Had a long talk with my dad yesterday...

[Mythsaje]

He's a registered Republican who usually votes Democrat. LOL. He thinks it screws with them and, who knows, maybe he's right. He votes on issues and for candidates rather than by party lines. This time, of course, he voted straight Democratic.

We talk politics a lot. I'm more informed than him, being on-line and active here on DU. But he's one of those who digs deep into the newspaper to find the buried stories, so he's more informed than a lot of Americans. It helps that he's extremely literate. He's not a writer, but he is an avid reader, which is one of the things that led me to where I am.

Anyway... At one time he supported the Iraq War because he bought into the spin. He's since learned how mistaken he was. Yeah, I take credit for a lot of that.

We got to talking about education and how we've long abandoned the idea of helping kids learn how to think critically and examine the information they receive. They're made to absorb "facts" and spit them out on cue rather than digging deeper into the information and forming their own opinions. I think this has been a critical mistake on the part of our education system, and part of the reason so few understand their role in our political process, or even where their best interests lie.

I drove my teachers crazy all through school because I questioned EVERYTHING. I wanted to know why they believed what they did when there was the slightest room for doubt. This particularly comes into play in the historical arena. Just because someone SAYS something is true, doesn't mean it is.

I also ran into problems with this in college in my American Lit class. There is a strong tendency to analyze stuff based upon specific criteria--formulas that allegedly allow for the clinical breakdown of ALL literature, but my own experience as a writer tells me that it's bullshit.

My Lit instructor was NOT happy with me, as you might imagine.

I'm wondering from whence arises this propensity to assume that it's a GOOD thing for students to accept what they're taught by their teachers at face value--as if they themselves can't be mistaken or misinformed, and that the information they're passing along is any more worthwhile than the opinions of the students themselves.

I'm not sure our schools are teaching our children how to reason. There's something missing and there has been for quite some time.

Both my father and I brought up this topic with a family member who's a retired teacher and she seemed quite happy to discount our point of view, which I think is part of the problem. Because we are not ourselves teachers, somehow our opinions on the whole system are somehow considered less valid.

Yet we are both products of the public school system in different eras, and we both noted similar problems. When people talk about fixing the education system, they almost NEVER talk to the students about it. They usually go to "experts" who are part of the system itself and aren't able to look at it from any perspective other than the one they absorbed while encapsulated in it.

I understand that it's nearly impossible for our schools to teach to the individual student, but there has to be a way to allow innovation of thought and the ability to think outside the box to be considered an asset to society as a whole rather than an inconvenience to current teaching methods.

We're still falling behind the rest of the industrial world, and I think some of the problem is our inability to accept that some of our preconceptions about how it all works might be wrong.

It's a heavy subject and one I'll probably delve into in greater depth in the next few days.

So...any thoughts? I'd like to see a real discussion on the topic. What are we doing right, in your opinion, and what might we be doing wrong?

[Fridays Child]

1. The first route to critical thinking skills is to model them for our children.

But since a lot of kids are not seeing that in their parents, I assume the second step is to teach these skills in school. How that can best be done may be the stuff of Nobel Prizes.

Your topic is interesting and critical.

[Mythsaje]

2. My rather controversial thought

is that some of it can be done through the use of role-playing games. Maybe not AD&D, specifically, for a variety of reasons, but through similar game systems. They teach operation within a framework of rules, stress the value of imagination, and can (depending on the game master) teach cooperation, problem solving, and creative use of resources.

I've long considered the formation of a charter or magnet school that uses RPGs as a teaching method. Gamers are generally within the top 90 + percentile in both language and mathematics (I'm a fluke in that I seem to be incapable of higher math), and it's easy enough to slip real history, science, and other disciplines into the mechanics and game system itself.

A time travel scenario could teach history and basic science, for example. I mean, imagine a group of American teenagers from our time catapulted back to the Revolutionary War and being led through interactions with the founding fathers.

I've thought about this a lot, as you can tell.

[Fridays Child]

8. So, I hear you saying that strategic thinking and viewing the world...

...through different eyes enhance critical thinking. I agree. I'd also like to see basic philosophy and the art of debate become a part of the curriculum by about eighth or ninth grade.

Brain exercises, or puzzles, are good, too. They keep the mind limber, and to complete them is self-rewarding.

[Mythsaje]

10. Absolutely...

I tend to run my games as puzzle-solving exercises. I'm very tactical minded and have driven some of the game masters crazy by coming up with ideas they couldn't ever have seen coming.

