by Ugh
I am currently exploring private schools for my oldest child for kindergarten next fall. We live in the DC area and there is an astonishing (at least to me) number of private schools for children of all ages. Some are pre-K through 12th grade, some through 8th, and some only through 3rd grade. Similarly, there are private High Schools and Junior High Schools.
My wife and I have visited 7 of these private schools, and all of them have an incredible amount of resources. This, of course, stems from the fact that tuition is also incredible. The administrators seemed top notch, as did the teachers, as well as the facilities. The list of colleges to which the students went on to attend showed that children certainly succeeded at these schools (admittedly an imperfect metric). The application process is akin to applying to college, with the basic application, a tour, a parent interview, a child visit/playdate, teacher recommendations, test scores, and, in some cases, a transcript, all required. There are deadlines, notification dates, and waitlists. All this for kindergarten. And again, the tuition is also akin to college.
I also toured the local public elementary school. It's a good school, probably he finest public elementary school in the District. In fact we bought our house in the school's neighborhood nearly 10 years ago so that, should we ever have children, they could attend a decent public elementary school. The school principal is almost universally praised (she gave a better and more informative tour than most of the private schools we saw), and the parents we know whose children attend seem very happy with the school.
But there was no comparison in terms of resources to the private schools. The public elementary has 720 students in pre-K through 5th grade. Only in pre-K and Kindergarten are there 2 teachers per class of 22-28 students. There are 5 classes in K, 1, 2, and 3rd grade, which drops to 4 in 4/5th grade and then there is a commensurate increase in students per class. In contrast, the private schools always had two teachers per class, at least through 3rd grade if not longer (before students start moving between classrooms during the day). No more than 24 students per class, sometimes only 20, sometimes even fewer. And the largest had only 4 classes per grade, while some has as little as one.
Over the past copule of years the public elementary school has added 2 medium sized and then two large trailers to accomodate the increase in students, which at least shows how strong the school is. There were no trailers at the private schools unless they were in the midst of a renovation. The principal at the public elementary, in response to a question, let her frustration show at how they seem to be constantly bombarded with new tests/standards/methods, "I've been doing this for 30 years, there's still 26 letters and 10 digits, come on people!" No mention of this at the private schools. No foreign language offered at the public school until 3rd grade and then only Spanish. Spanish for all students beginning in pre-K or K at the private schools, and then sometimes Mandarin and French as early as 2nd grade. And on and on.
And this was at likely the best school in the District in a neighborhood with incomes well in excess of the national average. I can't imagine what the situation is like at an "average" elementary school in a poorer section of the city, and how that might compare to the private schools I've seen.
But…what is to be done about this? In fact, I don't think anything can be done that might make up this difference. Could we put more resources into public schools? Sure, but to even things out would require so much more that we would never get there. And the private schools would still have other advantages that public schools would not be able to match no matter the resources (like the ability to easily expel students and an alumni network to tap into for funds, networking, and other resources). I don't think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it's probably not a great idea). There could be more cross-pollination across school district lines between the richer and poorer neighborhoods, but again the private schools wouldn't need to do that (to their credit, they all had generous scholarship programs for poor students, but of course that puts them in a position to accept only the students they want after careful screening, whereas the public schools have to take every child in the neighborhood).
In the end, however, I think we're stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter former will never catch up to even an average student at the former latter.
And of course I will, in my own small part, perpetuate the dichotomy by sending my kids to one of these private schools (if they get in).
“In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter will never catch up to even an average student at the former.”
Hm, I think you have your antecedents and consequents mixed up there.
Nevertheless (if I can indeed assume the intention of the author, pace Wimsatt and Beardsley) this seems a bit drastic.
The vast majority of kids still attend public schools; the vast majority of lawyers, bankers, scientists &c &c went to public schools. Perhaps most Ivy Leaguers went to private pre-college schools; I don’t know.
Not going to private elementary and/or middle and/or high school is not the kiss of…anything.
“But…what is to be done about this?”
Well, the way you frame your argument it seems that we might as well do nothing. Which is, I think, wrong; we can improve public schools and narrow the gap, even if “closing” the gap is impossible.
The amount of money we spend on, oh, let’s say, tax breaks for oil companies, could easily make a massive, massive difference in the quality of facilities, resources, class size, and quality teacher attraction and retention.
“In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter will never catch up to even an average student at the former.”
Hm, I think you have your antecedents and consequents mixed up there.
Nevertheless (if I can indeed assume the intention of the author, pace Wimsatt and Beardsley) this seems a bit drastic.
The vast majority of kids still attend public schools; the vast majority of lawyers, bankers, scientists &c &c went to public schools. Perhaps most Ivy Leaguers went to private pre-college schools; I don’t know.
Not going to private elementary and/or middle and/or high school is not the kiss of…anything.
“But…what is to be done about this?”
Well, the way you frame your argument it seems that we might as well do nothing. Which is, I think, wrong; we can improve public schools and narrow the gap, even if “closing” the gap is impossible.
The amount of money we spend on, oh, let’s say, tax breaks for oil companies, could easily make a massive, massive difference in the quality of facilities, resources, class size, and quality teacher attraction and retention.
Hoo boy.
Of course the Onion chimed in, as has the National Review (so this page claims, with a broken link).
I think we can expect that private schools will usually be better funded than public ones, but it does not necessarily follow that the students in public schools are doomed.
Hoo boy.
Of course the Onion chimed in, as has the National Review (so this page claims, with a broken link).
I think we can expect that private schools will usually be better funded than public ones, but it does not necessarily follow that the students in public schools are doomed.
My “suggestion” was intended to point out a matter of scale, not as a literal policy recommendation, btw.
My “suggestion” was intended to point out a matter of scale, not as a literal policy recommendation, btw.
I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.
I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.
But…what is to be done about this?
Tax away your money so you can’t afford the private schools and the public schools have more resources and you are deeply invested in them.
If you move to the suburbs, incorporate them and/or bus your children.
But…what is to be done about this?
Tax away your money so you can’t afford the private schools and the public schools have more resources and you are deeply invested in them.
If you move to the suburbs, incorporate them and/or bus your children.
Can’t help noticing that someone has stepped into the PUBIC school trap 😉
Unfortunately the ‘solution’ to the problem proposed (primarily) from he right is more akin to a final solution, occasionally even questioning the need for school education for every kid (clue the Newt’s call for abolishing child labour laws).
The very idea of public schools, especially secular ones, rubs certain parts of the ideological spectrum the wrong way for different reasons (religious, classist, occasionally racist etc.).
Enter the ‘starving the beast’ strategy.
I think a crucial part in the dropping real standards (as opposed to testing standards that are open to manipulation) is the systematic denigration of anything even remotely related to public schools. Many may be willing to work for meagre wages in education but the constant bombardment with insults is likely to drive away the gifted idealists that are needed. As long as teachers are treated as hookers-but-for-the-lack-of-looks even increased funding will not solve the fundamental problem.
Can’t help noticing that someone has stepped into the PUBIC school trap 😉
Unfortunately the ‘solution’ to the problem proposed (primarily) from he right is more akin to a final solution, occasionally even questioning the need for school education for every kid (clue the Newt’s call for abolishing child labour laws).
The very idea of public schools, especially secular ones, rubs certain parts of the ideological spectrum the wrong way for different reasons (religious, classist, occasionally racist etc.).
Enter the ‘starving the beast’ strategy.
I think a crucial part in the dropping real standards (as opposed to testing standards that are open to manipulation) is the systematic denigration of anything even remotely related to public schools. Many may be willing to work for meagre wages in education but the constant bombardment with insults is likely to drive away the gifted idealists that are needed. As long as teachers are treated as hookers-but-for-the-lack-of-looks even increased funding will not solve the fundamental problem.
“I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.”
They might, But to treat the nation’s children fairly, many of the DC schools need more money per kid. Ugh gave two reasons: the public schools have to accept anyone and can’t expel anyone. They also attempt to work with parents who don’t take their share of the responsibility. They experience a turnover in students each year so that the kids they test in the spring aren’t the kids they taught in the fall. They don’t offer Spanish in kindergarten because many of their students already speak it–but don’t live in English speaking homes. The kids in the private schools come from vocabulary-rich homes where right from the beginning the child gets training in how to use language effectively. Too many of the public school kids come from English speaking, but vocabulary-limited homes where effective use of language is a skill the adult in the household never acquired.
Anyone could teach the kids in the private schools.
One person in a room with twenty needy six year olds is a set up for failure.
“I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.”
They might, But to treat the nation’s children fairly, many of the DC schools need more money per kid. Ugh gave two reasons: the public schools have to accept anyone and can’t expel anyone. They also attempt to work with parents who don’t take their share of the responsibility. They experience a turnover in students each year so that the kids they test in the spring aren’t the kids they taught in the fall. They don’t offer Spanish in kindergarten because many of their students already speak it–but don’t live in English speaking homes. The kids in the private schools come from vocabulary-rich homes where right from the beginning the child gets training in how to use language effectively. Too many of the public school kids come from English speaking, but vocabulary-limited homes where effective use of language is a skill the adult in the household never acquired.
Anyone could teach the kids in the private schools.
One person in a room with twenty needy six year olds is a set up for failure.
I’m going to rant on a bit about this.
I have a friend who was the reading specialist in a public elementary school. As a result of No CHild the school underwent a transformation. The whole staff spent time after school training on improved techniques for teaching basic skills. Schedules were reorganized to somewhat reduce class size for the first three grades. A system was set up to provide small group splinter skill instruction for students in the first three grades that were falling behind in foundation skill acquisition. One-on- one was provided for the students who didn’t acquire the skills through the small groups.
Nevertheless, last I heard, it was a school of failure. The kids weren’t at grade level. Nevermind that the kids tested in the spring weren’t the ones instructed in the fall. Never mind that they came from homes where seven or eight different languages were spoken, English not being one of them. Never mind that many of the kids had not learned basic social skills, or worse, had learned bad social skills. Never mind that, in spite of doing out reach in seven languages, parent nights were poorly attended.
Nevermind any of that. Don’t think about the budget cuts, the part time nurse, the one social worker for three hundred kids. Forget that a first year teacher with a master’s degree can’t afford to live independently because the salary isn’t high enough to cover student loans, a car payment and rent.
Throwing money at a problem won’t help! But somehow cutting money will.
Well, actually throwing money at the problem would help–but not solve–if the money was targeted. One of the most effective interventions would be to significantly reduce class size in the first three grades, which means increasing staffing. Another intervention that works is to have additional staff for small group or one on one drilling, in addition to regular whole class instruction, on splinter skills as soon as a child shows signs of falling behind. But that takes money, too.
However to measure success the testing has to be done on the kid that got the instruction, and in a highly mobile society that often isn’t the case.
Also kids are not raw materials, schools aren’t factories, and the belief that student success is exclusively a matter of good teaching, (as opposed to a matter of good parenting or willingness on the part of the child) is a handy way of dodging citizen responsibility.
It takes four parties to make a successful student: parents, teacher, the student, and the taxpayers.
I’m going to rant on a bit about this.
I have a friend who was the reading specialist in a public elementary school. As a result of No CHild the school underwent a transformation. The whole staff spent time after school training on improved techniques for teaching basic skills. Schedules were reorganized to somewhat reduce class size for the first three grades. A system was set up to provide small group splinter skill instruction for students in the first three grades that were falling behind in foundation skill acquisition. One-on- one was provided for the students who didn’t acquire the skills through the small groups.
Nevertheless, last I heard, it was a school of failure. The kids weren’t at grade level. Nevermind that the kids tested in the spring weren’t the ones instructed in the fall. Never mind that they came from homes where seven or eight different languages were spoken, English not being one of them. Never mind that many of the kids had not learned basic social skills, or worse, had learned bad social skills. Never mind that, in spite of doing out reach in seven languages, parent nights were poorly attended.
Nevermind any of that. Don’t think about the budget cuts, the part time nurse, the one social worker for three hundred kids. Forget that a first year teacher with a master’s degree can’t afford to live independently because the salary isn’t high enough to cover student loans, a car payment and rent.
Throwing money at a problem won’t help! But somehow cutting money will.
Well, actually throwing money at the problem would help–but not solve–if the money was targeted. One of the most effective interventions would be to significantly reduce class size in the first three grades, which means increasing staffing. Another intervention that works is to have additional staff for small group or one on one drilling, in addition to regular whole class instruction, on splinter skills as soon as a child shows signs of falling behind. But that takes money, too.
However to measure success the testing has to be done on the kid that got the instruction, and in a highly mobile society that often isn’t the case.
Also kids are not raw materials, schools aren’t factories, and the belief that student success is exclusively a matter of good teaching, (as opposed to a matter of good parenting or willingness on the part of the child) is a handy way of dodging citizen responsibility.
It takes four parties to make a successful student: parents, teacher, the student, and the taxpayers.
bob is boring – thanks for noting the antecedent problem.
I am probably overstating the problem as well as the difficulty in closing the gap. It just struck me as a massive difference in resources, even as compared to the “best” public elementary school.
bob is boring – thanks for noting the antecedent problem.
I am probably overstating the problem as well as the difficulty in closing the gap. It just struck me as a massive difference in resources, even as compared to the “best” public elementary school.
As a DC resident, I feel your pain. We, however, aren’t in the best school district, not even close. We did the lottery at pre-school, and actually won. For two years our older daughter attended a Spanish immersion program, and the bilingual aspect of those two years was wonderful. Unfortunately, the rest of it was not, and so we determined that we needed to look at private schools. We found a gem (Friends Community School in Greenbelt) and expect our younger daughter to join her sister there in a couple of years.
Good luck!
As a DC resident, I feel your pain. We, however, aren’t in the best school district, not even close. We did the lottery at pre-school, and actually won. For two years our older daughter attended a Spanish immersion program, and the bilingual aspect of those two years was wonderful. Unfortunately, the rest of it was not, and so we determined that we needed to look at private schools. We found a gem (Friends Community School in Greenbelt) and expect our younger daughter to join her sister there in a couple of years.
Good luck!
Parents have tough decisions to make. I’d like to point out, though, that in many ways diversity is a “resource”. It can be challenging, but that’s part of its value.
Parents have tough decisions to make. I’d like to point out, though, that in many ways diversity is a “resource”. It can be challenging, but that’s part of its value.
No foreign language offered at the public school until 3rd grade and then only Spanish.
IIRC, we had a choice of French or Spanish. and both started in 9th grade.
and one teacher, with around 30 kids per class was the norm. not until high school electives did the classes get any smaller.
my, how times have changed.
No foreign language offered at the public school until 3rd grade and then only Spanish.
IIRC, we had a choice of French or Spanish. and both started in 9th grade.
and one teacher, with around 30 kids per class was the norm. not until high school electives did the classes get any smaller.
my, how times have changed.
CharlesWT: I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.
Well, upon a quick google I see that the public elementary school I was talking about had a FY2011 budget of ~$7600 per student. Tuition at one of the schools is more than 4 times as much, and the school’s website notes that tuition falls ~15% short of the cost of education per student.
Now, that’s a hard comparison. Not all the students who attend the private school pay full tuition, and the budget for the public school does not include any funds raised by the HSA. And we’re talking school specific operating costs, which leaves out an allocation of DC’s overhead to the public school. Of course, the private school has fund raisers too, including an auction that has raised $3 million over the past five years alone. This is in addition to other annual giving and various endowments of the school.
If wikipedia is to be believed, the cost per student at DC public schools is $28k. The private school I’m thinking of spends 50% more on elementary school students that, presumably, cost less to educate than high school students that are in the DC all-in number.
And that’s just the difference in resources.
CharlesWT: I suspect that the DC pubic school system spends as much or more per student than the tuition at most of the private schools you looked at.
Well, upon a quick google I see that the public elementary school I was talking about had a FY2011 budget of ~$7600 per student. Tuition at one of the schools is more than 4 times as much, and the school’s website notes that tuition falls ~15% short of the cost of education per student.
Now, that’s a hard comparison. Not all the students who attend the private school pay full tuition, and the budget for the public school does not include any funds raised by the HSA. And we’re talking school specific operating costs, which leaves out an allocation of DC’s overhead to the public school. Of course, the private school has fund raisers too, including an auction that has raised $3 million over the past five years alone. This is in addition to other annual giving and various endowments of the school.
If wikipedia is to be believed, the cost per student at DC public schools is $28k. The private school I’m thinking of spends 50% more on elementary school students that, presumably, cost less to educate than high school students that are in the DC all-in number.
And that’s just the difference in resources.
“I don’t think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it’s probably not a great idea).”
FYI: I don’t have the citation, but I’m pretty sure that the Supreme Court ruled that banning private schools was unconstitutional back in the early 1900s, in one of the substantive due process cases that (arguably) laid the ground work for Roe v. Wade. So, the issue may already be governed by precedent, and I have little doubt that a blanket ban wouldn’t survive judicial review today.
“I don’t think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it’s probably not a great idea).”
FYI: I don’t have the citation, but I’m pretty sure that the Supreme Court ruled that banning private schools was unconstitutional back in the early 1900s, in one of the substantive due process cases that (arguably) laid the ground work for Roe v. Wade. So, the issue may already be governed by precedent, and I have little doubt that a blanket ban wouldn’t survive judicial review today.
my, how times have changed.
I have 3 school-age kids and the amount of paperwork that comes home, the number of things we have to initial or sign, the amount of homework they get (in 1st friggin’ grade!), the various standardized tests they take, the frequency with which the curriculum changes – I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
School was not this complicated when I was a kid.
my, how times have changed.
I have 3 school-age kids and the amount of paperwork that comes home, the number of things we have to initial or sign, the amount of homework they get (in 1st friggin’ grade!), the various standardized tests they take, the frequency with which the curriculum changes – I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
School was not this complicated when I was a kid.
I’m very grateful that I’m beyond the stage where I need to worry personally about this very real problem. (I went through public schools back when they were OK, good enough to prepare me for college and beyond, and our son was mostly educated overseas.)
But what bemuses me as a historian (and annoys me as a citizen) is that a century ago, the US as a colonial power (in the Philippines, but probably also elsewhere: Puerto Rico, Samoa, etc.) was miles ahead of any of its imperial rivals – France, England, Netherlands, Spain – in providing free public education. Only Japan (in Taiwan and Korea) even came close.
If anything, the American colonialists fetishized public education. Are there problems with economic development? Education, giving Filipinos the skills needed for a modern economy, is the answer. Is the Catholic Church too influential? Education will weaken its power by undercutting its mysticism. Is the key issue “caciquism,” boss rule in politics? Education will instruct Filipinos in democracy, and then they will overthrow the “caciques”! Etc., etc.
This approach could be criticized, both in its philosophical underpinnings (building schools to avoid dealing with substantive issues of social structure and inequality) and in its implementation. But at least it represented a vision – what appeared to be a distinctly American vision – of a whole society improving itself by investing in its children.
What the **** happened to us?
I’m very grateful that I’m beyond the stage where I need to worry personally about this very real problem. (I went through public schools back when they were OK, good enough to prepare me for college and beyond, and our son was mostly educated overseas.)
But what bemuses me as a historian (and annoys me as a citizen) is that a century ago, the US as a colonial power (in the Philippines, but probably also elsewhere: Puerto Rico, Samoa, etc.) was miles ahead of any of its imperial rivals – France, England, Netherlands, Spain – in providing free public education. Only Japan (in Taiwan and Korea) even came close.
If anything, the American colonialists fetishized public education. Are there problems with economic development? Education, giving Filipinos the skills needed for a modern economy, is the answer. Is the Catholic Church too influential? Education will weaken its power by undercutting its mysticism. Is the key issue “caciquism,” boss rule in politics? Education will instruct Filipinos in democracy, and then they will overthrow the “caciques”! Etc., etc.
This approach could be criticized, both in its philosophical underpinnings (building schools to avoid dealing with substantive issues of social structure and inequality) and in its implementation. But at least it represented a vision – what appeared to be a distinctly American vision – of a whole society improving itself by investing in its children.
What the **** happened to us?
Rarely Posts – yes, Pierce vs. Society of Sisters.
Rarely Posts – yes, Pierce vs. Society of Sisters.
School was not this complicated when I was a kid.
That’s my experience also. But I don’t think schools were expected to play as many roles then as they are now.
Schools these days seem to be tasked with sticking their finger in the dike of about 1,000,000 issues well beyond the task of education.
We need to figure out what it is we want schools to do. Then maybe we can figure out how to provide schools with the tools and means to do it.
What the **** happened to us?
This is a question I ask myself every day.
School was not this complicated when I was a kid.
That’s my experience also. But I don’t think schools were expected to play as many roles then as they are now.
Schools these days seem to be tasked with sticking their finger in the dike of about 1,000,000 issues well beyond the task of education.
We need to figure out what it is we want schools to do. Then maybe we can figure out how to provide schools with the tools and means to do it.
What the **** happened to us?
This is a question I ask myself every day.
See Before the Storm, Rick Perlstein’s book on the Goldwater campaign. It’s long but very worth reading. Nothing has changed (hardly even the cast of characters!).
See Before the Storm, Rick Perlstein’s book on the Goldwater campaign. It’s long but very worth reading. Nothing has changed (hardly even the cast of characters!).
I’m not sure what the funding situation is in DC, but in CA it’s still heavily tied to property tax (about 21% on average if I recall correctly).
You throw in that the areas with higher property values tend to have more fundraising, more engaged parents, fewer problems with gangs/poverty, etc, you have a confluence of factors that point to some public schools doing quite well and others a few miles away doing quite poorly.
I think funding is a problem, but I also think education of children from poverty stricken areas is an incredibly hard problem. Not one I have solutions for, but I don’t think more money is anything more than part of the solution.
Sadly and circularly, I think education is the only real solution to *that* problem (for the reasons dr ngo pointed out). People who have opportunities are less likely to to fall into the cycle of poverty and their children are less likely to fall into that cycle. The problem is ensuring those opportunities, which generally require education.
I have lots of little ideas, but nothing compared to the scope of the problem.
I’m not sure what the funding situation is in DC, but in CA it’s still heavily tied to property tax (about 21% on average if I recall correctly).
You throw in that the areas with higher property values tend to have more fundraising, more engaged parents, fewer problems with gangs/poverty, etc, you have a confluence of factors that point to some public schools doing quite well and others a few miles away doing quite poorly.
I think funding is a problem, but I also think education of children from poverty stricken areas is an incredibly hard problem. Not one I have solutions for, but I don’t think more money is anything more than part of the solution.
Sadly and circularly, I think education is the only real solution to *that* problem (for the reasons dr ngo pointed out). People who have opportunities are less likely to to fall into the cycle of poverty and their children are less likely to fall into that cycle. The problem is ensuring those opportunities, which generally require education.
I have lots of little ideas, but nothing compared to the scope of the problem.
CA’s K-12 public school funding breakdown from a few years back. Just needed to spend a little time.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1040
CA’s K-12 public school funding breakdown from a few years back. Just needed to spend a little time.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1040
What the **** happened to us?
Reagan sold the nation a vision of triumphant
selfishnessindividualism; many were entranced, and many remain so.All public institutions and most measures of the common good have suffered ever since.
What the **** happened to us?
Reagan sold the nation a vision of triumphant
selfishnessindividualism; many were entranced, and many remain so.All public institutions and most measures of the common good have suffered ever since.
Show me an industrial nation which has thrived by dropping public education in favor of a private education system. None? What a coincidence.
Also, public education does more for insuring an equal chance for all in our society, and preventing greater class stratification, than almost anything else.
And strangely enough, the top academic decathalon competitors in California are all public schools. They even set up a separate decathalon for private schools only since they have trouble competing with public schools.
Show me an industrial nation which has thrived by dropping public education in favor of a private education system. None? What a coincidence.
Also, public education does more for insuring an equal chance for all in our society, and preventing greater class stratification, than almost anything else.
And strangely enough, the top academic decathalon competitors in California are all public schools. They even set up a separate decathalon for private schools only since they have trouble competing with public schools.
I would put them in about that order in terms of having failed, too. Possibly the taxpayer moves up one notch, but parents are nearly always the worst problem as far as I have seen.
But I have seen schools succeed where there’s not much natural support at home. I have seen devoted leadership that has relatively large discretion in hiring do a bang-up job, taking a school from “C” to “A” in just a few years.
My theory is that school administrators by and large have career ambitions as school administrators as an end to itself, rather than having ambitions to be school administrators who run their school so as to educate the students.
I have run into school administrators who just want to be the boss. Education is just one of many things they have to see to in the course of their busy days, rather than the entire point.
My amateur advice to anyone who genuinely wants to effect real change in education would be to pay attention to who the successful principals are. There are some good ones out there. Not to be confused with the popular principals, mind you.
I would put them in about that order in terms of having failed, too. Possibly the taxpayer moves up one notch, but parents are nearly always the worst problem as far as I have seen.
But I have seen schools succeed where there’s not much natural support at home. I have seen devoted leadership that has relatively large discretion in hiring do a bang-up job, taking a school from “C” to “A” in just a few years.
My theory is that school administrators by and large have career ambitions as school administrators as an end to itself, rather than having ambitions to be school administrators who run their school so as to educate the students.
I have run into school administrators who just want to be the boss. Education is just one of many things they have to see to in the course of their busy days, rather than the entire point.
My amateur advice to anyone who genuinely wants to effect real change in education would be to pay attention to who the successful principals are. There are some good ones out there. Not to be confused with the popular principals, mind you.
“I don’t think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it’s probably not a great idea).”
I think the potential threat comes from the opposite direction. What if a RW SCOTUS decides that the government is not required to maintain a public education system. The Right went after the post office that is actually in the constitution, parts of the right rant against the very idea of public education (that, if I am not mistaken, is not).
Again, cue the ‘poor kids should not waste taxpayer money by going to school but go to work, so their parents can get fired saving the job creators huge amounts of money’.
“I don’t think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it’s probably not a great idea).”
I think the potential threat comes from the opposite direction. What if a RW SCOTUS decides that the government is not required to maintain a public education system. The Right went after the post office that is actually in the constitution, parts of the right rant against the very idea of public education (that, if I am not mistaken, is not).
Again, cue the ‘poor kids should not waste taxpayer money by going to school but go to work, so their parents can get fired saving the job creators huge amounts of money’.
You throw in that the areas with higher property values tend to have more fundraising, more engaged parents, fewer problems with gangs/poverty, etc, you have a confluence of factors that point to some public schools doing quite well and others a few miles away doing quite poorly.
Percentage of low-income students in all public schools.
(Shallow “analysis” article, I know.)
I grew up in an underfunded rural Midwestern school – graduated in the mid-90s, if you want context. We had 25-30 students per class up through HS. No language until the optional 4/3 years of Spanish/French in HS. No math beyond pre-calculus for the most ambitious HS seniors. The middle school was condemned while I was attending it (and kept being used for the next 4 years anyway out of pure necessity).
…but had I lived about a mile down the road, I’d’ve gone to the neighboring school district in the county seat (a small city with one of the highest per-capita of millionaires in the state), and things would have been very different…
You throw in that the areas with higher property values tend to have more fundraising, more engaged parents, fewer problems with gangs/poverty, etc, you have a confluence of factors that point to some public schools doing quite well and others a few miles away doing quite poorly.
Percentage of low-income students in all public schools.
(Shallow “analysis” article, I know.)
I grew up in an underfunded rural Midwestern school – graduated in the mid-90s, if you want context. We had 25-30 students per class up through HS. No language until the optional 4/3 years of Spanish/French in HS. No math beyond pre-calculus for the most ambitious HS seniors. The middle school was condemned while I was attending it (and kept being used for the next 4 years anyway out of pure necessity).
…but had I lived about a mile down the road, I’d’ve gone to the neighboring school district in the county seat (a small city with one of the highest per-capita of millionaires in the state), and things would have been very different…
This approach could be criticized, both in its philosophical underpinnings (building schools to avoid dealing with substantive issues of social structure and inequality) and in its implementation.
A strange brew indeed, consisting of good intentions, racism, paternalism, and western imperialism. The jingoism of W.R. Hearst and the missionary efforts in China come to mind.
This approach could be criticized, both in its philosophical underpinnings (building schools to avoid dealing with substantive issues of social structure and inequality) and in its implementation.
A strange brew indeed, consisting of good intentions, racism, paternalism, and western imperialism. The jingoism of W.R. Hearst and the missionary efforts in China come to mind.
“…but had I lived about a mile down the road, I’d’ve gone to the neighboring school district in the county seat (a small city with one of the highest per-capita of millionaires in the state), and things would have been very different…”
Too bad you didn’t have the choice to do so without your family having to move.
