| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dom" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2007 09:37:59 AM |
| Object: |
Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
The following is the third letter posted at:
courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-
letbox0804.artaug04,0,5775476.story
Based on my observations during the past 20 years, mathematics is the
subject in which the most number of untested fads have been imposed
upon teachers.
=============================
Will Changes Benefit Hartford Students?
August 4, 2007
As I read the July 26 article about four elementary schools in
Hartford that are in need of overhaul [Connecticut section, "Overhaul
For Four Schools"], I can only shake my head at some of Superintendent
Steven Adamowski's statements.
I am a teacher who recently left the Hartford public schools. As a
matter of fact, I taught at M.D. Fox Elementary. There was never a day
in that school that I did not partake of and witness active learning
and compassion for the students. Many of the staff at M.D. Fox are on
the cutting edge of technology and trends in education.
What the community is not aware of is the constant changes and
initiatives handed to the teachers to implement on short notice. This
activity was directed by the administrators in central office; not the
principals. Unfortunately, the building administrators were the
messengers everyone wanted to shoot. Staff would get used to an
academic program and it would be changed from year to year. How does
that affect learning?
A very important factor that central administration has yet to address
is Hartford's cultural diversity. Some schools have as many as 10
different cultures represented in their population. Does central
administration take into account how each of these cultures views
education and the parents' role in it? Not every culture recognizes
education as the mainstream does. Failure to recognize a cultural
model may limit the effectiveness of any program. When plans and
programs are developed, cultural beliefs need to be a factor.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support. Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
I give my respect to the teachers of Hartford public schools. They
endure constant change - sometimes on a daily basis - but keep their
chins up so the children of Hartford can learn.
Alison G. Prior, Windsor
.
|
|
| User: "Rowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
06 Aug 2007 12:29:36 PM |
|
|
"Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators"
That is the history of all my time in public education as a vocational /
elective teacher too - but I really wouldn't say that the fads were
untested - just that nobody ever bothers to look at the results of the
tests.
Martin
Dom wrote:
The following is the third letter posted at:
courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-
letbox0804.artaug04,0,5775476.story
Based on my observations during the past 20 years, mathematics is the
subject in which the most number of untested fads have been imposed
upon teachers.
=============================
Will Changes Benefit Hartford Students?
August 4, 2007
As I read the July 26 article about four elementary schools in
Hartford that are in need of overhaul [Connecticut section, "Overhaul
For Four Schools"], I can only shake my head at some of Superintendent
Steven Adamowski's statements.
I am a teacher who recently left the Hartford public schools. As a
matter of fact, I taught at M.D. Fox Elementary. There was never a day
in that school that I did not partake of and witness active learning
and compassion for the students. Many of the staff at M.D. Fox are on
the cutting edge of technology and trends in education.
What the community is not aware of is the constant changes and
initiatives handed to the teachers to implement on short notice. This
activity was directed by the administrators in central office; not the
principals. Unfortunately, the building administrators were the
messengers everyone wanted to shoot. Staff would get used to an
academic program and it would be changed from year to year. How does
that affect learning?
A very important factor that central administration has yet to address
is Hartford's cultural diversity. Some schools have as many as 10
different cultures represented in their population. Does central
administration take into account how each of these cultures views
education and the parents' role in it? Not every culture recognizes
education as the mainstream does. Failure to recognize a cultural
model may limit the effectiveness of any program. When plans and
programs are developed, cultural beliefs need to be a factor.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support. Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
I give my respect to the teachers of Hartford public schools. They
endure constant change - sometimes on a daily basis - but keep their
chins up so the children of Hartford can learn.
Alison G. Prior, Windsor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Saberian" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 12:00:50 AM |
|
|
I have always found the idea of cultural diversity somewhat troubling.
Graded Schools, a Prussian idea, were designed to impose values and mores
upon the students. They designed it to impose a level of patriotism towards
the State and to make sure they had the youth on record for conscription.
Also, despite popular myth the Prussian Empire was not monocultural.
Besides the German-speaking peoples it included such minorities as Czechs,
Slovaks, and Poles. Let us not forget where these institutions came from.
MS
"Dom" <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
news:1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The following is the third letter posted at:
courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-
letbox0804.artaug04,0,5775476.story
Based on my observations during the past 20 years, mathematics is the
subject in which the most number of untested fads have been imposed
upon teachers.
=============================
Will Changes Benefit Hartford Students?
August 4, 2007
As I read the July 26 article about four elementary schools in
Hartford that are in need of overhaul [Connecticut section, "Overhaul
For Four Schools"], I can only shake my head at some of Superintendent
Steven Adamowski's statements.
I am a teacher who recently left the Hartford public schools. As a
matter of fact, I taught at M.D. Fox Elementary. There was never a day
in that school that I did not partake of and witness active learning
and compassion for the students. Many of the staff at M.D. Fox are on
the cutting edge of technology and trends in education.
What the community is not aware of is the constant changes and
initiatives handed to the teachers to implement on short notice. This
activity was directed by the administrators in central office; not the
principals. Unfortunately, the building administrators were the
messengers everyone wanted to shoot. Staff would get used to an
academic program and it would be changed from year to year. How does
that affect learning?
A very important factor that central administration has yet to address
is Hartford's cultural diversity. Some schools have as many as 10
different cultures represented in their population. Does central
administration take into account how each of these cultures views
education and the parents' role in it? Not every culture recognizes
education as the mainstream does. Failure to recognize a cultural
model may limit the effectiveness of any program. When plans and
programs are developed, cultural beliefs need to be a factor.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support. Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
I give my respect to the teachers of Hartford public schools. They
endure constant change - sometimes on a daily basis - but keep their
chins up so the children of Hartford can learn.
Alison G. Prior, Windsor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 06:21:01 AM |
|
|
"Michael Saberian" <michael.saberian@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I have always found the idea of cultural diversity somewhat troubling.
Graded Schools, a Prussian idea, were designed to impose values and mores
upon the students.
We aren't Prussia, and we don't all agree as to what values and mores
are to be imposed upon the students.
"Cultural diversity" merely informs the students as to the variety of
values and mores that exist in a society and are therefore found
acceptable in that society. Which of those values and mores they are
to follow is for the parents to decide while they are kids, and for
they themselves to decide when they become adults.
They designed it to impose a level of patriotism towards
the State and to make sure they had the youth on record for conscription.
Also, despite popular myth the Prussian Empire was not monocultural.
Besides the German-speaking peoples it included such minorities as Czechs,
Slovaks, and Poles. Let us not forget where these institutions came from.