Debate is also a valuable skill. I think our kids could gain a lot by learning how to argue different points of view without becoming emotionally involved in the exchange. In the summer I hear the teenagers in my neighborhood arguing on the street and it usually sounds like their whole method of arguing is yelling as loud as possible and repeating the same phrase over and over again.

When I overhear someone interject something valuable into the argument (which seems to be very rare) I want to stand out on my porch and cheer. LOL

[zbdent]

3. If children were taught to accept everything that they're told

as the truth, imagine what a huge disappointment their first Christmas morning away from mommy & daddy would be like ...

[BadgerKid]

5. Agreed, and also it's the process of uncovering the truth,

not the cookie at the end, that is the "reward". Kids, I think, are curious naturally and are often shot down by adults or held back by their peers.

Edit: fixed grammatical parallel

[Fridays Child]

11. You are so right.

Not many understand the joy of gaining knowledge for knowledge's sake--the joy of learning--wherever it takes them. On many levels, school, as we know it, could stand some re-configuration. Imagine an educational environment where discipline doesn't blot out the sky, so often.

[groovedaddy]

9. They made Socrates drink hemlock

for teaching this to the young!

[Mythsaje]

12. Well, I guess we've come up from that.

Now the hemlock drinking is only symbolic. LOL

[Fridays Child]

13. Ack. Proto-freepers. I guess that the author of Ecclesiastes was right...

...there really is no new thing new under the sun.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

4. I work at a high school.

It's a small (312 students) public school and we are all very close to every student and, for the most part, their families. That's the best part. The biggest problem is true here and true across the U.S.: they only teach for the test scores. In Kentucky we have what is called "core content" and that is ALL that is taught. "Core content" is what is on the test every year. Back in the day, I had a teacher who was a dedicated bird-watcher. Sometimes she would cancel class and we would all go walking outside and identify birds (science and PE). Class projects often involved building bird feeders and such (math, science). We would do research papers on birds (english, research skills). Creative teachers such as this will continue to be stifled until standardized testing is passe.

[kineneb]

6. Puritan/medieval influence

Education in the US has always been more interested in preparing children to be "productive" members of the economy, rather than critical thinkers. 19th century education was about gaining just enough literacy/numeracy to be able to operate machinery in the fields or factories. Hence the reason many students never went beyond the 8th grade. The companies didn't like people who could question their actions.

The Puritan/medieval influence: don't need to be able to do more than read the Bible. More education causes one to question the world and the position of the "holy" leaders and leads to sin and error. Critical thinking is a work of the devil. Only those who have been indoctrinated into the establishment should be allowed to do advanced learning, because they will not question the status quo.

Real efforts at teaching critical thinking have always been rare. And with the whole "testing" craze, we are likely to see very little effort in that direction.

My two cents- look at other educational systems around the world. See what works and what doesn't and then synthesize them into a real educational system. Otherwise, we will just continue to be taught to be good little consumers and nothing more. And we will fall farther behind vs. the rest of the world.

Oh- and I was one of those cranky misfits who loved college and hated elementary and secondary school.

[Mythsaje]

7. I loved college too

despite the fact that I noticed some serious bias on the part of several of my instructors. Sometimes the bias was to my favor, sometimes it wasn't. But it certainly existed. There's a certain amount of expectation that you will play to the instructor's prejudices and I, personally, think that's counter-productive in education.

[Elidor]

14. As George Carlin pointed out (there's a clip in the Vid forum)

The people who control this country frankly don't want people thinking critically. And that's the flipside of the coin that says we educate people to become productive members of the workforce.

But there have been exceptions, because not everyone in charge of schools takes such a cynical view of education. And this is where the Jesuits will always have my respect. If you could imagine a Shaolin Temple for the mind instead of the body - a school of thought where students take eachother apart with lively debate and rigorous discussion rather than with fists and feet - that is something of the image I've gotten of my stepfather's education under the Jesuits. And he shines because of it. He's brilliant on his own, but his mind is like quicksilver thanks to them. And he credits them entirely, and laments that very few people can get an education today like the one he got in St. Louis back in the day (he's 84).