“…but had I lived about a mile down the road, I’d’ve gone to the neighboring school district in the county seat (a small city with one of the highest per-capita of millionaires in the state), and things would have been very different…”
Too bad you didn’t have the choice to do so without your family having to move.
Some time around when I was starting high school they did do start doing more open enrollment across the county, but by that point I was lining up to do the state’s “post-secondary enrollment” program to attend a local state college on the state’s dime for dual HS and college credit, which frankly was better in pretty much every way (except possibly in that I was deprived of certain culturally “normal” experiences as an American high schooler). Given my home state’s awful track record with education funding, I’m actually surprised and impressed that the PSE program has not only survived since my time in it, but has been expanded…
Some time around when I was starting high school they did do start doing more open enrollment across the county, but by that point I was lining up to do the state’s “post-secondary enrollment” program to attend a local state college on the state’s dime for dual HS and college credit, which frankly was better in pretty much every way (except possibly in that I was deprived of certain culturally “normal” experiences as an American high schooler). Given my home state’s awful track record with education funding, I’m actually surprised and impressed that the PSE program has not only survived since my time in it, but has been expanded…
NomVide:
That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
And it’s a really tough problem. Even if you somehow normalized budgets across the state by funding directly from the state budget or what have you, more affluent areas are going to have better schools: Parents will volunteer. Fundraising for better programs or facilities will be more successful. Children will be more likely to be fed in the mornings.
I think Charles has a point, if you were free to go to the schools that work, that would increase the pressure on the principals/superintendents to try to attract families by offering better education. Families do choose housing based on school district to some extent, but many don’t have that flexibility. I don’t think its a cure-all, but its something to consider.
NomVide:
That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
And it’s a really tough problem. Even if you somehow normalized budgets across the state by funding directly from the state budget or what have you, more affluent areas are going to have better schools: Parents will volunteer. Fundraising for better programs or facilities will be more successful. Children will be more likely to be fed in the mornings.
I think Charles has a point, if you were free to go to the schools that work, that would increase the pressure on the principals/superintendents to try to attract families by offering better education. Families do choose housing based on school district to some extent, but many don’t have that flexibility. I don’t think its a cure-all, but its something to consider.
NomVide:
I did something similar in CA when I was in HS. It wasn’t on the state’s dime but at the time CCs in CA were dirt cheap per unit. I don’t feel to cheated by the lack of “normal” HS experiences. Many of my friends were in the traditional HS and had pretty awful times.
NomVide:
I did something similar in CA when I was in HS. It wasn’t on the state’s dime but at the time CCs in CA were dirt cheap per unit. I don’t feel to cheated by the lack of “normal” HS experiences. Many of my friends were in the traditional HS and had pretty awful times.
in many ways diversity is a “resource”. It can be challenging, but that’s part of its value. — sapient
Diversity of backgrounds is indeed a resource, and has value. But diversity of level of interest in education, and of interest in teaching responsibility? Not much of a resource at all. Unless you are coming from a home where the adults are not iterested, in which case it may be valuable for you . . . so long as you are in a small minority in that respect, so you have social pressure to be better, rather than social pressure to be worse.
in many ways diversity is a “resource”. It can be challenging, but that’s part of its value. — sapient
Diversity of backgrounds is indeed a resource, and has value. But diversity of level of interest in education, and of interest in teaching responsibility? Not much of a resource at all. Unless you are coming from a home where the adults are not iterested, in which case it may be valuable for you . . . so long as you are in a small minority in that respect, so you have social pressure to be better, rather than social pressure to be worse.
Just for comparision. I went to a private* secondary/grammar school** In Germany. Our class went from 32 (5th grade) to 26 (13th and last grade). My oldest brother started with 36 in his class. It was managable. Latin from start to end (9 years, very good), English(7 or 8, can’t remember and pretty useless anyway***), classical Greek(5.5, mixed), optional 4th (2-3 years; French in my case, alternatives were Russian and Hebrew). Latin stuck, the rest less so. I had to in essence relearn English from scratch. And I guess my Icelandic beats my French these days.
*mainline protestant with a very good rep
**Over here that’s called a Gymansium but has no connection to sports
***I owe my English skills primarily to reading. It was simply a way not to run out of books before money since reading took much longer in a foreign language. Also English chemistry textbooks tended to be cheaper, even when they were translated from German.
Just for comparision. I went to a private* secondary/grammar school** In Germany. Our class went from 32 (5th grade) to 26 (13th and last grade). My oldest brother started with 36 in his class. It was managable. Latin from start to end (9 years, very good), English(7 or 8, can’t remember and pretty useless anyway***), classical Greek(5.5, mixed), optional 4th (2-3 years; French in my case, alternatives were Russian and Hebrew). Latin stuck, the rest less so. I had to in essence relearn English from scratch. And I guess my Icelandic beats my French these days.
*mainline protestant with a very good rep
**Over here that’s called a Gymansium but has no connection to sports
***I owe my English skills primarily to reading. It was simply a way not to run out of books before money since reading took much longer in a foreign language. Also English chemistry textbooks tended to be cheaper, even when they were translated from German.
Too bad you didn’t have the choice to do so without your family having to move.
Yes, indeed. Integration via school bussing, which see.
Too bad you didn’t have the choice to do so without your family having to move.
Yes, indeed. Integration via school bussing, which see.
…more affluent areas are going to have better schools.
Then perhaps the ‘solution’ is staring us right in the face-public policies that promote more equality of income….or at least act to lessen huge income disparities.
…more affluent areas are going to have better schools.
Then perhaps the ‘solution’ is staring us right in the face-public policies that promote more equality of income….or at least act to lessen huge income disparities.
I think Charles has a point, if you were free to go to the schools that work, that would increase the pressure on the principals/superintendents to try to attract families by offering better education.
Charles is quite often wrong; the probability that he’d be correct in any one instance. For example, he insisted that the private schools cost less than the public schools were spending when the private school in question cost 4 times as much. Of course, being so spectacularly wrong prompts no reflection or change in belief for him.
In this case, I think your reasoning is highly suspect. Your assertions about underperforming schools attracting families seem to rely on a number of assumptions. For example, you seem to assume that some schools underperform because of random factors that the administration can easily rectify but chooses not to. But what if the problem is in having concentrations of impoverished students? In a model where every student was free to attend any school, you’d end up with concentrations of poor students that better schools would find ways to exclude. Adverse selection for education.
In any event, good schools are a scarce resource. Which means they have to be rationed. Simply opening all schools to all comers can’t work: good schools won’t have the capacity. So you need some way to ration access, say by having a lottery.
I think Charles has a point, if you were free to go to the schools that work, that would increase the pressure on the principals/superintendents to try to attract families by offering better education.
Charles is quite often wrong; the probability that he’d be correct in any one instance. For example, he insisted that the private schools cost less than the public schools were spending when the private school in question cost 4 times as much. Of course, being so spectacularly wrong prompts no reflection or change in belief for him.
In this case, I think your reasoning is highly suspect. Your assertions about underperforming schools attracting families seem to rely on a number of assumptions. For example, you seem to assume that some schools underperform because of random factors that the administration can easily rectify but chooses not to. But what if the problem is in having concentrations of impoverished students? In a model where every student was free to attend any school, you’d end up with concentrations of poor students that better schools would find ways to exclude. Adverse selection for education.
In any event, good schools are a scarce resource. Which means they have to be rationed. Simply opening all schools to all comers can’t work: good schools won’t have the capacity. So you need some way to ration access, say by having a lottery.
But diversity of level of interest in education, and of interest in teaching responsibility? Not much of a resource at all.
Those things vary a lot between schools. I prefaced my comment with a nod to parents’ instincts. But, depending on details, I might choose, as a parent, to send my child to a good public school, rather than a lavishly resourced private school, and spend the money I saved thereby on personalized extra-curricular resources. (You can buy a lot of language immersion camps, private tutor hours, music, art and sports, trips abroad (maybe for the whole family), etc., for the price of a private school. Plus, you’re sending the kid to a “good” public school, and supporting the ethic there. Plus, you’re giving the child some awareness of others in the community. Some of those “others” might be immigrants from cultures with a huge educational focus.)
Obviously, the above is the ideal. No question that private school may be a better option for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And some people can afford private school as well as all the other frills.
But diversity of level of interest in education, and of interest in teaching responsibility? Not much of a resource at all.
Those things vary a lot between schools. I prefaced my comment with a nod to parents’ instincts. But, depending on details, I might choose, as a parent, to send my child to a good public school, rather than a lavishly resourced private school, and spend the money I saved thereby on personalized extra-curricular resources. (You can buy a lot of language immersion camps, private tutor hours, music, art and sports, trips abroad (maybe for the whole family), etc., for the price of a private school. Plus, you’re sending the kid to a “good” public school, and supporting the ethic there. Plus, you’re giving the child some awareness of others in the community. Some of those “others” might be immigrants from cultures with a huge educational focus.)
Obviously, the above is the ideal. No question that private school may be a better option for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And some people can afford private school as well as all the other frills.
There is a lot I’d like to say, but the size of the comment box prevents it. This pdf about the Japanese education system might be of interest to those who want to imagine, like the Rickie Lee Jones song gravity, “I try to imagine another planet, another sun, Where I don’t look like me”
I tend to feel that the problems that plague US healthcare are similar to those for education: No national level administration to set policy and goals and enforce them in some manner. US education has always been a local affair, financed locally, and administered locally. Slowly, as the little one room schoolhouse cannot keep up with developments, they need a larger pool to draw revenues from, so the state and federal governments enter the picture, but this leads to resentment.
There is a lot I’d like to say, but the size of the comment box prevents it. This pdf about the Japanese education system might be of interest to those who want to imagine, like the Rickie Lee Jones song gravity, “I try to imagine another planet, another sun, Where I don’t look like me”
I tend to feel that the problems that plague US healthcare are similar to those for education: No national level administration to set policy and goals and enforce them in some manner. US education has always been a local affair, financed locally, and administered locally. Slowly, as the little one room schoolhouse cannot keep up with developments, they need a larger pool to draw revenues from, so the state and federal governments enter the picture, but this leads to resentment.
Turb:
“Your assertions about underperforming schools attracting families seem to rely on a number of assumptions.”
I don’t think I made any such assertion, or maybe I’m confused about what you mean?
“For example, you seem to assume that some schools underperform because of random factors that the administration can easily rectify but chooses not to.”
I definitely didn’t assume that. Especially the word “easily”.
“But what if the problem is in having concentrations of impoverished students?”
I’d pretty much agree, as that was the point I made upthread.
“In a model where every student was free to attend any school, you’d end up with concentrations of poor students that better schools would find ways to exclude. Adverse selection for education.”
Where is it implicit in the model that schools would strive to drive out students? And what mechanisms would public schools use to drive out children? I suppose I can envision a system of encouraging suspensions and expulsions until the student ends up in the alternative track…but it seems a little far-fetched to me. Maybe you were thinking of a different mechanism?
“In any event, good schools are a scarce resource. Which means they have to be rationed.”
Yeah, or we could try to, you know, fix the problem of scarcity?
“So you need some way to ration access, say by having a lottery.”
Probably. But I don’t see this as a terrible thing. Let’s say you have a situation similar to NomVide’s upthread, and the poorer students were eligible to try to get into the better school via lottery. This would have two impacts: First, some poorer students would get to go the better school. Second, wealthier parents would have more incentive to bolster all local schools. I don’t view either as an especially terrible result for a public school system which is nominally supposed to educate everybody.
In less polar examples, where there is a district that serves a largely homogeneous population, I don’t really see a problem with letting families pick schools.
If nothing else, records of preferred schools would provide a metric of school success that isn’t simply a standardized test. Those metrics are extremely difficult to come by.
As I said above, it’s certainly not a cure-all, but it deserves consideration.
Turb:
“Your assertions about underperforming schools attracting families seem to rely on a number of assumptions.”
I don’t think I made any such assertion, or maybe I’m confused about what you mean?
“For example, you seem to assume that some schools underperform because of random factors that the administration can easily rectify but chooses not to.”
I definitely didn’t assume that. Especially the word “easily”.
“But what if the problem is in having concentrations of impoverished students?”
I’d pretty much agree, as that was the point I made upthread.
“In a model where every student was free to attend any school, you’d end up with concentrations of poor students that better schools would find ways to exclude. Adverse selection for education.”
Where is it implicit in the model that schools would strive to drive out students? And what mechanisms would public schools use to drive out children? I suppose I can envision a system of encouraging suspensions and expulsions until the student ends up in the alternative track…but it seems a little far-fetched to me. Maybe you were thinking of a different mechanism?
“In any event, good schools are a scarce resource. Which means they have to be rationed.”
Yeah, or we could try to, you know, fix the problem of scarcity?
“So you need some way to ration access, say by having a lottery.”
Probably. But I don’t see this as a terrible thing. Let’s say you have a situation similar to NomVide’s upthread, and the poorer students were eligible to try to get into the better school via lottery. This would have two impacts: First, some poorer students would get to go the better school. Second, wealthier parents would have more incentive to bolster all local schools. I don’t view either as an especially terrible result for a public school system which is nominally supposed to educate everybody.
In less polar examples, where there is a district that serves a largely homogeneous population, I don’t really see a problem with letting families pick schools.
If nothing else, records of preferred schools would provide a metric of school success that isn’t simply a standardized test. Those metrics are extremely difficult to come by.
As I said above, it’s certainly not a cure-all, but it deserves consideration.
LJ:
I can’t access that PDF…it comes up as 0 bytes in browser or via download.
It might just be me, though, I ride pretty heavy on browser security.
LJ:
I can’t access that PDF…it comes up as 0 bytes in browser or via download.
It might just be me, though, I ride pretty heavy on browser security.
Distinctive Features of the Japanese Education System (.pdf)
Distinctive Features of the Japanese Education System (.pdf)
Thanks, Charles.
Thanks, Charles.
I took a break from writing next week’s lesson to read the Internets and now I am totally distracted by the comments here.
I went to the top-ranked public high school in my state in the early 70s. My husband dropped out of that school. Our kids went to a dinky, really small-town public school with bad-or good- teachers depending on the subject. We all turned out ok, everybody has a bachelors degree, and 2 of the kids have their masters. Was it due to the great educators in public schools? Probably not.
More likely parental influence – my daughter is the fifth generation of women in our family to go to college. On the other hand, the spouse’s family had money but no parenting skills, and support for education was not forthcoming at his home. It took him 20 years to finally graduate from college.
And the same holds true for my suburban low-to-middle class 9th grade students. Those whose parents place a high value on education do fine (some not without a struggle). Students whose parents are unable to provide educational support usually do poorly, mainly because they don’t see the value of an education, or the families have overwhelming financial and personal problems. The only reason the kids attend is the threat of financial sanctions, plus they get to visit with their friends.
More money in schools so class size could be much lower would certainly help, but social services for struggling parents and families would go a lot further in helping improve public education. What Waiting for Superman leaves out is the support that HCZ provides families as soon as the child is born -teaching parents how to raise a successful child. And until our society is willing to spend money on that, all the money in the world won’t fix the schools (although it would help).
My point being – the school doesn’t matter much. Don’t waste your money on private schools if the neighborhood one is ok. Take your kids to the museum and the theater, read to them every day, and they’ll be just fine.
I took a break from writing next week’s lesson to read the Internets and now I am totally distracted by the comments here.
I went to the top-ranked public high school in my state in the early 70s. My husband dropped out of that school. Our kids went to a dinky, really small-town public school with bad-or good- teachers depending on the subject. We all turned out ok, everybody has a bachelors degree, and 2 of the kids have their masters. Was it due to the great educators in public schools? Probably not.
More likely parental influence – my daughter is the fifth generation of women in our family to go to college. On the other hand, the spouse’s family had money but no parenting skills, and support for education was not forthcoming at his home. It took him 20 years to finally graduate from college.
And the same holds true for my suburban low-to-middle class 9th grade students. Those whose parents place a high value on education do fine (some not without a struggle). Students whose parents are unable to provide educational support usually do poorly, mainly because they don’t see the value of an education, or the families have overwhelming financial and personal problems. The only reason the kids attend is the threat of financial sanctions, plus they get to visit with their friends.
More money in schools so class size could be much lower would certainly help, but social services for struggling parents and families would go a lot further in helping improve public education. What Waiting for Superman leaves out is the support that HCZ provides families as soon as the child is born -teaching parents how to raise a successful child. And until our society is willing to spend money on that, all the money in the world won’t fix the schools (although it would help).
My point being – the school doesn’t matter much. Don’t waste your money on private schools if the neighborhood one is ok. Take your kids to the museum and the theater, read to them every day, and they’ll be just fine.
The default American conservative suggestion has been made of letting the market improve public education. Let everyone pick where they want to go, and consumer choice will make the schools better.
Is there any public school system anywhere in the world where that model has been employed with success?
Note that “success” here needs to scale to the population as a whole. “Success” is not “the kids who got to go to the good school did great”.
The default American conservative suggestion has been made of letting the market improve public education. Let everyone pick where they want to go, and consumer choice will make the schools better.
Is there any public school system anywhere in the world where that model has been employed with success?
Note that “success” here needs to scale to the population as a whole. “Success” is not “the kids who got to go to the good school did great”.
Is our kids failing? The answer is, generally speaking, no. Somerby is unfailingly good on this if you can get past his insufferable writing style.
Is our kids failing? The answer is, generally speaking, no. Somerby is unfailingly good on this if you can get past his insufferable writing style.
Geographylady is right. There is extensive research that validates her point: schools are not the most significant factor in school learning. Parents are. Schools can struggle to mitigate the effects of parenting that doesn’t support learning, but cannot consistently or even frequently overcome that effect. Kids with the right kind of parents will learn efficiently regardless of what school they go to.
This shouldn’t be a surprise.
There is also research data shows that individuals from difficult backgrounds who thrive anyway frequently identify one non-parental adult, often a teacher, as being the influence that made the difference. The problem is that this is hard to reproduce. Certain kids will bond with certain adults at a certain point in time in a way that matters in the kid’s development. But you can’t duplicate or manufacture or institutionalize this phenomenon. All you can do is make room for it to happen: homerooms, for example, or advisory classes.
Geographylady is also right that it pays for the taxpayers to invest in other people’s children as early as possible. But how to get Republicans to understand that?
Geographylady is right. There is extensive research that validates her point: schools are not the most significant factor in school learning. Parents are. Schools can struggle to mitigate the effects of parenting that doesn’t support learning, but cannot consistently or even frequently overcome that effect. Kids with the right kind of parents will learn efficiently regardless of what school they go to.
This shouldn’t be a surprise.
There is also research data shows that individuals from difficult backgrounds who thrive anyway frequently identify one non-parental adult, often a teacher, as being the influence that made the difference. The problem is that this is hard to reproduce. Certain kids will bond with certain adults at a certain point in time in a way that matters in the kid’s development. But you can’t duplicate or manufacture or institutionalize this phenomenon. All you can do is make room for it to happen: homerooms, for example, or advisory classes.
Geographylady is also right that it pays for the taxpayers to invest in other people’s children as early as possible. But how to get Republicans to understand that?
Take your kids to the museum and the theater, read to them every day, and they’ll be just fine.
Provided of course that any survived within suitable range. The usual suspects hate culture almost as much as education for the lower classes. It’s elitist, you know, and should be left to the elites paying for it themselves.
Take your kids to the museum and the theater, read to them every day, and they’ll be just fine.
Provided of course that any survived within suitable range. The usual suspects hate culture almost as much as education for the lower classes. It’s elitist, you know, and should be left to the elites paying for it themselves.
There is, of course, in private schools (especially in Washington), the unspoken fact that one’s schoolmates have famous and important parents. That actually (unfortunately for proponents of social equality) could help a child in a lot of ways these days.
There is, of course, in private schools (especially in Washington), the unspoken fact that one’s schoolmates have famous and important parents. That actually (unfortunately for proponents of social equality) could help a child in a lot of ways these days.
Russell:
White paper from Sweden’s ministry of employment regarding the effect of their reform:
http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2012/wp12-19-Independent-schools-and-long-run-educational-outcomes.pdf
And in all fairness, if you read the BBC, you’re probably aware that Sweden’s system is sharply debated in Sweden and in Britain. I have no doubt you can dig up a paper providing a different view. But I think we’re left with choosing metrics to quantify “education” which is difficult, if not impossible.
Closer to home, Oakland’s charter schools are very well ranked. And I agree, what works for the children that get into the charter schools does not bleed over into the rest of the district. Which does very poorly according to the state.
But given an option between sending SOME Oakland kids to better schools and sending NONE of them to better schools, I’d choose some. Because the district really is pretty terrible, has been terrible, and the charter schools they’ve tried are the only thing that’s worked recently.
As I’ve said consistently, this is a really big problem with no clear solution. I’m not advocating for the Swedish system, or saying charter schools are the silver bullet that solves all the problems, forever. But they might be part of a solution.
But letting inner city kids rot because on average the US does ok in education doesn’t strike me as a good path forward. I’m very interested in breaking the cycle of poverty, and I view education in the crappiest environment possible (poverty-stricken areas) as a key component of breaking the cycle.
Russell:
White paper from Sweden’s ministry of employment regarding the effect of their reform:
http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2012/wp12-19-Independent-schools-and-long-run-educational-outcomes.pdf
And in all fairness, if you read the BBC, you’re probably aware that Sweden’s system is sharply debated in Sweden and in Britain. I have no doubt you can dig up a paper providing a different view. But I think we’re left with choosing metrics to quantify “education” which is difficult, if not impossible.
Closer to home, Oakland’s charter schools are very well ranked. And I agree, what works for the children that get into the charter schools does not bleed over into the rest of the district. Which does very poorly according to the state.
But given an option between sending SOME Oakland kids to better schools and sending NONE of them to better schools, I’d choose some. Because the district really is pretty terrible, has been terrible, and the charter schools they’ve tried are the only thing that’s worked recently.
As I’ve said consistently, this is a really big problem with no clear solution. I’m not advocating for the Swedish system, or saying charter schools are the silver bullet that solves all the problems, forever. But they might be part of a solution.
But letting inner city kids rot because on average the US does ok in education doesn’t strike me as a good path forward. I’m very interested in breaking the cycle of poverty, and I view education in the crappiest environment possible (poverty-stricken areas) as a key component of breaking the cycle.
geographylady, everybody else already said it, but agree, especially with:
“…but social services for struggling parents and families would go a lot further in helping improve public education. What Waiting for Superman leaves out is the support that HCZ provides families as soon as the child is born -teaching parents how to raise a successful child.”
geographylady, everybody else already said it, but agree, especially with:
“…but social services for struggling parents and families would go a lot further in helping improve public education. What Waiting for Superman leaves out is the support that HCZ provides families as soon as the child is born -teaching parents how to raise a successful child.”
Outlaw private schools or tax and regulate them so heavily so that parity with public schools will be achieved.
Every child has the same right to education, regardless of background and good or bad parenting. Everything else – achieve equality of income, gimme a break, lol – is just the middle-class succumbing to the rat race.
Outlaw private schools or tax and regulate them so heavily so that parity with public schools will be achieved.
Every child has the same right to education, regardless of background and good or bad parenting. Everything else – achieve equality of income, gimme a break, lol – is just the middle-class succumbing to the rat race.
Geographylady is also right that it pays for the taxpayers to invest in other people’s children as early as possible. But how to get Republicans to understand that?
Laura, of course she is correct. But the problem isn’t getting Republicans to understand that. It is getting reactionaries to understand that. Granted the Republicans have a lot more reactionaries these days, but they haven’t cornered the market. (And there are still some Republicans out here who are merely conservatives, and therefore quite in sync with her, and your, position.) And if we are going to address the problem, we need to be clearly focused on the correctly defined problem group.
Geographylady is also right that it pays for the taxpayers to invest in other people’s children as early as possible. But how to get Republicans to understand that?
Laura, of course she is correct. But the problem isn’t getting Republicans to understand that. It is getting reactionaries to understand that. Granted the Republicans have a lot more reactionaries these days, but they haven’t cornered the market. (And there are still some Republicans out here who are merely conservatives, and therefore quite in sync with her, and your, position.) And if we are going to address the problem, we need to be clearly focused on the correctly defined problem group.
thompson, thanks for the paper. it’s 40+ pages plus endnotes, so i haven’t had a chance to read it yet. i will try to do so in the next few days.
regarding this:
But given an option between sending SOME Oakland kids to better schools and sending NONE of them to better schools, I’d choose some.
I would say that is a very very crappy choice, and probably a false one. Or at least it ought to be a false one, and if it’s not it’s not inevitable that it’s not, but rather the result of a million other choices that we’ve decided to make.
If what we are talking about specifically is *inner city* schools, and not just poorly performing and/or under-resourced public schools generally, there are other issues at play that frankly dwarf the problem of bad schools. And charter schools, or school choice, or a voucher program, is not going to address those.
A solution that salvages a handful of people, maybe, and leaves everyone else to eat a crap sandwich *is not a solution*. It’s a retreat, and a concession of failure.
thompson, thanks for the paper. it’s 40+ pages plus endnotes, so i haven’t had a chance to read it yet. i will try to do so in the next few days.
regarding this:
But given an option between sending SOME Oakland kids to better schools and sending NONE of them to better schools, I’d choose some.
I would say that is a very very crappy choice, and probably a false one. Or at least it ought to be a false one, and if it’s not it’s not inevitable that it’s not, but rather the result of a million other choices that we’ve decided to make.
If what we are talking about specifically is *inner city* schools, and not just poorly performing and/or under-resourced public schools generally, there are other issues at play that frankly dwarf the problem of bad schools. And charter schools, or school choice, or a voucher program, is not going to address those.
A solution that salvages a handful of people, maybe, and leaves everyone else to eat a crap sandwich *is not a solution*. It’s a retreat, and a concession of failure.
A solution that salvages a handful of people, maybe, and leaves everyone else to eat a crap sandwich *is not a solution*. It’s a retreat, and a concession of failure.
I completely agree with this.
Ugh’s original post, however, wasn’t mentioning a crappy public school. It was dealing with a good public school that isn’t as lavishly resourced as private schools.
My question is this: If there are good public schools available, which parents with their own financial resources abandon in favor of private schools, doesn’t that further ghettoize the student population into a class-based educational system?
Obviously, if I were a parent making a decision for my child, my instinct might be to go the extra financial mile in order to obtain a better result for my child (even if that result is based soley on social connections, rather than academic proficiency). I think that it’s an extremely hard decision for parents to make, and I’m not casting aspersions on anyone for making a decision.
Still, every time a parent chooses to send a child to private school instead of a “good” public school, s/he votes in favor of class stratification. Again, there are loads of very compelling reasons why a parent might do this, but it’s a trap that our society has gotten itself into somehow.
A solution that salvages a handful of people, maybe, and leaves everyone else to eat a crap sandwich *is not a solution*. It’s a retreat, and a concession of failure.
I completely agree with this.
Ugh’s original post, however, wasn’t mentioning a crappy public school. It was dealing with a good public school that isn’t as lavishly resourced as private schools.
My question is this: If there are good public schools available, which parents with their own financial resources abandon in favor of private schools, doesn’t that further ghettoize the student population into a class-based educational system?
Obviously, if I were a parent making a decision for my child, my instinct might be to go the extra financial mile in order to obtain a better result for my child (even if that result is based soley on social connections, rather than academic proficiency). I think that it’s an extremely hard decision for parents to make, and I’m not casting aspersions on anyone for making a decision.
Still, every time a parent chooses to send a child to private school instead of a “good” public school, s/he votes in favor of class stratification. Again, there are loads of very compelling reasons why a parent might do this, but it’s a trap that our society has gotten itself into somehow.
Russell:
Regarding the paper, I wouldn’t get TOO hung up on the details. I can point you to papers that say the opposite. They all have different ways of running the stats and honestly I’m not an expert enough on those types of studies to really say which one is “best”
“I would say that is a very very crappy choice, and probably a false one.”
Agree, 100%. Well, more accurately I agree it’s a crappy choice SHORT-TERM and a false choice LONG TERM. Oakland (sorry to keep coming back to it) has gigantic problems school-wise. There is no policy we could institute that will fix those schools in a year. Or 5 years.
I haven’t seen anything that will “fix” public schools in Oakland (or similar areas). Maybe you have, and if so, please share it. I’ll keep looking and I’m ready to try new things (in the voting and campaigning sense, I’m not a school administrator).
In the meantime, I categorically reject that saving some, when the status quo saves none, is an admission of defeat. It’s doing the best we can in a crappy situation. You shouldn’t take that as a statement of ‘let’s not do anything to fix the million other contributing factors.’