Martin Luther may have been the first explicit proponent of
state-supported universal education. That the Prussian state was
predominantly Lutheran is significant to its adoption of Lutheran
principles. But all that was in the era when there was no separation
of church and state, so the state was merely a more efficient arm of
collecting money and using it to pay for church-mandated ends.
Most countries have rather different motivations for educating their
kids. They use elements of the Prussian system because the Prussian
system was fairly efficient. Because the Prussians had a hundred
years or so of leadership in educational experimentation, many ideas
in education were first tried and adopted in Prussia.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dom" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 10:26:18 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 1:00 am, "Michael Saberian" <michael.saber...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
I have always found the idea of cultural diversity somewhat troubling.
Graded Schools, a Prussian idea, were designed to impose values and mores
upon the students. They designed it to impose a level of patriotism towa=
rds
the State and to make sure they had the youth on record for conscription.
Also, despite popular myth the Prussian Empire was not monocultural.
Besides the German-speaking peoples it included such minorities as Czechs,
Slovaks, and Poles. Let us not forget where these institutions came from.
Although our Graduate Schools may have been based on the Prussian
system, I feel that our K-12 public schools evolved from the first
public school established in Boston by the Puritans. Today Boston
Latin High School dates back to this first public school established
in the English colonies. Despite recent setbacks, the huge success of
U=2ES. public schools, at educating native and immigrant children,
cannot be overstated.
The myths about the German Empire, based on lingering remnants of
World War I propaganda, are truly mindboggling.For example, I have
never read any common reference to the fact that when the (then North
German) Reichstag was created in 1866-67, it was the only democratic
parliament in Europe, with deputies elected by all males who had
attained the age of 25 years. At that time, the French National
Assembly was a puppet of Emperor Napoleon III. The proportion of adult
males who could vote was less than 10% in Italy and less than 25% in
Great Britain (before Gladstone's reforms).
Even more appalling are the very rare references to the great
political developments that occurred with the formation of the Social
Democratic Party and the creation of Staatssozialismus--the name that
Otto von Bismarck gave to the social security legislation proposed by
the Social Democrats, appropriated by Bismarck (while he attempted to
destroy this party and gain the loyalty of the working class), and
passed by the Reichstag (I would like to thank the correspondent who
gave me the German names of these laws):
Krankenversicherungsgesetz (1883) [Sickness Insurance Act]
(In the movie "Sicko" Michael Moore featured the National Health
Insurance Plans of Canada, Great Britain and France. I cannot
understand why he completely ignored the first one!)
Unfallversicherungsgesetz (1884) [Accident Insurance Act]
Alters- und Invalidit=E4tsversicherungsgesetz (1889) [Old Age and
Disability Pension Act]
Arbeiterschutzgesetze (1891) [Workers Protection Acts]. These laws
improved working contitions, ended child labor, and regulated labor
relations. They were advocated by Kaiser William II when, at the
beginning of his reign, he attempted to put himself at the head of the
international labor movement. In March 1890, at the International
Congress of Labor that he had organized in Berlin, the Kaiser's
opening address had outlined the needed reforms that had to be
implemented as soon as possible.
Bismarck secured his place in history when he recognized the necessity
of these laws, and became the first and foremost conservative to
abandon the dogmas of laissez-faire economics. As early as 1881
Bismarck had predicted accurately: "It is possible that all our
politics will come to nothing when I am dead but state socialism
[Social Democracy] will drub itself in. (Der Staatssozialismus paukt
sich durch.)" [Werner Richter, Bismarck, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York
(1965) p. 275].
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 11:25:33 AM |
|
|
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
The following is the third letter posted at:
courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-
letbox0804.artaug04,0,5775476.story
Based on my observations during the past 20 years, mathematics is the
subject in which the most number of untested fads have been imposed
upon teachers.
=============================
Will Changes Benefit Hartford Students?
August 4, 2007
.................
A very important factor that central administration has yet to address
is Hartford's cultural diversity. Some schools have as many as 10
different cultures represented in their population. Does central
administration take into account how each of these cultures views
education and the parents' role in it? Not every culture recognizes
education as the mainstream does. Failure to recognize a cultural
model may limit the effectiveness of any program. When plans and
programs are developed, cultural beliefs need to be a factor.
This is utter baloney. The school should operate on the
principle that they are to supply as good a subject matter
education as they can; the immigrant groups which succeeded
did not care that their cultures were not more than mentioned,
if that, in the schools.
Does the "mainstream" recognize education? No, it recognizes
degrees and credentials. The schools do their best to encourage
this, by keeping children with their age groups, regardless of
ability, and considering having an idiot graduate as far more
important than having a genius learn twice as much in half the
time, and this may even be an understatement.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support. Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
If you accede to the cultures which do not value education, you
will not even reach the members of those cultures who will make
the effort to break out of the mold. Your attitude is what has
reduced the level of the schools, and is continuing to do so.
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
I give my respect to the teachers of Hartford public schools. They
endure constant change - sometimes on a daily basis - but keep their
chins up so the children of Hartford can learn.
Alison G. Prior, Windsor
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pubkeybreaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 12:38:11 PM |
|
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
and
NOT to teach "culture". Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
Children should be expected to come to school with an attitude that
is willing to learn. If they do not have this attitude, it is the
parents'
fault.
Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
This is the PARENTS' job, not the school's.
If you accede to the cultures which do not value education, you
will not even reach the members of those cultures who will make
the effort to break out of the mold. Your attitude is what has
reduced the level of the schools, and is continuing to do so.
Amen!!!!
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
Yes! Yes!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beliavsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
09 Aug 2007 08:32:11 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 1:38 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
and
NOT to teach "culture". Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
I would not go that far. In the U.S., students should read classic
works by American authors such as Mark Twain, because they are part of
American culture. More broadly, America is a Western nation and
students should learn about Western civilization, including the great
works of literature, music, and art.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
09 Aug 2007 02:01:12 PM |
|
|
Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol.com> wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:38 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
and
NOT to teach "culture". Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
I would not go that far. In the U.S., students should read classic
works by American authors such as Mark Twain, because they are part of
American culture.
American culture is the culture of any person who is an American,
regardless of where they come from.
More broadly, America is a Western nation
only for those Americans who have a cultural tradition that considers
"Western" significant.
and students should learn about Western civilization,
Why? Specifically, why should they learn about "Western civilization"
and not other kinds that are NOT "Western civilization"
including the great works of literature, music, and art.
Who or what defines "greatness" such that it is limited to one
cultural milieu?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 04:10:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:38:11 -0700, Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
and
NOT to teach "culture". Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
Children should be expected to come to school with an attitude that
is willing to learn. If they do not have this attitude, it is the
parents'
fault.
