Rebane's Ruminations
August 2014
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

When seeking solutions to society's problems, always hold government guilty until proven innocent.

Modern progressivism is the most cynically named socio-political ideology since the world of Orwell’s 1984.  Evidence abounds that there is literally nothing progressive for organizing human society in the (niggardly revealed) tenets and expanding practice of progressivism – it gives rise to arguably the most regressive politics in the so-called free world.  Thomas Sowell, celebrated social theorist, economist, political philosopher, and senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, argues convincingly that “growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.”

He joins many learned observers of the human condition to conclude that in America we are wallowing in a rising mire of dumbth in which main street is no longer capable of thinking through even the most basic concepts that ultimately impact their lives.  This deficit is the visible preamble to not being able to reason about simple decisions from what they read, see, and experience.  Progressives throughout the land are uniformly blind to that state of affairs and continue promoting programs and public policies guaranteed to remove the last vestiges of independent and critical thought from the public forum.  (In this context consider the online outpourings of local progressives.)

Dr Sowell gives examples to underline his assertion in ‘If people would just think things through …’.  When we focus on the particulars presented it is simply mind boggling that an advanced society like ours can be induced to regress as rapidly as we have witnessed in the past decades of impeccably regulated politically correct thought, speech, and conduct.  None of this should be a surprise for RR readers; we review it here because the speed of our downward spiral is picking up.

To underline this trail of tears for those who still can and do think, I draw your attention again to the Common Core education standard much covered and discussed in these pages.  UC Berkeley professor emerita and honored mathematician Dr Marina Ratner recently examined Common Core’s math standards and the curricula that it has inspired across the land.  She presents a summary of her analysis and professional conclusions in ‘Making Math Education Even Worse’.

There she begins by joining many of us in amazement that we have ignored the successful instruction methodologies and texts used in advanced countries that regularly beat America's youth in international math ratings, and instead have spent almost $16B in devising a new standard that is “several years behind old standards, especially in the higher grades”, and specifically “vastly inferior to the old California standards in rigor, depth and the scope of topics.”

Common Core is so flawed that even one of its authors, Jason Zimba, admits “that the new standards wouldn’t prepare students for colleges to which ‘most parents aspire’ to send their children.”  To this the good professor gives sufficient examples and details to make your eyes roll and heads spin (assuming you are not among the sad cohort described by Thomas Sowell).

Dr Ratner concludes that “American students are already struggling against the competition.  The Common Core won’t help them succeed”, but instead “will move the US even closer to the bottom in international ranking.”

My point here is that this may well be the progressives’ long sought coup de grace to take America down from its position of world greatness and leadership.  As pointed out here and by noted national thinkers over the last years, there is a definite agenda being followed by collectivists to bring the US to heel in the community of nations.  Dinesh D’souza takes his readers through an expanded trail of evidence for this assertion in his recent America: Imagine a World without her.  Saddened I continue to observe how willingly and without whimper we travel this path to oblivion from the pages of post-tipping point history now being written.  And yes, it is all due to the spread of the stifling and  diseased memes of progressive thought already metastisized in America.  We should think about it while we still can.

Posted in , , , ,

80 responses to “We can’t think about Common Core, or anything else …”

  1. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Here are a couple of quotes from Jason Zimba (JZ). I am not hearing a lot of negativity from him.
    RH: What are one or two things you’re most proud of when it comes to the Common Core math standards?
    JZ: One of the most important things we needed to deliver was a focused, coherent picture of math — with fewer topics in each grade accomplished in greater depth instead of the mile-wide, inch-deep approach we often see today. We did that, despite the challenges of preserving focus. People kept saying, “We love the focus of these standards! Now if you could just add this one thing….” It wasn’t easy for the writers to hold the line. We couldn’t have done it without a uniquely designed development process — one that privileged evidence and argument.
    I have to say that when the research by William Schmidt and Richard Houang came out recently comparing the Common Core with high performing countries, I opened the document with some trepidation. After all that work, how had we really done? Did we actually succeed? In a word, I think the answer is yes. The close agreement they found between the Common Core and standards of high performing countries, closer agreement than any previous set of state standards, is something that everybody involved with this effort can be proud of.
    RH: What are one or two things that give you the most pause when it comes to the standards?
    JZ: In my work with SAP thus far, I’ve seen some misinterpretations out there. At the end of the day that means we weren’t always as clear as we needed to be. I’ve heard stories about kindergarteners being asked to do unrealistically advanced work, whereas we actually put some very careful limits on what kindergarteners should be expected to do based on feedback from early childhood experts.
    Another issue arises in connection with the Standards for Mathematical Practice, which describe aspects of mathematical expertise, such as being able to make and critique mathematical arguments. The fact that the practice standards are actual standards (not just framing text) is important, but it’s created some puzzles for implementation. In some places, the practices have taken up a lot of the oxygen in implementation efforts, and there is good and bad to that. On the plus side, I do think the typical math classroom in our country needs to become a much more academic place, with more discussion, argument, and counter-argument. Grade-level appropriate, of course – elementary school isn’t graduate school! And states and districts are right to attend to those factors in teaching. But I sometimes worry that talking about the practice standards can be a way to avoid talking about focus and specific math content. Until we see fewer topics and a strong focus on arithmetic in elementary grades, we really aren’t seeing the standards being implemented.
    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2013/02/rhsu_straight_up_conversation_sap_honcho_jason_zimba.html
    Maybe Dr. Ratner should be talking to Mr. Zimba.
    By the way, the term “progressive” gets thrown about frequently but I could not find your definition of it using your Glossary link.
    Here is the Wiki definition,
    Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.
    Assuming you are not against the “Idea of Progress”, are you conflating liberalism with progressivism?
    “The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal”. Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. In the U.S. in particular, the term “progressive” tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat, which is scarcely used in American political language.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

