Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Prometheus]

--what the hell is a "progressive"?

At least we know Tokie's not Bill O'Reilly in disguise.

 

[Prometheus]

The more...circumspect libs are silent, because they can see the trap this sets for them: they can rush in and shriek "Tokie is referencing a 'progressive' (LOL!) text!!!" like you two are doing, or they can remain silent,

...Or we can have fun pulling irrelevant "facts" out of our behinds and tossing them about like they mean something (sound familiar?)

That raises the obvious question: why, if it indisputably the case that the schools have not "dumbed-down" their materials, was this sort of text in widespead use in the US so long ago?

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I agree that school curricula have been "dumbed down" to use your favorite (self-descriptive?) turn of phrase. Obviously, the earlier, far-too-difficult texts weren't getting the job done. They were attempting to provide a level of sophistication that was inaccessible to most children. And this "dumbing down" hasn't hurt any of the smarter kids of today, because they get moved into "accelerated" programs that give them the most difficult work that they can handle. The overall effect is a net improvement.

 

[Dancing David]

I deal with folks as I finds 'em. There were once feminine feminsts...they just wanted equal rights. No problem with that....was pretty stupid not to shift in that direction. Same as with non-white folks.

Just plain economic stupidity to do it any other way.

Wymyn are a different issue. These are radical feminists who, even today, believe that they face "glass ceilings" and open discrimination in the workplace, that they are "second class citizens" etc., etc. They hate men and believe that there are no physiological differences between the genders, and that any differences are entirely a matter of "nurture" rather than "nature."

This is utter poppycock, but it is the wymyn, who run the feminist movement today, and have insinuated themselves into many areas of ourculture which produce enormous impact, esp. the schools and the media. From these perches, they can continue to keep reality from being discovered by making research into the DIFFERENCES between men and women a no-man's land where anyone who dares tread is risking career and income.

In this way, by disallowing any such research that concludes what any rational, thinking person knows (shhhh!! Men and women, and yes, boys and girls, are DIFFERENT physiologically which results in DIFFERENT behaviors!! Who knew!?) they are able to maintain the utterly ridiculous position that ALL differences demonstrated between the genders are "cultural" and that "if only" we did not live in a strict, prejudicial, bigoted patriarchy, more girls would get science and math degrees, more would become roofers and truck drivers, more would be NFL coaches, etc., etc.

As a leftist-feminist yourself, thoroughly inculcated in this nonsensical propaganda all your life, you've been completely brainwashed to believe it and worse, to belive that anyone noting that there are DIFFERENCES is first, saying that the primary difference is that "men are better!!" and that to note the DIFFERENCES clearly demonstrates that the one doing the noting is a sexist pig.

And I say "wymyn" Two "y"s. To make fun of people who think like you do.
Tokie

Ever the psychic eh? Hope you find a good income reading minds!

I said there are biological basis to behavior, but since you eschew science for hyperbole I shall not plauge you with evidence.

There are some feminists who are as you say, but there are plenty who are not. Discrimination based upon gender is real. I worked as a man in a domestic violence shelter, so I may have some experience with it.

There are differences but to determine which is biological and which is conditioning is another matter.

Chauvanists and radicals of any sort suffer from a lack critical thought.

While you are watching children, watch the way that parents discipline the same behaviors in juveniles of both sexes.

 

[Dancing David]

I sense by your language you are a Brit. I am guessing Ritalin was never big in your schools?

It was here. Slowed down a bit once people started noticing what it was doing to their sons.

By the way, do you know what "generally" means?

I realize generally that I am generallyremiss in not generally placing that word generously every other word, but I am assuming here that we are all rational, reasonbably educated adults who understand, generally, what the term "generally" means and that it does not, therefore, need, generally, to be placed in discussion of this sort, generally, every, generally, two, generally, or three, generally words.

Can you point out where in my posts I said that these things apply to all members of either group? I'm sure I must've done so based on your closing comment here.

Tokie

Ever the anecdotal evidence eh, tiss better to cry LIIIIINK than to state a mere personal opinion.

I saw many children in intake assesments, almost none were there because of the school, almost all were there because of the parents. Tis a sad thing to currently work with kids who could perchance benefit from medicine but decline its use. They bounce around the rooms and have tantrums, but it is their course that they have set upon.


There is a coomon resistance to medicating children, but some educators are over the board. Fortunately they self select away from middle school.

 

[Dancing David]

I never mentioned the Bible.

If I am mistaken, mayhaps you'll be able to point to where I mentioned it?

Tokie

LIIIIIIINK?

Twere humor. Just as much of your witty dialouge is.

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe.

Say, what does "pedantic ass" mean in Britain?

Tokie

Why it is right below your picture in yonder dictionary.

 

[Dancing David]

Okie - I notice you didn't answer my question. When you incorrectly stated I reported your post, were you demented or lying?

He behaves like a troll.

 

[Jeff Corey]

He behaves like a troll.

She's not a troll, she's just a silly little girl.

 

[Dancing David]

She's not a troll, she's just a silly little girl.

She looks just like a troll, she acts just like a troll but she cries just like a little girl...

(Sorry Bobby D., I can't stand that song anyhow.)