As to the underperforming schools in general…I guess I don’t see much in the way of failure in suburban/rural schools. They aren’t great, but they get the job done (mostly), it seems. When someone says “underperforming schools” I immediately jump to inner cities. In my experience, that’s where the trouble lies. But, I can see how that might be a hard jump to follow, so I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
Russell:
Regarding the paper, I wouldn’t get TOO hung up on the details. I can point you to papers that say the opposite. They all have different ways of running the stats and honestly I’m not an expert enough on those types of studies to really say which one is “best”
“I would say that is a very very crappy choice, and probably a false one.”
Agree, 100%. Well, more accurately I agree it’s a crappy choice SHORT-TERM and a false choice LONG TERM. Oakland (sorry to keep coming back to it) has gigantic problems school-wise. There is no policy we could institute that will fix those schools in a year. Or 5 years.
I haven’t seen anything that will “fix” public schools in Oakland (or similar areas). Maybe you have, and if so, please share it. I’ll keep looking and I’m ready to try new things (in the voting and campaigning sense, I’m not a school administrator).
In the meantime, I categorically reject that saving some, when the status quo saves none, is an admission of defeat. It’s doing the best we can in a crappy situation. You shouldn’t take that as a statement of ‘let’s not do anything to fix the million other contributing factors.’
As to the underperforming schools in general…I guess I don’t see much in the way of failure in suburban/rural schools. They aren’t great, but they get the job done (mostly), it seems. When someone says “underperforming schools” I immediately jump to inner cities. In my experience, that’s where the trouble lies. But, I can see how that might be a hard jump to follow, so I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
sapient:
“If there are good public schools available, which parents with their own financial resources abandon in favor of private schools, doesn’t that further ghettoize the student population into a class-based educational system?”
Isn’t the system already ghettoized? Families with money and flexibility move to neighborhoods with nice public schools. Nice areas tend to have decent schools. Bad areas tend to have worse. I don’t know to what extent private schools (~10% of students) really drives the stratification of society.
Now if you want to zoom in on just Ugh’s case, and talk about the top-tier private schools in DC…and talk about the top 0.1% of americans, yeah, I might buy your point about stratification of society along those lines.
sapient:
“If there are good public schools available, which parents with their own financial resources abandon in favor of private schools, doesn’t that further ghettoize the student population into a class-based educational system?”
Isn’t the system already ghettoized? Families with money and flexibility move to neighborhoods with nice public schools. Nice areas tend to have decent schools. Bad areas tend to have worse. I don’t know to what extent private schools (~10% of students) really drives the stratification of society.
Now if you want to zoom in on just Ugh’s case, and talk about the top-tier private schools in DC…and talk about the top 0.1% of americans, yeah, I might buy your point about stratification of society along those lines.
You take the schools the rich go to and the schools the poor go to and swap them and it will make no difference whatsoever, despite Nombrilisme Vide’s very Frostian assertion.
You take the rich kid and send him to the poor kid’s school – same building, same teachers, same budget – and the kid will do just fine.
Schools have nothing to do with education. Schools are a way for society to allow rich people to purchase status for their children, and a way for society to provide day care for lower class children and keep them off the street until they are old enough for a fast food job or an adult prison.
I didn’t get my education at a school. I got it through the video arcades, skateboarding, street fights and factory jobs.
The thing that matters most for a parent is what the kid’s reading level is by the time the bastard gets to kindergarten.
You take the schools the rich go to and the schools the poor go to and swap them and it will make no difference whatsoever, despite Nombrilisme Vide’s very Frostian assertion.
You take the rich kid and send him to the poor kid’s school – same building, same teachers, same budget – and the kid will do just fine.
Schools have nothing to do with education. Schools are a way for society to allow rich people to purchase status for their children, and a way for society to provide day care for lower class children and keep them off the street until they are old enough for a fast food job or an adult prison.
I didn’t get my education at a school. I got it through the video arcades, skateboarding, street fights and factory jobs.
The thing that matters most for a parent is what the kid’s reading level is by the time the bastard gets to kindergarten.
Families with money and flexibility move to neighborhoods with nice public schools. Nice areas tend to have decent schools. Bad areas tend to have worse. I don’t know to what extent private schools (~10% of students) really drives the stratification of society.
I think that’s overstated. Sure, families who can afford to move to areas with good public schools often do so, but it’s frequently the case that good public schools are also populated by people with less money. This is a demographic profile for Charlottesville, VA
Charlottesville has one high school
When you check the link about where kids go to college, we don’t know the demographics of which child went to college where. But the fact is, there is a huge economic (and cultural) diversity of kids that go to school together. There is an opportunity for everyone to do well there, and part of the reason is that the whole community is invested in the school system.
Obviously, there has to be a critical mass of people who care about their kids, and about education. But those people don’t have to be wealthy.
Families with money and flexibility move to neighborhoods with nice public schools. Nice areas tend to have decent schools. Bad areas tend to have worse. I don’t know to what extent private schools (~10% of students) really drives the stratification of society.
I think that’s overstated. Sure, families who can afford to move to areas with good public schools often do so, but it’s frequently the case that good public schools are also populated by people with less money. This is a demographic profile for Charlottesville, VA
Charlottesville has one high school
When you check the link about where kids go to college, we don’t know the demographics of which child went to college where. But the fact is, there is a huge economic (and cultural) diversity of kids that go to school together. There is an opportunity for everyone to do well there, and part of the reason is that the whole community is invested in the school system.
Obviously, there has to be a critical mass of people who care about their kids, and about education. But those people don’t have to be wealthy.
Though I agree with russell, I want to draw a distinction between what we might wish for as action by our society vs. what we can do as individual parents for our children. Ugh’s post starts by focusing on the latter perspective, only at the end considering the former.
Our own family’s decision was to participate in a charter school. This turned out well for our own children and the school (now 20 years later) is still going strong, so hooray for that.
But my experience tells me that this is no panacea. Not all families have the luxury of a supportive community and the job flexibility to volunteer for endless hours of sometimes mind-numbing meetings, cleanup squads and (most enjoyable) parent participation in actual learning.
I fully subscribe to the proposition that public education is the bedrock of our society. So how do we fix it? That is a question that can only be answered in a political context. Like it or not, that’s the only way we know to make decisions on a large scale.
Though I agree with russell, I want to draw a distinction between what we might wish for as action by our society vs. what we can do as individual parents for our children. Ugh’s post starts by focusing on the latter perspective, only at the end considering the former.
Our own family’s decision was to participate in a charter school. This turned out well for our own children and the school (now 20 years later) is still going strong, so hooray for that.
But my experience tells me that this is no panacea. Not all families have the luxury of a supportive community and the job flexibility to volunteer for endless hours of sometimes mind-numbing meetings, cleanup squads and (most enjoyable) parent participation in actual learning.
I fully subscribe to the proposition that public education is the bedrock of our society. So how do we fix it? That is a question that can only be answered in a political context. Like it or not, that’s the only way we know to make decisions on a large scale.
Sapient:
Thanks for the links. It’s always encouraging to see places where public education works.
I would note a few caveats:
Charlottesville actually has several private high schools and one charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_High_School_%28Virginia%29). I don’t think that diminishes the success of the public high school at all, just pointing it out.
I’d also note that education around universities, in my experience, tends to be quite good. Just an observation, I don’t have any numbers to back it up. But I’d guess your statement (which I agree with, btw):
“Obviously, there has to be a critical mass of people who care about their kids, and about education. But those people don’t have to be wealthy.”
…is regularly true around universities, at least ones not in large cities. I’d speculate you have at least a small group of parents that work at the university and likely highly value education, and you have some unique extracurriculars that close proximity to a university brings (outreach programs, etc).
Such things have definitely been true in the few college towns I’ve lived in or had friends in.
Sapient:
Thanks for the links. It’s always encouraging to see places where public education works.
I would note a few caveats:
Charlottesville actually has several private high schools and one charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_High_School_%28Virginia%29). I don’t think that diminishes the success of the public high school at all, just pointing it out.
I’d also note that education around universities, in my experience, tends to be quite good. Just an observation, I don’t have any numbers to back it up. But I’d guess your statement (which I agree with, btw):
“Obviously, there has to be a critical mass of people who care about their kids, and about education. But those people don’t have to be wealthy.”
…is regularly true around universities, at least ones not in large cities. I’d speculate you have at least a small group of parents that work at the university and likely highly value education, and you have some unique extracurriculars that close proximity to a university brings (outreach programs, etc).
Such things have definitely been true in the few college towns I’ve lived in or had friends in.
I tried to post this earlier, so sorry if it becomes a duplicate (or an edited duplicate):
thompson, the fact that Charlottesville has several private schools and one charter school does not diminish (in fact, it supports) the real fact that Charlottesville High School performs really well for a fairly diverse demographic, and has the support of the community. (We have to assume that people who choose a private school have either 1) wealth or a scholarship, 2) concern about smaller classrooms or something, 2) a special needs child, 3) religious preferences. In other words, we’re subtracting from the number of “successful parents of students” who would be making a positive difference at the public schools.)
You’re right that the university probably makes a difference, but so would the intellectual power of the urban elite if they all bought into public schools. I completely understand why somebody would be reluctant to be the first to do so, or would want to be a part of a pioneering minority. (I wouldn’t make that choice, probably.) I also understand why people might be wary of dealing with the bureaucratic aspects of most public school systems, even the good ones. It can be very frustrating. But private schools can offer disappointment and frustration for some people too.
Much of it boils down to the teacher, and the teacher’s relationship with the student. If that’s not there, no amount of money will fix it. If it is there, it’s magic.
I tried to post this earlier, so sorry if it becomes a duplicate (or an edited duplicate):
thompson, the fact that Charlottesville has several private schools and one charter school does not diminish (in fact, it supports) the real fact that Charlottesville High School performs really well for a fairly diverse demographic, and has the support of the community. (We have to assume that people who choose a private school have either 1) wealth or a scholarship, 2) concern about smaller classrooms or something, 2) a special needs child, 3) religious preferences. In other words, we’re subtracting from the number of “successful parents of students” who would be making a positive difference at the public schools.)
You’re right that the university probably makes a difference, but so would the intellectual power of the urban elite if they all bought into public schools. I completely understand why somebody would be reluctant to be the first to do so, or would want to be a part of a pioneering minority. (I wouldn’t make that choice, probably.) I also understand why people might be wary of dealing with the bureaucratic aspects of most public school systems, even the good ones. It can be very frustrating. But private schools can offer disappointment and frustration for some people too.
Much of it boils down to the teacher, and the teacher’s relationship with the student. If that’s not there, no amount of money will fix it. If it is there, it’s magic.
Wondering, too, anecdotally, who here might have experience in private education, or know people who had that experience. What does it mean to you, and how do you think it compares?
I went to public schools. I do have friends who attended private schools. I don’t discern a difference in our ability to manage life’s slings and arrows, even the money side of things. (Except, of course, some of them have substantial trust funds, which helps a lot.)
Wondering, too, anecdotally, who here might have experience in private education, or know people who had that experience. What does it mean to you, and how do you think it compares?
I went to public schools. I do have friends who attended private schools. I don’t discern a difference in our ability to manage life’s slings and arrows, even the money side of things. (Except, of course, some of them have substantial trust funds, which helps a lot.)
sapient:
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to belittle CHS by saying there are other schools in the area. I just wanted to avoid confusion regarding the statement: “Charlottesville has one high school”
” I completely understand why somebody would be reluctant to be the first to do so, or would want to be a part of a pioneering minority. (I wouldn’t make that choice, probably.)”
And that’s the problem (Well, problem is likely the wrong word for parents wanting the best for their children).
I agree, it would help to get those parents involved in public schooling, but if the sales pitch is “it’ll suck for your kid, but maybe in a few generations it’ll be better” we’ll be waiting a long time for critical mass. You have to make public schooling attractive to the ughs and sapients of the world.
I’m not here to say public schooling can’t work. It just isn’t in some cases, and I view that as a major problem in our society. Philosophically, I think that poor public schooling contributes to the stratification of society and the cycle of poverty. Without access to quality education, there are limits to economic opportunity. Without economic opportunity, there is no social mobility.
Fixing it is the hard part.
sapient:
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to belittle CHS by saying there are other schools in the area. I just wanted to avoid confusion regarding the statement: “Charlottesville has one high school”
” I completely understand why somebody would be reluctant to be the first to do so, or would want to be a part of a pioneering minority. (I wouldn’t make that choice, probably.)”
And that’s the problem (Well, problem is likely the wrong word for parents wanting the best for their children).
I agree, it would help to get those parents involved in public schooling, but if the sales pitch is “it’ll suck for your kid, but maybe in a few generations it’ll be better” we’ll be waiting a long time for critical mass. You have to make public schooling attractive to the ughs and sapients of the world.
I’m not here to say public schooling can’t work. It just isn’t in some cases, and I view that as a major problem in our society. Philosophically, I think that poor public schooling contributes to the stratification of society and the cycle of poverty. Without access to quality education, there are limits to economic opportunity. Without economic opportunity, there is no social mobility.
Fixing it is the hard part.
You have to make public schooling attractive to the ughs and sapients of the world.
Actually, ugh said that he had a good public school. So I think I might have made a different decision than ugh.
That’s my point, not to second-guess Ugh.
I have one more preference that would tip the balance: I have a huge preference for Montessori early education. Apparently that’s available in some public schools. If not, I would think (and investigate) long and hard about public school v. Montessori.
You have to make public schooling attractive to the ughs and sapients of the world.
Actually, ugh said that he had a good public school. So I think I might have made a different decision than ugh.
That’s my point, not to second-guess Ugh.
I have one more preference that would tip the balance: I have a huge preference for Montessori early education. Apparently that’s available in some public schools. If not, I would think (and investigate) long and hard about public school v. Montessori.
@Duff
You take the schools the rich go to and the schools the poor go to and swap them and it will make no difference whatsoever, despite Nombrilisme Vide’s very Frostian assertion.
Two points, one anecdotal but substantive and conciliatory, and one concrete but pedantic and contentious.
The selection of classes available to me in my middle and high school had a radical impact on the course of my life. Really. Now, I don’t know that I would not have done as well or better (broadly speaking) had I not been playing catch-up when I first got to college (or had I had better language education available to me; my school district’s awful language programs honestly were pivotal in me ending up where I am today, as overwrought as that might sound), but had I been less motivated and self-directing, I might well have failed to overcome the disadvantage I found myself in. A lot of my peers didn’t. But this is all being Frostian now; the history of what didn’t happen has never been written, and I concede that even if, owing to particular circumstances, outcomes might have been drastically different for me, in aggravate they probably wouldn’t be qualitatively different for a hundred reasonable facsimiles of me.
Second, you’re actually presenting a more Frostian assertion than I am. The Road Not Taken is not describing a choice to take the less traveled of two roads, it’s describing looking back and nostalgically rewriting history to declare an arbitrary choice between two essentially identical alternatives as having been of great significance. To wit:
(Emphasis added.)
So really, it’s actually your conclusion that my reflection is overstated that is Frostian. My actual assignment of great significance to it might bear a shallow resemblance to how most people misread that verse, but it doesn’t actually reflect it…
@Duff
You take the schools the rich go to and the schools the poor go to and swap them and it will make no difference whatsoever, despite Nombrilisme Vide’s very Frostian assertion.
Two points, one anecdotal but substantive and conciliatory, and one concrete but pedantic and contentious.
The selection of classes available to me in my middle and high school had a radical impact on the course of my life. Really. Now, I don’t know that I would not have done as well or better (broadly speaking) had I not been playing catch-up when I first got to college (or had I had better language education available to me; my school district’s awful language programs honestly were pivotal in me ending up where I am today, as overwrought as that might sound), but had I been less motivated and self-directing, I might well have failed to overcome the disadvantage I found myself in. A lot of my peers didn’t. But this is all being Frostian now; the history of what didn’t happen has never been written, and I concede that even if, owing to particular circumstances, outcomes might have been drastically different for me, in aggravate they probably wouldn’t be qualitatively different for a hundred reasonable facsimiles of me.
Second, you’re actually presenting a more Frostian assertion than I am. The Road Not Taken is not describing a choice to take the less traveled of two roads, it’s describing looking back and nostalgically rewriting history to declare an arbitrary choice between two essentially identical alternatives as having been of great significance. To wit:
(Emphasis added.)
So really, it’s actually your conclusion that my reflection is overstated that is Frostian. My actual assignment of great significance to it might bear a shallow resemblance to how most people misread that verse, but it doesn’t actually reflect it…
Fixing it is the hard part.
It is, obviously. But figuring out how to get people of all income brackets invested in public schools would be a start in fixing them. As long as we think of public schools as being for “the needy”, it’s going to be a humanitarian, charitable project, not a civic given.
Fixing it is the hard part.
It is, obviously. But figuring out how to get people of all income brackets invested in public schools would be a start in fixing them. As long as we think of public schools as being for “the needy”, it’s going to be a humanitarian, charitable project, not a civic given.
“the passing there
Had worn them really about the same”
Exactly.
“the passing there
Had worn them really about the same”
Exactly.
D Clarity obviously believes in predestination.
It’s hard not to, although I struggle against it.
D Clarity obviously believes in predestination.
It’s hard not to, although I struggle against it.
wj, I stand corrected. Thanks. (This is in reference to his comment waaaayyy upthread).
wj, I stand corrected. Thanks. (This is in reference to his comment waaaayyy upthread).
I don’t believe in predestination, I don’t think everything is set the day you are born.
I think its pretty much set by the time you go to grade school.
Better schools and better teachers aren’t going to change a thing. Better parents might, but what does that mean?
I don’t believe in predestination, I don’t think everything is set the day you are born.
I think its pretty much set by the time you go to grade school.
Better schools and better teachers aren’t going to change a thing. Better parents might, but what does that mean?
We’re pretty much going to be stuck with a combination of public schools and homeschooling, for financial reasons. The exact proportion depending on how well the public school does.
Little Victor goes off to kindergarten next year, already able to read, write, and do addition and subtraction. (He’ll probably have a grasp of multiplication and division by then, too.) I foresee a lot of grade skipping over the next few years.
Educational inequality is pretty much inevitable, given parental inequality. You could waste an enormous amount of resources barely effecting it at all. Really, instead of being pissed off that some kids are getting much more expensive private educations, you ought to reflect on the fact that the excess money is probably largely wasted.
We’re pretty much going to be stuck with a combination of public schools and homeschooling, for financial reasons. The exact proportion depending on how well the public school does.
Little Victor goes off to kindergarten next year, already able to read, write, and do addition and subtraction. (He’ll probably have a grasp of multiplication and division by then, too.) I foresee a lot of grade skipping over the next few years.
Educational inequality is pretty much inevitable, given parental inequality. You could waste an enormous amount of resources barely effecting it at all. Really, instead of being pissed off that some kids are getting much more expensive private educations, you ought to reflect on the fact that the excess money is probably largely wasted.
“Little Victor goes off to kindergarten next year, already able to read, write, and do addition and subtraction. (He’ll probably have a grasp of multiplication and division by then, too.)”
Really? That’s common? I’m a little skeptical, but my contact with five year olds is pretty limited. Maybe there are a lot of alpha plus plusses running around kindergartens these days, being held back by the deltas and epsilons.
“Little Victor goes off to kindergarten next year, already able to read, write, and do addition and subtraction. (He’ll probably have a grasp of multiplication and division by then, too.)”
Really? That’s common? I’m a little skeptical, but my contact with five year olds is pretty limited. Maybe there are a lot of alpha plus plusses running around kindergartens these days, being held back by the deltas and epsilons.
Oh, you’re talking about your own child, I take it. I’m sometimes one of the deltas in my reading comprehension. Congrats on having such a bright child, but I don’t think there are any deep policy implications to be derived from the existence of such children.
Oh, you’re talking about your own child, I take it. I’m sometimes one of the deltas in my reading comprehension. Congrats on having such a bright child, but I don’t think there are any deep policy implications to be derived from the existence of such children.
I guess what makes for a policy implication is that, be he ever so brilliant, little Victor wouldn’t be reading if his parents hadn’t taught him to read. Likely he wouldn’t have much interest in learning to read, either, if both his parents hadn’t been reading to him, and being seen reading for themselves, while he was growing up.
School can’t effectively teach what parents don’t raise a child to value, and scarcely need to teach what parents consider important enough to transmit themselves. For Victor, school will be an opportunity to become socialized, (Something he desperately needs as an only child.) and handy day care for mom, but one thing it won’t have much to do with, is how much he ends up learning.
I guess what makes for a policy implication is that, be he ever so brilliant, little Victor wouldn’t be reading if his parents hadn’t taught him to read. Likely he wouldn’t have much interest in learning to read, either, if both his parents hadn’t been reading to him, and being seen reading for themselves, while he was growing up.
School can’t effectively teach what parents don’t raise a child to value, and scarcely need to teach what parents consider important enough to transmit themselves. For Victor, school will be an opportunity to become socialized, (Something he desperately needs as an only child.) and handy day care for mom, but one thing it won’t have much to do with, is how much he ends up learning.
Neither teachers nor parents exist in a social vacuum. In studies, both end up being proxies for the institutions and social networks in which they are imbricated. There are few parents both good and fortunate enough to transcend their own socio-economic situations and few teachers good enough to make up for the host of factors weighed against them in a failing district.
If rising tides lift all boats, ebbing tides founder many, even when their draft would save them in deeper waters.
For a good look at what ails the US Education system, check out The American Dream and the Public Schools. It does a good job of laying out the complex of interrelated problems that have to be addressed with any education policy.
Neither teachers nor parents exist in a social vacuum. In studies, both end up being proxies for the institutions and social networks in which they are imbricated. There are few parents both good and fortunate enough to transcend their own socio-economic situations and few teachers good enough to make up for the host of factors weighed against them in a failing district.
If rising tides lift all boats, ebbing tides founder many, even when their draft would save them in deeper waters.
For a good look at what ails the US Education system, check out The American Dream and the Public Schools. It does a good job of laying out the complex of interrelated problems that have to be addressed with any education policy.
As far as reading goes I am in full agreement with Brett there. I think many kids would already have learned the basics of that, if their parents put some efforts behind it. Over here it’s a perennial dispute whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. Grade skipping is very uncommon around here and parents have mainly the choice, whether to enschool their kids at age 5 or 6. Since 1st grade is primarily learning to read and write, some think it unwise to preempt school there because it creates a rift between the advanced children and the rest. If I had kids (it’s for their own sake/good that I don’t have any!!!) I’d probably take a middle position, i.e. instilling into them the desire to read but not necessarily teaching them to do it before their first schoolday*. Giving them a first taste of a foreign language would be something different since I am very sceptical about school efficiency there (plus: the earlier the better).
No opinion about math. I guess there is no harm in the basics one does not need notation for.
*no excuses though once they are in school. Then parents should drive them as hard as feasible. Those letters have to go in and stay in and demand a regular feeding.
As far as reading goes I am in full agreement with Brett there. I think many kids would already have learned the basics of that, if their parents put some efforts behind it. Over here it’s a perennial dispute whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. Grade skipping is very uncommon around here and parents have mainly the choice, whether to enschool their kids at age 5 or 6. Since 1st grade is primarily learning to read and write, some think it unwise to preempt school there because it creates a rift between the advanced children and the rest. If I had kids (it’s for their own sake/good that I don’t have any!!!) I’d probably take a middle position, i.e. instilling into them the desire to read but not necessarily teaching them to do it before their first schoolday*. Giving them a first taste of a foreign language would be something different since I am very sceptical about school efficiency there (plus: the earlier the better).
No opinion about math. I guess there is no harm in the basics one does not need notation for.
*no excuses though once they are in school. Then parents should drive them as hard as feasible. Those letters have to go in and stay in and demand a regular feeding.
I haven’t seen anything that will “fix” public schools in Oakland (or similar areas). Maybe you have, and if so, please share it.
My point is that creating one wonderful school that a small number of kids get to go to won’t fix it.
In other words, the selling point of charter schools, or voucher programs – that breaking up the monopoly of public education and allowing alternatives will bring everybody’s game up via competition – is not bloody likely to happen in an environment where there are already insufficient resources, and where the surrounding environment, including but by far not limited to the parents, is not supportive.
You may give a small number of kids a way out, but that’s not a solution.
Before you can discuss solutions, you have to understand, or at least accurately describe, the problem.
If the problem is that the educational system is in a rut, and needs invigoration through the introduction of new teaching methods and approaches, I can see the value of making “alternative” schools, of whatever kind, available and letting parents and kids vote with their feet (and the public money that follows their feet).
If the problem is that the offerings are too much one-size-fits-all, and there is a need for some specialization to meet the needs of particular communities, ditto.
If the problem is a combination of endemic poverty, widespread family dysfunction due to poverty + incarceration + substance abuse, missed meals due to all of the above, no safe quiet secure place to read or study due to all of the above, and little motivation to study in the first place because there is no realistic model for how academic achievement will lead to anything desirable, then a charter school and/or vouchers are not going to solve the problem.
They are going to be a life-raft for a small number of people, and the rest are going to sink.
They are not going to improve the other schools. They are not going to miraculously transform the family lives of kids whose home environments suck. They are not going to ensure that everyone gets a meal. They are not going to make sure that everyone has time, and a place, and the resources needed, to do homework.
If the immediate problem is that the parents are not sufficiently engaged in their kids’ lives to help them, then the solution is for someone else to do so.
If the immediate problem is that the kids aren’t getting fed, the solution is to feed them.
If the immediate problem is that they don’t have a clean safe quiet well-lighted place in which to study, the solution is to provide one.
Specific problems have specific solutions.
None of what I’m describing is a solution to the much larger issues that are the context for underperforming schools in very poor communities. They’re just solutions to the specific problems that those larger issues create for the teaching environment.
I’ll also add that in many places, the business of operating voucher-funded private “alternative” or “charter” schools has become a way for many folks to make themselves quite rich off of the public dime, without offering an educational experience that is better than the existing public schools in any measurable way.
Grifters gotta grift, but I’ll thank you to keep that the hell out of my community.
Regarding the original post, I guess my thought is that it’s no surprise that expensive private schools can offer resources that public schools cannot. If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff.
The problem arises when folks who do have a lot of money, and can buy better stuff, come to believe that they no longer have any stake in making sure that the perfectly adequate stuff is available for the rest of us.
So, their kids don’t go to public schools, so why should they invest in them?
Similarly, they don’t ride the bus or the subway, so why should they pay for them?
They don’t use the library, why should they pay for that?
They don’t need public parks, so why should they pay for them?
When privilege erodes public life, that’s a problem.
I recognize that there are lots of problems in American public education, but I’m not sure that the enrollment of wealthy kids in private schools is a major factor at this point. Public schools in wealthy areas are generally pretty good, even if a proportionally high number of kids there go to private schools.
I haven’t seen anything that will “fix” public schools in Oakland (or similar areas). Maybe you have, and if so, please share it.
My point is that creating one wonderful school that a small number of kids get to go to won’t fix it.
In other words, the selling point of charter schools, or voucher programs – that breaking up the monopoly of public education and allowing alternatives will bring everybody’s game up via competition – is not bloody likely to happen in an environment where there are already insufficient resources, and where the surrounding environment, including but by far not limited to the parents, is not supportive.
You may give a small number of kids a way out, but that’s not a solution.
Before you can discuss solutions, you have to understand, or at least accurately describe, the problem.
If the problem is that the educational system is in a rut, and needs invigoration through the introduction of new teaching methods and approaches, I can see the value of making “alternative” schools, of whatever kind, available and letting parents and kids vote with their feet (and the public money that follows their feet).
If the problem is that the offerings are too much one-size-fits-all, and there is a need for some specialization to meet the needs of particular communities, ditto.
If the problem is a combination of endemic poverty, widespread family dysfunction due to poverty + incarceration + substance abuse, missed meals due to all of the above, no safe quiet secure place to read or study due to all of the above, and little motivation to study in the first place because there is no realistic model for how academic achievement will lead to anything desirable, then a charter school and/or vouchers are not going to solve the problem.
They are going to be a life-raft for a small number of people, and the rest are going to sink.
They are not going to improve the other schools. They are not going to miraculously transform the family lives of kids whose home environments suck. They are not going to ensure that everyone gets a meal. They are not going to make sure that everyone has time, and a place, and the resources needed, to do homework.
If the immediate problem is that the parents are not sufficiently engaged in their kids’ lives to help them, then the solution is for someone else to do so.
If the immediate problem is that the kids aren’t getting fed, the solution is to feed them.
If the immediate problem is that they don’t have a clean safe quiet well-lighted place in which to study, the solution is to provide one.
