Education really is the refuge of the 2nd rate:

Especially at the elementary level, people view teaching as more caring and mothering and historically society has given that role to women,” Calabrese Barton said.

But, you do find more males in elementary schools teaching physical education and teaching the upper grade levels because that is more accepted in our society, she said.

“There is this gender stereotype that (men) have to be the bread winners,” Calabrese Barton said. “We need to break down those stereotypes.”

Well, in the inner city communities, where she seeks to put her theories into practice, they're already there. No bread winners.

I talked to an art teacher who works with inner city kids, taking them into the woods and doing projects, and he told me he sees kids who are "ruined" by third grade, and he believes (and the teachers tell him) it's for lack of daddies.

And kids are expensive. You really can't raise one -- or more -- adequately on a fast food or other low paycheck.

This hooha above reminds me of a defining moment in my education: Taking women's studies at the University of Michigan. My thought in class: "I've never heard such crap in my life, and why are all these women, who, surely, were mostly sent here on the salaries of their non-rapist daddies, lapping this stuff up?"

When one of my left-leaning colleagues scornfully described one of my arguments as "reductive," I didn't quite know what his objection was. I couldn't understand that he was rejecting assumption that the way to understand a phenomenon is to reduce it to its component parts and figure out how they relate to one another within the whole--the empirical approach. So I rationalized that he was probably using "reductive" where I would use "simplistic"--failing to take all the relevant details into account.

I must have been too kind, because here it is in black and white: empiricism is a "capitalist and post-colonialist deformit[y]."

So no wonder people on the left support Marxist ideology in spite of the empirical evidence provided by the failure of the Soviet system. No wonder they support restrictive gun laws in spite of the empirical evidence that they do not reduce crime. As you point out, Amy, they are as blinded by faith as anyone on the religious right.

Wow, so many $5 words. Pedagogy.. someone got a thesaurus for their birthday!

And some people get offended when I tell them I had no desire to go into education because of both the money not being enough to meet some of my life goals and more importantly the politics involved in modern teaching. These days knowing more than I did as an undergrad you'd have to pay me a good 200k/yr to tolerate teaching in public schools. If its not the politics its the threat of false accusations of impropriety.

And I might add, the worst thing about both is that they are PROUD of being blinded by faith, and hope to blind others in the same way.

You're setting up a false equivalence in your first sentence, Amy. The Religious Right has been trying with all their might to get America's schools and universities to peddle Creationism as legitimate science, but they've mostly failed miserably. You will have a hell of a time finding a single professor at any top Faculty of Science in North America who publicly espouses Creationism.

The Radical Left, on the other hand, has been trying with all it's might to turn America's schools and universities into Marxist indoctrination factories for churning out Chomskybots, and they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The author of the article could only find one would-be teacher who wasn't willing to spew "social justice", and the poor guy got himself blacklisted and hauled into court for his trouble.

It ought to be obvious which side represents the greater and more immediate threat to reason and liberty.

Go Martin. I couldn't agree more.

Hmm. "Human dignity" can only be supported by woo-woo hand waving?

Are people really so insane that they think the moneygrubbing shyster Sylvia Browne is leadership material in this world?

Martin and WolfmanMac, you exaggerate the threat.

In the university where I taught, pretty much the whole school of business and a sizable percentage of the chemistry department were politically conservative. Members of the other science departments, and math, seldom expressed any political leanings, and they resolutely resisted attempts to politicize their curricula. The history department had people in it with a range of opinions. The English department leaned left, as most do--but even there, when the most Marxist among us tried to increase the emphasis on Cultural Studies, the rest of us just rolled our eyes. They certainly did not succeed "beyond their wildest dreams" in turning *our* university--not even our department--into a "Marxist indoctrination factor[y] for churning out Chomskybots."

Besides, consider that many students resist indoctrination and actually do think critically. My son, for example, entered lefty Macalester College fresh out of high school and emerged four years later as a libertarian. Even the general run of students are not so vulnerable as you fear. Many of them who don't think much for themsleves also don't pay enough attention to their lessons to ever get indoctrinated. If you had graded as many tests as I have, you would relax for this reason, if for no other.

