behind possibly even limit their voting opportunity.

It comes across as elitist or classist. Well meaning or intentioned perhaps, but not respectful of the range of citizens we have in our country and how o really address informed citizenry.

I have yet to see any evidence that the material is "not being taught" as the OP asserts. What is demonstrated is that it's not being learned.

But that is a different statement, and puts the onus in a different place.

Well that's hard to argue with since technically it is right. But I didn't pass algebra until I completed the coursework and passed the final exam. I didn't get out of music theory class without knowing the names of and being able to identify the clefs, names and placement of the notes, and at least a basic understanding of chords, keys, time signatures etc. I didn't get out of geography class without being able to identify a reasonable number of major cities, states, and countries on a map and demonstrate at least a rudimentary understanding of climate and factors affecting that. And I didn't get out of government/civics class without being able to identify the branches of government, the constitutional functions assigned to each, the concept of natural rights as opposed to legal or civil rights, and how it was all intended to fit together, and I didn't get out of history class without being able to pass a reasonable test on names, dates, places, and events of of our nation's history that I would give substantial odds that not more than a handful of highschool or college graduates could pass now. And I know I learned it because I still remember most of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That was directed towards your argument. You are claiming students aren't even taught the basics. You've offered nothing to prove that other than a 3:00 minute video, by the way Carson used to do that schtick 40 years ago, and where you're getting your information from is a valid question, I hope it's from more than Facebook videos. So, I repeat, yes they should be taught the basics and fortunately they already are.

Maybe the point is that the basics they are taught may need some fluffing up. I have previously seen an argument, (not in this thread) that people should not even get to vote if they don't have a Masters level or above understanding of history and civics.

That I disagree with. That's elitism.

The argument is that the basics are not being taught. And while I agree that a civics or history exam is not practical to establish criteria for voting, and a master's degree required to vote is ridiculously elitist, I am horrified that some people are given a name and a promise of some reward if they will go into the voting booth and vote for that name. They have no clue who are what they are actually voting for or what the implications of that might be,

So since a voter qualification test is not practical as a requirement to vote, how about we have an education system that best encourages students to be reasonably informed about these things when they graduate, so we will have a better chance to have an informed electorate not to mention a people who are smarter about what kind of people they want to trust with the government.

I'd say the basics are being taught but they aren't taught in way that engages all students equally. Some students are more disadvantaged than others and I walk away from this post wondering if the position expressed in this post cares about them or would leave them behind possibly even limit their voting opportunity.

It comes across as elitist or classist. Well meaning or intentioned perhaps, but not respectful of the range of citizens we have in our country and how o really address informed citizenry.

I have yet to see any evidence that the material is "not being taught" as the OP asserts. What is demonstrated is that it's not being learned.

But that is a different statement, and puts the onus in a different place.

Well that's hard to argue with since technically it is right. But I didn't pass algebra until I completed the coursework and passed the final exam. I didn't get out of music theory class without knowing the names of and being able to identify the clefs, names and placement of the notes, and at least a basic understanding of chords, keys, time signatures etc. I didn't get out of geography class without being able to identify a reasonable number of major cities, states, and countries on a map and demonstrate at least a rudimentary understanding of climate and factors affecting that. And I didn't get out of government/civics class without being able to identify the branches of government, the constitutional functions assigned to each, the concept of natural rights as opposed to legal or civil rights, and how it was all intended to fit together, and I didn't get out of history class without being able to pass a reasonable test on names, dates, places, and events of of our nation's history that I would give substantial odds that not more than a handful of highschool or college graduates could pass now. And I know I learned it because I still remember most of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

WHERE do WE get this stuff??? Why HERE of course.. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011468.pdf

From National Testing results. Stuff that leftists don't like.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
...
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

Your move, Foxy.

Did I flubb up the rules? There was a question asked and I answered it.. Kinda hard to have a convo if questions/answered are considered "addressing the poster directly"..

If I did wrong -- I'll apologize and address all posters thru an elaborate mirror system that disguises whose questions I'm answering.. Or I'll leave if I'm asked..

Nope. The editorial "we' is okay. It is only when we address our comment to or refer to another member directly that is not allowed.

 

[Foxfyre]

We need to teach our children critical thinking. We have to let them challenge the prevailing view, and really debate historical events. We can't do that if we let ourselves and them talk in sound bites or tweets.

In another thread, you indicated that liberal, westerners should not consider themselves any better than those who mutilate the genitals of their female children, marry them off without their consent to lecherous uncle Omar, slap them in a Burqa and kill them for "honor" lest they have a mind of their own.


Might I suggest that some critical thinking skills might be employed when comparing one's own culture to those of others? Extreme moral relativism bordering on nihilism is the avoidance of critical thought rather than a manifestation thereof. .

Please refer to Rule #3 for the thread stated in the OP. Remarks must be addressed to the members comments here and cannot be addressed to or refer to the member directly. What a member may have posted in another thread is irrelevent to this discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

OFF TOPIC: I have to go cook dinner and get some other more mundane chores out of the way. Everybody play nice. I shall return.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Please refer to Rule #3 for the thread stated in the OP. Remarks must be addressed to the members comments here and cannot be addressed to or refer to the member directly. What a member may have posted in another thread is irrelevent to this discussion.

Sure, whatever.

The fact remains that critical thinking involves the ability to see the differences between things and also the ability to indulge in moral reasoning.

In fact, the very essence of a political discussion board SHOULD involve the application of moral reasoning.