Specific problems have specific solutions.
None of what I’m describing is a solution to the much larger issues that are the context for underperforming schools in very poor communities. They’re just solutions to the specific problems that those larger issues create for the teaching environment.
I’ll also add that in many places, the business of operating voucher-funded private “alternative” or “charter” schools has become a way for many folks to make themselves quite rich off of the public dime, without offering an educational experience that is better than the existing public schools in any measurable way.
Grifters gotta grift, but I’ll thank you to keep that the hell out of my community.
Regarding the original post, I guess my thought is that it’s no surprise that expensive private schools can offer resources that public schools cannot. If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff.
The problem arises when folks who do have a lot of money, and can buy better stuff, come to believe that they no longer have any stake in making sure that the perfectly adequate stuff is available for the rest of us.
So, their kids don’t go to public schools, so why should they invest in them?
Similarly, they don’t ride the bus or the subway, so why should they pay for them?
They don’t use the library, why should they pay for that?
They don’t need public parks, so why should they pay for them?
When privilege erodes public life, that’s a problem.
I recognize that there are lots of problems in American public education, but I’m not sure that the enrollment of wealthy kids in private schools is a major factor at this point. Public schools in wealthy areas are generally pretty good, even if a proportionally high number of kids there go to private schools.
In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter former will never catch up to even an average student at the former latter.
Why? Why should the wealthiest nation in the history of the world settle for such nonsensical outcomes? I, for one, will never, ever, surrender to such pessimism.
The arc of prosperity can be widened, and widened substantially.
You will have to pry my public policy optimism from my cold dead hands.
And, of course, what Russell said.
In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter former will never catch up to even an average student at the former latter.
Why? Why should the wealthiest nation in the history of the world settle for such nonsensical outcomes? I, for one, will never, ever, surrender to such pessimism.
The arc of prosperity can be widened, and widened substantially.
You will have to pry my public policy optimism from my cold dead hands.
And, of course, what Russell said.
In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter will never catch up to even an average student at the former.
I actually don’t believe this is true, as between decent public schools and private schools. Sure, private schools are richer, and have more teachers, and that’s a plus. But kids in most good public schools also do really well. Not to repeat myself too much, but the biggest plus for ugh’s kids is that they’ll be going to school with kids who have powerful and “important” parents. This will help them later, but not because they’re smarter. Kids from good public schools will have to think outside the box a bit to get the benefits of that society.
I disagree with Brett’s view that school makes little difference (because good teachers are incredibly inspiring). That said, there are plenty of autodidacts in the world. You don’t need “resources” to be educated, other than books and competent teachers. It helps too these days to have computers and internet access.
What russell said about the other things that are helpful, such as breakfast, health care, time, and a safe place to study.
In the end, however, I think we’re stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter will never catch up to even an average student at the former.
I actually don’t believe this is true, as between decent public schools and private schools. Sure, private schools are richer, and have more teachers, and that’s a plus. But kids in most good public schools also do really well. Not to repeat myself too much, but the biggest plus for ugh’s kids is that they’ll be going to school with kids who have powerful and “important” parents. This will help them later, but not because they’re smarter. Kids from good public schools will have to think outside the box a bit to get the benefits of that society.
I disagree with Brett’s view that school makes little difference (because good teachers are incredibly inspiring). That said, there are plenty of autodidacts in the world. You don’t need “resources” to be educated, other than books and competent teachers. It helps too these days to have computers and internet access.
What russell said about the other things that are helpful, such as breakfast, health care, time, and a safe place to study.
Do what you think is best for your kids. Whatever benefits a good school can give them are more valuable than the “fairness” brownie points they could receive otherwise.
Do what you think is best for your kids. Whatever benefits a good school can give them are more valuable than the “fairness” brownie points they could receive otherwise.
I don’t have kids. If I did, and if I lived where the public schools were scary or chaotic, I would send my kids to private school. I agree with DaveC: you have to do what is best for your kids.
On the other hand, I also believe that we have to do what is best for all of our kids and that means supporting the public schools whether our own kids attend or not.
And, yes, supporting public schools means paying for them.
Has anyone here read Jonathan Kozol’s Savage Inequalities?
I don’t have kids. If I did, and if I lived where the public schools were scary or chaotic, I would send my kids to private school. I agree with DaveC: you have to do what is best for your kids.
On the other hand, I also believe that we have to do what is best for all of our kids and that means supporting the public schools whether our own kids attend or not.
And, yes, supporting public schools means paying for them.
Has anyone here read Jonathan Kozol’s Savage Inequalities?
Do what you think is best for your kids.
I completely agree, and think that if you have kids, that’s what the money is for. Sometimes, though “what’s best for kids” has some complicated aspects. Privilege is undoubtedly, in many (most) ways, good for kids. In some ways, it’s not.
Do what you think is best for your kids.
I completely agree, and think that if you have kids, that’s what the money is for. Sometimes, though “what’s best for kids” has some complicated aspects. Privilege is undoubtedly, in many (most) ways, good for kids. In some ways, it’s not.
I completely agree, and think that if you have kids, that’s what the money is for.
If I may expand this a bit, if you have kids and money, that’s what the money is for.
If “what was right for your kids” was accessible to everybody, the original post here and every comment in the thread would be beside the point.
I completely agree, and think that if you have kids, that’s what the money is for.
If I may expand this a bit, if you have kids and money, that’s what the money is for.
If “what was right for your kids” was accessible to everybody, the original post here and every comment in the thread would be beside the point.
I think the division of the US into a class system divided by wealth and access to economic opportunity is a serious problem. I also think the Republican party is doing whatever it can to solidify this class hierarchy to the benefit of the 2%. And I think the rightwing efforts to demonize, defund and replace pubic education is intended in the long run to solidify that hierarchy in favor of the 2%. (The other reason for the rightwing attacks on public education and the promotion of the use of public money to support private schools is to marginalize science and support religious extremism.)
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
I think the division of the US into a class system divided by wealth and access to economic opportunity is a serious problem. I also think the Republican party is doing whatever it can to solidify this class hierarchy to the benefit of the 2%. And I think the rightwing efforts to demonize, defund and replace pubic education is intended in the long run to solidify that hierarchy in favor of the 2%. (The other reason for the rightwing attacks on public education and the promotion of the use of public money to support private schools is to marginalize science and support religious extremism.)
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
Me too. But part of what’s good for one’s “own children” is promoting a society that is more egalitarian. And all children, to a certain extent, are one’s “own children”. It’s very hard, in our nuclear family centered society, to think that way. But anyone who’s ever been responsible for children has to know that it wouldn’t take much for one’s “own children” to be at the mercy of someone else. A car accident, a disease, a divorce …
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
Me too. But part of what’s good for one’s “own children” is promoting a society that is more egalitarian. And all children, to a certain extent, are one’s “own children”. It’s very hard, in our nuclear family centered society, to think that way. But anyone who’s ever been responsible for children has to know that it wouldn’t take much for one’s “own children” to be at the mercy of someone else. A car accident, a disease, a divorce …
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
And, me too. I think pretty much everybody does. And, by far, most folks will take the best option available for their own kids, and they should do so. Your kids shouldn’t bear the burden of some idealistic wish-fulfillment on your part.
And neither should anybody else’s kids.
To echo sapient’s point, it’s harmful *to everybody* if large numbers of other people’s kids – and other people for that matter – get written off as, basically, collateral damage.
But, still, I understand ugh’s dilemma when it comes to his won children.
And, me too. I think pretty much everybody does. And, by far, most folks will take the best option available for their own kids, and they should do so. Your kids shouldn’t bear the burden of some idealistic wish-fulfillment on your part.
And neither should anybody else’s kids.
To echo sapient’s point, it’s harmful *to everybody* if large numbers of other people’s kids – and other people for that matter – get written off as, basically, collateral damage.
russell, FYI, charter schools in California, at least when I was involved, were public schools. Our attendees were chosen by lottery once there was a waiting list. (except for grandfathering of the founders). Yes, in part I participated for the benefit of my own children, but I like to think that wasn’t the only reason.
I realize that there are charlatans who are trying to exploit the opportunity to make a buck. I didn’t encounter any such people myself.
russell, FYI, charter schools in California, at least when I was involved, were public schools. Our attendees were chosen by lottery once there was a waiting list. (except for grandfathering of the founders). Yes, in part I participated for the benefit of my own children, but I like to think that wasn’t the only reason.
I realize that there are charlatans who are trying to exploit the opportunity to make a buck. I didn’t encounter any such people myself.
This is a great thread with everyone getting a piece of the problem.
I’ve stayed out because, as lj intimated way upthread, the subject is fraught. It’s like having a fistfight with a cloud.
But I saw this at Kevin Drum, which is interesting:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum
I guess when the economy recovers sufficiently, we can look forward to the better qualified teachers now drawn to education because of lousy job prospects to be siphoned off by higher pay and less frustration.
The market — friend to some, enemy to the commons.
This is a great thread with everyone getting a piece of the problem.
I’ve stayed out because, as lj intimated way upthread, the subject is fraught. It’s like having a fistfight with a cloud.
But I saw this at Kevin Drum, which is interesting:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum
I guess when the economy recovers sufficiently, we can look forward to the better qualified teachers now drawn to education because of lousy job prospects to be siphoned off by higher pay and less frustration.
The market — friend to some, enemy to the commons.
Well, with the cratering of the number of law school applicants, where are all those smarty pants going to go?
😉
Well, with the cratering of the number of law school applicants, where are all those smarty pants going to go?
😉
In Texas after the recession hit, there was a definite increase in people studying for and taking the states’ teacher qualification tests.
In Texas after the recession hit, there was a definite increase in people studying for and taking the states’ teacher qualification tests.
charter schools in California, at least when I was involved, were public schools.
Not every place is CA.
The market — friend to some, enemy to the commons.
Welcome to the USA. So concise it makes my teeth hurt.
The business of America is business, b***ches.
charter schools in California, at least when I was involved, were public schools.
Not every place is CA.
The market — friend to some, enemy to the commons.
Welcome to the USA. So concise it makes my teeth hurt.
The business of America is business, b***ches.
I would only add, here, that schools need to be cognizant that not all students have parents that want/are able/willing to help them advance. They may not have home lives that encourage learning.
And we, the communities that make funding and other decisions for these schools that affect who and how many get hired to teach need to keep in mind that these factors do place extra burden on the teachers.
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
I would only add, here, that schools need to be cognizant that not all students have parents that want/are able/willing to help them advance. They may not have home lives that encourage learning.
And we, the communities that make funding and other decisions for these schools that affect who and how many get hired to teach need to keep in mind that these factors do place extra burden on the teachers.
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
Why not? I’d love to hear about your evil, conservative plan. 😉
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
Why not? I’d love to hear about your evil, conservative plan. 😉
“your evil, conservative plan” – but I repeat myself. ;}
“your evil, conservative plan” – but I repeat myself. ;}
A somewhat relevant story on NPR this morning.
A somewhat relevant story on NPR this morning.
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
You do democracy with the people you have, not the ones you wish you had.
How that would work, ideally, is not something you want people like me to decide.
You do democracy with the people you have, not the ones you wish you had.
sapient: A somewhat relevant story on NPR this morning.
Must have read Milliken v. Bradley 20 years ago. This statement by the majority is a little odd: “The constitutional right of the Negro respondents residing in Detroit is to attend a unitary school system in that district.”
Seems overly narrow. This too seems way off base:
The view of the dissenters, that the existence of a dual system in Detroit can be made the basis for a decree requiring cross-district transportation of pupils, cannot be supported on the grounds that it represents merely the devising of a suitably flexible remedy for the violation of rights already established by our prior decisions. It can be supported only by drastic expansion of the constitutional right itself, an expansion without any support in either constitutional principle or precedent.
Apparently the constitutional principle is that constitutional rights can be violated/constrained by drawing school district lines, even if the unconstitutional actions of the district in question can be attributed to the state as a whole.
I liked the last footnote in Justice Douglas’ dissent: MR. JUSTICE STEWART indicates that equitable factors weigh in favor of local school control and the avoidance of administrative difficulty given the lack of an “inter-district” violation. … It would seem to me that the equities are stronger in favor of the children of Detroit who have been deprived of their constitutional right to equal treatment by the State of Michigan.
sapient: A somewhat relevant story on NPR this morning.
Must have read Milliken v. Bradley 20 years ago. This statement by the majority is a little odd: “The constitutional right of the Negro respondents residing in Detroit is to attend a unitary school system in that district.”
Seems overly narrow. This too seems way off base:
The view of the dissenters, that the existence of a dual system in Detroit can be made the basis for a decree requiring cross-district transportation of pupils, cannot be supported on the grounds that it represents merely the devising of a suitably flexible remedy for the violation of rights already established by our prior decisions. It can be supported only by drastic expansion of the constitutional right itself, an expansion without any support in either constitutional principle or precedent.
Apparently the constitutional principle is that constitutional rights can be violated/constrained by drawing school district lines, even if the unconstitutional actions of the district in question can be attributed to the state as a whole.
I liked the last footnote in Justice Douglas’ dissent: MR. JUSTICE STEWART indicates that equitable factors weigh in favor of local school control and the avoidance of administrative difficulty given the lack of an “inter-district” violation. … It would seem to me that the equities are stronger in favor of the children of Detroit who have been deprived of their constitutional right to equal treatment by the State of Michigan.
Sorry absent (I’m sure everybody missed me), works been crazy.
russell:
“Not every place is CA.”
I’m not familiar with non-district administered charter schools, most of what I was saying was based on an assumption of a district overseeing the school. I’d love a link to a charter school that isn’t overseen by a school district. And to be clear, I’m not talking about voucher systems.
And regarding the comment WAY upthread (sorry): You don’t have to convince me that people milk the public dime for their own ends. There’s an ongoing corruption investigation in Oakland, actually. I don’t view corruption, cronyism, and financial mismanagement a purely charter school problem, however.
When found, the perpetrators need to be punished. We probably agree on that.
I like the charters, especially in districts like Oakland, because they work when nothing else seems to. I don’t like, and maybe this is what you were getting at, they frequently sap funding from the rest of the district. If that is part of your point, I agree, that’s a huge problem. As I’ve said, I don’t like how public schooling is funded.
I do like giving individual schools flexibility to try novel things, and find out what works best for their students.
I would also like to hear Slarti’s evil plan for education.
Sorry absent (I’m sure everybody missed me), works been crazy.
russell:
“Not every place is CA.”
I’m not familiar with non-district administered charter schools, most of what I was saying was based on an assumption of a district overseeing the school. I’d love a link to a charter school that isn’t overseen by a school district. And to be clear, I’m not talking about voucher systems.
And regarding the comment WAY upthread (sorry): You don’t have to convince me that people milk the public dime for their own ends. There’s an ongoing corruption investigation in Oakland, actually. I don’t view corruption, cronyism, and financial mismanagement a purely charter school problem, however.
When found, the perpetrators need to be punished. We probably agree on that.
I like the charters, especially in districts like Oakland, because they work when nothing else seems to. I don’t like, and maybe this is what you were getting at, they frequently sap funding from the rest of the district. If that is part of your point, I agree, that’s a huge problem. As I’ve said, I don’t like how public schooling is funded.
I do like giving individual schools flexibility to try novel things, and find out what works best for their students.
I would also like to hear Slarti’s evil plan for education.
maybe this is what you were getting at
what i was getting at is that a free market approach – school choice, a mix of public and private schools, parents get vouchers which they can then take to whatever school they prefer – is not a solution to the problems that face poor urban school systems.
because it doesn’t address the actual root causes of why schools and students in those environments don’t succeed.
it’s likely that we agree on that specific point.
the counterargument appears to be that something like some kind of market-oriented school-choice approach is the way to go in those environments because, for better or worse, it’s the best we can do.
i don’t agree with that.
my issue overall is that the knee-jerk conservative response to every imaginable problem appears to be “let the market fix it”. IMO that grossly misunderstands (a) what markets are and what they are good at, and (b) the proper responsibilities of the public and private sectors as regards common public life.
briefly, markets are not inherently virtuous. “the market” is just people trading things of value. “the market” has no intent whatsoever, and the dynamics that inform market behavior definitely do not always further the broader public interest.
we should not assume that results created by “the market” are any better or worse than those created through any other process. that’s what i’m getting at.
i have no problem with giving individual schools flexibility to see what works best for their students, as long as somebody is keeping track of which bright ideas actually work and which don’t.
my comment about “not every place is CA” is a reference to the fact that in other jurisdictions, “school choice” is often achieved via schools owned and operated by private actors, for profit.
maybe this is what you were getting at
what i was getting at is that a free market approach – school choice, a mix of public and private schools, parents get vouchers which they can then take to whatever school they prefer – is not a solution to the problems that face poor urban school systems.
because it doesn’t address the actual root causes of why schools and students in those environments don’t succeed.
it’s likely that we agree on that specific point.
the counterargument appears to be that something like some kind of market-oriented school-choice approach is the way to go in those environments because, for better or worse, it’s the best we can do.
i don’t agree with that.
my issue overall is that the knee-jerk conservative response to every imaginable problem appears to be “let the market fix it”. IMO that grossly misunderstands (a) what markets are and what they are good at, and (b) the proper responsibilities of the public and private sectors as regards common public life.
briefly, markets are not inherently virtuous. “the market” is just people trading things of value. “the market” has no intent whatsoever, and the dynamics that inform market behavior definitely do not always further the broader public interest.
we should not assume that results created by “the market” are any better or worse than those created through any other process. that’s what i’m getting at.
i have no problem with giving individual schools flexibility to see what works best for their students, as long as somebody is keeping track of which bright ideas actually work and which don’t.
my comment about “not every place is CA” is a reference to the fact that in other jurisdictions, “school choice” is often achieved via schools owned and operated by private actors, for profit.
“The market” is good at pricing, say, grain such that there will be a more or less equal number of buyers and sellers. WTF that has to do with education, I have no idea.
“The market” is good at pricing, say, grain such that there will be a more or less equal number of buyers and sellers. WTF that has to do with education, I have no idea.
russell:
I think we are actually far more in agreement than I thought.
I’m not for vouchers. I don’t have an objection to them in principle, I just haven’t seen a system where they are cost effective. If it isn’t cost effective, I’m out.
I’m not saying (or at least I’m not trying to say it :P) “let the market fix it”. Actually, I don’t believe I’ve used the word “market” at all. Nor do I think markets are virtuous. Markets are a construct, and have no value beyond results. Bluntly, we probably differ on how great/bad those results are, but I don’t think that’s relevant to the subject at hand.
I do believe in stochastic order being a very powerful optimization tool. (Maybe its just my background in computer modeling and evolution.)
At the moment, what I was proposing we invest more in, is semi-independent public schools, and give parents choice of schools in their district. This allows for (a) more unique efforts which can help us discover what does work in the very hard problem of public schooling and (b) more flexibility for parents to choose what is best for their child (if they are so inclined). Whether they are administered by a public entity, a private non-profit, or a private for-profit, I couldn’t care less. As long as the pricing is comparable.
You don’t have to tell me that sometimes public/private partnerships form that aren’t in the public interest. I find those as offensive as you do.
So, sorry I derailed a little from the original post. But I view raising the status of public schools as the fundamental solution to the public vs. private school question.
High end private schools will always have more resources (but I don’t think that’s representative of most private school). But really…I think at some point you see diminishing returns.
Frex, Three languages is great, and sometimes I wish I had more than a fractured second one…but I don’t really think I’m crippled for life by it.
All you need is reasonable (or “adequate”) public schools and you have a roughly even playing field. Private schools and everything else…great if you have it but I don’t think a determinate for overall success and happiness.
russell:
I think we are actually far more in agreement than I thought.
I’m not for vouchers. I don’t have an objection to them in principle, I just haven’t seen a system where they are cost effective. If it isn’t cost effective, I’m out.
I’m not saying (or at least I’m not trying to say it :P) “let the market fix it”. Actually, I don’t believe I’ve used the word “market” at all. Nor do I think markets are virtuous. Markets are a construct, and have no value beyond results. Bluntly, we probably differ on how great/bad those results are, but I don’t think that’s relevant to the subject at hand.
I do believe in stochastic order being a very powerful optimization tool. (Maybe its just my background in computer modeling and evolution.)
At the moment, what I was proposing we invest more in, is semi-independent public schools, and give parents choice of schools in their district. This allows for (a) more unique efforts which can help us discover what does work in the very hard problem of public schooling and (b) more flexibility for parents to choose what is best for their child (if they are so inclined). Whether they are administered by a public entity, a private non-profit, or a private for-profit, I couldn’t care less. As long as the pricing is comparable.
You don’t have to tell me that sometimes public/private partnerships form that aren’t in the public interest. I find those as offensive as you do.
So, sorry I derailed a little from the original post. But I view raising the status of public schools as the fundamental solution to the public vs. private school question.
High end private schools will always have more resources (but I don’t think that’s representative of most private school). But really…I think at some point you see diminishing returns.
Frex, Three languages is great, and sometimes I wish I had more than a fractured second one…but I don’t really think I’m crippled for life by it.
All you need is reasonable (or “adequate”) public schools and you have a roughly even playing field. Private schools and everything else…great if you have it but I don’t think a determinate for overall success and happiness.
All you need is reasonable (or “adequate”) public schools and you have a roughly even playing field. Private schools and everything else…great if you have it but I don’t think a determinate for overall success and happiness.
Yes, I basically agree with this. In contrast to Ugh, I am not seeing private schools as a threat to the sufficiency of public schools overall.
There are, IMO, some real problems with public education in the US – high levels of spending for pretty much dead-average results, wide variances in quality from one place to another.
But I don’t think private schools play into that, one way or the other. They seem to me to be sort of orthogonal issues.
If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff. That’s just the way of the world. If what’s available to the rest of us gets the job done, it’s not an issue.
All you need is reasonable (or “adequate”) public schools and you have a roughly even playing field. Private schools and everything else…great if you have it but I don’t think a determinate for overall success and happiness.
Yes, I basically agree with this. In contrast to Ugh, I am not seeing private schools as a threat to the sufficiency of public schools overall.
There are, IMO, some real problems with public education in the US – high levels of spending for pretty much dead-average results, wide variances in quality from one place to another.
But I don’t think private schools play into that, one way or the other. They seem to me to be sort of orthogonal issues.
If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff. That’s just the way of the world. If what’s available to the rest of us gets the job done, it’s not an issue.
“If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff. That’s just the way of the world. If what’s available to the rest of us gets the job done, it’s not an issue.”
This is true, but also points to something that nags at me in discussions, including this one, about resources for public versus private goals. That is the general belief that “throwing money at a problem” is not the way to solve problems in the public sphere and then pointing to the private sphere to bear this cliche out.
When, in fact, Ugh’s example (which I do not judge; as others have said, we do the best for our kids) of his and his wife’s school choice for their children seems to show, if the numbers provided are on the mark, that money will probably be thrown in great amounts to the private side of education with little more than hope that only marginal utility for the kids will result.
But we do it for our kids. Others’ kids, not so much (yes, we pay property taxes and then most complain with gusto), though I understand all of the reasons for this to be the case, having been through the mill (suburban public school, gifted and talented program) raising a child (so far, so good, for which he gets the full credit — he just started a five-year Doctoral program in Chemistry with a salaried teaching assistantship/full scholarship).
I’m just saying, take Problem A, say flying from one end of the country to the other, and while my solution A is throwing as little money as possible at the legroom/schedule/baggage problem, there are folks whose Solution B is to buy or lease a private jet, stretch out, and have an attendant open the bag of peanuts with their teeth, while said passenger tucks into a lobster roll, and they arrive faster than I do under my solution.
Which is to say, throwing money works.
My favorite way is to roll a bunch of $100 bills into a tight ball, held tight by rubber bands, and wind up and throw.
As it is, I’m stuck with foregoing my favorite way, so I use a baseball, which is fun but doesn’t buy me jacksh&t.
“If you have a lot of money, you can buy better stuff. That’s just the way of the world. If what’s available to the rest of us gets the job done, it’s not an issue.”
This is true, but also points to something that nags at me in discussions, including this one, about resources for public versus private goals. That is the general belief that “throwing money at a problem” is not the way to solve problems in the public sphere and then pointing to the private sphere to bear this cliche out.
When, in fact, Ugh’s example (which I do not judge; as others have said, we do the best for our kids) of his and his wife’s school choice for their children seems to show, if the numbers provided are on the mark, that money will probably be thrown in great amounts to the private side of education with little more than hope that only marginal utility for the kids will result.
But we do it for our kids. Others’ kids, not so much (yes, we pay property taxes and then most complain with gusto), though I understand all of the reasons for this to be the case, having been through the mill (suburban public school, gifted and talented program) raising a child (so far, so good, for which he gets the full credit — he just started a five-year Doctoral program in Chemistry with a salaried teaching assistantship/full scholarship).
I’m just saying, take Problem A, say flying from one end of the country to the other, and while my solution A is throwing as little money as possible at the legroom/schedule/baggage problem, there are folks whose Solution B is to buy or lease a private jet, stretch out, and have an attendant open the bag of peanuts with their teeth, while said passenger tucks into a lobster roll, and they arrive faster than I do under my solution.
Which is to say, throwing money works.
My favorite way is to roll a bunch of $100 bills into a tight ball, held tight by rubber bands, and wind up and throw.
As it is, I’m stuck with foregoing my favorite way, so I use a baseball, which is fun but doesn’t buy me jacksh&t.
How are we evaluating our schools–by student outcome, achievement, what?
Because you are going to get consistently substandard results if your classes consist of unmotivated, marginally parented students. At best, way reduced class size and very talented teachers might make improvements at the margins.
Our son went to public school through high school, out daughter thru the 7th grade. The academic difference was negligible, the social difference pretty huge. Both went to Vanderbilt and then grad school at Columbia (our son) and Rice (our daughter). Credentialing matters and they both make a good living, but they were both motivated, well-guided students and remain motivated, hard workers today. We have friends whose children had every advantage, but truly abysmal outcomes.
So, to the Count’s point, throwing money at a problem has questionable returns. My education is about as pedestrian as you can get, yet I make a good living. I am confident that the public/private thing through high school was of marginal significance. Vandy has a lot of cache in Texas, so that was worth it in terms of getting hired right out of college. As far as getting into grad school, if an applicant is perceived to have done well at an academically rigorous undergrad school, that seems to be a plus. We didn’t pay for grad school–one private college tuition enema per kid was enough–but it seems to have been worth the student loans and time out of the work force.
I wonder if Slarti and I would be close to being on the same page if put in charge.
Leaving that nightmare aside, about the most one can and should ask from public schools–which I prefer to private schools for a number of reasons–is a safe environment where students who wish to learn can learn.
Sure, do what we can within reason to reach and motivate those who have no examples on which to pattern themselves, but be realistic.
One difference might be to try to identify non-college material at the 7-8th grade level, and try to direct those students into a trade of some kind.
Parents–two of them in most cases–make the difference. We’ve talked about this before. If you want to truly stack the deck against a kid, have him or her born to a single, uneducated, unskilled woman. It’s game over 90% plus of the time.
How are we evaluating our schools–by student outcome, achievement, what?
Because you are going to get consistently substandard results if your classes consist of unmotivated, marginally parented students. At best, way reduced class size and very talented teachers might make improvements at the margins.
Our son went to public school through high school, out daughter thru the 7th grade. The academic difference was negligible, the social difference pretty huge. Both went to Vanderbilt and then grad school at Columbia (our son) and Rice (our daughter). Credentialing matters and they both make a good living, but they were both motivated, well-guided students and remain motivated, hard workers today. We have friends whose children had every advantage, but truly abysmal outcomes.
So, to the Count’s point, throwing money at a problem has questionable returns. My education is about as pedestrian as you can get, yet I make a good living. I am confident that the public/private thing through high school was of marginal significance. Vandy has a lot of cache in Texas, so that was worth it in terms of getting hired right out of college. As far as getting into grad school, if an applicant is perceived to have done well at an academically rigorous undergrad school, that seems to be a plus. We didn’t pay for grad school–one private college tuition enema per kid was enough–but it seems to have been worth the student loans and time out of the work force.
I wonder if Slarti and I would be close to being on the same page if put in charge.
Leaving that nightmare aside, about the most one can and should ask from public schools–which I prefer to private schools for a number of reasons–is a safe environment where students who wish to learn can learn.
Sure, do what we can within reason to reach and motivate those who have no examples on which to pattern themselves, but be realistic.
One difference might be to try to identify non-college material at the 7-8th grade level, and try to direct those students into a trade of some kind.
