Sunday, March 28, 2010
WHO'S ON FIRST?
We find ourselves a bit perplexed these days as to which professional group is the bigger gouger when it comes to billing for services. We’re unable to determine whether lawyers or doctors stand in first place. It seems to be a mighty close race.
Friday, February 5, 2010
OUR OWN MISTER ED
Ed was a classmate throughout our high school days. We never had a chance to get to know him too well, since he lived in the far yonder part of town. According to memory, he tended to keep to himself, not having much to say, even in response to the teachers up front.
There are, however, some unique features about this quiet and reserved lad. The first was his family setting. Reliable sources informed us that his father owned a good-sized piece of farm land, and in his spare time had sired seventeen children, mostly female, all occupying the same domicile. Ed had arrived second last among the brood.
The old man would haul the undergraduate portion of his flock to school in his truck each morning, then pick them up after classes had ended. As we understand it, he’d actually call the roll every afternoon, as an army platoon sergeant might, making sure the crew was complete.
Farming didn’t generate a whole lot of revenue in those days, and having to feed, clothe, and otherwise support a congregation that huge put wide gaps in the household budget. This was quite evident in certain cases. Every few weeks or so, Ed and his younger brother (Nos. 16 and 17 in respective sequence) would both show up at school with freshly cropped hair, and their father’s sugar bowl utilization couldn’t go unnoticed. Typically, only the outer edges would have been trimmed off, leaving the covered area untouched, and hence resembling an overgrown lawn.
During our final year, the coming graduation amenities required each senior to visit a designated photo studio for a class annual mug shot. This obviously called for a conventional suit to pose in, which was a luxury Ed’s parents couldn’t afford. He likely arranged to borrow the needed woolens from somewhere, since his youthful face did appear along with those of his class confederates.
In the post-graduation years, our paths crossed but once for a few brief casual words, no more. We have learned, though, how in due course our once sugar bowl-coiffed, tweedless Ed and his siblings inherited the farm land their father had long tilled, converting the area into a housing development.
For the past several decades, therefore, our Mr. Ed has enjoyed millionaire status, and we applaud his good fortune, especially in view of such a humble beginning. While residing in several foreign countries and meeting natives from numerous others, we’ve seen or learned about very few where similar opportunities are available to a kid growing up on the wrong side of the tracks.
There are, however, some unique features about this quiet and reserved lad. The first was his family setting. Reliable sources informed us that his father owned a good-sized piece of farm land, and in his spare time had sired seventeen children, mostly female, all occupying the same domicile. Ed had arrived second last among the brood.
The old man would haul the undergraduate portion of his flock to school in his truck each morning, then pick them up after classes had ended. As we understand it, he’d actually call the roll every afternoon, as an army platoon sergeant might, making sure the crew was complete.
Farming didn’t generate a whole lot of revenue in those days, and having to feed, clothe, and otherwise support a congregation that huge put wide gaps in the household budget. This was quite evident in certain cases. Every few weeks or so, Ed and his younger brother (Nos. 16 and 17 in respective sequence) would both show up at school with freshly cropped hair, and their father’s sugar bowl utilization couldn’t go unnoticed. Typically, only the outer edges would have been trimmed off, leaving the covered area untouched, and hence resembling an overgrown lawn.
During our final year, the coming graduation amenities required each senior to visit a designated photo studio for a class annual mug shot. This obviously called for a conventional suit to pose in, which was a luxury Ed’s parents couldn’t afford. He likely arranged to borrow the needed woolens from somewhere, since his youthful face did appear along with those of his class confederates.
In the post-graduation years, our paths crossed but once for a few brief casual words, no more. We have learned, though, how in due course our once sugar bowl-coiffed, tweedless Ed and his siblings inherited the farm land their father had long tilled, converting the area into a housing development.
For the past several decades, therefore, our Mr. Ed has enjoyed millionaire status, and we applaud his good fortune, especially in view of such a humble beginning. While residing in several foreign countries and meeting natives from numerous others, we’ve seen or learned about very few where similar opportunities are available to a kid growing up on the wrong side of the tracks.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
THE NEED FOR A FITTING SLOGAN
Slogans have long been put to use as inspirational battle cries. A look at our past history brings several prominent ones to mind. Prime examples include “Remember the Maine!”, “Remember the Alamo!”, “54-40 or Fight!”, “Remember Pearl Harbor!”, “Sink the Bismarck!”, “I shall return!”, “We Shall Overcome!”, and others adopted for various organized endeavors.