Look up the history of the schools in the US and you will find that
this was never true. The schools were designed to acculturate the new
immigrants into the dominant culture.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 09:46:54 PM |
|
|
toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:38:11 -0700, Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
and
NOT to teach "culture". Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
Children should be expected to come to school with an attitude that
is willing to learn. If they do not have this attitude, it is the
parents'
fault.
Look up the history of the schools in the US and you will find that
this was never true. The schools were designed to acculturate the new
immigrants into the dominant culture.
Not just immigrants:
<Here is Thomas Jefferson on primary education:
<"The objects of... primary education [which] determine its character
< and limits [are]: To give to every citizen the information he needs
< for the transaction of his own business; to enable him to calculate
< for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and
< accounts in writing; to improve, by reading, his morals and
< faculties; to understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and
< to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either;
< to know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he
< retains, to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he
< delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor
< and judgment; and in general, to observe with intelligence and
< faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be
< placed." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.
Sure sounds like culture to me.
<"The general objects [of a bill to diffuse knowledge more generally
< through the mass of the people] are to provide an education adapted
< to the years, to the capacity, and the condition of every one, and
< directed to their freedom and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes
< on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:204
<"Promote in every order of men the degree of instruction proportioned
< to their condition and to their views in life." --Thomas Jefferson to
< Joseph Cabell, 1820. ME 15:292
Sure sounds like respect for cultural diversity to me.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
07 Aug 2007 09:30:26 PM |
|
|
Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
Not in most states.
In most states the curriculum is far larger than those three subjects,
and there are numerous other mandates on what the school is to teach.
Furthermore, those subjects have largely been taught before entering
middle school, so you've essentially asserted that the schools operate
without purpose for half the years our kids attend them.
and NOT to teach "culture".
"social studies"
"foreign language"
"literature"
ALL of these are "culture".
Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
Not in the least.
Children should be expected to come to school with an attitude that
is willing to learn.
Whether they "should be expected to" or not is irrelevant. Indeed
whether they ARE expected to is irrelevant. They still have to attend
school, and the school still has to teach them.
If they do not have this attitude, it is the parents' fault.
The school has to take them and meet NCLB standards regardless of what
the parents do. NCLB doesn't care what the parents do; only the
schools have standards.
[Of course I don't think your comments really address what the
original post was talking about.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
is not talking about children's attitudes towards learning, or the
parental role in instilling those attitudes. It is talking about
whether the parents feel that they can have any meaningful
participation IN THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. If there is no respect paid to
them and their culture, they will feel alienated and unwelcome; they
won't be "part of the team".
Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
This is the PARENTS' job, not the school's.
Baloney. Kids, being human beings, have cultural and emotional needs
ALL day, not just when they are at home. Since they are obliged to be
at school for much of the day, the parents really cannot do much for
their cultural and emotional needs at school.
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
Yes! Yes!
Another elitist who doesn't accept the fact that students are not
Borg-like cloned learning machines. Our society mandates UNIVERSAL
education, not merely education of the elite by the elite for the
elite.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
09 Aug 2007 11:50:15 AM |
|
|
In article <in9ib3ljvsln1u9kac6fabpejrrp0uelfq@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <1186411079.873644.100950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
The school's purpose is to teach "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic",
Not in most states.
In most states the curriculum is far larger than those three subjects,
and there are numerous other mandates on what the school is to teach.
Furthermore, those subjects have largely been taught before entering
middle school, so you've essentially asserted that the schools operate
without purpose for half the years our kids attend them.
and NOT to teach "culture".
"social studies"
"foreign language"
"literature"
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture, and I have spoken
against the mandating of this subject as it is now done.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language. One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course, and have no idea of the cultureS
(note the plural) associated with the language.
As for social studies, the study of history necessarily
involves studying some of the culture, but the main
points do not. It is especially the case that the way
the peasants lived has little bearing on what happened.
Culture is and should be *irrelevant*.
Not in the least.
Children should be expected to come to school with an attitude that
is willing to learn.
Whether they "should be expected to" or not is irrelevant. Indeed
whether they ARE expected to is irrelevant. They still have to attend
school, and the school still has to teach them.
If they do not have this attitude, it is the parents' fault.
The school has to take them and meet NCLB standards regardless of what
the parents do. NCLB doesn't care what the parents do; only the
schools have standards.
[Of course I don't think your comments really address what the
original post was talking about.
If a parents don't think their culture is part of a school community,
you will not have their support.
is not talking about children's attitudes towards learning, or the
parental role in instilling those attitudes. It is talking about
whether the parents feel that they can have any meaningful
participation IN THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. If there is no respect paid to
them and their culture, they will feel alienated and unwelcome; they
won't be "part of the team".
Will bringing in teachers with
advanced degrees, as Mr. Adamowski proposes, make it better? You can
have degrees and accolades, but if you cannot meet a student's
emotional and cultural needs, how much effect will it have?
This is the PARENTS' job, not the school's.
Baloney. Kids, being human beings, have cultural and emotional needs
ALL day, not just when they are at home. Since they are obliged to be
at school for much of the day, the parents really cannot do much for
their cultural and emotional needs at school.
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
Yes! Yes!
Another elitist who doesn't accept the fact that students are not
Borg-like cloned learning machines. Our society mandates UNIVERSAL
education, not merely education of the elite by the elite for the
elite.
NCLB treats the children as being close to clones, with
enough similarity in mental abilities that there is no
point in not teaching them as mentally almost identical.
Those with a given set of abilities should be educated
according to those abilities. It is those who want all
to be in the same grade at the same time who treat them
as "cloned learning machines". Those who wish should
have the right to learn more and faster, and even the
average ones will benefit from learning more than they
do now if the "lowest common denominator" is not applied
to all.
lojbab
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
09 Aug 2007 01:57:51 PM |
|
|
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
and NOT to teach "culture".
"social studies"
"foreign language"
"literature"
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture,
So is the content, and whatever purposes that underlie its writing and
study.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language.
There is no human language that exists apart from its culture.
One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course,
One can learn to literally translate something in a foreign language.
One cannot necessarily understand it, because the meanings of words
are part and parcel of the culture that uses the language.
As for social studies, the study of history necessarily
involves studying some of the culture, but the main
points do not.
Anything beyond memorizing names, dates and places requires knowledge
of culture.
It is especially the case that the way
the peasants lived has little bearing on what happened.
Whereupon you have no explanation for why the French Revolution
occurred when it did, and not at some other time, and why it was
successful then, and why the various Revolutions of 1848 were
generally not successful.
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
Yes! Yes!