    Like

  2. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Jason Zimba has been trying to walk back from those comments… He apparently commented here, only to back out and remove his name when it went south.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/The-Guardian-Common-Core-Political-Poison

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “My point here is that this may well be the progressives’ long sought coup de grace to take America down from its position of world greatness and leadership.”
    George, this is the usual blind spot conservatives have, and progressives/liberals have an equivalent blind spot, evaluating the other’s actions as if they interpreted reality through a similar lens.
    No, the pedagogy being rolled out in the Common Core isn’t an attempt to weaken America… progressive Educrats really do think this is the way kids would best learn math and language. Obliquely, with lots of excess machinations. I’m thinking the term “Special Edification” might be useful to describe what’s going on.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    BradC 237pm – The Wiki definition of progressivism is embarrassingly sophomoric, and quite appropriate for the nation’s non-thinkers. Please don’t include me in that class. However, progressivism is in fact a much more aggressive, nuanced, and virulent form of collectivism that is more realistically discussed by the Left’s intellectuals on sites like Dissident Voice – http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/
    From there we read “What separates progressivism from other political ideologies?
    Progressivism is not rooted in politics but in principles. The well being of all the people is primary and at the heart of progressivism. People are not at the whim of markets guided by preternatural forces to bring theorized widespread prosperity somewhere in the retreating future. A progressivist society prioritizes meeting the needs of all the people first. There will no underclass and no people falling between the cracks. Under progressivism, there is no acceptable unemployment rate; workers will not be made to suffer because of economists’s hypotheses pinned to a target inflation rate or other recurrent crises within capitalism; the target will be no poverty; there will be no accumulation of material wealth confined to a societal few. Every person who wants a job will have a job that respects the dignity of labor.
    The needs of humanity are primary and not the needs of businesses. Humans are living, breathing, sentient creatures endowed with feelings. Businesses are human constructs. They do not breathe. They do not think. They do not have emotions.”
    A considerably more specific and adult discussion of that ideology.

    Like

  5. fish Avatar
    fish

    Progressivism is not rooted in politics but in principles……
    Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahaahahahahahaha……inhale deeply……hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!
    Whew…..my ribs hurt! Those proggies…..oh they crack me up!

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 317pm – These same “educrats” have ALL the attributes one can ascribe to collectivists, especially of the progressive kind. They back the same policies that stifle and dumb down society as do their leftwing non-educrat brethren. From my blindspot I am quite content to parse them as I have, for my recommended response to them is the same as to all A21 loving leftists, a group with admitted distinctions without a real difference. And this is especially true for CC, considering its provenance and the almost brutish backing of the standards by this administration which definitely has demonstrated the fundamental transformation it has in mind.
    Nevertheless, your comment here is one of the most illuminating about your own (presumably sans blindspots) ideology that you have made in these pages. Thank you for that long overdue revelation.

    Like

  7. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “Nevertheless, your comment here is one of the most illuminating about your own (presumably sans blindspots) ideology that you have made in these pages. Thank you for that long overdue revelation.”
    Nice innuendo, George. If it helps you and others to finally understand I really am not a conservative, so much the better.
    While some progressives may well be in smoke filled rooms cooking up ways to destroy Amerika, all the ones I have known really do think their view of reality is correct and the only reason Conservatives do and say the things they do and say must be from a malevolence on their part. Why else, for example, would you want to send those poor kids from south of the border back to the terrible country they say they are from? Save the children! Save the whales! Save the climate!
    They’re wrong, not evil.

