The Observation Deck

ryan costa wrote:The Canterbury Tales are on their short list. The Canterbury Tales are full of promiscuity, adultery, raunchy jokes, and lust-fuelled violence. This was the literature men of letters wrote for themselves when most of the population was illiterate. but...promiscuity, adultery, raunchy goings-on, and lust fuelled violence were common in that era. even though western Europe was most wholly Christian.

I read the Canterbury Tales in high school and enjoyed every word. As I recall I wasn't one bit bothered by the promiscuity, adultery, raunchy jokes and lust fueled violence. I think there was also a bit of cuckholdery.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold

some words live forever.

Anyway...

I don't have any problem with teaching core standards, testing those standards and holding people responsible. There are a lot of schools out there who will be in for a surprise.

On the other hand I don't have any doubt that Common Core will ultimately be hijacked by left wing ideologues (because the teaching colleges are dominated by the left wing) and that the standards will be so diluted as to become meaningless. All that will be left will be the ideology.

The Socialist Worker disagrees:

http://socialistworker.org/2013/12/03/f ... ommon-core

The "left" wing critique is that testing students to find out what they know takes so much time that there is little time to teach students what they need to know. The underling fear is that parents will start asking why $500,000 per classroom isn't enough to teach Johnny to read.

What do students need to know? Do they need to "know" anything? Many educators are opposed to rote memorization and the teaching of facts.

Which begs the question: If you don't remember anything what do you know?

Someone penned this to illustrate the evolution of education in the USA:

1. Teaching Math In the 1950s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In the 1960s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In the 1970s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In the 1980s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In the 1990s:
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s ok.)

6. Teaching Math In the 2000s:
If you have special needs or just feel you need assistance because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, childhood memories, criminal background, then don’t answer. The correct answer will be provided for you. There are no wrong answers

I will assume you are not exaggerating for effect and believe this, to which I call bulls***. In 82 when I graduated, the Japanese were kicking our ass. I was the dumbest and most overfed generation ever. When my brother graduated in 68, the Russians were absolutely lapping us. He was only slightly smarter than i turned out. My kids are dumber yet, as the Chinese are set to quash their dreams. To hell in a handbasket we go, same as ever.

Paul Schrimpf wrote:I will assume you are not exaggerating for effect and believe this, to which I call bulls***.

That's the spirit!! When we old people were young people we were the young people the old people complained about.

The fact remains though that most college freshmen need remedial education and that many of our minority students are not getting the education they need. Or, to be confrontational, not accepting the opportunities they are given.

Our economic success has less to do with education than our capitalist system.

This is interesting:

Paul Schrimpf wrote:In 82 when I graduated, the Japanese were kicking our ass. I was the dumbest and most overfed generation ever. When my brother graduated in 68, the Russians were absolutely lapping us. He was only slightly smarter than i turned out. My kids are dumber yet, as the Chinese are set to quash their dreams. To hell in a handbasket we go, same as ever.

Ronald Reagan]The foot in the door of education has been the $900 million National Defense Education Act of 1958. The excuse, once again, was the Cold War, Russia had put a Sputnik into the heavens, obviously something must be wrong with our education system.[/quote]

The Feds have been throwing money at our educational system for 65 years. It hasn't helped.

[quote="Ronald Reagan wrote:So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater.

Maybe, just maybe, there's something else at work?

kids learn math by doing a lot of math.
kids learn reading and writing by doing a lot of reading and writing.
For example, when I failed kindergarten they made me do a lot of arithmetic and reading and writing.
Just kidding. I failed kindergarten because I was really short and weighed about 20 pounds.
http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10252013