Another elitist who doesn't accept the fact that students are not
Borg-like cloned learning machines. Our society mandates UNIVERSAL
education, not merely education of the elite by the elite for the
elite.
NCLB treats the children as being close to clones, with
enough similarity in mental abilities that there is no
point in not teaching them as mentally almost identical.
Yes. And as long as it is the law of the land, then that is how
schools will teach, and methodologies for doing so will be adopted by
school administrators. "We the people" asked for it.
Those with a given set of abilities should be educated
according to those abilities. It is those who want all
to be in the same grade at the same time who treat them
as "cloned learning machines".
"We the people" asked for it.
Those who wish should have the right to learn more and faster,
They do. That is why we have bookstores and libraries.
But "we the people" don't want to pay for that sort of thing.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
12 Aug 2007 04:17:11 PM |
|
|
In article <bbomb3lm2re8110n9gjncbs1p8ipr0erf8@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
and NOT to teach "culture".
"social studies"
"foreign language"
"literature"
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture,
So is the content, and whatever purposes that underlie its writing and
study.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language.
There is no human language that exists apart from its culture.
One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course,
One can learn to literally translate something in a foreign language.
One cannot necessarily understand it, because the meanings of words
are part and parcel of the culture that uses the language.
WHICH culture? The culture of university professors of
subject matter, or the culture of religious philosophers,
or the culture of the gutter?
As for social studies, the study of history necessarily
involves studying some of the culture, but the main
points do not.
Anything beyond memorizing names, dates and places requires knowledge
of culture.
Again, which aspects of culture? The ones usually given
by the philosophers are not the relevant ones.
It is especially the case that the way
the peasants lived has little bearing on what happened.
Whereupon you have no explanation for why the French Revolution
occurred when it did, and not at some other time, and why it was
successful then, and why the various Revolutions of 1848 were
generally not successful.
The French Revolution was not a revolution of the peasants,
nor was it because of how the peasants lived. Those of 1848
came slightly closer, but still not. The only place I recall
that the 1848 revolution accomplished much was France, and
that was because the previous revolution was still in the
minds of the people who could take the power. However, it
soon became a monarchy, anyhow.
`
Teach those willing and able to learn, and encourage them to be
willing, partly by not rewarding them for being unwilling, and
giving them "alternatives" to subject matter learning.
Yes! Yes!
Another elitist who doesn't accept the fact that students are not
Borg-like cloned learning machines. Our society mandates UNIVERSAL
education, not merely education of the elite by the elite for the
elite.
NCLB treats the children as being close to clones, with
enough similarity in mental abilities that there is no
point in not teaching them as mentally almost identical.
Yes. And as long as it is the law of the land, then that is how
schools will teach, and methodologies for doing so will be adopted by
school administrators. "We the people" asked for it.
Those with a given set of abilities should be educated
according to those abilities. It is those who want all
to be in the same grade at the same time who treat them
as "cloned learning machines".
"We the people" asked for it.
Those who wish should have the right to learn more and faster,
They do. That is why we have bookstores and libraries.
They cannot progress if they are kept in the dumbed-down
classes, unless they get really expert help. This help
cannot come from most of the current teaching staff; it
could 65 years ago from the high school teachers.
But "we the people" don't want to pay for that sort of thing.
That means that "we the people" do not want to pay for
education. Let this be known.
lojbab
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
15 Aug 2007 08:25:57 AM |
|
|
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
There is no human language that exists apart from its culture.
One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course,
One can learn to literally translate something in a foreign language.
One cannot necessarily understand it, because the meanings of words
are part and parcel of the culture that uses the language.
WHICH culture? The culture of university professors of
subject matter, or the culture of religious philosophers,
or the culture of the gutter?
While one might speak of each of those groups as having a subculture,
none of them has a distinct language. Only the jargon words of a
subject reflect the culture of university professors of subject
matter. Likewise for religious philosophers. "culture of the gutter"
could be associated with several possibilities in linguistic phenomena
- "street language" or slang, "vulgar language" or obscenity, and the
"vulgar" form of a language referring to the forms used by the common
person in everyday speech.
In any event, the difference in meaning between "mediocre" and
"ordinary" is the same in all of those subcultures, even while the
dictionary lists them as synonyms. (That there is a difference is
evident in the phrase "I'm just an ordinary guy" which many people
could comfortably say, whereas most would be unwilling to say "I'm
just a mediocre guy".
Every language has enormous numbers of such subtle distinctions, which
render it impossible to really know what a passage means without
knowing the culture behind that language usage (the same goes for
technical prose, except that the culture of a technical field crosses
language boundaries to some extent, so that the rampant use of jargon
in a mathematical paper provides enough context that someone like
Herman can indeed probably understand much of the meaning of a
mathematical text in another language with only the use of a
dictionary).
As for social studies, the study of history necessarily
involves studying some of the culture, but the main
points do not.
Anything beyond memorizing names, dates and places requires knowledge
of culture.
Again, which aspects of culture? The ones usually given
by the philosophers are not the relevant ones.
Of course not. The subject is linguistics, not philosophy.
It is especially the case that the way
the peasants lived has little bearing on what happened.
Whereupon you have no explanation for why the French Revolution
occurred when it did, and not at some other time, and why it was
successful then, and why the various Revolutions of 1848 were
generally not successful.
The French Revolution was not a revolution of the peasants,
nor was it because of how the peasants lived.
The storming of the Bastille was an action by the Parisian rabble.
Other things were necessary as well, but the living conditions of the
rabble were critical to their actions.
Those of 1848 came slightly closer, but still not. The only place I recall
that the 1848 revolution accomplished much was France, and
that was because the previous revolution was still in the
minds of the people who could take the power. However, it
soon became a monarchy, anyhow.
Austria and Prussia eliminated feudalism, Germany and Italy started
the process of unification. There was a significant brain-drain to
the US of those who would be innovators, which had long term
consequences.
Those with a given set of abilities should be educated
according to those abilities. It is those who want all
to be in the same grade at the same time who treat them
as "cloned learning machines".
"We the people" asked for it.
Those who wish should have the right to learn more and faster,
They do. That is why we have bookstores and libraries.
They cannot progress if they are kept in the dumbed-down
classes,
Of course they can. They do.
But "we the people" don't want to pay for that sort of thing.
That means that "we the people" do not want to pay for
education.
Not as you interpret the word.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Z. Al-Huriyeh" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
25 Aug 2007 12:24:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:25:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
In any event, the difference in meaning between "mediocre" and
"ordinary" is the same in all of those subcultures, even while the
dictionary lists them as synonyms. (That there is a difference is
evident in the phrase "I'm just an ordinary guy" which many people
could comfortably say, whereas most would be unwilling to say "I'm
just a mediocre guy".