    Like

  8. Russ Steele Avatar

    Breitbart News has an article on Dr, Ratner’s OP-ED in the WSJ:
    Breitbart News asked Dr. R. James Milgram, professor of mathematics at Stanford University – who was asked to be a member of the Common Core Validation Committee but then refused to sign off on the standards – about Ratner’s observation regarding Common Core’s persistent emphasis on visual models, even for simple questions.
    “It is believed by most U.S. math education Ed.D.’s that at-risk students learn better using manipulatives and that the focus of U.S. standards should always be these students,” Milgram said. “So they choose pedagogy that effectively turns off the average and even more so the above-average students in a desire to focus on the weakest students.”
    Milgram observes, however, “The research on how at-risk students learn most effectively is absolutely clear on the fact that this is the worst possible method for teaching these students this material.”
    “Likewise, the research on gifted students shows that those students learn best when they are allowed to accelerate and learn at their own speed,” he adds.
    “Finally, over the last century, not one paper in the education literature that has met basic criteria for reproducibility has shown that the kind of group learning pushed in Common Core is more effective than direct instruction,” Milgram asserts. “In fact, a close reading of most of these papers seems to indicate that these methods are significantly less effective than direct instruction.”
    “Given this, the most likely outcomes are an across-the-board-weakening of student outcomes,” Milgram warns.
    “There have been some brave souls who have suggested that of course, the academics in the education schools are perfectly well aware of these facts, but the predicted outcomes are exactly what they want,” he states. “I don’t know if this is the case, but it certainly explains much of what seems to be going on.”

    The bold is mine. If it is clear that CC methods produce the weakest results, one has to conclude that it is being done on purpose. If we apply Occam’s razor to this line of reasoning, we slice through the problem and arrive at the simplest answer, the dumbing down of students is being done on purpose. Thinking students make progressive indoctrination much more difficult, as they keep asking the why question over and over. Better dumb them down in the CC process as soon as possible, and keep them there through out the educational process.

    Like

  9. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Brad C, here’s a published paper, a study that analyzed that last education wet dream you shared, a computer program that would work wonders by Spacial-Temporal stimulation… nice graphics… and Music!
    “Analyses reveal a negligible effect of ST Math on mathematics scores, which did not differ significantly across subgroups defined by prior math proficiency and English Language Learner status. Two years of program treatment produced a nonsignificant effect.”
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19345747.2013.856978#.U7XZFbGmWVc
    Mr. Zimba, a nice enough young physics teacher at a 2nd tier liberal arts college without a math or science focus, is a strange pick to write K-12 math standards. Even stranger was the choice of Phil Daro, whose degree was in English and his only real claim to math fame was helping the whole math debacle in California destroy math achievement a decade or two ago. I’d file a FOIA to discover the why of their selection, but the “state led” claim is pure fiction; all the decisions were made behind closed doors at private 501c3’s in Washington DC primarily funded not by the states but by the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “If it is clear that CC methods produce the weakest results, one has to conclude that it is being done on purpose.”
    Has to conclude? Shirley, you jest.
    “If we apply Occam’s razor to this line of reasoning, we slice through the problem and arrive at the simplest answer, the dumbing down of students is being done on purpose.”
    No, I think the guiding light here is closer to Feynman’s admonition, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” (see “Cargo Cult Science”). Colleges of Education have been creating their thoughtworld for the better part of a century, and I find it easier to believe they are idiots who have a shared delusion than they are conspiring to bring down American education.
    Idiocy and groupthink are more stable than conspiracies. Rust never sleeps.

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 400pm – the ‘final understanding’ that you are not a conservative implanted itself many moons ago. Your current sincerity in explaining how you digest idiocy vs evil doubles down on your correct assertion.
    Idiocy in the pursuit of evil results can and should be grouped with people seeking a fundamental transformation. All evil starts with a laudable social agenda of doing the most good for the most people (roads to hell paved with gold). I haven’t run into any example that has profited from attempting to parse idiocy and evil when their destinations have been identical. As RussS (419pm) pointed out, in such cases Occam has advised us correctly – take the simpler answer that explains all the observables. Most certainly and to achieve the same facility, the Left (see truthout.com) views me and mine as evil.

    Like

  12. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    George, when your snide ad hominems are as abbreviated as your 3:36, interpretation will be as the listener chooses, and as Occam is concerned, as long as the Georges and the Russ’s of the world think the simplest explanations are assuming evil motives of their neighbors, we’ll have more of the same.
    Idiocy is the simplest interpretation, and is well documented for education bureaucrats.