"Ninety-nine out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual."
--William Torrey Harris (US Commissioner of Education, 1889-1906), The Philosophy of Education [1893]

Axman,

Exaggerate, my foot.

I think many of you confused left vs. right and empirical/scientific method vs. non-empirical-literature-based-deconstruction methods.

I work for a very large, very diverse defense company and a great deal of us our social liberals/fiscal conservatives and will probably vote for Obama. And as we engineer our, well, death machines, we don't use philosophical deconstruction often in our methods. (Reverse engineering yes, philosophical deconstruction, no.)

When I debate the women's studies set online, I rarely find the true believers have had any background in physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. But they are often filled with an understanding of why empiricism leads nowhere and how Occam's Razor is like 400 years old now and not very useful.

You make a good point about many students resisting indoctrination and even more being apolitical, Axman. That was certainly the case at the U of T when I was studying engineering. I exaggerated to make a point, but the imbalance is still real.

Try finding a professor in any faculty at any top university (Bob Jones doesn't count) who publicly parrots the agenda of the Religious Right. The author of that article had a hard time finding professors in any Faculty of Education who didn't parrot the agenda of the Radical Left. The bottom line is that enemies of reason on the Right have no toehold in academia, while enemies of reason on the Left are entrenched, and considered to be legitimate scholars.

And don't forget that Teacher's College graduates who have been indoctrinated can spread their poison to vulnerable children who don't have the means to resist, and who are being denied the education they need because their teachers have delusions of "social justice".

Okay, okay, WolfmanMac. You got me. The only evidence I gave for my opinion was anecdotal, and that doesn't cut it.

However, in the passage you quoted, William Torrey Harris gives no evidence at all for his opinion. Did you subject it to reason, or are you taking it on faith?

The quotation needs some context. Ninety-nine out of a hundred what? What did Harris mean by "substantial education"? A particular duration of formal study? Or the education we all get throughout life, just by living in our culture--the sum total of our socializing influences? Does the phrase "scientifically defined" mean anything specific, or is it just a buzzword? Have things changed enough in the past century to call his opinion into question?

Not to mention that Wolfmanmac's quote is more than a hundred years old. And at that, is no more legit than Axman's anecdote.

Not that I disagree with Harris' sentiment. Ultimately I think it is probably more relevant today, than it was when he said it. But that is the fault of neither the left or the right, but of administrators and even more, politicians who want to simplify and turn college education into a glorified high school experience.

In my rather limited experience, most college professors do quite well at keeping their non-topical opinions to themselves. While I wouldn't argue that the "left" isn't pretty heavily represented in academia, that doesn't translate into leftwing indoctrination by a large stretch. This is especially true, because as Axman points out, most college students just don't give a fuck.

If you're really concerned about the left's push in education, I would highly recommend checking out the bloggers at scienceblogs.com - they are mostly lefties, but if you look at the hard science posts, you'll be hard pressed to find much indicating the political ideologies of the writers. I have no reason to believe that the teaching of those bloggers who actually teach, would be much different.

Okay, I'll bite Axman.