Well, the words "strong" and "powerful" can be considered synonyms...
and yet there is a BIG difference between "strong" language and
"powerful" language, for instance. The synonym concept is useful only
to schoolchildren. Meanings of many words can vary so much depending
upon context, topic, register (formality), idiom, and regionalisms
that even an excellent FL dictionary may be of no help in isolating
the meaning of a word... which could turn out to be based on an
obscure idiom... even a newly coined one... a pun... a joke... etc.
Every language has enormous numbers of such subtle distinctions, which
render it impossible to really know what a passage means without
knowing the culture behind that language usage (the same goes for
technical prose, except that the culture of a technical field crosses
language boundaries to some extent, so that the rampant use of jargon
in a mathematical paper provides enough context that someone like
Herman can indeed probably understand much of the meaning of a
mathematical text in another language with only the use of a
dictionary).
True, and it is precisely these complex variations in meaning that
lend the written language so much power. In literary texts, we may
judge the stylistic ability of the writer at least in part by how well
he employs finer shades of meaning or combines words in unexpected
ways. There are writers whose charm largely depends on this, as
opposed to those more talented in other respects.
As for jargon, it is just shorthand for those in the know. Even so,
you wouldn't profit much from picking through a foreign language text
on any abstract topic if you couldn't comfortably follow the arguments
presented.
JZAH
------------------------------------------
"But you don't look like a Pakistanian!"
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
26 Aug 2007 04:44:33 PM |
|
|
In article <t6evc3dil1d62cqrv4kar3uuaa5r891qej@4ax.com>,
J. Z. Al-Huriyeh <alXXhuriyeh@DEFUNCTyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:25:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
..............
True, and it is precisely these complex variations in meaning that
lend the written language so much power. In literary texts, we may
judge the stylistic ability of the writer at least in part by how well
he employs finer shades of meaning or combines words in unexpected
ways. There are writers whose charm largely depends on this, as
opposed to those more talented in other respects.
Not in mathematical or scientific words. It is content,
not style, which matters.
As for jargon, it is just shorthand for those in the know. Even so,
you wouldn't profit much from picking through a foreign language text
on any abstract topic if you couldn't comfortably follow the arguments
presented.
This can be a problem; the power of a statistical test is
not "Macht" but "Schaerfe" (I do not have umlauts on my
keyboard), and at a meeting in which talks were in both
English and German, an American gave his talk in German,
and fortunately for the Germans, gave the English term
for each one he translated.
In academic conversation, these can be handled. In
writing, I agree that someone who knows the language
reasonably should check it out.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey J Weimer" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
09 Aug 2007 02:13:41 PM |
|
|
In article <f9fgk7$1uti@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <in9ib3ljvsln1u9kac6fabpejrrp0uelfq@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
..
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture, and I have spoken
against the mandating of this subject as it is now done.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language. One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course, and have no idea of the cultureS
(note the plural) associated with the language.
"There is nothing [conceptual] in a GOOD presentation of a [mathematics
subject]. One can learn to [calculate] essentially anything in
[mathematics] in a year of a [problem-solving] oriented course, and have
no idea of the [conceptS] ... associate with the [math]."
So, I take it, this would mean you are now in favor of teaching strictly
problem-solving mathematics courses too!
One cannot divorce the learning of language from the learning of the
culture where it is used, just as one cannot divorce the learning of
mathematics from the learning of the concepts and principles that drive
its proper use.
--
JJW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
12 Aug 2007 04:30:30 PM |
|
|
In article <jjweimer-BA5C3C.14134109082007@info2.uah.edu>,
Jeffrey J Weimer <jjweimer@hiwaay.not.net> wrote:
In article <f9fgk7$1uti@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <in9ib3ljvsln1u9kac6fabpejrrp0uelfq@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
..
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture, and I have spoken
against the mandating of this subject as it is now done.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language. One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course, and have no idea of the cultureS
(note the plural) associated with the language.
"There is nothing [conceptual] in a GOOD presentation of a [mathematics
subject]. One can learn to [calculate] essentially anything in
[mathematics] in a year of a [problem-solving] oriented course, and have
no idea of the [conceptS] ... associate with the [math]."
Do you understand the mathematical concepts, and that they
are not taught by memorization or calculation? Learning
to calculate answers is NOT learning mathematics.
Linguistic scientists, who have studied the mental
development, including in children, have stated that the
world's languages have what is mainly a common grammar,
but mutually incomprehensible vocabularies. Start with
the differences in the grammar, and one can proceed.
I had no problems with Spanish culture when I used the
language there; the only problem was how fast they spoke.
Similarly with German. So far, I have only used French
in academic situations.
So, I take it, this would mean you are now in favor of teaching strictly
problem-solving mathematics courses too!
NO! The conceptual courses teach problem FORMULATION,
and the foundations. Problem solving is the application
of theory, and should never precede it. Students who
know how to "do" calculus, and how to solve the types
of problems presented in the courses, are unlikely to
be able to understand it, and that its applications are
not restricted to the physical sciences.
One cannot divorce the learning of language from the learning of the
culture where it is used, just as one cannot divorce the learning of
mathematics from the learning of the concepts and principles that drive
its proper use.
The concepts and principles are not taught now, until
the advanced levels, and this makes it harder to learn
them. The concepts of the integers can make it easier
to learn arithmetic, and are needed to know what it means,
but teaching how to add without knowing what addition
means in integers without explicit notation for larger
numbers is counterproductive. Learn the theory, and THEN
learn to apply it.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
15 Aug 2007 08:37:20 AM |
|
|
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
Linguistic scientists, who have studied the mental
development, including in children, have stated that the
world's languages have what is mainly a common grammar,
but mutually incomprehensible vocabularies.
No. There is an theory favored by ONE school of linguistics that
there is an *underlying* universal grammar that is common to all
language. But the manifestation of that grammar in actual usage is
quite different in each language. Furthermore, linguists don't
actually know this "universal grammar"; they just know some properties
it possesses, if it actually exists. Everyday human beings don't know
this universal grammar at all.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey J Weimer" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
13 Aug 2007 01:07:25 PM |
|
|
In article <f9nu5m$5t9k@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <jjweimer-BA5C3C.14134109082007@info2.uah.edu>,
Jeffrey J Weimer <jjweimer@hiwaay.not.net> wrote:
In article <f9fgk7$1uti@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <in9ib3ljvsln1u9kac6fabpejrrp0uelfq@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
..
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture, and I have spoken
against the mandating of this subject as it is now done.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language. One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course, and have no idea of the cultureS
(note the plural) associated with the language.