It stands to reason, then, that our esteemed Republican Party is deeply lacking a proper and meaningful theme. In light of its record over the past century – at least from the end of Teddy Roosevelt’s administration forward – we feel they should choose a fighting slogan which matches the political doctrines consistently extolled year after year. Accordingly, what could be more appropriate than “Repeal that stupid Magna Charta!”?
It stands to reason, then, that our esteemed Republican Party is deeply lacking a proper and meaningful theme. In light of its record over the past century – at least from the end of Teddy Roosevelt’s administration forward – we feel they should choose a fighting slogan which matches the political doctrines consistently extolled year after year. Accordingly, what could be more appropriate than “Repeal that stupid Magna Charta!”?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
THE BADDEST DAY
Our literary gentry have long forgiven the Bard of Avon for his classic grammatical blunder when describing the knife wound inflicted by Brutus on his friend Julius Caesar as the “most unkindest cut of all”. Actually, the gentleman had no choice but to preserve a ten-syllable line, in what the scholars label iambic pentameter. Although certainly not claiming to measure up to Willie Shakespeare, we’ve nevertheless decided to take comparable license in the above title. Our theme in this instance is speculation on what singular event throughout the just-closed 20th century stands as the most disruptive to mankind’s ongoing welfare -- applying our chosen vernacular to call it the “baddest”.
Quite a few disastrous occurrences immediately come to mind, due to either human action and/or failure to exercise adequate preventive measures. Each item on our selected list is cited and analyzed below, in determining which we consider as having wrought the most devastating long range effect.
1. The sinking of the Titanic? Not really since, despite the tragedy, this served
as a useful wakeup call against complacent living.
2. The 1929 stock market crash? A depressing blow indeed, but lacking permanent ill effect.
3. The Hindenburg explosion? A latter-day equivalent to the Titanic, but it taught us to abandon the dirigible as a key international transport means.
4. Pearl Harbor? A highly upsetting business, but such happening at least convinced America never again to let down its guard.
5. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This comes mighty close to rating as the very worst, because of a universal trepidation over nuclear energy use, which hasn’t abated one bit ever since.
6. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? This event made Pearl Harbor look like a mild disturbance by comparison, but has provided yet another valuable lesson in security requirements.
Our studied answer has to be “none of the above”. Except for the last two, the disruptive effect doesn’t shape up as being very long lasting.
Over and above them all, we’ve picked the founding of the Israeli state in 1948. The reason is that such act amounted to pouring gasoline on a fire which has been raging for millennia. The Arab-Zionist controversy, perpetuated through outright mutual hatred, hasn’t slackened off one iota since, and appears unlikely ever to.
Our old adversary Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cronies were indirectly responsible for such unfortunate move. Once the full horror of the Holocaust had become known to the entire world, the international powers had no alternative but to bend over backwards in uttering a profound apology to the Jews. The most fitting gesture at the time could be nothing short of recreating Israel as a nation, even though it meant telling the on-site inhabitant Palestinians to get lost. The Arab universe couldn’t possibly have been administered a more insulting blow.
The most damaging upshot has been Uncle Sam’s ill-fated policy of unceasingly sticking his proboscis into Middle East affairs, always taking Israel’s side, thus making new enemies by the score every day. This situation not only provided the venom to stage the September 11, 2001 raids, but earlier brought on the sabotaged Pan Am plane crash over Lockerby, in obvious retaliation to Ronald Reagan’s mad bomber air strikes on Libya.
Every U.S. President from Harry Truman onward has held an abject fear of offending Israel, to make sure the American Jewish vote doesn’t get sacrificed come next election day. The established doctrine finds our government simply winking at the undiminished inhuman treatment accorded that country’s neighboring Palestinians.
In closing, the message we’re trying to convey here decidedly does not constitute anti-Semitism on our part. We can firmly state that opposition to the United States’ fondling of Israel has no bearing on our feelings toward Judaism. The country is at fault, not the religion.