Not only is your experience anecdotal, its similar to a self selecting, "SLOP" poll.
What percentage of the population goes to college? What percentage of the population goes into hard sciences? Then what percentage comes to your classes? Perhaps you teach a required class, like college algebra, then I would happily concede you see a representative sample of the school population, but is that a representative sample of the general population, who gets out of high school, maybe goes to a tech school or junior college for a couple of years, or doesn't pursue higher education at all?
My experiences have been in "soft" sciences, to include a year and a half of law school. To call that "indoctrination" is an understatement. From Jumior college, to a 4 year university, to law school, the leftist bias was obvious and pervasive (and this in a state widely believed to be inundated with conservative bible belt politics, but whose actual politics instead call into serious question the validity of widely held beliefs).
The WTH quote I gave is useful in demonstrating that from the outset and with no pretense otherwise, the public school system was intended to create good little government drones. There is no shortage of published research to back that up. Many, many many conversations (yes, this is MY anecdotal evidence, but polls tend to back me up on this) with the drooling morons coming out of our public schools would be enough by itself to convince me they have had great success.
I have no problem with anyones difference of opinion - let us debate and learn. If we don't change our positions, both of us stand to gain insight into how better to present our points of view in the future.
But the "facts" these young adults hold to be self evident, and the absolute disgust and intolerance they have for exploring those ideas even one or two inches below the surface finally, the cognitive dissonance and anger they display towards the speaker on rare occasions they do so and glimpse a dawning awareness of more to it than they learned in school is sometimes overwhelming.
A final anecdote (and yes, it is an anecdote, but maybe a demonstrative one) - when we found out I was going to a military training course in Florida, my youngest daughter (14 at the time) was beside herself with worry and almost inconsolable. Why?
Because of "Global Warming," Florida was being swallowed by the ocean!

Martin at 4:15 says, "And don't forget that Teacher's College graduates who have been indoctrinated can spread their poison to vulnerable children who don't have the means to resist, and who are being denied the education they need because their teachers have delusions of 'social justice'."

Yes. We shouldn't minimize the threat, any more than we should exaggerate it.

DuWayne at 5:43 says, "In my rather limited experience, most college professors do quite well at keeping their non-topical opinions to themselves." This observation brings up another anecdote. I'm not presenting it as evidence of anything; make of what you will.

Almost forty years ago, at the U of Florida, a Jewish English professor named Melvin New spent the first week of the term explaining the major tenets of Christianity that formed the moral and cosmic framework for the literature the class was reading. Late in the week, a Jewish coed objected, "Dr. New, I get tired of you trying to cram your Christianity down our throats!"

"(and this in a state widely believed to be inundated with conservative bible belt politics, but whose actual politics instead call into serious question the validity of widely held beliefs)"

This sounds like something a person might say about the state I am from. Do people say that about ALL states, or are you also from Iowa? Not being a smartass, but would really like to hear you elaborate on this.

"Ultimately I think it is probably more relevant today, than it was when he said it."

I'm reading Hirsi Ali's book (can barely put it down for more than ten minutes to talk to you guys, but ...), and here's a girl whose grandmother basically lived in the Iron Age, but she herself had already read Harlequin romance novels by the age of 15. Are you saying these kind of developments, the Internet, what-have-you, aren't at the very least exposing people to new things?

Maybe you have a few bright ones floating around out there, and it just takes them getting out of their comfort zone once in a while, before a spark lights.

WolfmanMac says, "The WTH quote I gave is useful in demonstrating that from the outset and with no pretense otherwise, the public school system was intended to create good little government drones."

Thanks for the clarification. Not much to disagree with there, especially if you take into account that the "good little government drones" must also be good little employees to keep the capitalist machinery producing and good little consumers to buy what gets produced.

Another anecdote, this one to illustrate your point that, in education, compliance is often more valued than mastery or discovery: my mother-in-law taught second grade in a southern state. Her comments about her students always had to do with whether or not they stayed in their seats and raised their hand before speaking and kept their orderly place in the lunch line. I don't remember hearing her complain about pupils who failed to color inside the lines, but she probably did. Kids who learned those lessons well and carried them into adulthood would make excellent cogs in any kind of machine--governmental, industrial, military, or ecclesiastical.

I've got to sign off now, but let me thank all you guys. Very interesting discussion.

Amy wrote:

Count me as "hopelessly wedded to reason, empiricism, individual merit, and other capitalist and post-colonialist deformities."

Me, too. That's why we'll up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Here's a more up-to-date quote for WolfmanMac. Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, philosopher, physicist and pacifist, wrote this in "The Functions of a Teacher" in his book "Unpopular Essays" (1950) (which got the Nobel Prize for Literature):

"...any teacher in the modern world who allows himself to be inspired by the ideals of his predecessors is likely to be made sharply aware that it is not his function to teach what he thinks, but to instill such beliefs and prejudices as are thought useful by his employers."