"There is nothing [conceptual] in a GOOD presentation of a [mathematics
subject]. One can learn to [calculate] essentially anything in
[mathematics] in a year of a [problem-solving] oriented course, and have
no idea of the [conceptS] ... associate with the [math]."
Do you understand the mathematical concepts, and that they
are not taught by memorization or calculation? Learning
to calculate answers is NOT learning mathematics.
In retrospect, I see my formulation was inappropriate. To fit with what
I understand as your view of both language and math (as a language in
itself), the statement I made as a rewording of your statement about
language would better be re-phrased as ...
"There is nothing [applied] in a GOOD presentation of [mathematics]. One
can learn to read essentially anything in [mathematics] in a year of a
[concept-oriented] course, and have no idea of the [applicationS] ...
associated with the [math]."
Also, your statement ... "Learning to calculate answers is NOT learning
mathematics" is, in one sense, equivalent to saying "Learning to [speak
a language] is not [learning a language]". This translation shows the
potential fallacy of your continued statements about math. Certainly,
learning to speak a language is not linguistics. However, when the
mandate is to teach a language in a way that it can be used properly,
one does not teach just linguistics. Correspondingly, when the mandate
is to teach mathematics in a way that it can be used properly, one does
not teach just concepts and theory.
Linguistic scientists, who have studied the mental
development, including in children, have stated that the
world's languages have what is mainly a common grammar,
but mutually incomprehensible vocabularies. Start with
the differences in the grammar, and one can proceed.
What linguistic scientists have determined about languages has only
tangential relevance to how children learn languages.
For example, I seriously doubt that you can present me with any three,
four, or five year olds who are diagramming sentences as a way to
improve their ability to communicate in the given language.
I had no problems with Spanish culture when I used the
language there; the only problem was how fast they spoke.
Similarly with German. So far, I have only used French
in academic situations.
I studied German grammar for what amounted to 4 years. My learning of
how to use the language appropriately did not begin seriously until I
was immersed in the culture and use of the language. It took about three
months to be comfortable. That same transition period occurred switching
from Munich to Berlin - one does not use the same phrasing in Prussia
culture that one uses in Bavarian culture. Concurrently, I was called
upon to write a substantial, coherent document in German, leading again
to a "new" learning experience.
While my lessons in German grammar helped me remain within the bounds of
correct use of the language, they were less important to my ability to
be able to use the language at all in comparison to the lessons I had by
having to use the language constantly. I was constantly forgiven (and
patiently corrected) for mistakes in grammar. I was constantly praised
for insistently using the language (in spite of my hosts' strong desires
to practice their English usage).
By comparison, the children of my colleague learned a conversant level
of German in about three months without any background in grammar.
So, my experiences show, teaching how to apply the language (within the
cultural) trumps linguistic studies of the language when the mandate is
to use the language. In the same way, teaching students proper math
skills trumps teaching them the conceptual/theoretical background when
the mandate is to use math IMO.
One cannot divorce the learning of language from the learning of the
culture where it is used, just as one cannot divorce the learning of
mathematics from the learning of the concepts and principles that drive
its proper use.
The concepts and principles are not taught now, until
the advanced levels, and this makes it harder to learn
them.
Who says ... "this makes it harder to learn them"? Is this treatise of
yours supported by a scientific study, or is this just your "sense" of
things?
I did not learn how to diagram a sentence until about 9th grade. By
comparison, I knew how to speak English well before then. My lessons in
diagramming sentences benefitted from me having a wealth of practical
experience in creating many of them beforehand. I had no difficulty
learning these "linguistic" lessons, in fact, I ENJOYED learning them!
I did not learn the concepts of algebra until about the same time. Yet I
certainly knew how to "do math" well before then. My ability to
understand the concepts in algebra were helped because I had a wealth of
practical knowledge behind me. I had no difficulty learning these
lessons in "theory and concepts", in fact I ENJOYED learning them!
In other words, I am a specific case in counter-point to your treatise.
... Learn the theory, and THEN
learn to apply it.
I suspect, this is only your "sense" of things. I challenge you to
provide a consensus of scientific evidence that such a "cart before the
horse" (as some might call it) approach to teaching (math or language
....) always has a significant and realizable benefit to the ability of
students to apply the topic (math or language ...) as opposed to
"traditional" (as some might call them) methods that teach skills first
with a grounding in theory afterward.
--
JJW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
13 Aug 2007 04:14:33 PM |
|
|
In article <jjweimer-F43D29.13072513082007@info2.uah.edu>,
Jeffrey J Weimer <jjweimer@hiwaay.not.net> wrote:
In article <f9nu5m$5t9k@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <jjweimer-BA5C3C.14134109082007@info2.uah.edu>,
Jeffrey J Weimer <jjweimer@hiwaay.not.net> wrote:
In article <f9fgk7$1uti@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <in9ib3ljvsln1u9kac6fabpejrrp0uelfq@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
..
ALL of these are "culture".
The choice of literature is culture, and I have spoken
against the mandating of this subject as it is now done.
There is nothing cultural in a GOOD presentation of a
foreign language. One can learn to read essentially
anything in a foreign language in a year of a
grammar-oriented course, and have no idea of the cultureS
(note the plural) associated with the language.
"There is nothing [conceptual] in a GOOD presentation of a [mathematics
subject]. One can learn to [calculate] essentially anything in
[mathematics] in a year of a [problem-solving] oriented course, and have
no idea of the [conceptS] ... associate with the [math]."
Do you understand the mathematical concepts, and that they
are not taught by memorization or calculation? Learning
to calculate answers is NOT learning mathematics.
In retrospect, I see my formulation was inappropriate. To fit with what
I understand as your view of both language and math (as a language in
itself), the statement I made as a rewording of your statement about
language would better be re-phrased as ...
"There is nothing [applied] in a GOOD presentation of [mathematics]. One
can learn to read essentially anything in [mathematics] in a year of a
[concept-oriented] course, and have no idea of the [applicationS] ...
associated with the [math]."
On the contrary, if one understands the concepts, one can
model their use in situations in which they are appropriate.
The model can then be "solved", either by further use of the
concepts by the individual or others, or by computer programs.
The one who learns how to solve a limited number of types of
problems learns from this at most the concepts behind the
methods of solution, and not even the basic ideas behind
solution, which come early if the concepts are taught. The
main method of solution is the ONE law of equality.
The one who understands the concepts may or may not come up
with NEW methods of calculation; the one who knows the current
methods of calculation but not the concepts will not.