Quite a few disastrous occurrences immediately come to mind, due to either human action and/or failure to exercise adequate preventive measures. Each item on our selected list is cited and analyzed below, in determining which we consider as having wrought the most devastating long range effect.
1. The sinking of the Titanic? Not really since, despite the tragedy, this served
as a useful wakeup call against complacent living.
2. The 1929 stock market crash? A depressing blow indeed, but lacking permanent ill effect.
3. The Hindenburg explosion? A latter-day equivalent to the Titanic, but it taught us to abandon the dirigible as a key international transport means.
4. Pearl Harbor? A highly upsetting business, but such happening at least convinced America never again to let down its guard.
5. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This comes mighty close to rating as the very worst, because of a universal trepidation over nuclear energy use, which hasn’t abated one bit ever since.
6. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? This event made Pearl Harbor look like a mild disturbance by comparison, but has provided yet another valuable lesson in security requirements.
Our studied answer has to be “none of the above”. Except for the last two, the disruptive effect doesn’t shape up as being very long lasting.
Over and above them all, we’ve picked the founding of the Israeli state in 1948. The reason is that such act amounted to pouring gasoline on a fire which has been raging for millennia. The Arab-Zionist controversy, perpetuated through outright mutual hatred, hasn’t slackened off one iota since, and appears unlikely ever to.
Our old adversary Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cronies were indirectly responsible for such unfortunate move. Once the full horror of the Holocaust had become known to the entire world, the international powers had no alternative but to bend over backwards in uttering a profound apology to the Jews. The most fitting gesture at the time could be nothing short of recreating Israel as a nation, even though it meant telling the on-site inhabitant Palestinians to get lost. The Arab universe couldn’t possibly have been administered a more insulting blow.
The most damaging upshot has been Uncle Sam’s ill-fated policy of unceasingly sticking his proboscis into Middle East affairs, always taking Israel’s side, thus making new enemies by the score every day. This situation not only provided the venom to stage the September 11, 2001 raids, but earlier brought on the sabotaged Pan Am plane crash over Lockerby, in obvious retaliation to Ronald Reagan’s mad bomber air strikes on Libya.
Every U.S. President from Harry Truman onward has held an abject fear of offending Israel, to make sure the American Jewish vote doesn’t get sacrificed come next election day. The established doctrine finds our government simply winking at the undiminished inhuman treatment accorded that country’s neighboring Palestinians.
In closing, the message we’re trying to convey here decidedly does not constitute anti-Semitism on our part. We can firmly state that opposition to the United States’ fondling of Israel has no bearing on our feelings toward Judaism. The country is at fault, not the religion.
Friday, January 15, 2010
EDUCATION FAILURE REVISITED
This piece complements the one recently published under the title Our American Classrooms -- Institutions of Learning or Localized Dictatorships? We have a few more comments to make on the subject of a misdirected educational system.
People here and there seem forever to talk about certain schools as being great, leading, outstanding, model, tops, or whatever. In contrast, therefore, those not so glorified automatically become classified as mediocre or worse.
At this point, we'll jump in with our private opinion that there is no such thing as a poor school. Instead we have poor students, due mainly to countless legions of "yessir, nosir, no excusesir" teachers who conform to the system's rigid rules, focusing on disciplinary control, adherence to going by the proverbial book straight down the line, and results measurement exclusively by exam grades.
It's true that a competent teacher will periodically be blessed with a brightly shining pupil, whose classroom capabilities remain in the mentor's memory throughout his or her career. However, this is far from the issue. We needn't be concerned with the occasional brilliant learner and self-applier. The problem revolves around the hoi polloi -- those never properly oriented as to what schooling should really be all about. Meanwhile, as Charles Sullivan laid out so effectively in his essay of previous blog article reference, the system has long been churning out excessively-disciplined automatons, not creative-minded citizens, by the millions.
For further emphasis, we wish to add that we consider strict rule adherence doctrines to be highly non-beneficial. They mold education into a fear-bound process, and accomplish little from the standpoints of individual thinking and free expression.
Nevertheless, we can't overlook the necessity of maintaining schoolroom order, which will require teachers to finally shed their hitherto lord and master rules to become understanding leaders and guidance counselors instead. Obviously, in light of the already hidebound traditions which prevail, this won't exactly be an overnight development. In fact, we're inclined to fear it may never happen.