But his own education would be described in today's terminology as home-schooled! (By tutors.) Oops!

Great quote, Jim C. I don't immediately see the "oops" you are referring to, since his teaching was professional and his statement could easily be observational. It sounds as though his statement goes to my point (which may have been your intent and I'm misreading you).
I do agree with Axman that the threat is no more productively addressed by its exaggeration than by its minimization. But there is a threat, I can't accept much doubt about that. Year after year American schoolchildren perform miserably on tests that measure basic knowledge, often many places behind far less industrialized countries that spend far less on education than the U.S.
But boy can those kids text message!!!
I further cannot accept this as being "the fault of the parents," although in many cases I agree those parents are helping the situation one bit. But if, for example, one were to send their child to a piano teacher for twelve years, and twelve years later the kid could barely pound out a recognizable version of chopsticks, that person would be justifiably furious at the teacher. We are compelled by force to send our children to school (and if we don't send them, we still have to cough up the dough) for what seems to amount to little more than that. But we are told its our fault.
We have kids graduating high school who can barely read or write coherent sentences, can't place WW II in the correct decade or name the major players and cannot correctly identify the original document that stated "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." But they can put condoms on bananas, think Harriet Tubman was the father of our country and think math is what a calculator is for. Do I exaggerate? well, maybe the line about Harriet Tubman, but not by much on anything else.
There is a problem, its not being addressed, and more money for the schools is, I am convinced, not the answer.

I think the comments went a bit off-track: college programs are pretty irrelevant here. The point is that this is someone at a teachers' college, where teachers for primary and secondary schools study. Indoctrinating younger children is a lot easier than indoctrinating college students.

The sentence that Amy highlighted shows the author to be completely unqualified for any role in education. Not only because he fails to understand why reason, empiricism, and individual merit are essential, but because he believe it is the right and duty of teachers to politically indoctrinate their students.

Teachers' colleges and education degrees should be eliminated. They counterproductive in secondary education (expertise in the subject matter should be the deciding factor), and even for primary education there are better solutions.

I do think Wolfman's got a point. I fought with my daughter's schools constantly because they seemed more intent on indoctrinating her on one thing or the other (either religion or PC politics) rather than teaching her basic facts and to think. I'm still shocked at basic facts even about American history she didn't learn in school and much that she has learned she has learned from me.

I don't know what the answer is. Public or private, I think our educational system is in bad need of overhaul. I don't know if more money will help or not. I doubt vouchers would. The elite schools that actually offer a solid education (is there any such thing really in primary education in the good, ole US of A anymore) will still be elite and not more than one or two tokens from the wrong side of the tracks are going to get in. Also, those who promote "school choice" have all too obviously motivated an agenda. There may be a minority who really want school choice because they are genuinely concerned about the state of education but the majority are clearly motivated by wanting to get their hands on the "unchurched" kids. Can't force their parents to send them to the church of our choice; we'll indoctrinate them in the name of education instead.

And, yes, social justice parading as science is every bit as creepy as creationism parading as science.

Thank you for the compliment T's Grammy, i think you and I probably agree on much from your comments I've read in the past.
But I must gently disagree with you about the majority of people wanting school choice to get their hands on the "unchurched." I am not a Christian, my brother isn't, his wife isn't and he isn't raising his kids to be. None of his friends, their friends or my friends are either. He has moved through a broad circle of Libertarian party people, as have I (though to a lesser degree - he was s LP Secretary for a while in our home state) and they are heavily atheist. Further, I think a lot of Republicans (at least many I have known and yes, I realize I'm getting anecdotal all over the place) are really Libertarians at heart but regrettably, they still have faith in the Republican paryty as an outlet for their views. And/or, they see voting Libertarian as "throwing away their vote" and still vote against Democrats.
My point is this - private schools do not have to be religious schools. They may be in large part now, and i would posit that is because right now the churches are a central source of income. Let school choice become a reality and I would wager many, many people would be all for secular private schools. Certainly I would, and certainly the Libertarian party would.
Now, is this a cure all? No, I don't think so. I think nothing is a cure all, there is no utopian solution to any social problem. But when freedom becomes the touchstone - when parents are free to pick and choose their childrens schools just as they are free to pick and choose the color of their childrens cell phones, their family calling plan or their childrens music teachers- the market will respond in that venue just as it has in others. I don't believe the people who run religious private schools are expecting to clean up in the long run - they know thats what will happen as well.

