Heather Mallick's Article is Ageist

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewM:
[b]
no one is advocating chaos (as far as I know), and freedom does not imply lack of structure - that is a fallacy propounded by those in whose interests it is to conflate structure and oppression, freedom and chaos[/b]

---

That is am important point.

When Chomsky talks about the Dewey school he attended, he mentions there were no grades. He said he didn't know he was "gifted" until he went to the "normal" highschool. They hung the label on him.

a recent piece by David F. Noble:

quote:

---

Critical pedagogy has long condemned grading as an impediment to genuine education, but critical pedagogues continue to grade, as a presumed condition of employment. “I hate it but I have to do it” is their lame lament.

But they no longer have to do it. Throughout the thirty-odd years of my university teaching career I have always found ways around grading [...]

[...]

But in all this the primary reason for the existence of grades—publicly-subsidized pre-employment screening—is rarely acknowledged. Grades appear to be a matter between teacher and student—until they are “submitted.” At that point those for whom grades are really given—those who have perhaps never even stepped into a classroom—gain access to the measurements of their prospective labour force. Here is the silent third party in the halls of academia, the so-called elephant in the room, to whom academia has too long been hostage. Eliminating grades eliminates the elephant from the room, emancipates academia and reintroduces education.

The elimination of grades at a stroke shifts academic attention from evaluation to education, where it belongs. [...]

[...]

---

[url=http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/04/giving-up-grade.html]Noble, David F. "Giving Up The Grade" [i]Activist Teacher[/i] [blog]. 2007-04-18[/url]

edit: in it, he also describes the huge benefits he and his students have found in ungraded education, free from the "rituals of competitive individualism enforced everywhere else around them", and "having... side-stepped the institutionally routinized regime of infantilization so corrosive of self-respect, self-confidence and self-worth" - and this describes university! Layer that over the more comprehensive and severe coercion present in the secondary school system...

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: AndrewM ]

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: AndrewM ]

Erik's contempt for young people is pretty evident here. He doesn't think of them as equals and clearly doesn't feel obligated to speak of them with the same respect as he would speak of others.

Oh, and Foucault believed the age of consent for sex should be eliminated entirely, so yeah he was pretty radical.

Andrew, that Noble piece is excellent, thanks! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

Uh, if I don't do housework it doesn't get done, but there's no overlord to punish me in a disempowering and humiliating way if I don't do it. So if I don't do it, yeah that does tell you what I think of housework. I would have thought this would be obvious. Often I [i]don't[/i] do housework.

I suspect that the "important life skill" you refer to is really the ability to endure the drudgery that is virtually all work in a society where people are slaves to capitalism/industrialism. It makes sense that schools would impart those values that make people good servants of capitalism; schools are fundamentally a part of the capitalist system.

Let's refrain from personal attacks, shall we?

I'll gladly refrain if he can refrain from saying outrageously simple minded things in such an insulting patronizing manner. He has no idea what my actual thoughts are about childhood development or kids in general; if he did he might know that I've known several people who were victimized as children and suffered for their whole lives, so I have little sympathy for those who think its just another philosophical debating point. I honestly hope I don't feel compelled to say anymore to him after this.

Erik, what irked me about your post was this

quote:

---

Children need to be clasified as "other" anyhow for their own legal protection

---

That's nice and intentionally vague, isn't it, but given that what is referred to as "othering" is a known component of oppression this should set off some warning bells. No one is saying two-year olds should be allowed to drive, but there is no reason minors should have almost every facet of their lives controlled by others. Teenagers are perfectly capable of making their own life decisions, choosing their sexual partners, choosing what and when to eat, what drugs to take, etcetera - why do adults insist on making these decisions for them?

edit: not to mention the "for their own good" excuse has been used to justify almost every oppression in human history.

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

Ok. If you were unclear about what I meant by a certain word I used you could have just asked me what I meant, I'm usually glad to explain such and might have even qualified it somemore myself. FYI, I too think there's problems in our overly regimented yet sometimes inattentive education system, I sometimes argued as much when I was a kid, but I do recall having good teachers who listened and cared about their charges, and I've also come to accept that we have to start with what we can change here and now, not by acting like human natre is infinately malleable or uinformed. That too could lead to some less than ideal learning environments if taken as universal fact irtself, like everything there needs to be some balance. That's about all I want to say about this here.

What I thought of when I read the word "other" was the way adults will ignore little children around them and only talk to adults. Because they are not interested in the children or whatever. It is part of how adults exclude children from community - children are denied their right to a seat at the table of community. Their opinions are ignored, their feelings are dismissed, their voices are silenced.

As for human nature and how malleable it is, there is plenty of change that can be accomplished here and now. If New Zealand can ban spanking why can't we? Why should parents have the right to inflict violence on their children?

edit: here is something else, what about banning infant circumcision? That's a barbaric practice that has no place in a progressive society where children are not their parents' legal property...isn't it?

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

Oh yeah, we really do need some grounded debate on the psychology and sociology of spanking before we make any hasty decisions... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] it's pretty simple actually, we live in a society where your kids are the only people you're allowed to hit. If that isn't oppression then what is?