People here and there seem forever to talk about certain schools as being great, leading, outstanding, model, tops, or whatever. In contrast, therefore, those not so glorified automatically become classified as mediocre or worse.
At this point, we'll jump in with our private opinion that there is no such thing as a poor school. Instead we have poor students, due mainly to countless legions of "yessir, nosir, no excusesir" teachers who conform to the system's rigid rules, focusing on disciplinary control, adherence to going by the proverbial book straight down the line, and results measurement exclusively by exam grades.
It's true that a competent teacher will periodically be blessed with a brightly shining pupil, whose classroom capabilities remain in the mentor's memory throughout his or her career. However, this is far from the issue. We needn't be concerned with the occasional brilliant learner and self-applier. The problem revolves around the hoi polloi -- those never properly oriented as to what schooling should really be all about. Meanwhile, as Charles Sullivan laid out so effectively in his essay of previous blog article reference, the system has long been churning out excessively-disciplined automatons, not creative-minded citizens, by the millions.
For further emphasis, we wish to add that we consider strict rule adherence doctrines to be highly non-beneficial. They mold education into a fear-bound process, and accomplish little from the standpoints of individual thinking and free expression.
Nevertheless, we can't overlook the necessity of maintaining schoolroom order, which will require teachers to finally shed their hitherto lord and master rules to become understanding leaders and guidance counselors instead. Obviously, in light of the already hidebound traditions which prevail, this won't exactly be an overnight development. In fact, we're inclined to fear it may never happen.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A SEASONED VETERAN'S VIEW OF THE ECONOMY
Our present era news columnists, television announcers, and other media pundits everywhere are compelled to earn their livings, which means they must continually dream up copy to write or events to comment on, even if it adds up to tedious repetition. Moreover, with their ranks having become so abnormally plentiful, we literally get bombed all day long and day after day with the latest hot poop, altogether too often in regard to how sick our current economic picture happens to be. Since doom and gloom tends to attract headline readers and capture the attention of listening ears, that has become an overly popular theme.
For the benefit of those too young to remember our so-labeled Great Depression of 1929-1937, we will now offer some reassurance by bluntly saying "Look, Folks, these problems today ain't nothin' in comparison".
No, they really ain't, and that's for dang sure. Back in 1933, following a full dozen years of Republican administration bunglings, which included allowing organized crime to flourish due to that imbecilic prohibition law, the economy had sunk to an unprecedented low. Regardless of what you read and hear these days, such condition has not been repeated by a long shot.
Presently however, we can thank the blessed GOP for having done their level best to try making it happen all over again. After Bill Clinton had managed to return the country to at least an annual budget surplus position, a pair of clowns named Bush and Cheney blew the ball game by spending the whole bundle and more engaging in fisticuffs with Sadam Hussein and the Taliban, while attempting to track down the elusive Osama bin Laden. In the meantime, our smirking, foreclosure-motivated finance industry went wild offering fictitious credit swindles for the public to gobble up with hitherto unmatched frenzy, and we suddenly lost our collective ass -- although not enough to prevent the banking wizards from doling out massive government assistance funds as executive bonuses at staggering rates.
Still, despite this eight-year sojourn of Bush-Cheney stupidity, what President Obama inherited in 2009 doesn't hold the proverbial candle to the mess FDR had to face seventy-six years earlier. As depressions go, that was a doozy. We weren't noticing gradual recovery indicators as early as 1933, which has already become the case now.
To help fortify our point, we're about to look back upon common incidents that kept occurring throughout those virtually forgotten mid-thirties, and ask how much has repeated itself in this current age. For example:
* How many city block-long breadlines have you seen, either in person or on TV screens?
* Right around the corner from the breadlines, how many men have you similarly viewed
queuing up by the hundreds, waiting to apply for jobs -- any whatsoever?
* How many freight trains have you watched roll past with primarily empty deadheading
cars?
* Furthermore, how often have you been able to count fifty or more hoboes riding atop or
standing inside the open doors of those empty rail cars?
* How many tramps have shown up at your front door either asking to do odd jobs on your
property in return for a single meal, or else simply requesting some of your pocket change?
We haven't had retail or other small business enterprises go bankrupt in fantastic proportions.
Relatively speaking, many seem to be doing rather well in view of this supposedly disastrous downturn.