Parents–two of them in most cases–make the difference. We’ve talked about this before. If you want to truly stack the deck against a kid, have him or her born to a single, uneducated, unskilled woman. It’s game over 90% plus of the time.
After reading through all of this, I have to ask why it is that some other countries are doing a better job of educating their kids. Do they have better parents in those countries? If so, why?
Perhaps this would be a good point in the conversation to re-read the comment Posted by: geographylady | November 16, 2013 at 01:03 AM.
After reading through all of this, I have to ask why it is that some other countries are doing a better job of educating their kids. Do they have better parents in those countries? If so, why?
Perhaps this would be a good point in the conversation to re-read the comment Posted by: geographylady | November 16, 2013 at 01:03 AM.
Which is to say, throwing money works.
So, to the Count’s point, throwing money at a problem has questionable returns.
What I think about this is that throwing money at problems solves those problems that more money can solve.
Which is sort of a tautology, but I make the point because the set of things that can be improved with the injection of more money is not an empty one.
In other words, it doesn’t make a difference in every situation, but it sure as hell makes a difference in many.
How are we evaluating our schools–by student outcome, achievement, what?
I think this is the big unanswered question in education – all education, public private or whatever.
It’s not clear to me that we have a crisp and common understanding of what exactly it is we want schools to accomplish.
I don’t have anything like a good answer to that question.
Which is to say, throwing money works.
So, to the Count’s point, throwing money at a problem has questionable returns.
What I think about this is that throwing money at problems solves those problems that more money can solve.
Which is sort of a tautology, but I make the point because the set of things that can be improved with the injection of more money is not an empty one.
In other words, it doesn’t make a difference in every situation, but it sure as hell makes a difference in many.
How are we evaluating our schools–by student outcome, achievement, what?
I think this is the big unanswered question in education – all education, public private or whatever.
It’s not clear to me that we have a crisp and common understanding of what exactly it is we want schools to accomplish.
I don’t have anything like a good answer to that question.
After reading through all of this, I have to ask why it is that some other countries are doing a better job of educating their kids. Do they have better parents in those countries? If so, why?
I think the single mother phenomena is much more widespread here than elsewhere. Hispanic assimilation is spotty. I suspect if there was a way to quantify assimilation geographically, we would see an increase in outcomes as a function of generation and English proficiency. African American communities are plagued with single parent issues and I cannot begin to suggest a remedy for that community. I suspect that immigrant communities in Europe have somewhat comparable educational disparities as we do, however those countries are much smaller to begin with and have much smaller immigrant communities.
In other words, it doesn’t make a difference in every situation, but it sure as hell makes a difference in many.
Marginally but only to a degree once the basics are covered. I get to Paris whether I’m in coach or first, the difference is 12K, free booze and better food. I get to work in my 9 year old ride, but if I had a new car, I’d get better music, GPS, etc. I am a proud graduate of Carl Junction High School, Carl Junction MO. I had a teacher who taught us that bombs were not used in WWII, among other useful bits of info. I got a “D” in typing, which was a required subject and which kept me out of National Honor Society. My girlfriend and I went drinking with my 40 year old history teacher and his 22 year old wife. I never felt even remotely intellectually challenged except by Miss Vera Ralston, who well and truly had my number. She worked for the same pay as the lady whose views on WWII were a bit garbled. The most important things I learned in high school was after school and on weekends as a farmhand and as a carpenter’s helper.
I think this is the big unanswered question in education – all education, public private or whatever.
If the metric is outcome, the end product is not going to be materially better than the raw material.
If the metric is equality of opportunity, access to competent, trained teachers and whatnot, that is fixable, but a lot of oxen will be gored.
After reading through all of this, I have to ask why it is that some other countries are doing a better job of educating their kids. Do they have better parents in those countries? If so, why?
I think the single mother phenomena is much more widespread here than elsewhere. Hispanic assimilation is spotty. I suspect if there was a way to quantify assimilation geographically, we would see an increase in outcomes as a function of generation and English proficiency. African American communities are plagued with single parent issues and I cannot begin to suggest a remedy for that community. I suspect that immigrant communities in Europe have somewhat comparable educational disparities as we do, however those countries are much smaller to begin with and have much smaller immigrant communities.
In other words, it doesn’t make a difference in every situation, but it sure as hell makes a difference in many.
Marginally but only to a degree once the basics are covered. I get to Paris whether I’m in coach or first, the difference is 12K, free booze and better food. I get to work in my 9 year old ride, but if I had a new car, I’d get better music, GPS, etc. I am a proud graduate of Carl Junction High School, Carl Junction MO. I had a teacher who taught us that bombs were not used in WWII, among other useful bits of info. I got a “D” in typing, which was a required subject and which kept me out of National Honor Society. My girlfriend and I went drinking with my 40 year old history teacher and his 22 year old wife. I never felt even remotely intellectually challenged except by Miss Vera Ralston, who well and truly had my number. She worked for the same pay as the lady whose views on WWII were a bit garbled. The most important things I learned in high school was after school and on weekends as a farmhand and as a carpenter’s helper.
I think this is the big unanswered question in education – all education, public private or whatever.
If the metric is outcome, the end product is not going to be materially better than the raw material.
If the metric is equality of opportunity, access to competent, trained teachers and whatnot, that is fixable, but a lot of oxen will be gored.
for those who want to get their public ed nerd on (and you know who you are!), here are the key findings page from the OECD PISA project. It compares programs and results for OECD and other countries.
The data is as of 2009, 2013 data will be up in December.
for those who want to get their public ed nerd on (and you know who you are!), here are the key findings page from the OECD PISA project. It compares programs and results for OECD and other countries.
The data is as of 2009, 2013 data will be up in December.
I think the single mother phenomena is much more widespread here than elsewhere.
good old Nationmaster appears to say no, not really.
African American communities are plagued with single parent issues
This does appear to be so.
Marginally but only to a degree once the basics are covered.
The definitions for “margin” and “basics” here are crucial.
But more or less yes, once the basics are covered, I agree that the law of diminishing returns kicks in fairly quickly. As always, just my opinion, this is not an area where I have any expertise, I’m just trying to keep up.
From what I remember of my own public school experience, I learned most of the stuff I make use of in my daily life by about 9th or maybe 10th grade. Most of 10th, 11th, and 12th grades were just treading water.
Most of my time in high school was spent playing drums and hanging out with my buddies.
I will credit my very good liberal arts university education (BA Music) with teaching me how to think and articulate my thoughts.
I’m sorry that didn’t happen sooner, but I’m not sure I can blame my grade and high schools for that. For various reasons, I was not a very motivated dude, academically.
And FWIW, I’d also like to say that I found geography lady’s comments to be right on. Thanks geography lady, let us hear from you more often!
I think the single mother phenomena is much more widespread here than elsewhere.
good old Nationmaster appears to say no, not really.
African American communities are plagued with single parent issues
This does appear to be so.
Marginally but only to a degree once the basics are covered.
The definitions for “margin” and “basics” here are crucial.
But more or less yes, once the basics are covered, I agree that the law of diminishing returns kicks in fairly quickly. As always, just my opinion, this is not an area where I have any expertise, I’m just trying to keep up.
From what I remember of my own public school experience, I learned most of the stuff I make use of in my daily life by about 9th or maybe 10th grade. Most of 10th, 11th, and 12th grades were just treading water.
Most of my time in high school was spent playing drums and hanging out with my buddies.
I will credit my very good liberal arts university education (BA Music) with teaching me how to think and articulate my thoughts.
I’m sorry that didn’t happen sooner, but I’m not sure I can blame my grade and high schools for that. For various reasons, I was not a very motivated dude, academically.
And FWIW, I’d also like to say that I found geography lady’s comments to be right on. Thanks geography lady, let us hear from you more often!
russell:
Thanks for the link. Page 15 is relevant (paraphrasing):
-Teacher pay is more important than class size
-Schools with increased resources tend to do better, but this is likely due to the these schools having students from higher sociology-economic backgrounds.
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
And a direct quote is worth it because it summarizes a vast number of the comments made in this thread:
“In other respects, the overall lack of a relationship between resources and outcomes does not show that resources are not important, but that their level does not have a systematic impact within the prevailing range. If most or all schools have the minimum resource requirements to allow effective teaching, additional material resources may make little difference to outcomes.”
russell:
Thanks for the link. Page 15 is relevant (paraphrasing):
-Teacher pay is more important than class size
-Schools with increased resources tend to do better, but this is likely due to the these schools having students from higher sociology-economic backgrounds.
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
And a direct quote is worth it because it summarizes a vast number of the comments made in this thread:
“In other respects, the overall lack of a relationship between resources and outcomes does not show that resources are not important, but that their level does not have a systematic impact within the prevailing range. If most or all schools have the minimum resource requirements to allow effective teaching, additional material resources may make little difference to outcomes.”
In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them. Many are simply astonished that we continually have to discuss the ‘failure’ of our public schools. I guess many didn’t take school too seriously, because apparently they believe you can get something for nothing (Laffer Curve, which see).
Good white folks fled to the ‘burbs leaving a black underclass behind. I guess flight does solve some problems if money won’t.
Coupled with stagnating wages since the 70’s, the fact that some folks blame the poors for their plight is not surprising. They have always done so. Similarly with our public schools. It is a target rich environment going back to the 60’s with the first anguished cries of “our schools are failing!”
The plain fact of the matter is this: Our public schools, given what we have burdened them with and coupled with their lack or resources, don’t do all that badly. Geographylady, McKinney, Russell….my own, their experiences testify to this fact. Most people, given a fairly stable middle class background get through our public schools without too much trauma.
THE DATA AGREES. READ IT.
But school reform is the grift that keeps on giving. And of course teachers must be taught a lesson (irony alert) for having the temerity to insist they have the basic human right (or so says the Wagner Act) to bargain over their work conditions and pay.
As to merit, if merit really meant crap in the private sector, Fred Haitt would not have a job. QED
In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them. Many are simply astonished that we continually have to discuss the ‘failure’ of our public schools. I guess many didn’t take school too seriously, because apparently they believe you can get something for nothing (Laffer Curve, which see).
Good white folks fled to the ‘burbs leaving a black underclass behind. I guess flight does solve some problems if money won’t.
Coupled with stagnating wages since the 70’s, the fact that some folks blame the poors for their plight is not surprising. They have always done so. Similarly with our public schools. It is a target rich environment going back to the 60’s with the first anguished cries of “our schools are failing!”
The plain fact of the matter is this: Our public schools, given what we have burdened them with and coupled with their lack or resources, don’t do all that badly. Geographylady, McKinney, Russell….my own, their experiences testify to this fact. Most people, given a fairly stable middle class background get through our public schools without too much trauma.
THE DATA AGREES. READ IT.
But school reform is the grift that keeps on giving. And of course teachers must be taught a lesson (irony alert) for having the temerity to insist they have the basic human right (or so says the Wagner Act) to bargain over their work conditions and pay.
As to merit, if merit really meant crap in the private sector, Fred Haitt would not have a job. QED
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
Heresy. The true doctrine is to cut the wages until only the truly committed and the desperate go into teaching. And the former can then be eliminated by a barrage of insults, putting rubbish into the curriculum (firing them the moment they deviate from it) and instigating the worst parents to harass them.
It’s overdue to go back to the system of having the parents pay the teachers in kind (but no chickens; those are for the doctor). And once a month the teachers have to get weighed in order to check that they do not get overfed. They are supposed to be fed up not we to feed them up.
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
Heresy. The true doctrine is to cut the wages until only the truly committed and the desperate go into teaching. And the former can then be eliminated by a barrage of insults, putting rubbish into the curriculum (firing them the moment they deviate from it) and instigating the worst parents to harass them.
It’s overdue to go back to the system of having the parents pay the teachers in kind (but no chickens; those are for the doctor). And once a month the teachers have to get weighed in order to check that they do not get overfed. They are supposed to be fed up not we to feed them up.
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
Hmmm, this provokes me to write, though not as much as it provoked Hartmut ;^).
Any large organization, you have people who underperform. Point me to an organization where everyone is the best at what they do. Those organizations do exist, but they have a special skill set and they generally take no prisoners.
Akio Morita had a philosophy about hiring that I think underlines why this ‘fire the underperformers’ is so problematic. I’m not sure about the precise percentages, but he said that when he hired, you look for maybe 75% of solid dependable folks, 10% highly driven high fliers and then you accept that 15% may be underperformers. You do that because if you try to have all high fliers, you end up with quarrels and conflict, often driven by egos. The other thing is that often, people who you might have consigned to the 15% category will surprise you when placed in the right environment.
While ‘fire the underperformers’ has a nice ring to it, you really don’t know who is going to emerge when you hire, and if all your hires are under the mortal threat of being axed, they aren’t going to give you the creative solutions that everyone seems to acknowledge are needed. And you can’t expect a teacher to do their best if they are not given opportunity and space to try and fail. For most of the teachers I know and hang out with, they are a lot rougher on themselves over what they perceive as their failures, so this ‘fire the underperformers’ when it is based on shoddy metrics that don’t translate to real-world outcomes is really missing the point.
So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.
Hmmm, this provokes me to write, though not as much as it provoked Hartmut ;^).
Any large organization, you have people who underperform. Point me to an organization where everyone is the best at what they do. Those organizations do exist, but they have a special skill set and they generally take no prisoners.
Akio Morita had a philosophy about hiring that I think underlines why this ‘fire the underperformers’ is so problematic. I’m not sure about the precise percentages, but he said that when he hired, you look for maybe 75% of solid dependable folks, 10% highly driven high fliers and then you accept that 15% may be underperformers. You do that because if you try to have all high fliers, you end up with quarrels and conflict, often driven by egos. The other thing is that often, people who you might have consigned to the 15% category will surprise you when placed in the right environment.
While ‘fire the underperformers’ has a nice ring to it, you really don’t know who is going to emerge when you hire, and if all your hires are under the mortal threat of being axed, they aren’t going to give you the creative solutions that everyone seems to acknowledge are needed. And you can’t expect a teacher to do their best if they are not given opportunity and space to try and fail. For most of the teachers I know and hang out with, they are a lot rougher on themselves over what they perceive as their failures, so this ‘fire the underperformers’ when it is based on shoddy metrics that don’t translate to real-world outcomes is really missing the point.
McKinney: If the metric is outcome, the end product is not going to be materially better than the raw material.
The end product and raw material being the students?
McKinney: If the metric is outcome, the end product is not going to be materially better than the raw material.
The end product and raw material being the students?
“You do that because if you try to have all high fliers, you end up with quarrels and conflict, often driven by egos.”
Some insiders at Google say that’s a problem in some areas there.
“While ‘fire the underperformers’ has a nice ring to it, …”
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
“You do that because if you try to have all high fliers, you end up with quarrels and conflict, often driven by egos.”
Some insiders at Google say that’s a problem in some areas there.
“While ‘fire the underperformers’ has a nice ring to it, …”
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
The ‘underperform’ metrics are indeed a crucial part. It goes into the other direction too. If any worker can expect that above average performance/productivity will inevitably lead to increased demands (making the overperformance the new work norm), then (s)he will be careful to meet but never exceed the plan. Unfortunately this is not just a practice of commie countries but also of applied capitalism (If one can make 3 perform the work of 4 one can fire the 4th, and there are enough tricks to not pay for overtime work).
And teachers have extra bad luck because far too many consider them als slackers because they do not spend 40 hours per week in the classroom but still get a full wage (that a teacher’s job is not limited to classroom time seems to be inconceivable).
The ‘underperform’ metrics are indeed a crucial part. It goes into the other direction too. If any worker can expect that above average performance/productivity will inevitably lead to increased demands (making the overperformance the new work norm), then (s)he will be careful to meet but never exceed the plan. Unfortunately this is not just a practice of commie countries but also of applied capitalism (If one can make 3 perform the work of 4 one can fire the 4th, and there are enough tricks to not pay for overtime work).
And teachers have extra bad luck because far too many consider them als slackers because they do not spend 40 hours per week in the classroom but still get a full wage (that a teacher’s job is not limited to classroom time seems to be inconceivable).
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
How many of those who pushed NINJA loans, procured fake appraisals, packaged and sold junk asset backed securities as ‘AAA’ and then bet against them were fired?
‘Difficult to fire’ you say? I rest my case your Honor.
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
How many of those who pushed NINJA loans, procured fake appraisals, packaged and sold junk asset backed securities as ‘AAA’ and then bet against them were fired?
‘Difficult to fire’ you say? I rest my case your Honor.
“So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.”
Others have taken care of this (hooray, Hartmut), so I’ll cease and desist …. no I won’t.
Not picking on thompson, who is looking for answers in good faith, I’m picking on … the word “So” because it makes things sound “so” easy.
What’s the cutoff between underperforming and performing?
In any field?
In a society (this American one) wherein everyone, regardless of social class, believes, congenitally, that everyone else is full of sh*t and overpaid to boot and give us five minutes and each of us can become a yeoman Jeffersonian farmer in a heartbeat.
Go to lunch with employees and listen to how management is full of sh*t and overpaid. Go to lunch with management and shareholders and listen to how employees are full of sh*t and overpaid, not to mention on lunchbreak.
It’s crap. Besides, you fire people and then you have more folks on foodstamps, signing up for Medicaid, and receiving unemployment in an economy where hiring is the last thing employers want to do, because headcounts must be kept at a f*cking minimum.
That said, put me in charge (and you thought having Slart and McTx would be a nightmare) and I’ll put 60% of America on the unemployment lines and then make standing in line illegal, because none of us are ever f*cking good enough.
Except for the poets.
Who don’t get paid anyway.
“So fire the underperforming teachers and pay the rest more.”
Others have taken care of this (hooray, Hartmut), so I’ll cease and desist …. no I won’t.
Not picking on thompson, who is looking for answers in good faith, I’m picking on … the word “So” because it makes things sound “so” easy.
What’s the cutoff between underperforming and performing?
In any field?
In a society (this American one) wherein everyone, regardless of social class, believes, congenitally, that everyone else is full of sh*t and overpaid to boot and give us five minutes and each of us can become a yeoman Jeffersonian farmer in a heartbeat.
Go to lunch with employees and listen to how management is full of sh*t and overpaid. Go to lunch with management and shareholders and listen to how employees are full of sh*t and overpaid, not to mention on lunchbreak.
It’s crap. Besides, you fire people and then you have more folks on foodstamps, signing up for Medicaid, and receiving unemployment in an economy where hiring is the last thing employers want to do, because headcounts must be kept at a f*cking minimum.
That said, put me in charge (and you thought having Slart and McTx would be a nightmare) and I’ll put 60% of America on the unemployment lines and then make standing in line illegal, because none of us are ever f*cking good enough.
Except for the poets.
Who don’t get paid anyway.
As earlier noted, my experience is so distant (in time and space) that I have little to contribute, but I did hark at one passing comment of McKT:
I got a “D” in typing, which was a required subject and which kept me out of National Honor Society.
I, on the other hand, got a “C” in typing, which was not a required subject, and that kept me from being valedictorian of my HS.
Great minds, etc.
As earlier noted, my experience is so distant (in time and space) that I have little to contribute, but I did hark at one passing comment of McKT:
I got a “D” in typing, which was a required subject and which kept me out of National Honor Society.
I, on the other hand, got a “C” in typing, which was not a required subject, and that kept me from being valedictorian of my HS.
Great minds, etc.
I don’t remember getting anything better than “C”s in typing. But I think it was still the single most useful thing I learn in high school.
I don’t remember getting anything better than “C”s in typing. But I think it was still the single most useful thing I learn in high school.
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
Not meaning to get into it, but how do you know this? Were you working in multiple school districts when these issues came up?
There are undoubtedly bad persons, even evil persons working in all kinds of situations. If they are called out, they will probably avail themselves of every option to stay on their jobs. But with many of these situations, what seems like open and shut often is a lot more complex. Here in Japan, I’ve been involved in several cases of problematic firings, etc and I’ve know of many more. And when it is possible to define underperformance in such a way as to select out individuals for ill treatment rather consider what the metrics are really doing, I would suggest you take a sack of salt with each report.
In many school districts, it can be difficult to fire the outright criminal, much less, the under-performers.
Not meaning to get into it, but how do you know this? Were you working in multiple school districts when these issues came up?
There are undoubtedly bad persons, even evil persons working in all kinds of situations. If they are called out, they will probably avail themselves of every option to stay on their jobs. But with many of these situations, what seems like open and shut often is a lot more complex. Here in Japan, I’ve been involved in several cases of problematic firings, etc and I’ve know of many more. And when it is possible to define underperformance in such a way as to select out individuals for ill treatment rather consider what the metrics are really doing, I would suggest you take a sack of salt with each report.
In New York City…
How Do I Fire an Incompetent Teacher? (.pdf)
In New York City…
How Do I Fire an Incompetent Teacher? (.pdf)
Yes, the cartoons by the Reason staff cartoonist make that pdf particularly convincing…
You may want to look at this
Due process, seniority, and salary scales predate unionization; they grew out of state and local civil service reforms in the early twentieth century when political machines thrived in large part by controlling jobs. Civil service laws protected teachers against the graft, cronyism, and favoritism that plagued public school systems under the thumb of political bosses and run by patronage. The laws benefited children by aiming for a meritocracy: teaching jobs would go to those who had training and skills. Since the 1960s when public employees in many states won the right to bargain collectively, teachers’ contracts have included the same protections.
The traditional protections are just that—protections against corruption and favoritism; they have nothing to do with evaluating teachers. Even if an ideal evaluation system existed, teachers would still need recourse when administrators and politicians ignored regulations. Yet the reformers have misleadingly conflated the two issues: we can’t get proper evaluations, they claim, without eliminating protections. Since state laws can be written to take precedence over teachers’ contracts, the most effective way to eliminate protections is to get state laws changed. This is what the reform campaign is doing around the country.
A short digression on due process: it doesn’t mean that public school teachers cannot be fired. The problem is extremely drawn-out and costly procedures for hearings and rulings. Unions get the blame for this, but departments of education (notorious for bureaucratic snafus and foot-dragging) and the lawyers on both sides (also foot-draggers) bear equal responsibility. The solution is straightforward: strict time limits for the process. But, perversely, with the escalation of the reform campaign, “reform superintendents” have a greater interest in showing that due process doesn’t work than in repairing it.
The section about the VAM (Value Added Measure), one of the current sticks used to beat teachers with, is excellent, and has this.
John Ewing, president of Math for America (which promotes better math education in public high schools), describes the VAM phenomenon in “Mathematical Intimidation: Driven by the Data” (Notices of the American Mathematical Society, May 2011):
People recognize that tests are an imperfect measure of educational success, but when sophisticated mathematics is applied, they believe the imperfections go away by some mathematical magic. But this is not magic. What really happens is that the mathematics is used to disguise the problems and intimidate people into ignoring them—a modern, mathematical version of the Emperor’s New Clothes….
Of course we should hold teachers accountable, but this does not mean we have to pretend that mathematical models can do something they cannot….In any case, we ought to expect more from our teachers than what value-added attempts to measure.
But off with their heads! They should have chosen to be in the FIRE industry if they didn’t want to be fired.
Yes, the cartoons by the Reason staff cartoonist make that pdf particularly convincing…
You may want to look at this
Due process, seniority, and salary scales predate unionization; they grew out of state and local civil service reforms in the early twentieth century when political machines thrived in large part by controlling jobs. Civil service laws protected teachers against the graft, cronyism, and favoritism that plagued public school systems under the thumb of political bosses and run by patronage. The laws benefited children by aiming for a meritocracy: teaching jobs would go to those who had training and skills. Since the 1960s when public employees in many states won the right to bargain collectively, teachers’ contracts have included the same protections.
The traditional protections are just that—protections against corruption and favoritism; they have nothing to do with evaluating teachers. Even if an ideal evaluation system existed, teachers would still need recourse when administrators and politicians ignored regulations. Yet the reformers have misleadingly conflated the two issues: we can’t get proper evaluations, they claim, without eliminating protections. Since state laws can be written to take precedence over teachers’ contracts, the most effective way to eliminate protections is to get state laws changed. This is what the reform campaign is doing around the country.
A short digression on due process: it doesn’t mean that public school teachers cannot be fired. The problem is extremely drawn-out and costly procedures for hearings and rulings. Unions get the blame for this, but departments of education (notorious for bureaucratic snafus and foot-dragging) and the lawyers on both sides (also foot-draggers) bear equal responsibility. The solution is straightforward: strict time limits for the process. But, perversely, with the escalation of the reform campaign, “reform superintendents” have a greater interest in showing that due process doesn’t work than in repairing it.
The section about the VAM (Value Added Measure), one of the current sticks used to beat teachers with, is excellent, and has this.
John Ewing, president of Math for America (which promotes better math education in public high schools), describes the VAM phenomenon in “Mathematical Intimidation: Driven by the Data” (Notices of the American Mathematical Society, May 2011):
People recognize that tests are an imperfect measure of educational success, but when sophisticated mathematics is applied, they believe the imperfections go away by some mathematical magic. But this is not magic. What really happens is that the mathematics is used to disguise the problems and intimidate people into ignoring them—a modern, mathematical version of the Emperor’s New Clothes….
Of course we should hold teachers accountable, but this does not mean we have to pretend that mathematical models can do something they cannot….In any case, we ought to expect more from our teachers than what value-added attempts to measure.
But off with their heads! They should have chosen to be in the FIRE industry if they didn’t want to be fired.
What really happens is that the mathematics is used to disguise the problems and intimidate people into ignoring them—a modern, mathematical version of the Emperor’s New Clothes….
“That sounds like economics!” was the first thing to leap into my mind when I read this.
Then lj writes:
They should have chosen to be in the FIRE industry if they didn’t want to be fired.
Heh.
What really happens is that the mathematics is used to disguise the problems and intimidate people into ignoring them—a modern, mathematical version of the Emperor’s New Clothes….
“That sounds like economics!” was the first thing to leap into my mind when I read this.
Then lj writes:
They should have chosen to be in the FIRE industry if they didn’t want to be fired.
Heh.
I suspect that what makes a difference isn’t whether the child has a single, relatively uneducated, parent. Rather what matters is the culture and whether it values education.
If it does, whether in other countries or in various subgroups within the US, the actual education of the parents, or whether both are present, doesn’t matter that much. Even though they are personally uneducated, they believe that education is important and make sure that their kids know it. And the children’s peers are also clear that education is important, which reinforces the view.
So what makes education in the US more problematic? It is the relatively large segments of the population which have not embraced education as a “good thing.” Indeed, there are segments where someone who shows an interest in getting an education is subject to social pressures (sometimes serious ones) to stop doing so.
I suspect that what makes a difference isn’t whether the child has a single, relatively uneducated, parent. Rather what matters is the culture and whether it values education.
If it does, whether in other countries or in various subgroups within the US, the actual education of the parents, or whether both are present, doesn’t matter that much. Even though they are personally uneducated, they believe that education is important and make sure that their kids know it. And the children’s peers are also clear that education is important, which reinforces the view.
So what makes education in the US more problematic? It is the relatively large segments of the population which have not embraced education as a “good thing.” Indeed, there are segments where someone who shows an interest in getting an education is subject to social pressures (sometimes serious ones) to stop doing so.
The end product and raw material being the students?
Yes.
On the “fire the underperformers” thing: substandard performance becomes fairly apparent over time, if not sooner. High, unexcused absenteeism is a clear marker for a lazy, unmotivated and unnecessary burden on the payroll. If there is a good argument for keeping people like that around, I’d like to hear it. People who want to do a good job but who lack skills, insight, whatever, you work with them. But, at the end of the day, they have to meet minimum performance expectations or someone else is having to pick up their slack. Bad for morale, bad for other reasons.
I moved my firm into a large, national firm 14 months ago. My responsibility for payroll and whatnot is highly attenuated–and I sleep much better at night–but I can still tell you that the one attorney and one staff person we have in our Houston office who clearly take every advantage and then some of generous time off and other policies add to others’ loads and impact morale. New career opportunities lie ahead for both of these folks absent a major turnaround.
The end product and raw material being the students?
Yes.
On the “fire the underperformers” thing: substandard performance becomes fairly apparent over time, if not sooner. High, unexcused absenteeism is a clear marker for a lazy, unmotivated and unnecessary burden on the payroll. If there is a good argument for keeping people like that around, I’d like to hear it. People who want to do a good job but who lack skills, insight, whatever, you work with them. But, at the end of the day, they have to meet minimum performance expectations or someone else is having to pick up their slack. Bad for morale, bad for other reasons.