[b]Erik:[/b]

Close, you get a 'B' for that but no star on the board.

quote:

---

Children have always been educated by whoever for whatever is seen as necessary for their future, by state or church or parents or mentors, however poorly or well, and to simply state that any sort of disciple for any reason at all is a state sponsored conspiracy, with no other goal in mind than turn us all into little automatons, is just a little over dramatic.

---

[b]Children are educated as necessary for the future, by state or church or parents or mentors for the future of church or parents or mentors. [/b]

It is rare that an individual can rise above the socialization function of schools to utilitze education for personal fulfullment.

Even in [url=http://greece.mrdonn.org/education.html]Athens[/url] often used as some kind of shinnng example

quote:

---

"ATHENS: In ancient Athens, the purpose of education was to produce citizens trained in the arts, to prepare citizens for both peace and war."

---

Not much has changed since.

More or less, but if you read up on unschooling you might see that the best "alternative" to an institution of domination and indoctrination is in many cases to simply reject that institution. I know it isn't going to work for everybody because some kids need schools to fill roles that their parents will not, but the problem of schools being places of indoctrination and domination is not "unavoidable" in the least. When I have kids they will not be attending school.

edit: unless they want to. Kids should after all get to make these kinds of decisions for themselves and responsible parents will give them complete and accurate information, and support their decision.

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

From the [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/05/university-book.html]CBC[/url]:

quote:

---

[b]Students uninterested, but still chase marks, says prof[/b]

The co-author of a new book on post-secondary education in Canada says too many students expect top marks without putting in the effort required to achieve them, because of a "sense of entitlement," partly fostered by their parents.

"Over the past few years, I would say eight to 10 years, my colleagues and I have noted a steady decline in the level of participation, the level of interest and the level of motivation among our students," Anton Allahar told CBC Newsworld on Saturday.

[...]

If students don't get an "A" on an assignment, they think they have failed. At one time, a C was considered acceptable, said Allahar, but now it's said to be "a slap in the face," something that gets in the way of students' rush to get into graduate schools or secure grants or jobs.

---

This book is probably a timely portrait, but why the "blame the parents" angle?

The professor identifies the problem as being lack of interest, over-emphasis on grades. Well, duh!

Wouldn't a sounder conclusion be to eliminate grades?

(And note, this prof buys into school as the filterer/credentialer for employment. So, he is probably unable to reach this conclusion, and reaches for the "blame the parents" bogeyman).

Mallick's latest column is related to this subject, and it's hard to know where to begin. It definitely reeks of elitism.

On the one hand, I love her for this:

quote:

---

It's rude to discuss such things and I know I'm wading into trouble here. But rude things are interesting.

---

quote:

---

A journalism degree should take a year, long enough to remove every trace of shyness from an aspiring reporter. I learned that in my first week of a two-year diploma. Now they spread it out over four years. Whose interests does this serve? (By the way, David Frum was right about one thing. A course in interpreting statistics should be mandatory.)

But it keeps them busy and what else do you do with young people? The dirty secret is that intelligence is a disadvantage in the work world. People resent you. You're better off teaching yourself affability, the quality that let Bill Clinton run the U.S. for eight years. Who doesn't like an affable colleague?

Look, I admit. I'm lying, to you and to myself. I secretly think that universities should be sacred places with rigid standards. (Funny the number of stupid people I know who went to Oxbridge, though.) Good universities will always get the best students, and everyone knows which universities are good and which are a blot on the Canadian teaching landscape.

Despite grade inflation, nothing has really changed. The cream will still rise to the top. But I'm not worried about the cream. I'm worried about what lies beneath, the kids who didn't do well in school but are now being given A grades. In a world where everyone writes online, their inadequacy will become instantly apparent to the world, not just to their boss.

---

Hnrrr. She is mostly right. I have to think more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]

That's nonsense.[/b]

---

" 1. A place or condition of confinement or forcible restraint.
2. A state of imprisonment or captivity."

Sounds like prison to me. Anything more to add besides "That's nonsense"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
[QB]There is a good reason why every society on earth, from the time we came down from the trees, leaves the decision making to some form of "elder". Maturity, experience, and intelligence count for far more than the mere ability to walk upright, breath, and watch muchmusic.QB]

---

Only because the "elders" have the power. Look what happened when Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc and any other number of young people that some how got power. They did what no other "elder" could do before them.

Maybe leadership and decision making has something more to do with making people follow your decisions then with age.

One plus side of this thread is that it has given me a glimpse of how the women may feel in the rape threads. I can see how frustrating that must be.

Edited to add: And I don't have much hope in "adults". More people die every day because of the actions of adults then die in a year from the actions of youth. And that's being being conservative in terms of numbers.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: ouroboros ]

We'd have to have the kind of society that functions differently itself, and gives more autonomy to us all.

As has been mentioned, the cultural cycle is self-perpetuating, with people assuming that they have to make their children conform to the machine world, because, dammit, they had to and that's just the way it is. I honestly think the quiet frustration of the average person at being caught in a system of control manifests as a resentful insistence that their children accept the misery that they couldn't avoid. Subconsciously, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I'm not sure how this gives you insight into how women feel in the rape threads, unless you're a child. But I take your point otherwise.
[/b]

---

I meant how people come in and discard your thoughts and feelings and just don't seem to understand what is being said. I didn't mean the topics share anything in common.