    Like

  13. Russ Steele Avatar

    Gregory,
    What would be the source of your proclaimed idiocy? Did it occur naturally, or was it the result of an education systems that awarded idiocy? Idiocy is defined as “extremely stupid behavior.” Was one of the selection criteria for the Common Core Math Development Committee to be a recognized idiot. How was this idiocy determined? Did it have to be clearly evident in the resume of the Committee Members, or was it just an accident that a collection of idiots show up to develop the Common Core Math Curriculum? Who read the resumes of all candidates to identify your standout idiots, could it be they were smarter than average and were trained to recognize idiots, or were they also idiots themselves? I am not buying the idiot solution. There were some very smart people on the committee and they had an agenda, teach to the dumbest kid in the class, the rest of the class were on their own bored out of their minds. Help me out here. How was this just idiocy?

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 617pm – “snide ad hominems”??, please explain.

    Like

  15. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    The idiocy in the Ed biz is institutional, Russ. Groupthink, and my use of the term is not meant literally… no, they do not have an IQ below 25.
    Snide: “derogatory or mocking in an indirect way”…
    synonyms: disparaging, derogatory, deprecating, denigratory, insulting, contemptuous, dismissive;
    “Nevertheless, your comment here is one of the most illuminating about your own (presumably sans blindspots) ideology that you have made in these pages. Thank you for that long overdue revelation.” -GR
    Was that not meant to be “derogatory [inclusive-]or mocking in an indirect way”, George? If not, I’m at a loss to understand your intent. Please explain.
    To reiterate my basic message, no, educational progressives keep coming back to the same failed pedagogies not because they want failure… but because they really do think it WILL work if it is done right, and be the greatest good for the greatest number. Past failures are seen as errors in implementation, or flawed testing. And the biggest error is the oft-expressed “the smart kids will do OK no matter what we do”.
    Think ‘this time we’ll avoid the mistakes that were made last time and the outcome will be different’.

    Like

  16. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    George 324pm – interesting that you chose a self-described radical site as the source of your definition of progressiveness.

    Like

  17. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Gregory – you seem to be missing the point and assuming I am trying to sell you a product – I am not.
    The ST math idea shows that music can be an aid in STEM learning. I am not going to quibble over how much is helps, or does not help.
    Here is a Ted talk link. The speaker has his own set of statistics on the effectiveness of the program.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VLje8QRrwg

    Like

  18. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Brad Croul | 07 August 2014 at 08:09 AM
    I thought to earn progressive “street cred” these guys had to advertise themselves as radical? Second worst crime in the proggie pantheon….inauthenticity

    Like

  19. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “The ST math idea shows that music can be an aid in STEM learning.”
    Yes, he’s selling ST, it’s his company. Unfortunately, there isn’t peer reviewed data that agrees with his marketing.
    I vaguely recall a year in Claremont when the Pomona College Symphony first trumpet was a physics frosh from Mudd, the first trombone was a senior engineer from Mudd, 1st horn, a frosh Mudd engineer, 1st clarinet a Mudd physics junior (Valedictorian the year afterwards, she played a mean Mozart Clarinet Concerto) and the 1st percussionist a Mudd math senior who was perhaps the premier number theorist in Claremont at the time. All that, despite Pomona College being a good 4 or 5 times the enrollment of Mudd.
    Yes, math and music are related, but the published research shows that the ST Math gizmo didn’t actually do much to improve math. Now, was the promoter of ST lying to the Tedx (not a ‘real’ Ted, more of a YouTed) audience? No, I’m sure he’s a true believer. It just needs a few tweaks, or the tests were flawed.

    Like

  20. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    All I was trying to get George to acknowledge was that there actually might be a place for a little STEAM in STEM since math and music are related.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    BradC 809am – I thought it would be most useful to cite sources that define themselves, especially when those definitions in some aspects agree with how others define them. I hope you do agree that the definition of progressivism you got from Wikipedia is beyond useless. BTW, a definition of anything is useful only to the extent that it supports discrimination – i.e. this NOT that. To define something in terms of attributes shared with other entities does not serve – e.g. Define ‘boy’: a boy is a mammal with two lungs.

