Skip ahead to sections of this post:
02/21/08
Some central questions posed today were: “How does the government portray information to the public, and how is that information absorbed by the public?”; “Does society need passive thinkers, if so to what extent, and how does the society decide who is active or who is passive?”
Information Consumers vs. Information Transformers
Should the American people take information at face value?
Information is supplied to the American public at almost a constant basis. Whether it is by the newspaper, TV, or radio, information is constantly being funneled to Americans. Funneling, or editing, what the American public sees and even possibly thinks was a very interesting topic of the day. The Bracey report (2006), which was a framework of the discussion, pointed to issues pertaining Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, among other top US officials. Spellings, and others presented the American public with only brief amounts of information regarding NCLB.
This limited amount of information seemed to suggest that NCLB was a success. However, through the Bracey reading, many students agreed that that was not the case. Bracey suggests that looking at the entire picture (the statistics) and critically analyzing data, shows that NCLB may not be as wonderful as Spellings had suggested. Dr. Kathy Hirsh – Pasek once said that information consumers are individuals who take information only at face value, while information transformers take information and critically analyze it to make it applicable to the real world. The class summed up on one note. Digging deep in the issues, and not taking everything at face value is critical when making important decisions.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal”. However is this the case? Do children in any community of America have just as equal a chance to succeed as any other child? For many these questions may be a touchy issue, however it may also be key when discussing education. Several students expressed that no, not all children have the same opportunity as others, while others seemed to suggest that with hard work and determination, everyone could succeed. However what happens to the individuals that fall through the cracks and do not succeed? Do they still have a place in society to do their part? Does America need both passive and active thinkers, or should America focus on making American children critical thinkers only?
The class has acknowledged that, with the current establishment of NCLB it seems that the government wishes to have better test takers (passive thinkers). One student expressed that garbage men, janitors, and other manual jobs are needed in each society. However what percentage needs to be active thinkers and what percentage passive thinkers, to have a successful society? The class mentioned that America as a whole needs a balance of both active and passive thinkers. Keeping this in mind the class came up with two possible options on how to create the balance. The first option stays current with what Jefferson had said in our Declaration of Independence. As a society we would provide to give every child the best possible resources to become critical thinkers. Then, after years in the education system it would then be up to them in order to break through and shine as an active thinker, while the others are passive. The second option tries to identify those children that seem to be more superior, and separate them from the whole. Separating them, in hopes to educate them at a higher level in order to develop them into the critical thinkers of the next generation.
Possible questions to ponder…
Based on their manipulation of the information portrayed to the public, does the government want to produce critical thinkers, which may be harder to control? If so, how does this affect educational policy?
The two options discussed above both have positive and negative outcomes. What are some of the drawbacks and benefits? Does one outweigh the other?
Discussion was based on the following readings:
Bracy, W., (2006) The 16th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappa International, 16th, 152-166
Bracy, W., (2007) The 17th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappa International, 16th, 119-136
Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in- depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, 47-58
Notes courtesy Seth McCann
Possible questions to ponder…
Based on their manipulation of the information portrayed to the public, does the government want to produce critical thinkers, which may be harder to control? If so, how does this affect educational policy?
The two options discussed above both have positive and negative outcomes. What are some of the drawbacks and benefits? Does one outweigh the other?
Discussion was based on the following readings:
Bracy, W., (2006) The 16th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappa International, 16th, 152-166
Bracy, W., (2007) The 17th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappa International, 16th, 119-136
Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in- depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, 47-58
Notes courtesy Seth McCann
6 comments:
It is unarguably true that some are born with privileges that others are deprived of. While the sources of motivation, opportunity, support, and expectations for achievement are necessary outside the classroom as well as inside the classroom, I believe it is our responsibility to provide all children with these essential tools in our school systems.
Thalia Moshos
Bracey (2007) focuses on the idea that NCLB organized for states to administer tests that leave a growing gap between the students who would pass and those who had no hope. A Maryland teacher describes and example of NCLB in the classroom, "We were told to cross off the kids who would never pass. We were told to cross off the kids who, if we handed them the test tomorrow, they would pass. And then the kids who were left over, those were the kids we were supposed to focus on" (p. 129). In doing this, NCLB is becoming hypocritical of its name- leaving behind those who would assumingly fail and rather than providing them with help. Instead, it increases the problem of poor/ little education to those who need it most. It does not appear that the government is deliberately looking for passive thinkers, but their actions speak louder than words. When filtering out a nation's student population breaks into forcing students to fail rather than assist those as well/much as the ones with a mediocre chance of succeeding, the failed students have no option but to be passive thinkers. While it would not be possible to ensure every student becomes a critical thinker at a certain cut-off, it would be ideal to assist all students at risk of doing poorly on these tests- if they must take them. The important message is that America provides its students with a good education and equal opportunity for succeeding, something that is being overlooked as scores, numbers, and coded data are unfortunately a priority focal point instead.