Okay, I've done some looking, but for the life of me, I'm having trouble with the concept of "social justice". (I'm a recent product of our public education system, so forgive me). Could someone please explain the concept? If I'm even getting a glimmer of the idea, I can't see how it would apply to science and chemistry...

Also, Amy said waaaaay up above:
"Taking women's studies at the University of Michigan. My thought in class: "I've never heard such crap in my life, and why are all these women, who, surely, were mostly sent here on the salaries of their non-rapist daddies, lapping this stuff up?" "

Amy, I'm not sure when you went to college (before or after divorces became commonplace), but I know that in my Gender Studies class, there were a lot of girls that were products of divorce, who's daddies off and went and married a bimbo after leaving Mom. They grew up seeing Mom struggle (and probably be very vocal about how mistreated they were), and that's why. They may not have been rapists, but the girls were still so *angry* at having been "abandoned". Of course, all these stories are anecdotal and secondhand, but I thought it was awesome.

Also, Mainstream Media loves to show us all those awful stories about kidnappers and sex offenders, and they are almost always guys. But when a female teacher molests a young boy, dude, there is hardly any media coverage.

I was very lucky to have had a really awesome professor for Gender Studies. She really challenged us to think against the grain of what Women's Studies usually preaches. She showed us videos of female firefighters unable to complete the physical tests for the job, who were still granted the job. We read about brain chemistry and how males and females really are just DIFFERENT from one another in terms of how their brains work. It made me really examine the idea of gender equality and rethink a lot of what I had taken for granted. I think even Amy would've liked her!

WOW Cornerdemon. Tell me more. This sounds like someone who is really taking a seriously scientific approach to gender studies.

I think you do the idea of social justice a disservice by pillorying it as you have.

While I'm not especially religious (grew up Catholic...had enough of the guilt, thanks!), the idea of social justice is a powerful one, and I'm proud to have been affiliated with the Jesuits - who I think embody more than any other "religious" group the teachings of Jesus. While J of N may not have been a God, he certainly was (or at least the composite of Him) someone who understood that the downtrodden and those unfairly kept down are often the most deserving of help and respect.

I know you're smarter (if a bit too sarcastic and troublingly acerbic most of the time) than to malign all those who champion social justice - aren't you?

Can't speak for Amy, Jesuit. I speak only for myself when I say I don't malign all those who champion the downtrodden or "social justice." But I hate,detest, despise, malign, reject,and will spend the rest of my life opposing all those who use force to impose their idea of it on others.
Putting a gun to peoples heads and forcing them to give their time, money or labor to others you deem more worthy of it than they....Justice? And when, exactly, did Haysoos C. do that? Or tell people to?
If (and I do mean "If", this may not apply to you) that is the kind of "social justice" you propose, no thanks.

to malign all those who champion social justice

What in the above quote (in the blog item) sounds like a good idea to you?

I have my own "social justice" program. Doesn't cost the taxpayers a goddamn cent. I just talked to the teacher this weekend who sets me up to talk in an inner city school, and this year I'm going to be bringing in other speakers if the new principal will let me. I talk to kids to demystify making it, and also mention, after telling them what a cool life you can have if you just work really hard for it, even if you're nobody, how damaging it is for a girl to get pregnant before she's become somebody and before there's a daddy in the picture who will be there as part of an intact family.

I'm fine for that kind of "social justice," just not the bullshit against reason, etc., above. You? If you're going to criticize me and sing the praises of social justice, be specific about what you're talking about.