 

[Tokenconservative]

...Or we can have

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I agree that school curricula have been "dumbed down" to use your favorite (self-descriptive?) turn of phrase. Obviously, the earlier, far-too-difficult texts weren't getting the job done. They were attempting to provide a level of sophistication that was inaccessible to most children. And this "dumbing down" hasn't hurt any of the smarter kids of today, because they get moved into "accelerated" programs that give them the most difficult work that they can handle. The overall effect is a net improvement.

Let me see if I follow you:
1. Kids today are "dumber" than were kids, 50-100 years ago,
2. Therefore, texts from the past would be to "hard" for kids today.
3. The fact that Americans routinely score embarassingly low in competition with kids in 3rd world countries is not a concern because,
4. Our kids are all being dumbed-down to the same level, except a few of the especially bright ones who are dumbed down a little les.

Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Ever the psychic eh? Hope you find a good income reading minds!

I said there are biological basis to behavior, but since you eschew science for hyperbole I shall not plauge you with evidence.

There are some feminists who are as you say, but there are plenty who are not. Discrimination based upon gender is real. I worked as a man in a domestic violence shelter, so I may have some experience with it.

There are differences but to determine which is biological and which is conditioning is another matter.

Chauvanists and radicals of any sort suffer from a lack critical thought.

While you are watching children, watch the way that parents discipline the same behaviors in juveniles of both sexes.

I try to read minds but find reading blank pages especially...challenging.

Hmm...but I've been beaten up for suggesting that there are biological reasons for behavior, especially the quite obvious differences in behavior between males and females...as a staunch lefty, surely you are not ageeing? If so, turn in your red card immediately!

Let me see if I follow your reasoning: because some men beat women, institunalized sexism (racism, too?) is rampant?

And no, no feminist who wants to keep that mantel will ever admit that the quite obvious and sometimes extraordinary differences in behaviors between boys and girls can be anything but "nurture."

I would say that in many cases, the way to tell the differences, are easy: they are physiological differences. As a males pain receptors (sigh...in general) are further apart (sigh....in general) than are a female's (sigh...in general) then the male (sigh...in general) tends to feel pain less acutely than does the female (sigh....in general).

Wouldn't this discussion be made much more clear by my not having to put "in general" behind everthing I say?

Ah, and by calling me names...this accomplishes what in a rational discussion? Remind me, it's been a while since I've taken a class in critical thinking...I misremember: is it lesson one or two where you learn that shouting "oh, yeah!!? Well so's yer muttter!!!" is the very best approach to a critical response?

Watch the way they do it NOW, or 50 years ago? Today, little boys (sigh...in general) are being taught to be little girls. Too many are being raised either by women alone or by men who are not their fathers and/or are too weak themselves or have been so thoroughly inculcated to act as females that they will discipline their boys for being well, boys.

I don't know who this is manifesting itself where you live (or even whether it's taking place, actually) but here, it's manifesting in...not nice ways among boys who see no problem in hitting girls, for example or view girls entirely as sex toys.

Of course, these are behaviors that are learned--did I say otherwise? And of course they apply only, sigh...in general to the male population. There is also considerable "confusion" as so many young men (this is being fixed to some extent as those rasied in this hyper-feminist environment of the 80s and 90s are now having their own kids and reversing the trend of trying to make boys into girls, themselves, and much to the horror of the feminist cultural hegemony) are uncertain how to behave as "men" in our society. No...sigh...this does not mean abusing women or some such, it means acting like men.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

LIIIIIIINK?

Twere humor. Just as much of your witty dialouge is.

Oh...like this? "Why it is right below your picture in yonder dictionary."

Hmm...okay, let me try that approach.

Oh, yeah!? Sez you!

Hmm....no, no....I think I'll go back to the adult side.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

He behaves like a troll.

This is a standard claim of those who dislike having the bright, brutal light of truth shined on their leftist ideologies.

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

Let me see if I follow you:
1. Kids today are "dumber" than were kids, 50-100 years ago,
2. Therefore, texts from the past would be to "hard" for kids today.
3. The fact that Americans routinely score embarassingly low in competition with kids in 3rd world countries is not a concern because,
4. Our kids are all being dumbed-down to the same level, except a few of the especially bright ones who are dumbed down a little les.

Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

Tokie

Nice try, but no. Let me take your points in order:

1. I have no idea. Since kids today and kids 50-100 years ago have never taken the same tests, or worked within the same environment, or applied themselves to the same problems, it's impossible to make a genuine comparison.

2. No, my contention is that texts from the past were likely too hard for the kids they were used with in the first place, and this mismatch would have been even worse if the schools of the past had been more inclusive.

3. There's nothing "routine" here at all. The testing refered to in the OP has only actually been carried out a handful of times (I think three, actually), and only in the current decade. Leaving aside the fact that the methodology of the testing in question seems to be biased against the U.S. school system in the first place, it's extremely likely that if the same sort of testing had been carried out regularly over the past century, with differences in demographics and enrollment taken into account, the U.S. would have done far more poorly in the past and would have demonstrated a trend of improvement in the last 100 years.