Also, your statement ... "Learning to calculate answers is NOT learning
mathematics" is, in one sense, equivalent to saying "Learning to [speak
a language] is not [learning a language]". This translation shows the
potential fallacy of your continued statements about math. Certainly,
learning to speak a language is not linguistics. However, when the
mandate is to teach a language in a way that it can be used properly,
one does not teach just linguistics. Correspondingly, when the mandate
is to teach mathematics in a way that it can be used properly, one does
not teach just concepts and theory.
Learn the structure of the language; then one has to add on
vocabulary to learn to read or speak the language. Reading
should come first. If one considers the language of mathematics,
it is a written language, spoken differently by the speakers of
different languages.
One learns the grammar and vocabulary of a foreign language,
and then uses the linguistic patterns already learned to use
the language. The irregularity of the idioms can give some
problem, but these are not present in mathematics, except in
some of the linguistically-borrowed terms.
Linguistic scientists, who have studied the mental
development, including in children, have stated that the
world's languages have what is mainly a common grammar,
but mutually incomprehensible vocabularies. Start with
the differences in the grammar, and one can proceed.
What linguistic scientists have determined about languages has only
tangential relevance to how children learn languages.
For example, I seriously doubt that you can present me with any three,
four, or five year olds who are diagramming sentences as a way to
improve their ability to communicate in the given language.
No, because they have not learned enought to be able to do
so. Some linguistic information, or misinformation, is needed
in order to communicate in the first place. BTW, is learning
to diagram sentences an important part of learning language?
Somehow I missed that part, but I would have no problem in
doing it. I probably do it mentally, and children might well
do the same and not realize it, just as I go through many
steps mathematically without being aware of them.
I had no problems with Spanish culture when I used the
language there; the only problem was how fast they spoke.
Similarly with German. So far, I have only used French
in academic situations.
I studied German grammar for what amounted to 4 years. My learning of
how to use the language appropriately did not begin seriously until I
was immersed in the culture and use of the language. It took about three
months to be comfortable. That same transition period occurred switching
from Munich to Berlin - one does not use the same phrasing in Prussia
culture that one uses in Bavarian culture. Concurrently, I was called
upon to write a substantial, coherent document in German, leading again
to a "new" learning experience.
While my lessons in German grammar helped me remain within the bounds of
correct use of the language, they were less important to my ability to
be able to use the language at all in comparison to the lessons I had by
having to use the language constantly. I was constantly forgiven (and
patiently corrected) for mistakes in grammar. I was constantly praised
for insistently using the language (in spite of my hosts' strong desires
to practice their English usage).
By comparison, the children of my colleague learned a conversant level
of German in about three months without any background in grammar.
There is a background knowledge of grammar, which apparently
is inherent. The problem with using "natural" languages are
that they are not clearly designed, and vary from place to
place, as you have pointed out. Unfortunately, there is no
such thing as correct English, or correct German, or whatever.
So, my experiences show, teaching how to apply the language (within the
cultural) trumps linguistic studies of the language when the mandate is
to use the language. In the same way, teaching students proper math
skills trumps teaching them the conceptual/theoretical background when
the mandate is to use math IMO.
One cannot divorce the learning of language from the learning of the
culture where it is used, just as one cannot divorce the learning of
mathematics from the learning of the concepts and principles that drive
its proper use.
The concepts and principles are not taught now, until
the advanced levels, and this makes it harder to learn
them.
Who says ... "this makes it harder to learn them"? Is this treatise of
yours supported by a scientific study, or is this just your "sense" of
things?
I did not learn how to diagram a sentence until about 9th grade. By
comparison, I knew how to speak English well before then. My lessons in
diagramming sentences benefitted from me having a wealth of practical
experience in creating many of them beforehand. I had no difficulty
learning these "linguistic" lessons, in fact, I ENJOYED learning them!
You already knew how to diagram sentences. You did not
learn anything except the explicit representation. You
already knew what modified what.
I did not learn the concepts of algebra until about the same time. Yet I
certainly knew how to "do math" well before then. My ability to
understand the concepts in algebra were helped because I had a wealth of
practical knowledge behind me. I had no difficulty learning these
lessons in "theory and concepts", in fact I ENJOYED learning them!
There is ONE key concept in algebra, namely, a variable can stand
for anything. What you were taught was part of that, variables
standing for numbers. Does it help to be taught that variables
can stand for numbers first, and use only that, and then that they
can be used for functions, only building up gradually? When it
came to solving problems, the ONE rule of equality was the main
tool. Students, including some posters to this group, have had
problems with going to the general concept.
You knew how to "do arithmetic" before this. Did you know about
the structure of numbers and their properties? Some you were
taught by fiat, but mathematics does not work by fiat; you need
to be able to prove it. The original "new math" was produced
using the evidence that many who were good at arithmetic did
not know what it meant.
I learned algebra quickly; in days at most. I got the algebra
teacher to let me test out, and then after a month, I got into
the geometry class. Other than the different use of variables
(Euclid never knew about using variables for numbers), there
was no similarity between this course and anything I had done
before; this course was the first real mathematics course I
had, and those who took it then, and those who take it now, are
probably getting their first mathematics course. Alas, few are
now getting this real mathematics. This "shocking" course has
been taught this way for millennia, and did a fairly good job
of at least getting some of the idea of mathematics across.
In other words, I am a specific case in counter-point to your treatise.
... Learn the theory, and THEN
learn to apply it.
I suspect, this is only your "sense" of things. I challenge you to
provide a consensus of scientific evidence that such a "cart before the
horse" (as some might call it) approach to teaching (math or language
...) always has a significant and realizable benefit to the ability of
students to apply the topic (math or language ...) as opposed to
"traditional" (as some might call them) methods that teach skills first
with a grounding in theory afterward.
I know of no attempts, until recently, to teach people the
use of trigonometry for surveying without first having them
learn formal Euclidean geometry. The theory part of the
trigonometry course is very short, so the course is mostly
about applications, and the methods of computing which were
necessary BC (before computers and calculators).
As for calculus, many of the old (18th and 19th century)
calculus books spent a long time on the intuitive concepts
before getting into calculus. I have not read the beginning
of Euler's book, but I have seen a statement that he spent
seven pages giving the ideas, with an indication that if
the reader did not understand the ides, there was no point
of proceeding. This was 18th century, and the concepts
of limit and derivative had not yet been put on a sound
basis. The concepts of the integers had to wait until the
end of the 19th century.
Before the Depression, there was little concern about the
dropout rate, or that the standard course may have been
too much for the kiddies.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey J Weimer" |
|
| Title: Re: Untested fads imposed constantly by central office administrators |
14 Aug 2007 12:56:53 AM |
|
|
In article <f9qhjp$1g12@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <jjweimer-F43D29.13072513082007@info2.uah.edu>,
Jeffrey J Weimer <jjweimer@hiwaay.not.net> wrote:
...