    Like

  22. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    3 quick points here:
    Dr Sowell refers to a ‘post-thinking era’, but it is more generally referred to as the ‘post-modern era’. Personal feelings now are equal to (or superior to) facts and western logic. Emotional arguments have been used for centuries, but it was always considered low form in classical debating. Now some are using emotional arguments as the primary vehicle to win their side. Even classical debate is being thrown aside at the highest levels in this country.
    Brad’s offered definition of progressivism from WIKI:
    “Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.”
    That definition is so non-specific and general as to render it meaningless as a defining trait of a movement or type of political thought. Hey – there’s all this new stuff we have – let’s use it to improve our lives! All but but wild-eyed Ludites embrace that idea.
    And number three is my observation that the left marches forward in ever-increasing control of our lives with a multi pronged attack.
    There are 3 basic levels or types of leftists (or progressives). The lines are not sharply defined of course, and people can move from one type to another by different actions or inactions. At the ‘top’ we have the ‘evil’ ones driven by greed and/or lust for power. Soros and Al Gore would come first to mind, as examples. They espouse and fund the progressives, yet are never troubled by or have to live by the rules the progressives want to enact, or have enacted. Next in line are the True Believers. They are not evil, just deluded. They are the ground troops that write the letters to the local papers, organize at the local and state level, do low level fund raising and so on. It is beyond their religious belief to ever look at the salient facts that belie their causes. The fact that what they are supporting doesn’t work is always explained away by a sincere belief that it wasn’t done correctly with enough money and the correct people. It will be better the NEXT time. The last group (bottom, of course) is the ever growing number of non-thinking and non-self-acting proles. They are needed to swell the ranks of the govt hand out programs and to vote for the folks running the hand out programs. They can be used from time to time as actual labor to augment the ever shrinking number of producers (and those working for the producers).
    This is, of course, the Readers Digest version and it’s all far more complicated.
    I would like to once more point out that any time you hear some one say they want to improve others’ lives – ask them how much time they’ve actually spent listening to those same folks explaining exactly what it is that they want to ‘improve’ their lives. My life is improved with freedom and liberty – I do not want nor expect anything else from you.

    Like

  23. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    The Wiki definition (and the Dictionary.com definition cited in the article you linked) might seem simplistic, but the author of the article threw everything but the kitchen sink into their definition, even trying to include libertarianism in the mix.
    If you accept the dissidentvoice definition of progressivism, do you accept the author’s description of the opposite side of the coin? Would you call yourself a corporatist?
    I don’t think progressives are trying to, “take America down from its position of world greatness and leadership.”
    Maybe progressives think America can be great ways other than how you define greatness and world leadership.

    Like

  24. Walt Avatar

    Let’s keep it simple. Brad is all hung up on music. What’s more beneficial in the long run?
    Being able to read and play notes on any given interment, VS. a tape measure? Being able to comprehend the letters and numbers on a grade stake will get you a lot farther than reading
    sheet music.
    I was employed by “band members” actually. During the day, we changed the landscape ( 10 hour days was the norm) and at night “they” played gigs at any given dive from here to Placerville.
    Now how these guys worked on less than 5 hours of sleep for half the week was impressive.
    Nope, they didn’t quit their day jobs.
    Making the “big time” as a musician has less of a chance than the NBA or the NFL.
    Even acting has it’s problems. In today’s world, you need to be a hard core LIB, or you just ain’t going to work in Hollywood.
    I shudder at the thought of what “Common score” will do to the ability of just READING a tape measure. HELL! Those tape measures come in a range of different units of measure. Inches and fractions, tenths and hundreds, and now centemeters and metric.
    Good thing I paid attention to details. We got a set of plans drawn up on the metric scale, when the norm for us was tenths. That could have gone South real fast. Then hours of transposing every calculation.
    How would music class helped out there?

    Like

  25. fish Avatar
    fish

    What’s more beneficial in the long run?
    No way to tell Walt. I rather like the idea of music…..not the normal tribal thumping that I hear when I drive past our fine educational institutions (full disclosure – my taste in music was abysmal when I was younger!) but real music being taught in the public schools. Unfortunately as is the case with most subjects taught in the public schools today the babysitters who populate them probably won’t bring a proper appreciation of the works to accompany their instruction.
    I’m teaching my kid to read a tape measure….to important to turn that over to the NEA/CSEA.

    Like

  26. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Walt, I did not mention an age group but I am thinking more about elementary school kids than, say, high school kids. I am not hung up on music, in fact I don’t play any musical instruments. If you watch the video link I posted you can see the program being demonstrated is for younger kids.
    Scott, the Wiki definition sounds to me to be just a general idea of what (some) people consider progress.

    Like

  27. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Sorry, my 1002am was to George.

    Like

  28. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Walt 10:50 AM
    “Then hours of transposing every calculation.
    How would music class helped out there?”
    Hmm… Transposing… Music…
    There just might be a connection that you hadn’t considered, Walt!