4. That does not follow from what I said at all. Our kids are not being "dumbed down". They are receiving instruction more appropriate to their abilities in the first place. The vast majority of kids, who would have been left behind with the old texts, are now getting texts they can handle. Those who could have handled the difficulty of the old texts are receiving even better texts of similar difficulty.

 

[Prometheus]

....And no, no feminist who wants to keep that mantel will ever admit that the quite obvious and sometimes extraordinary differences in behaviors between boys and girls can be anything but "nurture."

I knew an outspoken activist feminist in college who was quite fond of claiming that the fact that men are 5 times more likely than women to be struck by lightning was proof of a biological difference in intelligence (because men were too stupid to come in out of the rain). She was wrong, but that didn't stop her. And none of the other feminists stripped her of her mantel, so to speak.

 

[Jeff Corey]

So, you're saying she was as intellectually impaired as Okie?

 

[Tokenconservative]

I knew an outspoken activist feminist in college who was quite fond of claiming that the fact that men are 5 times more likely than women to be struck by lightning was proof of a biological difference in intelligence (because men were too stupid to come in out of the rain). She was wrong, but that didn't stop her. And none of the other feminists stripped her of her mantel, so to speak.

I sincerely hope you are trying to be facetious...if not, I've greatly overestimated your intellect.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Nice try, but no. Let me take your points in order:

1. I have no idea. Since kids today and kids 50-100 years ago have never taken the same tests, or worked within the same environment, or applied themselves to the same problems, it's impossible to make a genuine comparison.

2. No, my contention is that texts from the past were likely too hard for the kids they were used with in the first place, and this mismatch would have been even worse if the schools of the past had been more inclusive.

3. There's nothing "routine" here at all. The testing refered to in the OP has only actually been carried out a handful of times (I think three, actually), and only in the current decade. Leaving aside the fact that the methodology of the testing in question seems to be biased against the U.S. school system in the first place, it's extremely likely that if the same sort of testing had been carried out regularly over the past century, with differences in demographics and enrollment taken into account, the U.S. would have done far more poorly in the past and would have demonstrated a trend of improvement in the last 100 years.

4. That does not follow from what I said at all. Our kids are not being "dumbed down". They are receiving instruction more appropriate to their abilities in the first place. The vast majority of kids, who would have been left behind with the old texts, are now getting texts they can handle. Those who could have handled the difficulty of the old texts are receiving even better texts of similar difficulty.

1. Okay. I can buy that. That of course, can be controlled-for, factored in.
2 & 4. So let me see if I follow your (repititious) reasoning here: Since a minority of kids 50 years ago (using your timeframes, and that's fine) did well, a larger group did okay, and another group did lousy with those old texts, and since grading today shows that a small number of kids do well, a larger group does okay, and a smaller group does poorly, that proves that older texts were "too hard" for kids then, who in a more agrarian society had little to no access to any other resource material, typically had jobs before and after school, had no access to "free breakfast and lunch" etc., etc.

Have I got that right?

3. So, if we are to take testing/scores, whatever from the past into account we need to control for various issues, but when we look at testing today, the only thing we need to control for is whether older texts were "too hard"?

Hmmm.

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

1. Okay. I can buy that. That of course, can be controlled-for, factored in.
2 & 4. So let me see if I follow your (repititious) reasoning here: Since a minority of kids 50 years ago (using your timeframes, and that's fine) did well, a larger group did okay, and another group did lousy with those old texts, and since grading today shows that a small number of kids do well, a larger group does okay, and a smaller group does poorly, that proves that older texts were "too hard" for kids then, who in a more agrarian society had little to no access to any other resource material, typically had jobs before and after school, had no access to "free breakfast and lunch" etc., etc.

Have I got that right?

3. So, if we are to take testing/scores, whatever from the past into account we need to control for various issues, but when we look at testing today, the only thing we need to control for is whether older texts were "too hard"?

Hmmm.

Tokie

2/4 ) Basically, except I wouldn't use the word "prove". I'm just guessing based on personal experience and incomplete (and not particularly trustworthy) data.

3) Not at all. We really need a concerted effort to completely revamp the way we test, the way we interpret tests, and the way we base policy on the results. As far as coming up with a confident estimate of how we're doing now compared to decades in the past, it's probably a lost cause.

 

[Tokenconservative]

2/4 ) Basically, except I wouldn't use the word "prove". I'm just guessing based on personal experience and incomplete (and not particularly trustworthy) data.

3) Not at all. We really need a concerted effort to completely revamp the way we test, the way we interpret tests, and the way we base policy on the results. As far as coming up with a confident estimate of how we're doing now compared to decades in the past, it's probably a lost cause.

1. So you are saying that if the results from 50 yeas ago with the "hard" texts were exactly the same as the results from today with the more appropriate texts are exactly the same this proves that the texts from 50 years ago were too hard?

I guess I don't follow your reasoning.

Does your reasoning here factor in grade inflation, too?


3. Sounds like a teacher, to me. "It's not that I can't teach, it's um...the tests! The tests don't accurately reflect um...anything!"

Oh. Better idear: revamp the entire system, starting with school choice.

Of course, if you permit choice the system will revamp itself.

Tokie