In retrospect, I see my formulation was inappropriate. To fit with what
I understand as your view of both language and math (as a language in
itself), the statement I made as a rewording of your statement about
language would better be re-phrased as ...
"There is nothing [applied] in a GOOD presentation of [mathematics]. One
can learn to read essentially anything in [mathematics] in a year of a
[concept-oriented] course, and have no idea of the [applicationS] ...
associated with the [math]."
On the contrary, if one understands the concepts, one can
model their use in situations in which they are appropriate.
The model can then be "solved", either by further use of the
concepts by the individual or others, or by computer programs.
A paraphrase of the statement of your belief about mathematics and
languages (as I understand it):
"A GOOD presentation of [math/language] requires nothing from
[applications/culture], just [concepts/grammar]".
Your statement above about mathematics:
"On the contrary, if one understands the [concepts/grammar], then one
can (successfully) [apply the math/talk in the culture]".
I suppose you mean, "On the other hand" instead of "On the contrary"?
The one who learns how to solve a limited number of types of
problems learns from this at most the concepts behind the
methods of solution, and not even the basic ideas behind
solution, which come early if the concepts are taught. The
main method of solution is the ONE law of equality.
Huh??????
I have only a vague clue what you might mean here, so I must let this
one pass.
The one who understands the concepts may or may not come up
with NEW methods of calculation; the one who knows the current
methods of calculation but not the concepts will not.
For a moment, let's just pretend we are talking about Johnny ... your
every-day kid in a high school math class.
Do you really, really care more about the problem that Johnny cannot
formulate NEW methods to calculate answers to a problem than you care
about Johnny not being able to apply a basic set of proven calculation
steps properly? In other words, do you care more to be sure that Johnny
knows mathematics even though he may not be able to do arithmetic?
Do you really, really believe that Johnny will be able to apply that
basic set of proven calculation steps better if he first learns the
concepts and then practices the methods rather than first practicing the
methods and then learning the concepts behind them? In other words, do
you believe Johnny will do better at arithmetic if he learns mathematics
first rather than practicing arithmetic first?
Finally, do you really, really believe that, in presenting us with
problems, life generally "teaches" us by providing us first the concepts
needed to solve it and by letting us then attack it with the methods
derived from those concepts? In other words, do you believe that life
generally tries to teach us to be good mathematicians without needing
for us to be good arithmaticians (sp)?
A simple yes or no to the above questions is all that is needed.
...
Learn the structure of the language; then one has to add on
vocabulary to learn to read or speak the language. Reading
should come first.
.... see below
...
For example, I seriously doubt that you can present me with any three,
four, or five year olds who are diagramming sentences as a way to
improve their ability to communicate in the given language.
No, because they have not learned enought to be able to do
so. Some linguistic information, or misinformation, is needed
in order to communicate in the first place. BTW, is learning
to diagram sentences an important part of learning language?
Well, apparently you believe that it is the only way to learn it
properly. You categorically state that, in learning a language, we
should learn grammar exclusively and learn to write first. I think this
is the concept, if not the actual practice, behind diagramming a
sentence.
...
There is a background knowledge of grammar, which apparently
is inherent.
Perhaps. I suspect it is also a lot of "trail and error" until they
"learn" what works best (IN THEIR CULTURE).
...
I did not learn how to diagram a sentence until about 9th grade. By
comparison, I knew how to speak English well before then. My lessons in
diagramming sentences benefitted from me having a wealth of practical
experience in creating many of them beforehand. I had no difficulty
learning these "linguistic" lessons, in fact, I ENJOYED learning them!
You already knew how to diagram sentences. You did not
learn anything except the explicit representation. You
already knew what modified what.
Admittedly, I knew the basics of grammar, and I knew how to write. In
this regard, I had the inherent knowledge of how to diagram a sentence.
OTOH, had I been asked to diagram a sentence in writing first off,
without having any idea what of the full extent of sentences in
practice, I would have failed and likely have been frustrated at such an
awful attempt to teach me how to use the language.
As a specific example, I know categorically that I would not have taken
a foreign language in high school, had grammar and writing lessons been
the only approach taken to teaching it in the first class! We sang quite
a few beer hall songs in that first German class .... :-)
I did not learn the concepts of algebra until about the same time. Yet I
certainly knew how to "do math" well before then. My ability to
understand the concepts in algebra were helped because I had a wealth of
practical knowledge behind me. I had no difficulty learning these
lessons in "theory and concepts", in fact I ENJOYED learning them!
There is ONE key concept in algebra, namely, a variable can stand
for anything. What you were taught was part of that, variables
standing for numbers. Does it help to be taught that variables
can stand for numbers first, and use only that, and then that they
can be used for functions, only building up gradually?
It helps first to, as you say below, "do arithmetic" first.
Then, one should learn the concepts in steps.
For example, the implications of the idea that a variable can stand for
anything takes a great deal of PRACTICE to understand fully. On the very
basic level, I have worked with college students who do not seem to
understand that sin(x), log(x), and exp(x) return values with no units
because they are FUNCTIONS. So, somehow they have not learned the
concept of functions, let alone that we can correspondingly say ...
Because answer = A(x), where A is some function (and even some of my
junior students get lost at this point!), the answer has no units
Would I now propose that those students should likely have learned "A(x)
can stand for anything" first off in their algebra class? Absolutely
not! I propose that they should have be confronted with learning the
sin(x)/cos(x)/tan(x) tables and the log(x) tables in the same way that I
was ... have their algebra teachers be permitted to quiz them to repeat
the tables at any point and at any time (even during lunch breaks) for
their class grades. IMO, nothing beats the experience of learning how
something works in practice to help cement home its concept when it is
presented later.
When it
came to solving problems, the ONE rule of equality was the main
tool. Students, including some posters to this group, have had
problems with going to the general concept.
Were they taught the arithmetic properly?
You knew how to "do arithmetic" before this. Did you know about
the structure of numbers and their properties? Some you were
taught by fiat, but mathematics does not work by fiat; you need
to be able to prove it. The original "new math" was produced
using the evidence that many who were good at arithmetic did
not know what it meant.
I must say, I have no idea what "new math" is about, so I have no issues
for or against it.
...
In other words, I am a specific case in counter-point to your treatise.
... Learn the theory, and THEN
learn to apply it.
I suspect, this is only your "sense" of things. I challenge you to
provide a consensus of scientific evidence that such a "cart before the
horse" (as some might call it) approach to teaching (math or language
| | | | | | | | | |