I moved my firm into a large, national firm 14 months ago. My responsibility for payroll and whatnot is highly attenuated–and I sleep much better at night–but I can still tell you that the one attorney and one staff person we have in our Houston office who clearly take every advantage and then some of generous time off and other policies add to others’ loads and impact morale. New career opportunities lie ahead for both of these folks absent a major turnaround.
“…the one attorney and one staff person we have in our Houston office who clearly take every advantage and then some of generous time off and other policies…”
Isn’t that the purpose of generous time off and other benefits? To identify any slackers as soon as possible? 🙂
“…the one attorney and one staff person we have in our Houston office who clearly take every advantage and then some of generous time off and other policies…”
Isn’t that the purpose of generous time off and other benefits? To identify any slackers as soon as possible? 🙂
New career opportunities lie ahead for both of these folks absent a major turnaround.
Why haven’t you done it right now? Think of the clients! It’s not ‘give the underperformers time to make it apparent that they should be let go’, it’s ‘fire the underperformers’. This is all so confusing.
New career opportunities lie ahead for both of these folks absent a major turnaround.
Why haven’t you done it right now? Think of the clients! It’s not ‘give the underperformers time to make it apparent that they should be let go’, it’s ‘fire the underperformers’. This is all so confusing.
I set off quite the firestorm. I admit the fire them was a little off the cuff, but I stand by the principle.
Teachers aren’t well respected in society. They aren’t in the media, and the couple I know personally…I know it grates on them.
And with that lack of respect often comes a lack of pay. I know one (super anecdotal, I know) that moved from a public to a private school because (a) better pay (b) more flexibility in how they teach and (c) the public school principle WANTED to continue their position but basically couldn’t due to union rules and funding (brand new teacher, didn’t have seniority, etc). So they went job hunting and ended up teaching at a private school.
I’m not going to pretend my friend represents every, or even most teachers. But I do think offering people a basic amount of respect and reasonable pay is crucial if you want to retain good employees…from janitors to teachers, from clerks to firemen.
So if I were to phrase my inflammatory statement in a less inflammatory way (sorry about that): The PISA data suggests class size isn’t THAT important in the range they investigated. Teacher salary WAS important. Based on their data, I’d say having FEWER teachers, that are paid and respected more, will likely get you better results. Based on the PISA data.
To answer all the comments in the vein of ‘how do you define performance’ I’m pretty sure that’s why schools have principles and superintendents…so some random guy on a blog (me) doesn’t have to decide hiring and firing. But seriously, I was just pointing out that, according to the data, we’d be better off focusing on improving teacher quality (which to me, as an unabashed capitalist, means making the job more attractive) than focusing on just getting class size down.
I wasn’t advocating lining up teachers by their students test scores and firing half of them as a stern warning to rest.
I set off quite the firestorm. I admit the fire them was a little off the cuff, but I stand by the principle.
Teachers aren’t well respected in society. They aren’t in the media, and the couple I know personally…I know it grates on them.
And with that lack of respect often comes a lack of pay. I know one (super anecdotal, I know) that moved from a public to a private school because (a) better pay (b) more flexibility in how they teach and (c) the public school principle WANTED to continue their position but basically couldn’t due to union rules and funding (brand new teacher, didn’t have seniority, etc). So they went job hunting and ended up teaching at a private school.
I’m not going to pretend my friend represents every, or even most teachers. But I do think offering people a basic amount of respect and reasonable pay is crucial if you want to retain good employees…from janitors to teachers, from clerks to firemen.
So if I were to phrase my inflammatory statement in a less inflammatory way (sorry about that): The PISA data suggests class size isn’t THAT important in the range they investigated. Teacher salary WAS important. Based on their data, I’d say having FEWER teachers, that are paid and respected more, will likely get you better results. Based on the PISA data.
To answer all the comments in the vein of ‘how do you define performance’ I’m pretty sure that’s why schools have principles and superintendents…so some random guy on a blog (me) doesn’t have to decide hiring and firing. But seriously, I was just pointing out that, according to the data, we’d be better off focusing on improving teacher quality (which to me, as an unabashed capitalist, means making the job more attractive) than focusing on just getting class size down.
I wasn’t advocating lining up teachers by their students test scores and firing half of them as a stern warning to rest.
In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them.
This seems accurate to me.
My sister and my niece both worked in public schools as, variously, classroom teacher, district-wide teaching coach for reading skills, and school librarian.
Among the tasks that fell to them, more or less by default:
Buying basic classroom materials out of pocket.
Acting as more or less mental health first responders for kids with issues such as acute depression, sexual or physical abuse (from family members or other kids), physical self-abuse, anorexia and bulimia, etc.
This includes stuff like trying to explain to a 14 year old girl why it’s not such a good idea to hand out BJ’s to the boys in the back stairwell. Without, of course, overstepping any bounds and interfering in the parental relationship.
Tricky.
Acting as more or less social services first responders for kids who lack food, proper or adequate clothes, or basic stuff like electricity and central heat in the home (in northern NY state, in the winter).
Acting as plain old first responders for kids who had managed to FUBAR themselves in one way or another.
Dealing with kids who come to school armed, including getting other kids to disclose that kids are in the school with knives or guns.
Dealing with violent or dangerous kids, armed or not.
Monitoring kids’ use of online resources to make sure they aren’t viewing porn.
All of this in addition to preparing curriculum, teaching classes, and doing the regular stuff that teachers do.
Both my sister and my niece left education – sister retired early, niece decided to stay at home with her kids – because they got sick of dealing with the data-driven, numerical-results-focussed style of school administration that has become the norm under No Child Left Behind.
It’s a hard job. It pays OK, but not remarkably so. The perks can be nice – good vacations, sometimes a pension – but the work environment tends to be very political and stressful in ways that have little to do with the classroom. You have about 100 bosses.
And, everybody thinks you got into teaching because you didn’t have the goods to do something better, are gouging the public coffers via your big fat union, and probably could never make it in the “real world”.
You couldn’t pay me enough to do it, just the idea of keeping 30 kids organized and on task for 6 hours a day every day would be enough to make me run for the door.
In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them.
This seems accurate to me.
My sister and my niece both worked in public schools as, variously, classroom teacher, district-wide teaching coach for reading skills, and school librarian.
Among the tasks that fell to them, more or less by default:
Buying basic classroom materials out of pocket.
Acting as more or less mental health first responders for kids with issues such as acute depression, sexual or physical abuse (from family members or other kids), physical self-abuse, anorexia and bulimia, etc.
This includes stuff like trying to explain to a 14 year old girl why it’s not such a good idea to hand out BJ’s to the boys in the back stairwell. Without, of course, overstepping any bounds and interfering in the parental relationship.
Tricky.
Acting as more or less social services first responders for kids who lack food, proper or adequate clothes, or basic stuff like electricity and central heat in the home (in northern NY state, in the winter).
Acting as plain old first responders for kids who had managed to FUBAR themselves in one way or another.
Dealing with kids who come to school armed, including getting other kids to disclose that kids are in the school with knives or guns.
Dealing with violent or dangerous kids, armed or not.
Monitoring kids’ use of online resources to make sure they aren’t viewing porn.
All of this in addition to preparing curriculum, teaching classes, and doing the regular stuff that teachers do.
Both my sister and my niece left education – sister retired early, niece decided to stay at home with her kids – because they got sick of dealing with the data-driven, numerical-results-focussed style of school administration that has become the norm under No Child Left Behind.
It’s a hard job. It pays OK, but not remarkably so. The perks can be nice – good vacations, sometimes a pension – but the work environment tends to be very political and stressful in ways that have little to do with the classroom. You have about 100 bosses.
And, everybody thinks you got into teaching because you didn’t have the goods to do something better, are gouging the public coffers via your big fat union, and probably could never make it in the “real world”.
You couldn’t pay me enough to do it, just the idea of keeping 30 kids organized and on task for 6 hours a day every day would be enough to make me run for the door.
“everybody thinks you got into teaching because you didn’t have the goods to do something better”
This is a part of the problem in my mind…I think its true in the sense that self-fulfilling prophecies often are. If you treat teachers (or anybody) like crap, the ones that can do something else frequently do. Not all, certainly. But many do.
Everything else russell said. It’s a hard job. We need really good people doing it. Recruiting them and retaining them is a challenge.
“everybody thinks you got into teaching because you didn’t have the goods to do something better”
This is a part of the problem in my mind…I think its true in the sense that self-fulfilling prophecies often are. If you treat teachers (or anybody) like crap, the ones that can do something else frequently do. Not all, certainly. But many do.
Everything else russell said. It’s a hard job. We need really good people doing it. Recruiting them and retaining them is a challenge.
No sweat, thompson.
You didn’t inflame me. It’s just that along the lines of Jerry Seinfeld, I always wonder if every worker in America had the rest of us show up in front of their desks to boo their performance on a regular basis, how we would feel.
First thing I do in the morning is light myself afire and then run around like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz and set the entire hayfield alight.
Then I hit the internets for a splash of gasoline and additional tinder as a cooling off period and I’m good to settle down for the rest of the day with a few good books.
Speaking of leave, I’ll be on leave without pay from OBWI for a few weeks starting today to see to things in the Motherland. I hope my absence doesn’t cause a falloff in morale or productivity here at the head office and I trust my cubicle will still exist when I return and that my swivel chair remains un-booby trapped.
I hope the extra load isn’t too much for all of you, although I’m already noticing a certain energy and lightness in everyone’s mood and step, respectively, as I depart, which seems a little counter intuitive.
If we’re lucky, you guys can solve all of the weighty matters of the world while I’m out and sort of lie down end to end and reach some conclusions because I’m surely sick of coming up with all of the easy answers.
Also — what Russell just wrote.
Hopefully, the boss doesn’t read that last because it might make me seem redundant and I have pre-existing character flaws that will soon need expensive medical attention, so keep that in mind at the staff meeting.
No sweat, thompson.
You didn’t inflame me. It’s just that along the lines of Jerry Seinfeld, I always wonder if every worker in America had the rest of us show up in front of their desks to boo their performance on a regular basis, how we would feel.
First thing I do in the morning is light myself afire and then run around like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz and set the entire hayfield alight.
Then I hit the internets for a splash of gasoline and additional tinder as a cooling off period and I’m good to settle down for the rest of the day with a few good books.
Speaking of leave, I’ll be on leave without pay from OBWI for a few weeks starting today to see to things in the Motherland. I hope my absence doesn’t cause a falloff in morale or productivity here at the head office and I trust my cubicle will still exist when I return and that my swivel chair remains un-booby trapped.
I hope the extra load isn’t too much for all of you, although I’m already noticing a certain energy and lightness in everyone’s mood and step, respectively, as I depart, which seems a little counter intuitive.
If we’re lucky, you guys can solve all of the weighty matters of the world while I’m out and sort of lie down end to end and reach some conclusions because I’m surely sick of coming up with all of the easy answers.
Also — what Russell just wrote.
Hopefully, the boss doesn’t read that last because it might make me seem redundant and I have pre-existing character flaws that will soon need expensive medical attention, so keep that in mind at the staff meeting.
“I know one…that moved from a public to a private school because (a) better pay (b) more flexibility in how they teach …”
Another argument for more school choice. It allows teachers, along with students, to find their best fit.
“I know one…that moved from a public to a private school because (a) better pay (b) more flexibility in how they teach …”
Another argument for more school choice. It allows teachers, along with students, to find their best fit.
High, unexcused absenteeism is a clear marker for a lazy, unmotivated and unnecessary burden on the payroll. If there is a good argument for keeping people like that around, I’d like to hear it.
There isn’t one. But I don’t think those are the metrics for performance under discussion. Even liberals like me don’t think people who fail to show up for work without good reason (among other things) deserve to keep their jobs, believe it or not.
That’s an entirely different problem from, say, teachers whose students don’t average above a certain score on some poorly designed test, which is evaluated according to some poorly designed statistical analysis that fails to account for a number of (often rather obvious) confounding factors.
High, unexcused absenteeism is a clear marker for a lazy, unmotivated and unnecessary burden on the payroll. If there is a good argument for keeping people like that around, I’d like to hear it.
There isn’t one. But I don’t think those are the metrics for performance under discussion. Even liberals like me don’t think people who fail to show up for work without good reason (among other things) deserve to keep their jobs, believe it or not.
That’s an entirely different problem from, say, teachers whose students don’t average above a certain score on some poorly designed test, which is evaluated according to some poorly designed statistical analysis that fails to account for a number of (often rather obvious) confounding factors.
But I don’t think those are the metrics for performance under discussion.
In any of the current-day “reform” efforts, they are not.
The metrics are results in the form of student performance, as measured by test results.
But I don’t think those are the metrics for performance under discussion.
In any of the current-day “reform” efforts, they are not.
The metrics are results in the form of student performance, as measured by test results.
Why haven’t you done it right now? Think of the clients! It’s not ‘give the underperformers time to make it apparent that they should be let go’, it’s ‘fire the underperformers’. This is all so confusing.
You may not have read everything I wrote.
Acting as more or less social services first responders for kids who lack food, proper or adequate clothes, or basic stuff like electricity and central heat in the home (in northern NY state, in the winter).
Acting as plain old first responders for kids who had managed to FUBAR themselves in one way or another.
Dealing with kids who come to school armed, including getting other kids to disclose that kids are in the school with knives or guns.
Dealing with violent or dangerous kids, armed or not.
Monitoring kids’ use of online resources to make sure they aren’t viewing porn.
All of this in addition to preparing curriculum, teaching classes, and doing the regular stuff that teachers do.
There we are. Who had to deal with this 40 years ago? Fistfights, sure. Truancy, sure. Hitting a teacher? Go to jail and be expelled. Porn at school–Playboy was it back in the day and if you brought one, it was 3 days suspension. Teachers and principals used paddles–not enough in my case–and it was only mildly controversial.
If education were a defeasible right, one which a chronically misbehaving or violent student could lose, we might have a different situation. Not to offend, but life would be a lot easier for many, many students and all teachers if the bad kids who won’t change were removed from class.
If the rules for being allowed to enter and remain in school were clear and were enforced, I believe we’d have noticeably less of an issue today.
Why haven’t you done it right now? Think of the clients! It’s not ‘give the underperformers time to make it apparent that they should be let go’, it’s ‘fire the underperformers’. This is all so confusing.
You may not have read everything I wrote.
Acting as more or less social services first responders for kids who lack food, proper or adequate clothes, or basic stuff like electricity and central heat in the home (in northern NY state, in the winter).
Acting as plain old first responders for kids who had managed to FUBAR themselves in one way or another.
Dealing with kids who come to school armed, including getting other kids to disclose that kids are in the school with knives or guns.
Dealing with violent or dangerous kids, armed or not.
Monitoring kids’ use of online resources to make sure they aren’t viewing porn.
All of this in addition to preparing curriculum, teaching classes, and doing the regular stuff that teachers do.
There we are. Who had to deal with this 40 years ago? Fistfights, sure. Truancy, sure. Hitting a teacher? Go to jail and be expelled. Porn at school–Playboy was it back in the day and if you brought one, it was 3 days suspension. Teachers and principals used paddles–not enough in my case–and it was only mildly controversial.
If education were a defeasible right, one which a chronically misbehaving or violent student could lose, we might have a different situation. Not to offend, but life would be a lot easier for many, many students and all teachers if the bad kids who won’t change were removed from class.
If the rules for being allowed to enter and remain in school were clear and were enforced, I believe we’d have noticeably less of an issue today.
“In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them.”
Was this really forced on schools or was it just mission creep on the part of schools and their political overseers?
“In my lifetime we have piled increasing ‘responsibility’ on our public schools, and then we have consistently underfunded them.”
Was this really forced on schools or was it just mission creep on the part of schools and their political overseers?
“Another argument for more school choice. It allows teachers, along with students, to find their best fit.”
Yep.
I’d also like to touch on the metrics that keep coming up. There aren’t great metrics, especially not ones that can be administered once a quarter and have funding or teacher pay or whatever tied to it.
Which is why I’d argue for more flexibility for teachers to teach how they feel is best, more flexibility for administration to recruit and retain teachers they feel teach best, and more flexibility for parents to select schools they feel benefit their children the most.
Again, not offering cure-alls and tonics.
Also, Count, enjoy your travels, I’ll miss your commentary in the meantime.
“Another argument for more school choice. It allows teachers, along with students, to find their best fit.”
Yep.
I’d also like to touch on the metrics that keep coming up. There aren’t great metrics, especially not ones that can be administered once a quarter and have funding or teacher pay or whatever tied to it.
Which is why I’d argue for more flexibility for teachers to teach how they feel is best, more flexibility for administration to recruit and retain teachers they feel teach best, and more flexibility for parents to select schools they feel benefit their children the most.
Again, not offering cure-alls and tonics.
Also, Count, enjoy your travels, I’ll miss your commentary in the meantime.
hey, how ’bout that Senate?
hey, how ’bout that Senate?
hey, how ’bout that Senate?
A close vote. Long term, who knows. If the Repubs ever get back in, they will finish the job so that Dems can’t block SCt nominees–we’ll see who does the shouting then.
hey, how ’bout that Senate?
A close vote. Long term, who knows. If the Repubs ever get back in, they will finish the job so that Dems can’t block SCt nominees–we’ll see who does the shouting then.
If the Repubs ever get back in,
Perish the thought.
If the Repubs ever get back in,
Perish the thought.
I have very limited teaching experience; I did one year as a secondary educator, and that at a public high school in France. I’d not dream of trying to teach in the US; it was challenging enough over there where teachers are substantially better paid, respected, and the student body is more agreeable to education. The only comparative anecdata I can bring to the table for the US ed system is my own underfunded rural schooling, and conversations with old classmates from my undergrad French days (most of whom were ed majors and now teach at underfunded suburban Midwestern schools). But one question – fraught with cliches, but still – that contrast raises for me is this: what is the point of American education? The French system still retains some of the old Republican ethos which views the schools as citizen factories, albeit much less than it did a century ago. But in the US, we tend to view them first and foremost as worker mills. If media representations are to be believed, the point of a school is to make you ready for the job market, and additionally this is apparently quantifiable… (No context needed! Just add diploma!)
I think thompson makes a good point in bringing up the venerable strain brought to bear by good old fashioned American anti-intellectualism as well. That was definitely not present in any meaningful sense in France. Education had value in itself, as it made better citizens; and for businesses, citizens perforce double as workers. That doesn’t work both ways, though, so magic bullets like teaching to the test appeal to us here because, again, education must have a quantifiable result, and as such we must be able to quantify it. It’s frustrating, and it’s depressing, and it’s something that can’t be easily fixed because the problem is cultural. And with the current economic situation encouraging pop culture to teach that education is not a path to success, but rather pretension and debt*, we’re almost certainly looking at another generation before this could even hope to change. Not that it will, in all likelihood. American anti-intellectualism is older than America. But the current wind isn’t very favorable for even hope in this regard.
*Despite my talk of education for its own sake, I’m all for vocational programs. I don’t see that as being different than “higher” education. The society that values its philosophers but not its plumbers, etc. I’m also for low-skill employment providing a living wage, though, so take that with a grain of (red) salt.
I have very limited teaching experience; I did one year as a secondary educator, and that at a public high school in France. I’d not dream of trying to teach in the US; it was challenging enough over there where teachers are substantially better paid, respected, and the student body is more agreeable to education. The only comparative anecdata I can bring to the table for the US ed system is my own underfunded rural schooling, and conversations with old classmates from my undergrad French days (most of whom were ed majors and now teach at underfunded suburban Midwestern schools). But one question – fraught with cliches, but still – that contrast raises for me is this: what is the point of American education? The French system still retains some of the old Republican ethos which views the schools as citizen factories, albeit much less than it did a century ago. But in the US, we tend to view them first and foremost as worker mills. If media representations are to be believed, the point of a school is to make you ready for the job market, and additionally this is apparently quantifiable… (No context needed! Just add diploma!)
I think thompson makes a good point in bringing up the venerable strain brought to bear by good old fashioned American anti-intellectualism as well. That was definitely not present in any meaningful sense in France. Education had value in itself, as it made better citizens; and for businesses, citizens perforce double as workers. That doesn’t work both ways, though, so magic bullets like teaching to the test appeal to us here because, again, education must have a quantifiable result, and as such we must be able to quantify it. It’s frustrating, and it’s depressing, and it’s something that can’t be easily fixed because the problem is cultural. And with the current economic situation encouraging pop culture to teach that education is not a path to success, but rather pretension and debt*, we’re almost certainly looking at another generation before this could even hope to change. Not that it will, in all likelihood. American anti-intellectualism is older than America. But the current wind isn’t very favorable for even hope in this regard.
*Despite my talk of education for its own sake, I’m all for vocational programs. I don’t see that as being different than “higher” education. The society that values its philosophers but not its plumbers, etc. I’m also for low-skill employment providing a living wage, though, so take that with a grain of (red) salt.
One of the 3 opposing Democrats:
Yeah, well what about the level of representation the least populated states still have, which has gotten even more disproportionate since the Senate was designed? The “minority” protected in the design wasn’t a political party, I don’t think.
One of the 3 opposing Democrats:
Yeah, well what about the level of representation the least populated states still have, which has gotten even more disproportionate since the Senate was designed? The “minority” protected in the design wasn’t a political party, I don’t think.
If the Repubs ever get back in, they will finish the job so that Dems can’t block SCt nominees–we’ll see who does the shouting then.
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
If the Repubs ever get back in, they will finish the job so that Dems can’t block SCt nominees–we’ll see who does the shouting then.
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
Having seen the shoe on both feet . . .
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
Having seen the shoe on both feet . . .
Having seen the shoe on both feet …
No Senate has ever done to a President what the Republicans have done to Obama. Period. There’s no question that they’re capable of doing worse things if they gain a majority in the Senate. That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to be sure that it doesn’t happen.
Fortunately, signs point to people being fed up with this Republican nonsense.
Having seen the shoe on both feet …
No Senate has ever done to a President what the Republicans have done to Obama. Period. There’s no question that they’re capable of doing worse things if they gain a majority in the Senate. That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to be sure that it doesn’t happen.
Fortunately, signs point to people being fed up with this Republican nonsense.
NomVide:
As much as I agree with the comment, it was wj, not me.
I agree with your sentiment, anti-intellectualism is a problem in the US. In the media (in my perception), its been on the rise recently.
But I’d paint with an even broader brush. It’s not just anti-intellectualism, it’s how combative we, as a society, are when it comes to social/cultural/life differences.
Most of the people I interact with socially have at least a college degree, many graduate and professional degrees. It’s pretty staggering to me how much entitlement comes along with that, and how dismissive people can be towards those with “less education.”
Or, even more hilariously, different education. Same degree level, but in different fields, is often considered “less.”
The anti-intellectual elitism/anti-intellectual argument goes both ways. And I think it is prevalent because its a really useful narrative for media and political noise machines.
“They” aren’t like you, they are up in their ivory tower.
“They” aren’t like you, they cling to their guns and religion.
I don’t know that the pro-/anti- intellectualism narratives are that different than the many other narratives that get pushed.
I’d actually think it doesn’t have much to do with the anti-teacher agenda in the US. I’d consider that more driven by anti-union, anti-government narrative. Sentiments that I have some sympathy for, but don’t agree with how it gets extended to the rank-and-file teachers.
NomVide:
As much as I agree with the comment, it was wj, not me.
I agree with your sentiment, anti-intellectualism is a problem in the US. In the media (in my perception), its been on the rise recently.
But I’d paint with an even broader brush. It’s not just anti-intellectualism, it’s how combative we, as a society, are when it comes to social/cultural/life differences.
Most of the people I interact with socially have at least a college degree, many graduate and professional degrees. It’s pretty staggering to me how much entitlement comes along with that, and how dismissive people can be towards those with “less education.”
Or, even more hilariously, different education. Same degree level, but in different fields, is often considered “less.”
The anti-intellectual elitism/anti-intellectual argument goes both ways. And I think it is prevalent because its a really useful narrative for media and political noise machines.
“They” aren’t like you, they are up in their ivory tower.
“They” aren’t like you, they cling to their guns and religion.
I don’t know that the pro-/anti- intellectualism narratives are that different than the many other narratives that get pushed.
I’d actually think it doesn’t have much to do with the anti-teacher agenda in the US. I’d consider that more driven by anti-union, anti-government narrative. Sentiments that I have some sympathy for, but don’t agree with how it gets extended to the rank-and-file teachers.
You may not have read everything I wrote.
Sorry, I left out those irony tags. I realize that you didn’t say ‘fire the underperformers’, I was just pointing out that thompson’s ‘fire the underperformers’ is not equal to your ‘substandard performance becomes fairly apparent over time, if not sooner.’ It wasn’t meant to address any other point.
NV wrote
I have very limited teaching experience; I did one year as a secondary educator, and that at a public high school in France.
I would love to know more, maybe a guest post? I did a year as an assistant de langues at a high school in Poitiers in the late 80’s, I’d love to compare notes.
and Count, take care.
You may not have read everything I wrote.
Sorry, I left out those irony tags. I realize that you didn’t say ‘fire the underperformers’, I was just pointing out that thompson’s ‘fire the underperformers’ is not equal to your ‘substandard performance becomes fairly apparent over time, if not sooner.’ It wasn’t meant to address any other point.
NV wrote
I have very limited teaching experience; I did one year as a secondary educator, and that at a public high school in France.
I would love to know more, maybe a guest post? I did a year as an assistant de langues at a high school in Poitiers in the late 80’s, I’d love to compare notes.
and Count, take care.
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
Same here.
I appreciate NV’s 4:21 quite a bit. There are many many differences between the US and France, or pretty much any other first world country for that matter. Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness.
If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable.
On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.
The society that values its philosophers but not its plumbers…
Oddly perhaps, many of the best educated folks I know – in the cultural, knowledge for its own sake sense – are blue collar folks and tradesmen.
Libraries are free, as it turns out. So far, anyway.
I know I’m getting old, because everything makes me cranky.
Count, safe travels and best wishes for a good visit. May there be a sweet song or two still to be heard in the midst of the noise.
I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t at all worried about that.
Same here.
I appreciate NV’s 4:21 quite a bit. There are many many differences between the US and France, or pretty much any other first world country for that matter. Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness.
If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable.
On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.
The society that values its philosophers but not its plumbers…
Oddly perhaps, many of the best educated folks I know – in the cultural, knowledge for its own sake sense – are blue collar folks and tradesmen.
Libraries are free, as it turns out. So far, anyway.
I know I’m getting old, because everything makes me cranky.
Count, safe travels and best wishes for a good visit. May there be a sweet song or two still to be heard in the midst of the noise.
“Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness. If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable. On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.”
I’d say that is overly harsh.
I work regularly with undergraduate students and I am consistently impressed how many clubs/organizations/political movements/etc that they are part of.
In terms of nationwide movements, I’m very impressed with the spread of Makers.
The tea party, love them or hate them, is a national and influential cause/group.
Even home brewing and home wine making seems to be undergoing a resurgence.
MOOCs and DOCCs have pros and cons, but they’ve rose out of nothing in a few years. Of course, it’s hard to track country of origin, but I’ve met people who like them, so at least a few americans are taking them.
Musically, there are tons of festivals around the country every year.
I could go on, but I’d say america still has a vibrant cultural and educational drive.
I do think its easy to turn on the news, or see old buildings turn into strip malls, and despair…but I for one am not weeping for this nation’s culture just yet.
Then again, I’m dangerously optimistic.
“Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness. If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable. On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.”
I’d say that is overly harsh.
I work regularly with undergraduate students and I am consistently impressed how many clubs/organizations/political movements/etc that they are part of.
In terms of nationwide movements, I’m very impressed with the spread of Makers.
The tea party, love them or hate them, is a national and influential cause/group.
Even home brewing and home wine making seems to be undergoing a resurgence.
MOOCs and DOCCs have pros and cons, but they’ve rose out of nothing in a few years. Of course, it’s hard to track country of origin, but I’ve met people who like them, so at least a few americans are taking them.
Musically, there are tons of festivals around the country every year.
I could go on, but I’d say america still has a vibrant cultural and educational drive.
I do think its easy to turn on the news, or see old buildings turn into strip malls, and despair…but I for one am not weeping for this nation’s culture just yet.
Then again, I’m dangerously optimistic.
russell: “Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness. If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable. On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.”
thompson: “I’d say that is overly harsh.”
I’d say so too! In fact, it’s ridiculous. I’d suggest you get out more, russell, especially among young people. I know several people who could be making quite a few bucks, because they have degrees in hugely marketable fields (and have had jobs there), who instead are serving some greater ideal somewhere. And I live in the South!
russell: “Education for its own sake is little valued here. I’d extend that to many or most forms of cultural or social engagement or awareness. If it can’t be monetized, it’s not valuable. On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.”
thompson: “I’d say that is overly harsh.”