    Like

  29. Walt Avatar

    How do you figure that Michael? So lets see a “common core” style math equation that might bare that out.
    Changing “CM” to “feet” ( in the tenths scale,, which dirt workers use) is manual labor all the way, and a little more difficult than going from the key of “C” to “A” or “B” flat.
    Changing the landscape with machinery has always been more gratifying than changing octaves
    on a tin horn. The paycheck is usually a lot better too. No open guitar box on a street corner, hoping for extra change. ( ????? Hope???? Change???? where have we heard that before??)

    Like

  30. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Brad at 12:41 – that was my point. It’s not in any way a definition of a modern ‘progressive’ as it applies in today’s politics. George is using the term as it applies to today’s leftists or liberals who have abandoned those terms as they are now considered poison by many as having led to failed social programs. They are now calling themselves ‘progressives’. Pointing to that WIKI definition is just wasting our time as we already know what real progress is. Progressives don’t in any way improve my life or anyone else for that matter, except folks like Gore and Soros. They profit handsomely from a ‘progressive’ future.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    BradC 1002am – Progressives do indeed believe that America can be “great” and be a world leader in “other ways”, no contention there. But their way is neither great nor provides world leadership in the ways that those on the Right have historically witnessed such greatness and leadership. In our view it is a maximum perversion the example of which we are witnessing today.
    My socio-political ideology is defined, explicated, expounded, and labeled in these seven plus years of writing. It is there for all to see. You need not ask silly questions to discover if I am a “corporatist”. Try a different tack, critique my credo item by item.

    Like

  32. Walt Avatar

    This is how I define ” progressive”. A young pup starts a job at the bottom, and a paycheck that reflects his know nothing abilities. As the pup gains knowledge and learns the job, ( keeps mouth shut and ears and eyes open) the better his abilities and paycheck will get.
    But that’s not today’s ” Progressive” That same young pup wants the same paycheck as the guy who has been there for 10 years. They want to start at the top, and all the perks that go with it.
    Today’s Progressive wants it NOW. Screw the hard work of “climbing the ladder”.. Where the hell is the elevator?

    Like

  33. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “All I was trying to get George to acknowledge was that there actually might be a place for a little STEAM in STEM since math and music are related.”
    Math and science are not music, but are academic disciplines. Can’t do science and math without language, so add that in, too. You might need to chat with someone from another country, add a foreign language or two. Can’t do anything without physical movement, so add PE. History is good, also government. So now we’re back to everything. But it isn’t part of math and science.
    Curiously, music was closely aligned with math and science in the Medieval liberal arts…music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy were the Quadrivium; grammar, rhetoric and logic were the Trivium, together they made the classic seven liberal arts.
    Brad, while I disagree vehemently with George’s ideal math and science vocational school concept, adding trivial amounts of music to a math program is ludicrous, and we now know, at least in one instance (ST Math) is proven to not work. Adding more letters to STEM isn’t the answer. Music should be part of K-12, a little for everyone in the early years, more for those who wish more in high school. But STEM (math and science) was broken out because the schools were piss poor at teaching it.
    Regarding vocational excess… My son could have graduated from Cal a semester early and spent a semester working at Cal as an instructor in Chemistry (iirc a glorified graduate TA)before grad school started. Pick up a few bucks. I counseled him to take classes he wanted to take but hadn’t had the time. Econ, literature. More time doing research in his professor’s lab. Graduate in the spring with his class. Why? A BS or a BA isn’t a vocational diploma and I wanted him to take full advantage of what Cal had to offer.

    Like

  34. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Walt 0352 pm – My point, which I didn’t express at all well, is that music is brain labor rather than manual labor, just as were your scale conversions. (Pushing a pencil or calculator doesn’t count!) The study and performance of music is a great way for some students to develop both intellectually and personally while risking having some fun and maybe obtaining some gratification, too.

    Like

  35. Russ Steele Avatar

    I attended the ERC Board meeting today and listened to the presentations and discovered a potential flaw in the ERC plan to create a local engineering work force. Common Core. Details here: http://wp.me/p3RtiD-hB

    Like

  36. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    On topic or not, this is how conservatives think of libholes:
    James Woods ✔ @RealJamesWoods
    Follow
    The only person trashing the “Office of the Presidency” is Barack Hussein Obama.
    8:27 AM – 7 Aug 201