Over the years I've been intrigued by a number of Jesuit-educated people, such as Patrick Fitzgerald, who possess not just knowledge but understanding of knowledge. These people have superb bullshit-meters, and anyone who attempts to convince them of something contrary to the facts will have their metaphorical ass handed to them promptly. More importantly, they tend to have a lifelong love of learning, with open and questing minds that require regular feeding. Having had only a mediocre education myself, and with a mind that is sometimes more closed than that of my stepfather, I guess I am somewhat in awe of them. As a "weak" agnostic, I couldn't deal with all the Jesus stuff, and I'm too lazy by half to satisfy Jesuit instructors for very long, but if I could go back to my college days knowing what I know now, I would at least consider the Jesuits.

The emphasis today in our public schools is primarily rote knowledge, as worthless a product as fast food. And children who are too smart for this system are either turned off by it or considered disruptive by all but the best teachers.

I believe that many some of our elected representatives genuinely care about education, or think they do - but they must find it very difficult to actually accomplish anything positive. They allot money and then trust to the Dept. of Education (currently run by a political hack!) to actually implement effective strategies. As long as we keep putting losers like Margaret Spellings in charge, we will continue to have a system that hinders teachers more than it helps. (If we can't impeach Bush, can we at least get rid of her?) NCLB is a travesty, a blatant political ploy for superficial results which actually weakens teaching. It's a pox on our schools and our children.

There are plenty of dynamite teachers out there who know how to do their jobs and could turn this mess around, but the people who so often rise to the top of school boards and administrations are the mediocrities who have the connections and patronage and who can write abstruse 1,000-page research extracts to justify high salaries. Those with a passion for and committment to excellence are seemingly at a disadvantage when it comes to school board or university politics. A gross generalization, but true.

Gee, how'd that soapbox get under my feet? :blush:

Anyway, here's an interesting description by a blogger of his Jesuit education:

If {Patrick} Fitzgerald’s experience with Jesuit education was anything like mine, he found the Jesuits tough, just, and inspiring. Every teacher I had whether Jesuit or lay had a doctorate. Many had two. My English teacher and advisor (a Jesuit) had PhD’s in Theology and Comparative Literative. My Russian teacher (lay—extremely so) had PhD’s in Russian and Italian. Every student was expected to excel and academic excellence was a given. We were also expected to excel in athletics and other non-academic activities. My little high school of under 1,000 students routinely nailed down state championships in sports, debate, and dramatics.

Rigor was expected and a kind of ruthlessness. Victory alone was not sufficient: we usually went for the throat and strove to rout our opposition.

We took theology for four years. We attended Mass daily. We had annual Loyolan retreats. If you’ve never experienced a Loyolan retreat, it’s a cross between a primitive initiation rite, 17th century Spanish military training, and scientific brainwashing. The individual is stripped down to the bare essentials of his character and a new individual is built up. It’s grueling, horrifying, and rewarding.

http://www.theglitteringeye.com/?p=1458

[demigoddess]

15. I've had kids in reg ed, gifted ed, special ed, all over the country and I say

that money is usually the root of it all.

They hire as few teachers as they can get away with.

They hire bad teachers, because of low pay and little chance for advancement.

They promote the best teachers who end up being the principal who doesn't teach any more.

Good teachers leave the system to make more money.

Funding is tied to test scores so the teachers teach to the tests and CHEAT. I have personally seen at least two school districts who cheated. And some kids knew it.

School years and school days are measured to the minute and not one school district will add one day or one minute because it does not get them any money.

Each teacher/ school feels they have to re invent the wheel each year so there is a lot of wasted and dupicated work, instead of building on what works.

Teachers do not cooperate in teaching because they are actually competing for the merit pay, incentives that some people think will bring about better teaching. Instead it makes the kids into guinea pigs for every new idea that teachers get. The kids are lab rats to test out ideas that may bring the teacher recognition or a raise in pay.
I have lots of ideas on how to rectify the situation but of course, teachers would never listen to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. The idea that school is just job training is PERVASIVE in American society

I've frequently seen it on DU. The result is that many students actively resist any intellectual activity that isn't obviously on their chosen vocational path. World history? Not needed for business. Art? Not needed for medical school. Foreign languages? Not needed for a computer scientist. Music? Not needed for law school. In the early 1980s, students were actually choosing to fill the "elective" slots in their schedules with more courses in their majors.

I don't know how we can undo this idiocy, not when all our mass media push anti-intellectualism.

[Mythsaje]

17. That way leads to specialization and stagnation...

We've lost any respect for the generalist or "renaissance" man (or woman). Some who loves to learn and is willing to take on any subject just for the love of knowing something he or she didn't know in the beginning.

Knowledge is power.