I’d say so too! In fact, it’s ridiculous. I’d suggest you get out more, russell, especially among young people. I know several people who could be making quite a few bucks, because they have degrees in hugely marketable fields (and have had jobs there), who instead are serving some greater ideal somewhere. And I live in the South!
On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture.
Oh, and forgot to address this directly: Sure, lots of rich people like to shop. But what about the success of Etsy, and the entire DYI movement, and so many people who “like to shop” to support people who are doing stuff that’s creative, local and good? You need a nap, russell.
On my more cynical days lately, I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture.
Oh, and forgot to address this directly: Sure, lots of rich people like to shop. But what about the success of Etsy, and the entire DYI movement, and so many people who “like to shop” to support people who are doing stuff that’s creative, local and good? You need a nap, russell.
I would love to know more, maybe a guest post? I did a year as an assistant de langues at a high school in Poitiers in the late 80’s, I’d love to compare notes.
I was a language assistant at a medium-large lycée on the outskirts of Lyon in 02-03. I’ll see if I can find the time (not a problem) and creativity (something of a problem) to generate enough content to merit sharing. I’m not optimistic, but I’ll give it a good-faith effort.
I would love to know more, maybe a guest post? I did a year as an assistant de langues at a high school in Poitiers in the late 80’s, I’d love to compare notes.
I was a language assistant at a medium-large lycée on the outskirts of Lyon in 02-03. I’ll see if I can find the time (not a problem) and creativity (something of a problem) to generate enough content to merit sharing. I’m not optimistic, but I’ll give it a good-faith effort.
I’d suggest you get out more, russell, especially among young people.
I suspect I get out more than most folks. I definitely suspect I get out, for a wide variety of purposes, more than most folks on this board.
I could be wrong, if so folks here are pretty unusual.
What I find is that the general level of basic cultural literacy in the US is pretty damned low. And, is not particularly highly valued.
Etsy, homebrew, and MOOCs notwithstanding.
I just got in from “being out” in order to engage in a “cultural activity” including many “young people”, and I’m too freaking tired to debate it further. Maybe later.
Night all.
I’d suggest you get out more, russell, especially among young people.
I suspect I get out more than most folks. I definitely suspect I get out, for a wide variety of purposes, more than most folks on this board.
I could be wrong, if so folks here are pretty unusual.
What I find is that the general level of basic cultural literacy in the US is pretty damned low. And, is not particularly highly valued.
Etsy, homebrew, and MOOCs notwithstanding.
I just got in from “being out” in order to engage in a “cultural activity” including many “young people”, and I’m too freaking tired to debate it further. Maybe later.
Night all.
Obviously, I don’t know who your musical audience is, russell, or who your friends are, but I’m dismayed by your frequent generalizations about the level of people’s intellectual curiosity and appreciation of culture. I find it hard to believe that my experience (knowing a lot very intelligent, interested, creative and dedicated people of all ages) is unusual.
As to American culture, one thing that’s fairly distinctive about it is how inquisitive and appreciative many people are about other people’s cultures, including their food. Obviously, some Americans (like some Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc.) are narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, and materialistic, but that’s no more the rule here than anywhere else in the world.
Obviously, I don’t know who your musical audience is, russell, or who your friends are, but I’m dismayed by your frequent generalizations about the level of people’s intellectual curiosity and appreciation of culture. I find it hard to believe that my experience (knowing a lot very intelligent, interested, creative and dedicated people of all ages) is unusual.
As to American culture, one thing that’s fairly distinctive about it is how inquisitive and appreciative many people are about other people’s cultures, including their food. Obviously, some Americans (like some Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc.) are narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, and materialistic, but that’s no more the rule here than anywhere else in the world.
one thing that’s fairly distinctive about it is how inquisitive and appreciative many people are about other people’s cultures, including their food
I’m really not trying to pick a fight about this, nor do I want to jack the thread in the direction of some bizarre pet peeve of my own. It’s also not something I’ve really thought through to any degree of clarity, my comment upthread was kind of a throw-away.
Suffice it to say that a curiosity about other people’s cultures, including their food, isn’t really what I was trying to get at, however incoherently.
Or, if anything, offering the fact that Americans like to try foods from other countries as an example of cultural engagement (for lack of a better word) kind of illustrates what I’m trying to say.
What I think is that Americans approach things from the perspective of consumers. Culture – our own or anybody else’s – is no different, it is a grab-bag of artifacts to consume.
As opposed to a shared and common legacy, a body of traditions and practices that reflect a particular understanding (perhaps plural) of the world.
What I think is that consumption *is* American culture, nowadays.
None of this is to disparage people’s personal interests, hobbies, or pursuits, I think all of those things are great.
one thing that’s fairly distinctive about it is how inquisitive and appreciative many people are about other people’s cultures, including their food
I’m really not trying to pick a fight about this, nor do I want to jack the thread in the direction of some bizarre pet peeve of my own. It’s also not something I’ve really thought through to any degree of clarity, my comment upthread was kind of a throw-away.
Suffice it to say that a curiosity about other people’s cultures, including their food, isn’t really what I was trying to get at, however incoherently.
Or, if anything, offering the fact that Americans like to try foods from other countries as an example of cultural engagement (for lack of a better word) kind of illustrates what I’m trying to say.
What I think is that Americans approach things from the perspective of consumers. Culture – our own or anybody else’s – is no different, it is a grab-bag of artifacts to consume.
As opposed to a shared and common legacy, a body of traditions and practices that reflect a particular understanding (perhaps plural) of the world.
What I think is that consumption *is* American culture, nowadays.
None of this is to disparage people’s personal interests, hobbies, or pursuits, I think all of those things are great.
I think these two links kind of support Russell’s generalizations, in a general sort of way
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/only_30_percent.php
and
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/04/americans.travel.domestically
from the 2nd link
The percentage of Americans with passports — a number that was in the teens just a few years ago — has spiked since the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was adopted. It requires American and Canadian travelers to present documents showing citizenship when entering the United States.
which suggests that the number is still in the teens if you exclude Canada and Mexico.
There is a prospective post about this, in that I’m always struck how much my students know about Western pop, yet the inverse of US students knowing about Japanese pop might be in the upper 1 digits, if that much.
I think these two links kind of support Russell’s generalizations, in a general sort of way
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/only_30_percent.php
and
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/04/americans.travel.domestically
from the 2nd link
The percentage of Americans with passports — a number that was in the teens just a few years ago — has spiked since the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was adopted. It requires American and Canadian travelers to present documents showing citizenship when entering the United States.
which suggests that the number is still in the teens if you exclude Canada and Mexico.
There is a prospective post about this, in that I’m always struck how much my students know about Western pop, yet the inverse of US students knowing about Japanese pop might be in the upper 1 digits, if that much.
You can encounter lots of American culture at your local Walmart. It might not be the culture you like yourself…
I don’t know how to measure something like cultural literacy. Am I a cultural illiterate when I have no idea who those people are who are featured on magazines at the grocery line? They obviously mean something to a lot of other Americans or their faces wouldn’t sell magazines.
Am I exceptionally culturally literate because I took Spanish in college, have a passing acquaintance with life on a nearby Native American community, and learned a little about Samoan culture from one of my clients?
This is a pretty big diverse country. I’m not so much worried about cultural literacy as I am about the lack of acquisition of basic facts. For example, a lady of my acquaintance told me that Obama caused the deficit by spending too much on porkbarrel programs like a one hundred thousand dollar grant for research. She knew that it was true because she heard it on Faux.
That’s just plain ignorant.
There’s lots of that sort of ignorance around. People who don’t know that every state has two Senators. People who don’t know what “socialism” means. People who have no idea what a state religion is. People who not only lack knowledge of history, but lack basic knowledge about the structure of their own government.
That worries me a lot more than people who don’t seem to participate in the same cultural events and activities that I do.
You can encounter lots of American culture at your local Walmart. It might not be the culture you like yourself…
I don’t know how to measure something like cultural literacy. Am I a cultural illiterate when I have no idea who those people are who are featured on magazines at the grocery line? They obviously mean something to a lot of other Americans or their faces wouldn’t sell magazines.
Am I exceptionally culturally literate because I took Spanish in college, have a passing acquaintance with life on a nearby Native American community, and learned a little about Samoan culture from one of my clients?
This is a pretty big diverse country. I’m not so much worried about cultural literacy as I am about the lack of acquisition of basic facts. For example, a lady of my acquaintance told me that Obama caused the deficit by spending too much on porkbarrel programs like a one hundred thousand dollar grant for research. She knew that it was true because she heard it on Faux.
That’s just plain ignorant.
There’s lots of that sort of ignorance around. People who don’t know that every state has two Senators. People who don’t know what “socialism” means. People who have no idea what a state religion is. People who not only lack knowledge of history, but lack basic knowledge about the structure of their own government.
That worries me a lot more than people who don’t seem to participate in the same cultural events and activities that I do.
As opposed to a shared and common legacy, a body of traditions and practices that reflect a particular understanding (perhaps plural) of the world.
That definition of culture would seem available only to very small, insular communities.
As to eating food (and drinking beverages, such as tea or wine or other things), yes, that’s the definition of “consumption”, but food is a huge part of what human beings do, and an extremely important basis for many cultural “traditions and practices.” Calling food-related practices “consumption,” as if they have no further cultural significance is an example of what I object to about your attitude towards our “culture.” You seem to have a narrow, extremely romanticized, view of what people should be like. Under your definition, a large, diverse society such as ours could never have a common culture. But, in fact, a huge part of our culture is our ability to look outward and embrace other people’s ways.
As opposed to a shared and common legacy, a body of traditions and practices that reflect a particular understanding (perhaps plural) of the world.
That definition of culture would seem available only to very small, insular communities.
As to eating food (and drinking beverages, such as tea or wine or other things), yes, that’s the definition of “consumption”, but food is a huge part of what human beings do, and an extremely important basis for many cultural “traditions and practices.” Calling food-related practices “consumption,” as if they have no further cultural significance is an example of what I object to about your attitude towards our “culture.” You seem to have a narrow, extremely romanticized, view of what people should be like. Under your definition, a large, diverse society such as ours could never have a common culture. But, in fact, a huge part of our culture is our ability to look outward and embrace other people’s ways.
There is a prospective post about this, in that I’m always struck how much my students know about Western pop, yet the inverse of US students knowing about Japanese pop might be in the upper 1 digits, if that much.
I would be a rube but for my wife, who is Spanish/French and born in Tanzania, widely traveled, multi-lingual, and so on. In other words, but for her influence, I would think Cancun was high living. So, I kind of get what Russell is saying. I’m not as worked up about it as Russell is, which may not be to my credit. All of that is background to LJ’s observation, which I find to be the case everywhere I’ve traveled, i.e. people around the world pay at least as much attention to what goes on in the US as Americans do. Headlines in most continental European newspapers that I’ve seen include front page reports on stuff in the US. Same with the Brits and the Aussies. It’s flattering in some ways and concerning in others, much as Russell has indicated.
There is a prospective post about this, in that I’m always struck how much my students know about Western pop, yet the inverse of US students knowing about Japanese pop might be in the upper 1 digits, if that much.
I would be a rube but for my wife, who is Spanish/French and born in Tanzania, widely traveled, multi-lingual, and so on. In other words, but for her influence, I would think Cancun was high living. So, I kind of get what Russell is saying. I’m not as worked up about it as Russell is, which may not be to my credit. All of that is background to LJ’s observation, which I find to be the case everywhere I’ve traveled, i.e. people around the world pay at least as much attention to what goes on in the US as Americans do. Headlines in most continental European newspapers that I’ve seen include front page reports on stuff in the US. Same with the Brits and the Aussies. It’s flattering in some ways and concerning in others, much as Russell has indicated.
I think food is a good example for drawing distinctions. It can be purely consumed (usually in a highly modified form to make it palatable for your culture) without any regard for its origin and context or it can be used as a jump-off point to get a first taste (literally in this case) of the culture it stems from.
—
As for cultural illiteracy, Mark Twain had a few words to say about that (like his observation that in cases of doubt American pupils answer any number question with 1492, be it the year of birth of any important person, the circumference of the world etc.).
I think food is a good example for drawing distinctions. It can be purely consumed (usually in a highly modified form to make it palatable for your culture) without any regard for its origin and context or it can be used as a jump-off point to get a first taste (literally in this case) of the culture it stems from.
—
As for cultural illiteracy, Mark Twain had a few words to say about that (like his observation that in cases of doubt American pupils answer any number question with 1492, be it the year of birth of any important person, the circumference of the world etc.).
First it was St. Patrick’s Day. Then Cinco de Mayo. Now Octoberfest is on the rise. Americans adopt things from other cultures when they provide an excuse to get hammered while not even watching football. 😉
First it was St. Patrick’s Day. Then Cinco de Mayo. Now Octoberfest is on the rise. Americans adopt things from other cultures when they provide an excuse to get hammered while not even watching football. 😉
Hey, even the original Oktoberfest has become primarily a tourist trap.
More interesting to me is that there is a society/club in Japan infatuated with the Alphorn. Anyone who wants to join has to make a genuine one him/herself. Quality of the product is not much of an issue, it’s the effort that counts. That too is a difference between just consuming (like buying one of these things) and genuine interest in the tradition. It has to be said though that the Alphorn became a Swiss symbol more or less by chance (it was in use in most Alpine countries). It got revived as part of what we would today called a branding campaign, not out of ‘real’ interest; that only came later.
Hey, even the original Oktoberfest has become primarily a tourist trap.
More interesting to me is that there is a society/club in Japan infatuated with the Alphorn. Anyone who wants to join has to make a genuine one him/herself. Quality of the product is not much of an issue, it’s the effort that counts. That too is a difference between just consuming (like buying one of these things) and genuine interest in the tradition. It has to be said though that the Alphorn became a Swiss symbol more or less by chance (it was in use in most Alpine countries). It got revived as part of what we would today called a branding campaign, not out of ‘real’ interest; that only came later.
That definition of culture would seem available only to very small, insular communities.
No, that’s pretty much what a culture is. It’s not insular, pretty much everybody has one, or more correctly lives in one and participates in one (or more). I’m just making a comment about an aspect of the one we live in.
food is a huge part of what human beings do, and an extremely important basis for many cultural “traditions and practices.”
Yes, I agree with this.
Calling food-related practices “consumption,” as if they have no further cultural significance is an example of what I object to about your attitude towards our “culture.”
By “consumption” I don’t mean “something you eat”. I’m referring to consumption as a stance toward a cultural practice. I.e., your role as a participant.
Look, lots of my mother’s people used to make braided rag rugs. Everyone in the family would save our rags, and they would make rugs out of them. It wasn’t a quaint romantic thing, it was just where they (and we) got rugs.
And, it was a cultural practice that involved craft knowledge passed down for some number generations, and a kind of cool funky colorful esthetic because the rags were all different colors and fabrics, and it was a social thing because they’d sit together and make the rugs, and it expressed a cultural value of re-using any available thing until it turned into dust.
They weren’t poor people, at least at that point, they could have bought the rugs. It was just *part of their culture* to make the rugs. Specifically, *making* the rugs. Hanging out doing something together, doing something that had been passed down to them, turning rags into something useful and attractive.
Nowadays most folks would buy a rag rug, and they have a particular kind of stylish cachet because they used to be something people made by hand. So, you can buy the vibe of handcraft, without actually making the rug. I don’t know where or how they are made, they probably come from Pakistan.
If you want a hand-made one with a “real vintage look” you can in fact get them on Etsy.
And as an aside, if you’re looking for “extreme romanticism”, selling something on a website and saying it’s special because it’s hand-made and has a “vintage look” is romantic nostalgia to a T.
I have no problem with the person selling rag rugs on Etsy, they look like nice rugs. I have no problem with you or anyone else eating whatever they like to eat. I recognize the benefits that have come to us through industrial production, and I don’t expect everyone to sit around in the evening making braided rag rugs if they would rather just buy a damned rug.
What I am saying is that our own culture has become, to a pretty large degree, commodified, and the way that most folks participate in it is as consumers, as opposed to active participants and practicioners.
You seem to have a narrow, extremely romanticized, view of what people should be like.
No, I don’t think I do. I don’t think I really have any specific view of what people should be like. People should be like themselves.
Under your definition, a large, diverse society such as ours could never have a common culture.
It’s likely that a large, diverse society like ours WILL NOT have a thoroughly common culture. It most likely SHOULD NOT have one, because we’re large and diverse.
But, in fact, a huge part of our culture is our ability to look outward and embrace other people’s ways.
A huge part of the culture of SOME PARTS of the country is an interest in looking outward and embracing other people’s ways.
That definition of culture would seem available only to very small, insular communities.
No, that’s pretty much what a culture is. It’s not insular, pretty much everybody has one, or more correctly lives in one and participates in one (or more). I’m just making a comment about an aspect of the one we live in.
food is a huge part of what human beings do, and an extremely important basis for many cultural “traditions and practices.”
Yes, I agree with this.
Calling food-related practices “consumption,” as if they have no further cultural significance is an example of what I object to about your attitude towards our “culture.”
By “consumption” I don’t mean “something you eat”. I’m referring to consumption as a stance toward a cultural practice. I.e., your role as a participant.
Look, lots of my mother’s people used to make braided rag rugs. Everyone in the family would save our rags, and they would make rugs out of them. It wasn’t a quaint romantic thing, it was just where they (and we) got rugs.
And, it was a cultural practice that involved craft knowledge passed down for some number generations, and a kind of cool funky colorful esthetic because the rags were all different colors and fabrics, and it was a social thing because they’d sit together and make the rugs, and it expressed a cultural value of re-using any available thing until it turned into dust.
They weren’t poor people, at least at that point, they could have bought the rugs. It was just *part of their culture* to make the rugs. Specifically, *making* the rugs. Hanging out doing something together, doing something that had been passed down to them, turning rags into something useful and attractive.
Nowadays most folks would buy a rag rug, and they have a particular kind of stylish cachet because they used to be something people made by hand. So, you can buy the vibe of handcraft, without actually making the rug. I don’t know where or how they are made, they probably come from Pakistan.
If you want a hand-made one with a “real vintage look” you can in fact get them on Etsy.
And as an aside, if you’re looking for “extreme romanticism”, selling something on a website and saying it’s special because it’s hand-made and has a “vintage look” is romantic nostalgia to a T.
I have no problem with the person selling rag rugs on Etsy, they look like nice rugs. I have no problem with you or anyone else eating whatever they like to eat. I recognize the benefits that have come to us through industrial production, and I don’t expect everyone to sit around in the evening making braided rag rugs if they would rather just buy a damned rug.
What I am saying is that our own culture has become, to a pretty large degree, commodified, and the way that most folks participate in it is as consumers, as opposed to active participants and practicioners.
You seem to have a narrow, extremely romanticized, view of what people should be like.
No, I don’t think I do. I don’t think I really have any specific view of what people should be like. People should be like themselves.
Under your definition, a large, diverse society such as ours could never have a common culture.
It’s likely that a large, diverse society like ours WILL NOT have a thoroughly common culture. It most likely SHOULD NOT have one, because we’re large and diverse.
But, in fact, a huge part of our culture is our ability to look outward and embrace other people’s ways.
A huge part of the culture of SOME PARTS of the country is an interest in looking outward and embracing other people’s ways.
I guess I’ll pile onto the threadjack.
I’d be curious what russell means by cultural and educational engagement. He gave a high level definition, but I’d be helped by some examples. I think I disagree with him, but I don’t have a strong grasp of what he means. Russell, if you don’t care to answer, that’s fine too. It will hold for another time, I’m sure.
LJ: I’ve always had a problem with the “passport issue”. Mostly for the reasons outlined in the CNN article. Travel outside the country is fairly expensive and there is a lot of diversity within the nation.
Not saying foreign travel isn’t good for a lot of cultural reasons, but if you’re in Paris its pretty easy to take a train to a dozen different countries. For large swathes of america, you’re talking hundreds or thousands of dollars and a day of travel each way. A lot of people don’t have that money.
There’s also fairly high importance given to “working hard” in america and vacations/years off aren’t valued as highly as I’ve noticed from some of my European friends. Then again, those are mostly people who have made the trip to america…so a lot of selection going on there.
And I think its self-reinforcing…if none of your friends travel abroad, there is less impetus for you to travel abroad. With an activation energy that’s pretty high already (money, work), you’re not going to see that much travel abroad.
I don’t know if its due to americans being exceptionally incurious about other cultures or the combination of diversity in country and the price to get out.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter, because the end result is less cultural exposure.
And what HSH said. Bluntly, the hammered happened before the holiday’s were absorbed…they just provided a great excuse.
I guess I’ll pile onto the threadjack.
I’d be curious what russell means by cultural and educational engagement. He gave a high level definition, but I’d be helped by some examples. I think I disagree with him, but I don’t have a strong grasp of what he means. Russell, if you don’t care to answer, that’s fine too. It will hold for another time, I’m sure.
LJ: I’ve always had a problem with the “passport issue”. Mostly for the reasons outlined in the CNN article. Travel outside the country is fairly expensive and there is a lot of diversity within the nation.
Not saying foreign travel isn’t good for a lot of cultural reasons, but if you’re in Paris its pretty easy to take a train to a dozen different countries. For large swathes of america, you’re talking hundreds or thousands of dollars and a day of travel each way. A lot of people don’t have that money.
There’s also fairly high importance given to “working hard” in america and vacations/years off aren’t valued as highly as I’ve noticed from some of my European friends. Then again, those are mostly people who have made the trip to america…so a lot of selection going on there.
And I think its self-reinforcing…if none of your friends travel abroad, there is less impetus for you to travel abroad. With an activation energy that’s pretty high already (money, work), you’re not going to see that much travel abroad.
I don’t know if its due to americans being exceptionally incurious about other cultures or the combination of diversity in country and the price to get out.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter, because the end result is less cultural exposure.
And what HSH said. Bluntly, the hammered happened before the holiday’s were absorbed…they just provided a great excuse.
I’d be helped by some examples.
Sure. Apologies if this basically shows up twice, I wrote essentially what I’m writing here in reply to sapient’s last, it appears to have disappeared.
The women in my mother’s family used to make braided rag rugs. They look like this. Everyone would save up their rags and they would make rugs out of them.
This involved some craft knowledge passed down across some number of generations, and also a kind of lively funky aesthetic because the rags were all colors and patterns, and also a social thing because they’d hang out together and make the rugs, and also a basic cultural ethic of using and re-using stuff until there was nothing left of it.
So, a cultural practice.
This wasn’t a quaint romantic thing, it was just people making rugs, like people do (or, did). And it wasn’t cause they were poor, at that point they weren’t, it was just *part of their culture* to make rugs. Specifically, *making* rugs. Their role in the cultural practice was active engagement. Their culture was something they *did*.
Nowadays if you want a braided rug you’d probably buy one, and in fact they have a certain stylish cachet because they used to be a handcraft. I don’t know where or how they’re made or by whom, I imagine they are either manufactured or else they come from Pakistan or someplace similar.
If you want the real old-school deal, there is in fact someone selling them on Etsy. Where they are advertised as having that “hand woven vintage look”.
Which is, as it turns out, “extreme romanticism” and nostalgia in spades. Not that somebody is making these and offering them for sale, but the fact that the big selling point is that it looks old.
So, folks used to make these things, now they mostly buy them. But, part of what they like about them is that they remind them of when folks like them used to just make them.
I’m fine with folks buying braided rugs, I’m fine with crafters making them by hand, I’m fine with folks selling their hand-made stuff on Etsy. I don’t expect or particularly desire that folks spend their evenings sitting around the fire (or, as my mother’s folks would do, the TV) making rugs.
I recognize all of the benefits that have accrued from industrialization, and don’t pine away for the days when we all did everything for ourselves by hand. If anyone is doing that, it’s the folks lining up to buy what used to be a plain old functional household item because it has that “vintage look”. And, there’s nothing wrong with that either, everyone pines away from something or other.
My complete and total point is that in the US our culture has largely been commodified, and the way in which we participate with it is as consumers.
Not absolutely and completely, but to quite a large degree.
As a culture, a lot of what we do – a lot of our common life and values and activities – is some kind of shopping. That, or spectator events.
I personally don’t think that’s all good, because it’s kind of a second hand experience, and a passive one. YMMV, each to their own.
I’d be helped by some examples.
Sure. Apologies if this basically shows up twice, I wrote essentially what I’m writing here in reply to sapient’s last, it appears to have disappeared.
The women in my mother’s family used to make braided rag rugs. They look like this. Everyone would save up their rags and they would make rugs out of them.
This involved some craft knowledge passed down across some number of generations, and also a kind of lively funky aesthetic because the rags were all colors and patterns, and also a social thing because they’d hang out together and make the rugs, and also a basic cultural ethic of using and re-using stuff until there was nothing left of it.
So, a cultural practice.
This wasn’t a quaint romantic thing, it was just people making rugs, like people do (or, did). And it wasn’t cause they were poor, at that point they weren’t, it was just *part of their culture* to make rugs. Specifically, *making* rugs. Their role in the cultural practice was active engagement. Their culture was something they *did*.
Nowadays if you want a braided rug you’d probably buy one, and in fact they have a certain stylish cachet because they used to be a handcraft. I don’t know where or how they’re made or by whom, I imagine they are either manufactured or else they come from Pakistan or someplace similar.
If you want the real old-school deal, there is in fact someone selling them on Etsy. Where they are advertised as having that “hand woven vintage look”.
Which is, as it turns out, “extreme romanticism” and nostalgia in spades. Not that somebody is making these and offering them for sale, but the fact that the big selling point is that it looks old.
So, folks used to make these things, now they mostly buy them. But, part of what they like about them is that they remind them of when folks like them used to just make them.
I’m fine with folks buying braided rugs, I’m fine with crafters making them by hand, I’m fine with folks selling their hand-made stuff on Etsy. I don’t expect or particularly desire that folks spend their evenings sitting around the fire (or, as my mother’s folks would do, the TV) making rugs.
I recognize all of the benefits that have accrued from industrialization, and don’t pine away for the days when we all did everything for ourselves by hand. If anyone is doing that, it’s the folks lining up to buy what used to be a plain old functional household item because it has that “vintage look”. And, there’s nothing wrong with that either, everyone pines away from something or other.
My complete and total point is that in the US our culture has largely been commodified, and the way in which we participate with it is as consumers.
Not absolutely and completely, but to quite a large degree.
As a culture, a lot of what we do – a lot of our common life and values and activities – is some kind of shopping. That, or spectator events.
I personally don’t think that’s all good, because it’s kind of a second hand experience, and a passive one. YMMV, each to their own.
also, please don’t get all hung up on the braided rugs. THEY AREN’T THE POINT, they’re just an example.
also, please don’t get all hung up on the braided rugs. THEY AREN’T THE POINT, they’re just an example.
I actually regret not to have the skill for that kind of craftwork. I buy those rugs because I cannot make them myself. It has little to do with nostalghia in this case.
When thinking about the consumerization of culture it went more into the direction of art. High Art seems to be something that the younger generation seems to show little interest in and will NOT develop it when getting older (as the older generations used to do). I see cultural illiteracy spreading over here too, although not YET to the degree I observe in the US. I think that it is a telltale sign that these days one cannot even presume as a given any longer that kids encounter the Grimm Brothers or at least not in the traditional form (if at all then Disneyfied). I consider myself relatively cultured but even I lack a lot of knowledge of the classics that the generation of my parents would have taken for granted. Classical music is used to chase loitering youngsters away from shop entrances.
And I am not one of those critics that don’t know whether they should love or hate the authoress of Harry Potter (she got kids to read very thick books but those books were entertaining and therefore without any literary value*).
*It’s difficult to imagine how hated Kipling was among German critics for the same reason. His books HAD to be trash because they were readable (even by commoners).
I actually regret not to have the skill for that kind of craftwork. I buy those rugs because I cannot make them myself. It has little to do with nostalghia in this case.
When thinking about the consumerization of culture it went more into the direction of art. High Art seems to be something that the younger generation seems to show little interest in and will NOT develop it when getting older (as the older generations used to do). I see cultural illiteracy spreading over here too, although not YET to the degree I observe in the US. I think that it is a telltale sign that these days one cannot even presume as a given any longer that kids encounter the Grimm Brothers or at least not in the traditional form (if at all then Disneyfied). I consider myself relatively cultured but even I lack a lot of knowledge of the classics that the generation of my parents would have taken for granted. Classical music is used to chase loitering youngsters away from shop entrances.
And I am not one of those critics that don’t know whether they should love or hate the authoress of Harry Potter (she got kids to read very thick books but those books were entertaining and therefore without any literary value*).