-Kaitlyn Uckert
One assumption embedded in Seth's argument, is that "garbage men, janitors, and other manual workers" are passive thinkers. This assumption is instructive, for it is an assumption that educated people, like ourselves, often make, namely that, uneducated people cannot think.
I would like to submit that the educated classes are at as great-- if not greater--risk as the uneducated classes of falling into passivity. Education is based on paradigms, and is structured in such a way that one has to stay within these paradigms and appease the system in order to earn one's stamp of approval as an 'educated person' ('stamp of approval' = a grade, a degree, being able to repeat what 'the book' says etc.).
So although educated people are often aware of the folly of appeasement that is Education, there exists a conflict of interest, in the sense that we have all been made to think that the grade, the degree, the title of 'Phd' etc. is the be-all and end-all of education. Indeed, education today is largely a matter of being able to discern the 'paradigm gods' of accepted knowledge, and then being able to know when and how to bow down to them. In many ways, education today is a game we play so that we can come out looking good in the end. meanwhile, we are losing our sense of the intrinsic value of knowledge and the inestimable merits of common sense.
The uneducated classes are not constrained by the same drive to appease. They may have to appease other systems, such as the unemployment system, the class system etc., but those forms of appeasement do not involve the sort of epistemological double-consciousness that the educated person falls into in her appeasement of the paradigm-gods. Thsi is because, eduacted people must appease at the sacrifice of their minds. The uneducated classes appease with their minds in full intact. They play their own game too, but their minds are not as invested in it, and so they retain the greater measure of their common sense. They play the system with clear consciences, because they know that their appeasement is not a prostitution of self and common sense. Thus, in many ways, many of these so-called 'uneducated' people have something that many of us don't--freedom to educate oneself.
The education system today is increasingly forcing its subjects to appease and bow down to the system at the price of their common sense and their self-integrity. It is not always true that a higher level of education is correlated to a higher capacity for critical, active thinking. Critical thinking is dependent on clarity of mind and clarity of self.
At present, our education system tends to obscure both our common sense and our sense of self, by entrapping us in a vicious cycle of appeasement---appeasement bolstered by the ugly necessity of double-think. As long as this perverted process continues, we will never be free to 'educate' ourselves.
--Summer
This might be a stretch, but I have decided to use a movie (most will be familiar with) to highlight my agreement with Summer’s comment…
I want everyone to think back and visualize the scene in the movie “Good Will Hunting” in which the leading male, Will (Matt Damon), is at a bar in Boston talking with an arrogant MIT graduate student. The two begin to argue over various literature with the highly educated graduate student assuming the janitor, Will, is uneducated and therefore unworthy of the leading female’s (also an MIT student) time.
However, the janitor, uneducated and degreeless has taken it upon himself to read and critically analyze every author’s work the graduate student tries to use in his argument…resulting in the famous quote:
“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library.”
This may be a long stretch, but here is my point: In agreement with Summer, should a job title determine a person’s mental capacity? Should a degree be the only determining factor of a person’s thinking ability? The answer should be “no.” I feel that our country needs to reevaluate the importance of titles and degrees and focus more on expanding our minds in a variety of ways. A test does not accurately determine a person’s ability to view the world on their own; rather it reduces any chance of independent thought. With deadlines and achievement markers, little room is left for any type of self exploration, which is what learning and education should be all about…
Ellen wrote the above comment, sorry I forgot to add that!
I agree with both Summer and Ellen in that one does not need an elite education from a school like Stanford or Harvard to be able to think critically, abstractly and constructively evaluate an argument. Further, those in such an educational system in which perfromance is defined by grades and subsequent gpa, may lose sight of thinking critically and evaluating the material just to fill in blanks to achieve a high grade instead of critically analyzing the information. Even for honors students it is difficult to take the time to critically analyze data and form our own opinion when we were taught to do the opposite. Perhaps those that are not restricted in a system in which filling in the blanks is the norm are more capable of taking the initiative to critically analyze the data and make inferences based on the research. It is sad that even the best and brightest students may be victim of Skinner's behaviorism, yet it seems that grades are one of the few ways that we can operationally define achievement, while sacrificing critical or abstract thinking in the process.
Josh
Post a Comment