    Like

  37. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    It’s funny how the same cross-talking goes on in these posts. When some one points out we don’t need art or music injected into STEM, it quickly degenerates into some one claiming that some how STEM advocates are trying to get rid of the arts. Of course we can have both. But the arts don’t put food on the table, heal a sick person or create new technology. The arts are very important, but they don’t exist on the same level that mechanical or electrical engineering does, for example. I have found the most beautiful art of all sorts created by folks with absolutely no formal training and I’ve been repulsed more often than not by publicly funded trash ‘created’ by folks with credentials out the wazoo. The so-called sculpture next to I80 in Roseville is butt-ugly. I’m sure the guy that designed it is a nice person, but it stinks up the place. Another couple of trees planted there would be better. I’ve seen sculptures by folk artists that have far more of a sense of color, balance and whimsy than the installations at the new terminal at SMF. That stuff is just over priced decor. You will have an awfully hard time finding some one that designed the latest circuit design for an IC module that doesn’t have years of formal training. Art takes care of itself, STEM does not. There are boat loads of folks that can teach ‘art appreciation’ to K through 12th. I am among them. I hate to burst folks’ bubbles, but really good art can be described and examples pointed out, but you can’t just teach it and have a new crop of world class artists. You can teach and turn out class after class of really competent engineers.
    Paying art professors any more than 75K a year is one colossal waste of public funds. If you personally want to pay more, fine. I want my money to go where it does the most good for humanity.

    Like

  38. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “Art takes care of itself”
    No it doesn’t.
    “You can teach and turn out class after class of really competent engineers.”
    No you can’t, there just aren’t that many people with the smarts and the inclination, and even if you could, there are already more graduates than jobs every year.

    Like

  39. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Earth to Gregory – all over the world there are good competent engineers being cranked out. Been going on for decades. Fait accompli.
    Art does take care of itself. There was art before there were over-priced art professors or over-priced art schools. Art comes from the human spirit. Art takes care of itself. The vast majority of the ‘art’ industry world wide is tomorrow’s land fill. Been true for a long time. America in particular doesn’t get anything close in value back out of what is spent on art. When disposable income goes down, purchased art is one of the first things cut from the budget. I love art in all media types. It is highly subjective, which is why I object to the govt spending my money on crappy (my opinion) art. Most of the public ‘art’ is just decoration, and not that good of quality for the most part. You are free to spend as much or little as you please on what you think is quality art. Please let me have that same opportunity.

    Like

  40. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Earth to Scott… we crank out more “STEM” workers than there are “STEM” jobs, and the college that cranks out the best paid math, science and engineering grads in the country (with the highest percentages of alumni in science with PhD’s) requires a third of their coursework to be in the humanities, and requires a minor in one of them.
    That government sponsored art sucks isn’t a valid point to your argument. The issue is, should math and science students not have music, fine arts, literature or history as an integral part of their education? I think they should.

    Like

  41. George Rebane Avatar

    Me thinks that ScottO and Gregory may be talking past each other. Both agree that STEM workers and artists contribute to our QoL and form the necessary underpinnings of what we call our civilization. But since the shoreline of human knowledge is now very long (and convoluted), the question I struggle with is ‘how should we spend the marginal education dollar, should it be on STEM or the humanities (that includes arts)?’ We know we don’t have the resources (money and students/researchers/teachers) to expand that ‘STEM shoreline’ equally on all fronts. And no doubt the same problem confronts us in the humanities.
    Those who want to centrally plan a curriculum for the country argue for the creation of a STEAM approach, presumably reallocating STEM monies to include arts since the adherents don’t identify the influx of additional funds to support such additional courses. And, of course, they don’t even touch the hard constraint that a day = 24 hours, no more no less. So should each academy, viewing the market for jobs, decide on its own what mix of humanities and STEM programs it offers? Or should the source of the marginal dollar (almost always the federal government) structure the instruction of the institutions it funds?
    Neither Gregory or ScottO have come across as central planners, although (and I may be wrong) Gregory’s argument does tend toward STEAM, and ScottO’s toward a more distributed model of structuring education and spending the marginal dollar.

    Like

  42. Walt Avatar

    OHH.. The teacher’s union is PISSED! And this guy is around children? How dare the anti common core crowd speak ill of common core!
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/08/this-teachers-union-president-will-punch-you-in-the-face-if-you-dont-like-common-core-video/
    I sure hope this guy isn’t allowed to own guns.