Restaurants are still crowded at lunch and dinner hours. We observe football stadia, baseball parks, boxing and other sport arenas constantly filled to capacity. We often find standing room only at theater and concert performances. Little or no such ongoing bonanzas existed back then.
Since a man could barely afford to take his kids to a ball game in the afternoon or his wife and family out to an evening movie, he was at least able to drop over to the nearest ice cream emporium and spend a relatively small sum for a household treat to be enjoyed. While slurping away, the people would sit and listen to popular nighttime radio programs, absolutely free. A small degree of pleasure thus remained available at minimal cost. How many of you have had to resort to such penny-pinching activities in the past couple years?
No indeed, this economic stumbling of today ain't nothin' in contrast. Believe us, we sat through the entire rugged affair.
For the benefit of those too young to remember our so-labeled Great Depression of 1929-1937, we will now offer some reassurance by bluntly saying "Look, Folks, these problems today ain't nothin' in comparison".
No, they really ain't, and that's for dang sure. Back in 1933, following a full dozen years of Republican administration bunglings, which included allowing organized crime to flourish due to that imbecilic prohibition law, the economy had sunk to an unprecedented low. Regardless of what you read and hear these days, such condition has not been repeated by a long shot.
Presently however, we can thank the blessed GOP for having done their level best to try making it happen all over again. After Bill Clinton had managed to return the country to at least an annual budget surplus position, a pair of clowns named Bush and Cheney blew the ball game by spending the whole bundle and more engaging in fisticuffs with Sadam Hussein and the Taliban, while attempting to track down the elusive Osama bin Laden. In the meantime, our smirking, foreclosure-motivated finance industry went wild offering fictitious credit swindles for the public to gobble up with hitherto unmatched frenzy, and we suddenly lost our collective ass -- although not enough to prevent the banking wizards from doling out massive government assistance funds as executive bonuses at staggering rates.
Still, despite this eight-year sojourn of Bush-Cheney stupidity, what President Obama inherited in 2009 doesn't hold the proverbial candle to the mess FDR had to face seventy-six years earlier. As depressions go, that was a doozy. We weren't noticing gradual recovery indicators as early as 1933, which has already become the case now.
To help fortify our point, we're about to look back upon common incidents that kept occurring throughout those virtually forgotten mid-thirties, and ask how much has repeated itself in this current age. For example:
* How many city block-long breadlines have you seen, either in person or on TV screens?
* Right around the corner from the breadlines, how many men have you similarly viewed
queuing up by the hundreds, waiting to apply for jobs -- any whatsoever?
* How many freight trains have you watched roll past with primarily empty deadheading
cars?
* Furthermore, how often have you been able to count fifty or more hoboes riding atop or
standing inside the open doors of those empty rail cars?
* How many tramps have shown up at your front door either asking to do odd jobs on your
property in return for a single meal, or else simply requesting some of your pocket change?
We haven't had retail or other small business enterprises go bankrupt in fantastic proportions.
Relatively speaking, many seem to be doing rather well in view of this supposedly disastrous downturn.
Restaurants are still crowded at lunch and dinner hours. We observe football stadia, baseball parks, boxing and other sport arenas constantly filled to capacity. We often find standing room only at theater and concert performances. Little or no such ongoing bonanzas existed back then.
Since a man could barely afford to take his kids to a ball game in the afternoon or his wife and family out to an evening movie, he was at least able to drop over to the nearest ice cream emporium and spend a relatively small sum for a household treat to be enjoyed. While slurping away, the people would sit and listen to popular nighttime radio programs, absolutely free. A small degree of pleasure thus remained available at minimal cost. How many of you have had to resort to such penny-pinching activities in the past couple years?
No indeed, this economic stumbling of today ain't nothin' in contrast. Believe us, we sat through the entire rugged affair.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
OUR AMERICAN CLASSROOMS -- INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING OR LOCALIZED DICTATORSHIPS?
Almost everyone these days seems to be aware that our educational system has reached a near-chaotic state. In this writer's usual ultra-critical opinion, this certainly isn't a situation of recent origin. As far as we're concerned, it dates back at least to when this fellow was a rosy-cheeked lad seated in the normal succession of schoolrooms, not so dutifully, not so obediently, and not so impressed with the teaching and disciplinary methods employed.