"Social Justice" is nothing more than code for "Kill the bourgeoise"

Wolfman, if school choice ever does become available, it should exclude religious private schools since taxpayers aren't supposed to have to support someone else's religion in this country. Though I admit that's already violated six ways from Sunday (pun intended) on various taxpayer supported programs. I was referencing who was most vocal on that issue.

I'm also referencing though the nonreligious private schools who pride themself on being exclusive. Do you really think they'll let in the unwashed masses? They will do as they do now with scholarships that they currently make available. Let in a couple of token kids from the wrong side of the tracks. Even if they don't raise their tuition (and I bet they will, for the most part) in reaction to the government paying part, they don't have to take every kid. Indeed, to maintain their educational standards, they will still have to limit their enrollment and guess which kids are going to be turned away -- the banker's or the waitress'.

I just don't think school choice is anything but a farce. That said my atheist daughter was also home-schooled for the last three years of high school.

Every Leftist I have ever known (and Im not accusing you of this) uses that "church and state" thing as a dodge. Every one I have known sends their kids to exclusive private schools, and they don't want Troglody..."working class people" infesting them with the "diversity" they so sanctimoniously foist upon others. I have to repeat in regards to both church and state and the issue of exclusive schools choosing the "right kind of people" over the "wrong kind" that if there were a larger market base of people able to pay the cost of private education, more schools would appear to meet the need. Secular schools, less exclusive schools, schools that emphasize science over literature, schools known for producing great students of literature - these and more would appear.
As far as a farce, maybe it is. But what we have now is certainly a farce, and a very profitable one for those who defend it most vigorously. But here are the options - continue to force people to pay for mandatory compulsory education (whether they themselves use the service or not and whether or not those schools provide anything resembling a decent education) , or provide them with as much control as they can possibly have over their childrens education.
There must be a million and one kinds of soda pop out there - why would we assume that the market would produce only one or two kinds of schools?
By the way, I applaud homeschooling. My niece and nephew are homeschooled, and I am pleased to report that they DO have problems socializing with public school kids - they have to use smaller words and speak in shorter sentences when they meet one.

I'm not liberal in that sense. I used to call myself liberal but what it has come to mean makes me sick and I realized I mislabelled myself but big time. Liberals are bigger nazis than those they accuse of being nazis.

And I'm not hiding behind church-state separation. I am a huge believer in church-state separation not only because I don't want someone else's religion foisted on me and having to pay for the privilege but because I think anyone who is religious and isn't for church-state separation is a goddamned fool unless they really, really like the idea of the state regulating their house of worship and how they practice their religion. It doesn't just tell nonbelievers they'd better believe (as if that can be forced, only lying about it can be) but it tells believers just exactly how they must worship the god of their choice. My favorite church-state separation group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State precisely because they have such a wide range of creeds and I utterly admire their president who happens to be a reverend; a rather outspoken and broad-minded one.

Okay. Rant over. Now I'll address your issues more seriously.

Ideally, that's what would happen if vouchers/school choice did happen. (Let's ignore that if they do, they should exclude religious schools for the moment, okay?) But I don't think it's what actually does in practice. Hasn't played out that way in DC, for instance. In fact, kids in the voucher program are faring no better than the public school kids. I also don't think any private schools in existence are going to lower their standards to accept more students. And new schools may start out that way but, the dollar being their bottom line, are in the end, going to wind up having to set standards and will find that if their standards are going to beat the public school standards they are going to have to a) limit enrollment and b) charge more than the freaking state is going to give out in vouchers.

Not sure how it would play out if vouchers were opened up to home schooling but there would have to be some kind of oversight. Because I may have had standards for my daughter and your neices and nephews parents may but there are not only the religious kooks who pull out kids for homeschooling in their creed and to keep them from hearing differing world views but there is a certain subset of parents who would pull their kids out of school, say they were homeschooling and spend that money on themself. We will still need some type of oversight paid for to prevent such abuse.

Believe me, my misgivings on vouchers aren't based on incompetent teachers losing their jobs. Tenure should be freaking done away with!