    Like

  43. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “Gregory’s argument does tend toward STEAM” -GR
    That’s what comes of being blind, George.
    “STEM” is Ed marketing blather which dilutes what has been ignored by K-12 and many colleges and universities: math and science. Even now, the latest K-12 dilution, Common Core, is owning up to not being aligned with the needs of the good universities most would have their kids aspire to, or with AP Calculus, but it is aligned with AP Statistics and AP Programming, which makes it “STEM”.
    Our K-12 system has been deficient in preparing our young to study math and science, and what got run up the flagpole was “STEM”. Statistics, programming, biology etc doesn’t fix the problem with math and science education, nor does removing everything that isn’t math, science, or trade school technology from education.
    Engineering ONLY isn’t the solution, guys, and the big money wasters in state-sponsored higher education isn’t salary and benefits of art professors… it’s the bureaucratic overhead. Compensation packages of non-instructional management in some cases worth many tens of millions of dollars; $500k plus annual salaries, phenomenal pensions. Root them out, don’t kill off the humanities and don’t let them get away with substandard efforts in what they’ve often done poorly… math and science.

    Like

  44. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    “That government sponsored art sucks isn’t a valid point to your argument. The issue is, should math and science students not have music, fine arts, literature or history as an integral part of their education? I think they should.”
    Govt art is a good part of my argument, but not all of it. It’s all part of a huge scam that we need highly funded humanity and art programs. Kids run up huge debts with useless degrees that don’t prepare them for anything useful to the betterment of society. So there is a need for a lot of govt money in the arts to buy off the lesser artists that have college and univ debts to cover. I heartily agree that managerial overhead in higher ed is a problem. If the topic is just how can we bring down the cost of higher ed, I have all sorts of ideas. But the issue here is whether or not to drive up the cost of STEM with non essential mandates. I say cut all salaries for liberal arts back to a max of around 75K and there will be a loud howling, but in the end the vast majority of those folks will have to suck it up and take it. They won’t make anything near that kind of money in the real world. STEM teaches kids to solve problems based on reality. The humanities and liberal arts can be involved, as I have already pointed out, but if a student just wants STEM, why make them spend any more time and money on a non-essential?

    Like

  45. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    ” say cut all salaries for liberal arts back to a max of around 75K and there will be a loud howling, but in the end the vast majority of those folks will have to suck it up and take it.”
    I get it; you don’t like professors of fine arts and want to starve them.
    1) Not gonna happen
    2) It would not make a dent on the operating costs of the University of California, nor any other college or university.
    For decades, the goobermint has reacted to increasing college costs by making it easier for students to borrow ever increasing amounts of money based on what the admissions departments were telling kids about the value of the education they were about to buy. The last big reform was the creation of a modern equivalent to involuntary servitude by:
    1) the Feds lending the money
    2) putting student loan debt out of the reach of bankruptcy court.
    There was abuse of student loans being discharged in bankruptcy in the past, but loaning kids fortunes to spend on valueless education needs to stop. Get the Feds out of the loan business and stop funding university excess, and the excesses will stop.

    Like

  46. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Oh, and I forgot…
    “cut all salaries for liberal arts”
    Math and science are two of the original seven liberal arts.

    Like

  47. Russ Steele Avatar

    California Common Core to Teach Students about Obama’s Legacy as First Black President:
    Assembly Bill 1921 passed with a 30-1 vote, according to the Associated Press. It was introduced by Assemblyman Dan Holden (D-Pasadena). Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) says the bill would require the Instructional Quality Commission (which facilitates much of California’s Common Core framework) to consider teaching students about Obama’s election within the context of past voter discrimination, the AP notes.
    Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine) was the only senator who voted to strike down the bill. He said, “We’ve never done this for any previous president,” the AP notes.
    Mitchell reportedly placed great emphasis on the importance of learning about “overcoming our nation’s past to elect our first black president.”

    First off he is not black, he is brown or yellow with a white mother and an Arab father. If I were an African black I would be upset by this effort to puff up Obama it to something he is not! Next they will be promoting him for Mt Rushmore.

    Like

  48. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Correction, math and science were four of the original seven liberal arts. Logic is generally considered math nowadays, and it was arguably the one Formal Logic class I took that was the foundation of my electrical engineering career, though I had took it as a Philosophy class, desperate as I was for humanities credits at the time. Good stuff; it’s a shame NO HIGH SCHOOL, nor AP, has a formal logic class… Logic and Probability would be a stellar pair that would even make you Utilitarians happy.
    Put math and science back into the liberal arts and we will have something. Maybe even require teachers to have a 1000 or better for the SAT M+V, with a better than 500 on the Math (average) for anyone wanting to instruct a K-12 math class, and we’ll have real change for a change.

    Like

  49. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    ‘had took it’?
    Ouch. That’s what I get for hasty editing after cuts and pastes.

    Like

  50. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    “I get it; you don’t like professors of fine arts and want to starve them.”
    Great logic – if I don’t think folks should be paid more than they’re worth, it’s because I don’t like them.
    Have a nice day, sir – I’m done.

    Like

Leave a comment