A browse of the internet will turn up several latter-day essays discussing how and why the process has fallen on its face. Most of them tend to dance around the issue, offering analytical comment from a politically-oriented angle. However, a particular piece by a man named Charles Sullivan entitled The Failure of Mass Education, published in February 2003, hits quite a few nails on their proverbial heads. Our readers are urged to call this one up and go over it closely.
For purposes of emphasis, we've chosen to reproduce Mr. Sullivan's opening paragraph, which sums up the mess quite nicely.
"What are our public schools but an instrument of the state? Our students are not taught the
skills of critical thinking that would serve them well as citizens in a free society for the
entirety of their lives. Mass education focuses upon memorization and scoring well on exams.
Our schools do not promote independent thought or independent actions -- they teach
conformity and control of the masses. Every student is taught virtually the same thing in
essentially the same way -- much of it untrue; especially history and economics. Our
students are not educated to become useful and creative members of society; they are
programmed to be unquestioning conformists and mindless consumers of goods and
propaganda. Thus we are creating a society of automatons who will never challenge
authority, who will behave predictably and will be staunch defenders of the status quo. In
other words, they will become the passive core of American society."
Being strongly in accord with this article's content, we promptly shot off a lengthy email to Charles Sullivan, congratulating him profusely and adding a few relative opinions of our own. For some unfortunate reason, though, the address shown at the piece's end is no longer valid, in light of the failure notice received. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to pass on the above digest of his thoughts, along with a few more observations from our personal "dear old golden rule days" experience.
In thirteen years, from kindergarten to high school graduation, we cannot recall a single instance where any Miss Pruneface up front ever made a statement to the effect that school was an institution where her sworn duty as a teacher involved making sure we students adequately educated ourselves. Oh no, the attitude conveyed never deviated a centimeter from "You'll either behave properly, read your textbooks carefully, and get high examination grades, or suffer the slings and arrows of lifelong damnation".
As a result of living and working in several foreign countries for more than four decades, we've dealt with people from quite a few other nationalities. In many cases, mutual understanding could be difficult, due to variations in the respective teaching practices to which we'd been exposed. However, we never had the slightest communication problems with fellow American expatriates. The main reason is that we all had had identical history, geography, literary, and other classroom dogma crammed down our throats while progressing from one grade to the next. Our common educational backgrounds were predicated on stereotyped methodology.
By way of partial redemption, we are pleased to add that we didn't find such ongoing conditions to be as catastrophic at the university level. Students reaching that stage have attained reasonable maturity and have pretty good ideas about what they're shooting for. Unhappily, a countless number of youthful minds have already become somewhat warped, thanks to their schoolroom training to date.
One of the most severe flaws in our education process is the supposedly vital importance attached to passing examinations with the highest possible marks. Consequently, cheating
by all sorts of means has prevailed for centuries, even in university classrooms. This malady will undoubtedly continue so long as today's teaching doctrines remain unchanged.
Once again, no instructor ever told us the unvarnished truth about periodic tests being intended to show the student how fully he or she has grasped the essential subject matter, thus conveying the need for increased diligence where warranted. Instead, the whole affair has evolved into a rat race, where a person must strive in every possible way to outdo the young ladies and gents seated alongside.
For several years, this writer has been carrying on disappointing one-way correspondence with numerous former classmates. Many have resorted to non-replies, even via quickie email messages, because of a few caustic remarks about the old days. Perhaps equating our high school administration with the Gestapo has had something to do with this ex-communication. Additionally, occasional reference to the institution's revered female Dean of Girls as the Iron Bitch has most likely been another factor. Still, such rather exaggerated opinions stand firm, with no thought of retraction ever being considered.
On the slightly favorable side, we do admit to having grown to respect just three individual high school teachers for their competence and conscientiousness, despite the systematic rigidity foisted on them. The rest were merely punching time clocks and dishing out what the dogma called for. Like Adolph Eichmann, they were only following orders.
Subsequent to our own learning days, we went on to suffer the discomfort of observing the educational process applied to three growing children under North American policies. Not a single improvment was ever noted over our earlier student era.
How long will it be before our teaching monarchy finally realizes and accepts the fact that this perennially-sagging atmosphere simply has to be rectified?
A browse of the internet will turn up several latter-day essays discussing how and why the process has fallen on its face. Most of them tend to dance around the issue, offering analytical comment from a politically-oriented angle. However, a particular piece by a man named Charles Sullivan entitled The Failure of Mass Education, published in February 2003, hits quite a few nails on their proverbial heads. Our readers are urged to call this one up and go over it closely.
For purposes of emphasis, we've chosen to reproduce Mr. Sullivan's opening paragraph, which sums up the mess quite nicely.
"What are our public schools but an instrument of the state? Our students are not taught the
skills of critical thinking that would serve them well as citizens in a free society for the
entirety of their lives. Mass education focuses upon memorization and scoring well on exams.
Our schools do not promote independent thought or independent actions -- they teach
conformity and control of the masses. Every student is taught virtually the same thing in
essentially the same way -- much of it untrue; especially history and economics. Our
students are not educated to become useful and creative members of society; they are
programmed to be unquestioning conformists and mindless consumers of goods and
propaganda. Thus we are creating a society of automatons who will never challenge
authority, who will behave predictably and will be staunch defenders of the status quo. In
other words, they will become the passive core of American society."
Being strongly in accord with this article's content, we promptly shot off a lengthy email to Charles Sullivan, congratulating him profusely and adding a few relative opinions of our own. For some unfortunate reason, though, the address shown at the piece's end is no longer valid, in light of the failure notice received. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to pass on the above digest of his thoughts, along with a few more observations from our personal "dear old golden rule days" experience.
In thirteen years, from kindergarten to high school graduation, we cannot recall a single instance where any Miss Pruneface up front ever made a statement to the effect that school was an institution where her sworn duty as a teacher involved making sure we students adequately educated ourselves. Oh no, the attitude conveyed never deviated a centimeter from "You'll either behave properly, read your textbooks carefully, and get high examination grades, or suffer the slings and arrows of lifelong damnation".
As a result of living and working in several foreign countries for more than four decades, we've dealt with people from quite a few other nationalities. In many cases, mutual understanding could be difficult, due to variations in the respective teaching practices to which we'd been exposed. However, we never had the slightest communication problems with fellow American expatriates. The main reason is that we all had had identical history, geography, literary, and other classroom dogma crammed down our throats while progressing from one grade to the next. Our common educational backgrounds were predicated on stereotyped methodology.
By way of partial redemption, we are pleased to add that we didn't find such ongoing conditions to be as catastrophic at the university level. Students reaching that stage have attained reasonable maturity and have pretty good ideas about what they're shooting for. Unhappily, a countless number of youthful minds have already become somewhat warped, thanks to their schoolroom training to date.
One of the most severe flaws in our education process is the supposedly vital importance attached to passing examinations with the highest possible marks. Consequently, cheating
by all sorts of means has prevailed for centuries, even in university classrooms. This malady will undoubtedly continue so long as today's teaching doctrines remain unchanged.
Once again, no instructor ever told us the unvarnished truth about periodic tests being intended to show the student how fully he or she has grasped the essential subject matter, thus conveying the need for increased diligence where warranted. Instead, the whole affair has evolved into a rat race, where a person must strive in every possible way to outdo the young ladies and gents seated alongside.
For several years, this writer has been carrying on disappointing one-way correspondence with numerous former classmates. Many have resorted to non-replies, even via quickie email messages, because of a few caustic remarks about the old days. Perhaps equating our high school administration with the Gestapo has had something to do with this ex-communication. Additionally, occasional reference to the institution's revered female Dean of Girls as the Iron Bitch has most likely been another factor. Still, such rather exaggerated opinions stand firm, with no thought of retraction ever being considered.
On the slightly favorable side, we do admit to having grown to respect just three individual high school teachers for their competence and conscientiousness, despite the systematic rigidity foisted on them. The rest were merely punching time clocks and dishing out what the dogma called for. Like Adolph Eichmann, they were only following orders.
Subsequent to our own learning days, we went on to suffer the discomfort of observing the educational process applied to three growing children under North American policies. Not a single improvment was ever noted over our earlier student era.
How long will it be before our teaching monarchy finally realizes and accepts the fact that this perennially-sagging atmosphere simply has to be rectified?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