*It’s difficult to imagine how hated Kipling was among German critics for the same reason. His books HAD to be trash because they were readable (even by commoners).
thompson: There’s also fairly high importance given to “working hard” in america and vacations/years off aren’t valued as highly as I’ve noticed from some of my European friends.”
Yes, indeed. That would be a “cultural” thing. And I basically agree with everything thompson has said here.
russell: My complete and total point is that in the US our culture has largely been commodified, and the way in which we participate with it is as consumers.
That’s not true of me, or of people I know. Most of my friends (and I) have various home crafts that they do, even including braiding rugs. Some of these same people buy hand-crafted things, for the very reason that you, russell, often talk about (and romanticize): either supporting local people who do things locally, or at least supporting someone who is trying to make a living doing something besides working for the Man. Because, hey, if we don’t do that stuff ourselves, we can support someone who does. Because basically, the only people who have a lot of time to do those things are: 1) people who can afford to, or 2) people who are without a job and dirt poor.
And when we do it, or even buy it, it’s not because it’s “a commodity.”
Sure, not everyone feels that way, and a lot of people don’t make anything, and don’t value anything, except for its price tag. But plenty of people do. I honestly, russell, don’t know where you’re coming from that you think that most Americans have no sense of culture.
And back to food: I’m sorry, but if you don’t understand that food is a giant cultural subject, and very vibrant in the United States, you’re missing a great deal of contemporary culture.
thompson: There’s also fairly high importance given to “working hard” in america and vacations/years off aren’t valued as highly as I’ve noticed from some of my European friends.”
Yes, indeed. That would be a “cultural” thing. And I basically agree with everything thompson has said here.
russell: My complete and total point is that in the US our culture has largely been commodified, and the way in which we participate with it is as consumers.
That’s not true of me, or of people I know. Most of my friends (and I) have various home crafts that they do, even including braiding rugs. Some of these same people buy hand-crafted things, for the very reason that you, russell, often talk about (and romanticize): either supporting local people who do things locally, or at least supporting someone who is trying to make a living doing something besides working for the Man. Because, hey, if we don’t do that stuff ourselves, we can support someone who does. Because basically, the only people who have a lot of time to do those things are: 1) people who can afford to, or 2) people who are without a job and dirt poor.
And when we do it, or even buy it, it’s not because it’s “a commodity.”
Sure, not everyone feels that way, and a lot of people don’t make anything, and don’t value anything, except for its price tag. But plenty of people do. I honestly, russell, don’t know where you’re coming from that you think that most Americans have no sense of culture.
And back to food: I’m sorry, but if you don’t understand that food is a giant cultural subject, and very vibrant in the United States, you’re missing a great deal of contemporary culture.
Thanks russell, I appreciate the response. But I’m still not quite getting it and I’d impose on your one more time.
I get together with my friends/family and we brew beer. I attended a knitting club for awhile, not because I like knitting, but it was my friends and they met at a good coffee shop.
I have friends who weld, work on cars with their friends. I spend afternoons slow cooking meat on a grill with friends.
Hikers, rock climbers, bikers both pedal and motor…I know people that do all of these things with groups of people.
I know a few artists and more people that attend art shows. I know musicians and more people that attend music festivals.
I know people who play sports in local intramurals, I know people that play golf at the muni.
Nor do I think I’m especially outgoing and adventurous (pretty much the opposite, actually, but I try).
I guess where I’m lost is why none of those things are “making a rug.” You have groups that get together around their shared interests, and a lot of those interests are “making things”. Beer, wine, sweaters, fast cars, gardens, preserves…or even just memories.
Or maybe I’m just incredibly fortunate in the company I keep and this isn’t your experience at all?
I’d agree that’s not what’s on TV…but I don’t know that I view TV as a window to american society. I mean “real housewives”? Seriously?
Thanks russell, I appreciate the response. But I’m still not quite getting it and I’d impose on your one more time.
I get together with my friends/family and we brew beer. I attended a knitting club for awhile, not because I like knitting, but it was my friends and they met at a good coffee shop.
I have friends who weld, work on cars with their friends. I spend afternoons slow cooking meat on a grill with friends.
Hikers, rock climbers, bikers both pedal and motor…I know people that do all of these things with groups of people.
I know a few artists and more people that attend art shows. I know musicians and more people that attend music festivals.
I know people who play sports in local intramurals, I know people that play golf at the muni.
Nor do I think I’m especially outgoing and adventurous (pretty much the opposite, actually, but I try).
I guess where I’m lost is why none of those things are “making a rug.” You have groups that get together around their shared interests, and a lot of those interests are “making things”. Beer, wine, sweaters, fast cars, gardens, preserves…or even just memories.
Or maybe I’m just incredibly fortunate in the company I keep and this isn’t your experience at all?
I’d agree that’s not what’s on TV…but I don’t know that I view TV as a window to american society. I mean “real housewives”? Seriously?
Hartmut:
” I consider myself relatively cultured but even I lack a lot of knowledge of the classics that the generation of my parents would have taken for granted. Classical music is used to chase loitering youngsters away from shop entrances.”
I think, as someone not trained in the humanities at all, that the constant loss of culture (the classics that fade with time) is itself an indicator for an active culture.
Can you imagine a world where old composers aren’t supplanted by new ones and still consider it to have an active culture? Authors? Artists?
Note, I’m not saying Brahms was bad and has been surpassed, or that there is no worth in experiencing his music (I chose Brahms randomly).
Just saying there is a lot of value to contemporary culture as well. Just because someone isn’t versed in classical literature that was a staple 20, 30, 50 years ago doesn’t mean they lack culture.
In my opinion.
Hartmut:
” I consider myself relatively cultured but even I lack a lot of knowledge of the classics that the generation of my parents would have taken for granted. Classical music is used to chase loitering youngsters away from shop entrances.”
I think, as someone not trained in the humanities at all, that the constant loss of culture (the classics that fade with time) is itself an indicator for an active culture.
Can you imagine a world where old composers aren’t supplanted by new ones and still consider it to have an active culture? Authors? Artists?
Note, I’m not saying Brahms was bad and has been surpassed, or that there is no worth in experiencing his music (I chose Brahms randomly).
Just saying there is a lot of value to contemporary culture as well. Just because someone isn’t versed in classical literature that was a staple 20, 30, 50 years ago doesn’t mean they lack culture.
In my opinion.
Hartmut: High Art seems to be something that the younger generation seems to show little interest in and will NOT develop it when getting older (as the older generations used to do).
It’s been rare in history that “high art” was enjoyed and appreciated by the “masses”. In fact that phenomenon goes against the definition of “high art”, which assumes an elite. There is still an elite in the United States who appreciates “high art”. Many people (such as myself) try to appreciate it and support it. Urban art museums are extremely well attended.
Sure, more popular is “popular” art and music. Wonder why that is.
Hartmut: High Art seems to be something that the younger generation seems to show little interest in and will NOT develop it when getting older (as the older generations used to do).
It’s been rare in history that “high art” was enjoyed and appreciated by the “masses”. In fact that phenomenon goes against the definition of “high art”, which assumes an elite. There is still an elite in the United States who appreciates “high art”. Many people (such as myself) try to appreciate it and support it. Urban art museums are extremely well attended.
Sure, more popular is “popular” art and music. Wonder why that is.
That’s not true of me, or of people I know.
That’s great.
Some of these same people buy hand-crafted things, for the very reason that you, russell, often talk about (and romanticize)
You lost me at “romanticize”.
the only people who have a lot of time to do those things are: 1) people who can afford to, or 2) people who are without a job and dirt poor.
OK, a couple of points here.
First, what you’re saying here is that participating more actively in your own culture is something that has to be relegated to more or less a hobby. Which is kind of half-way to my own point.
Another thing I’d say is that people have time for lots of things. TV, the gym, surfing the web, Facebook. Where you choose to spend your time and attention is part of what constructs the culture you live in.
Look, a week from today is going to be one of the most significant days of the year. Why? Because everyone is going to go buy stuff, and that is going to make or break the year for a lot of the retail industry. The sales figures for the day will be a significant topic of conversation for weeks, as will the sales numbers for the overall holiday season.
The 21 programs with the largest viewing audiences in US history are all SuperBowls. Something like half the population of the country watches. A big feature of the SuperBowl is what new commercials are rolled out. Folks talk about it for weeks, the SuperBowl ads are iconic cultural artifacts.
Americans don’t just buy stuff, they have elaborated an entire culture around buying stuff.
I honestly, russell, don’t know where you’re coming from that you think that most Americans have no sense of culture.
I’m not saying Americans have no sense of culture. I’m commenting on what that culture is, and in particular on how people participate in it.
I would *also* say that, following on Hartmut’s comments re: the Grimms, that there are serious gaps in many if not most folks’ knowledge of their own heritage.
if you don’t understand that food is a giant cultural subject
I do understand that.
Look, for “consumer” in my comments upthread, I think you’re reading “somebody who eats”. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’d think that would be obvious, perhaps it’s not.
In any case, our experience, or perhaps our understanding of our experience, of living here in the US differs.
So be it.
That’s not true of me, or of people I know.
That’s great.
Some of these same people buy hand-crafted things, for the very reason that you, russell, often talk about (and romanticize)
You lost me at “romanticize”.
the only people who have a lot of time to do those things are: 1) people who can afford to, or 2) people who are without a job and dirt poor.
OK, a couple of points here.
First, what you’re saying here is that participating more actively in your own culture is something that has to be relegated to more or less a hobby. Which is kind of half-way to my own point.
Another thing I’d say is that people have time for lots of things. TV, the gym, surfing the web, Facebook. Where you choose to spend your time and attention is part of what constructs the culture you live in.
Look, a week from today is going to be one of the most significant days of the year. Why? Because everyone is going to go buy stuff, and that is going to make or break the year for a lot of the retail industry. The sales figures for the day will be a significant topic of conversation for weeks, as will the sales numbers for the overall holiday season.
The 21 programs with the largest viewing audiences in US history are all SuperBowls. Something like half the population of the country watches. A big feature of the SuperBowl is what new commercials are rolled out. Folks talk about it for weeks, the SuperBowl ads are iconic cultural artifacts.
Americans don’t just buy stuff, they have elaborated an entire culture around buying stuff.
I honestly, russell, don’t know where you’re coming from that you think that most Americans have no sense of culture.
I’m not saying Americans have no sense of culture. I’m commenting on what that culture is, and in particular on how people participate in it.
I would *also* say that, following on Hartmut’s comments re: the Grimms, that there are serious gaps in many if not most folks’ knowledge of their own heritage.
if you don’t understand that food is a giant cultural subject
I do understand that.
Look, for “consumer” in my comments upthread, I think you’re reading “somebody who eats”. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’d think that would be obvious, perhaps it’s not.
In any case, our experience, or perhaps our understanding of our experience, of living here in the US differs.
So be it.
Or maybe I’m just incredibly fortunate in the company I keep and this isn’t your experience at all?
I would say that you and your friends are going a lot of good stuff. In terms of whether you’re “culturally engaged” or not, I would say that you are.
I don’t know that I view TV as a window to american society.
Not exclusively, no.
Can you imagine a world where old composers aren’t supplanted by new ones and still consider it to have an active culture? Authors? Artists?
That’s a reasonable point, but do you know many people who can name a contemporary composer / author / artist, or who have listened to / read / gone to see their work?
Not saying “high art” is the measure of “culture”, just saying that your comment isn’t making the point I think you’re trying to make.
It’s been rare in history that “high art” was enjoyed and appreciated by the “masses”. In fact that phenomenon goes against the definition of “high art”, which assumes an elite.
I’m not sure this is so. It may have been so before the artifacts of high art could be reproduced readily, but I think it is less so now.
Until recently, most people had heard and would recognize the more famous classical musical pieces, because they would have heard them on the radio if not in person. Record companies used to sell anthologies of classical “greatest hits” for the average American family to buy, like a musical encyclopedia.
Folks would have seen at least a print or reproduction of a good selection of the more famous art works.
I don’t know if this is still so.
In 1957, Warner Brothers released “What’s Opera, Doc?” which, in true demotic WB cartoon fashion, made fun of the pretensions of high art. What makes the whole thing work is the assumption that the average man on the street will recognize, frex, the “Ride of the Valkyrie”.
If you sang “Ride of the Valkyrie” while wearing a costume involving a weird corset, long blond braids, and a viking helmet nowadays, for an audience of young people, would they get the joke?
Or maybe I’m just incredibly fortunate in the company I keep and this isn’t your experience at all?
I would say that you and your friends are going a lot of good stuff. In terms of whether you’re “culturally engaged” or not, I would say that you are.
I don’t know that I view TV as a window to american society.
Not exclusively, no.
Can you imagine a world where old composers aren’t supplanted by new ones and still consider it to have an active culture? Authors? Artists?
That’s a reasonable point, but do you know many people who can name a contemporary composer / author / artist, or who have listened to / read / gone to see their work?
Not saying “high art” is the measure of “culture”, just saying that your comment isn’t making the point I think you’re trying to make.
It’s been rare in history that “high art” was enjoyed and appreciated by the “masses”. In fact that phenomenon goes against the definition of “high art”, which assumes an elite.
I’m not sure this is so. It may have been so before the artifacts of high art could be reproduced readily, but I think it is less so now.
Until recently, most people had heard and would recognize the more famous classical musical pieces, because they would have heard them on the radio if not in person. Record companies used to sell anthologies of classical “greatest hits” for the average American family to buy, like a musical encyclopedia.
Folks would have seen at least a print or reproduction of a good selection of the more famous art works.
I don’t know if this is still so.
In 1957, Warner Brothers released “What’s Opera, Doc?” which, in true demotic WB cartoon fashion, made fun of the pretensions of high art. What makes the whole thing work is the assumption that the average man on the street will recognize, frex, the “Ride of the Valkyrie”.
If you sang “Ride of the Valkyrie” while wearing a costume involving a weird corset, long blond braids, and a viking helmet nowadays, for an audience of young people, would they get the joke?
russell, I have to tell you that when I was last visiting my family my young nieces and nephews didn’t know who Groucho was. Kids these days!
russell, I have to tell you that when I was last visiting my family my young nieces and nephews didn’t know who Groucho was. Kids these days!
First, what you’re saying here is that participating more actively in your own culture is something that has to be relegated to more or less a hobby. Which is kind of half-way to my own point.
But, wait a minute, what I do is “a hobby,” but what your mother did was “culture”? I go to work, and that’s part of my culture too. Maybe she did too, and that was part of her culture too?
Look, a week from today is going to be one of the most significant days of the year. Why? Because everyone is going to go buy stuff, and that is going to make or break the year for a lot of the retail industry. The sales figures for the day will be a significant topic of conversation for weeks, as will the sales numbers for the overall holiday season.
That’s funny. When I first started reading that paragraph, I thought you were talking about Thanksgiving, which is the biggest “cultural” holiday that my extended family enjoys together every year. There are loads of traditions associated with the holiday, including making stuff to eat, gathering with particular people, etc.
Sure, the next day is a big shopping day in the U.S., but that didn’t even register with me (as, apparently, Thanksgiving didn’t register much with you). To the extent that people do participate in “Black Friday”, so what that it involves shopping for gifts for Christmas? It’s not the decline of civilization IMO.
Look, for “consumer” in my comments upthread, I think you’re reading “somebody who eats”.
No, I didn’t think that’s what you meant – I understood you to mean “someone who shops.” But the fact that you didn’t seem to value the fact that many Americans’ attitudes towards food, its preparation, its presentation, its quality, its diversity – all of that is a very significant and rich cultural aspect of our contemporary culture.
I would *also* say that, following on Hartmut’s comments re: the Grimms, that there are serious gaps in many if not most folks’ knowledge of their own heritage.
Perhaps many people have “gaps”. I’m with thompson – there’s not necessarily room for everyone to curate every aspect of their own “heritage.” Participating in contemporary culture is already a time-consuming job, and can yield very meaningful results.
In any case, our experience, or perhaps our understanding of our experience, of living here in the US differs.
Very much so.
First, what you’re saying here is that participating more actively in your own culture is something that has to be relegated to more or less a hobby. Which is kind of half-way to my own point.
But, wait a minute, what I do is “a hobby,” but what your mother did was “culture”? I go to work, and that’s part of my culture too. Maybe she did too, and that was part of her culture too?
Look, a week from today is going to be one of the most significant days of the year. Why? Because everyone is going to go buy stuff, and that is going to make or break the year for a lot of the retail industry. The sales figures for the day will be a significant topic of conversation for weeks, as will the sales numbers for the overall holiday season.
That’s funny. When I first started reading that paragraph, I thought you were talking about Thanksgiving, which is the biggest “cultural” holiday that my extended family enjoys together every year. There are loads of traditions associated with the holiday, including making stuff to eat, gathering with particular people, etc.
Sure, the next day is a big shopping day in the U.S., but that didn’t even register with me (as, apparently, Thanksgiving didn’t register much with you). To the extent that people do participate in “Black Friday”, so what that it involves shopping for gifts for Christmas? It’s not the decline of civilization IMO.
Look, for “consumer” in my comments upthread, I think you’re reading “somebody who eats”.
No, I didn’t think that’s what you meant – I understood you to mean “someone who shops.” But the fact that you didn’t seem to value the fact that many Americans’ attitudes towards food, its preparation, its presentation, its quality, its diversity – all of that is a very significant and rich cultural aspect of our contemporary culture.
I would *also* say that, following on Hartmut’s comments re: the Grimms, that there are serious gaps in many if not most folks’ knowledge of their own heritage.
Perhaps many people have “gaps”. I’m with thompson – there’s not necessarily room for everyone to curate every aspect of their own “heritage.” Participating in contemporary culture is already a time-consuming job, and can yield very meaningful results.
In any case, our experience, or perhaps our understanding of our experience, of living here in the US differs.
Very much so.
I prefer that piece to be accompanied by helicopters, myself.
I prefer that piece to be accompanied by helicopters, myself.
Ride of the Valkyrie, that is. A couple snuck in while I was reading/typing. Whatever comic timing there might have been…is lost.
Ride of the Valkyrie, that is. A couple snuck in while I was reading/typing. Whatever comic timing there might have been…is lost.
Until recently, most people had heard and would recognize the more famous classical musical pieces, because they would have heard them on the radio if not in person. Record companies used to sell anthologies of classical “greatest hits” for the average American family to buy, like a musical encyclopedia.
Until recently, there was no such thing as radio. Maybe one generation would have (all together, shared in common) heard classical music on the radio, because that was the only channel for awhile. Before that, classical music was for an elite who went to concerts, or could afford a piano and lessons.
Maybe in 19th and early 20th century Europe, most people took music lessons and learned classical music. I would argue that it was a very brief span of time that such was the case, if it ever really was. In the United States, most people learned folk music, religious hymns, etc., and if they played an instrument, it was toward the end of playing such music.
Until recently, most people had heard and would recognize the more famous classical musical pieces, because they would have heard them on the radio if not in person. Record companies used to sell anthologies of classical “greatest hits” for the average American family to buy, like a musical encyclopedia.
Until recently, there was no such thing as radio. Maybe one generation would have (all together, shared in common) heard classical music on the radio, because that was the only channel for awhile. Before that, classical music was for an elite who went to concerts, or could afford a piano and lessons.
Maybe in 19th and early 20th century Europe, most people took music lessons and learned classical music. I would argue that it was a very brief span of time that such was the case, if it ever really was. In the United States, most people learned folk music, religious hymns, etc., and if they played an instrument, it was toward the end of playing such music.
In the United States, most people learned folk music, religious hymns, etc., and if they played an instrument, it was toward the end of playing such music.
Which would have been far more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s.
In the United States, most people learned folk music, religious hymns, etc., and if they played an instrument, it was toward the end of playing such music.
Which would have been far more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s.
Groucho, wasn’t that Macbeth’s brother-in-law?
(OK that’s a tiny bit TOO geeky)
OK, here’s a nice test for youngsters. Go through this virtual gallery* and tell how many of these you ‘get’. Now let a common European (or an educated USian) above 50 years try the same. Compare the results.
*this is but a tiny selection of this group’s work
Groucho, wasn’t that Macbeth’s brother-in-law?
(OK that’s a tiny bit TOO geeky)
OK, here’s a nice test for youngsters. Go through this virtual gallery* and tell how many of these you ‘get’. Now let a common European (or an educated USian) above 50 years try the same. Compare the results.
*this is but a tiny selection of this group’s work
Which would have been far more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s.
Wait a minute – more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s of Beethoven’s 5th?
Which would have been far more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s.
Wait a minute – more culturally engaging than downloading MP3s of Beethoven’s 5th?
Certainly, if you’re talking about the disco version.
Certainly, if you’re talking about the disco version.
sapient, if we go to that basic level, you could throw reading and writing in as relatively recent too. 18th century Prussia was revolutionary by making attending school compulsory and other Western countries followed significantly later. Today functional analphabetism is a growing problem. In Germany there are estimates that up to 15% of the citizenry lacks basic reading and writing competence (although they all went to school). My estimate is that in the US it would be even worse. The fact that these days a lot can be done without having those skills (visual and audio signals replacing written ones) is imo likely to worsen* that trend.
*my apology to language purists. While that word might have been correct in Shakespeare’s time, these days it clearly counts as language abuse.;-)
sapient, if we go to that basic level, you could throw reading and writing in as relatively recent too. 18th century Prussia was revolutionary by making attending school compulsory and other Western countries followed significantly later. Today functional analphabetism is a growing problem. In Germany there are estimates that up to 15% of the citizenry lacks basic reading and writing competence (although they all went to school). My estimate is that in the US it would be even worse. The fact that these days a lot can be done without having those skills (visual and audio signals replacing written ones) is imo likely to worsen* that trend.
*my apology to language purists. While that word might have been correct in Shakespeare’s time, these days it clearly counts as language abuse.;-)
Well, as russell once said (paraphrased of course), artists are going to do art. My rejoinder is people are going to do culture.
I find my own life very culturally rich, and I observe friends and family doing things that seem culturally meaningful. It’s true that we don’t all do exactly the same thing, but variations are meaningful too.
Well, as russell once said (paraphrased of course), artists are going to do art. My rejoinder is people are going to do culture.
I find my own life very culturally rich, and I observe friends and family doing things that seem culturally meaningful. It’s true that we don’t all do exactly the same thing, but variations are meaningful too.
During Beethoven’s lifetime it was not uncommon to put an ad into the local paper or pin it to some trees when musicians were needed to premiere some of his works. At least one of his symphonies got its first public performance with an orchestra consisting to a high degree of non-professionals. There might not have been a piano in every household but in most families, even poor ones, at least one person had reasonable skill on a musical instrument (little other wholesome entertainment being available). The main question was, whether they were also able to read a score. That tradition got destroyed first by the grammophone, then by radio. And it got noticed and lamented by contemporaries.
During Beethoven’s lifetime it was not uncommon to put an ad into the local paper or pin it to some trees when musicians were needed to premiere some of his works. At least one of his symphonies got its first public performance with an orchestra consisting to a high degree of non-professionals. There might not have been a piano in every household but in most families, even poor ones, at least one person had reasonable skill on a musical instrument (little other wholesome entertainment being available). The main question was, whether they were also able to read a score. That tradition got destroyed first by the grammophone, then by radio. And it got noticed and lamented by contemporaries.
Certainly, if you’re talking about the disco version.
My favorite poem.
Certainly, if you’re talking about the disco version.
My favorite poem.
when I was last visiting my family my young nieces and nephews didn’t know who Groucho was.
Dude, that’s criminal.
you didn’t seem to value the fact that many Americans’ attitudes towards food
What I didn’t do is make a specific reply to your comment about food. The rest was your inference.
I prefer that piece to be accompanied by helicopters, myself.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
My rejoinder is people are going to do culture.
It’s inescapable. It’s what humans do.
I find my own life very culturally rich
That’s great.
All of this has reminded me, for some reason, of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Tabitha Soren asking “Who is the loneliest monk?”
The memory of which gave me a good laugh.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
when I was last visiting my family my young nieces and nephews didn’t know who Groucho was.
Dude, that’s criminal.
you didn’t seem to value the fact that many Americans’ attitudes towards food
What I didn’t do is make a specific reply to your comment about food. The rest was your inference.
I prefer that piece to be accompanied by helicopters, myself.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
My rejoinder is people are going to do culture.
It’s inescapable. It’s what humans do.
I find my own life very culturally rich
That’s great.
All of this has reminded me, for some reason, of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Tabitha Soren asking “Who is the loneliest monk?”
The memory of which gave me a good laugh.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
sapient, I don’t want to sound overly confrontational, but your counter-argument to russell sounds more than a little bourgeois in character. The fact that a subset of the populace actively pursue cultural hobbies and the arts, or that they enjoy the vibrant “foodie” subculture, doesn’t really speak to the cultural experiences of an awful lot of Americans. Commodified pop culture has replaced shared common culture for vast swathes of us, and we really don’t get much of any exposure to other cultures – or even our older common culture. This hasn’t been the case for me, but it has for most of my family and the people I grew up with. One can argue that this is natural and organic, and nothing more than culture evolving, but it’s not the same; when shared culture is reduced to a stream of commercialized intellectual properties, there’s less continuity from one generation to the next. And ultimate, culture is about continuity.
sapient, I don’t want to sound overly confrontational, but your counter-argument to russell sounds more than a little bourgeois in character. The fact that a subset of the populace actively pursue cultural hobbies and the arts, or that they enjoy the vibrant “foodie” subculture, doesn’t really speak to the cultural experiences of an awful lot of Americans. Commodified pop culture has replaced shared common culture for vast swathes of us, and we really don’t get much of any exposure to other cultures – or even our older common culture. This hasn’t been the case for me, but it has for most of my family and the people I grew up with. One can argue that this is natural and organic, and nothing more than culture evolving, but it’s not the same; when shared culture is reduced to a stream of commercialized intellectual properties, there’s less continuity from one generation to the next. And ultimate, culture is about continuity.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
A few more, they are on sale.
At the risk of misstating, the sapient/thompson position is that people are doing lots of stuff, and they produce the artifacts, there are mp3 recordings of Beethoven, so why worry? Russell seems to be noting that when the reason for doing something changes, it really does change the activity. I’m partial to russell’s take, though there are areas, like brewing beer, where things are just fermenting away. (ha ha) And there is certainly an argument to be made that internet has made a lot more info and resources available, so now, if I decide I want to brew beer, I don’t have to try and source everything I need.
I remember, as a kid and you supported a football team, you’d get these kind of knock-offy t-shirts and hats, but now, you can get the actual jerseys. I also remember my mom was quite adept at making things, finding substitutes, that sort of thing. And I was (this, I really remember, that sort of childhood longing that never leaves you) as a kid never happy, cause those substitutes weren’t ‘the real thing’. So the seeds of decline were planted in me, as it were.
I suppose I come at this from a particular hobby horse, I have to deal with people (some of them actual linguists) who argue that we’ve got dictionaries and recordings so if some or most do disappear (as they are probably going to do) we don’t really need to worry, we’ve got the means to analyze them. This valuing of the object rather than the context it is embedded seems to be the problem here, at least to me.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
A few more, they are on sale.
At the risk of misstating, the sapient/thompson position is that people are doing lots of stuff, and they produce the artifacts, there are mp3 recordings of Beethoven, so why worry? Russell seems to be noting that when the reason for doing something changes, it really does change the activity. I’m partial to russell’s take, though there are areas, like brewing beer, where things are just fermenting away. (ha ha) And there is certainly an argument to be made that internet has made a lot more info and resources available, so now, if I decide I want to brew beer, I don’t have to try and source everything I need.
I remember, as a kid and you supported a football team, you’d get these kind of knock-offy t-shirts and hats, but now, you can get the actual jerseys. I also remember my mom was quite adept at making things, finding substitutes, that sort of thing. And I was (this, I really remember, that sort of childhood longing that never leaves you) as a kid never happy, cause those substitutes weren’t ‘the real thing’. So the seeds of decline were planted in me, as it were.
I suppose I come at this from a particular hobby horse, I have to deal with people (some of them actual linguists) who argue that we’ve got dictionaries and recordings so if some or most do disappear (as they are probably going to do) we don’t really need to worry, we’ve got the means to analyze them. This valuing of the object rather than the context it is embedded seems to be the problem here, at least to me.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
I don’t think that this conversation is a derailment from our questions about “what is a meaningful education, and is it available to the poor?” In fact, a conversation about culture lies at the heart of things. “Culture” is the difference between Ugh’s public and private school choices. The set of knowledge that we want people to share is the same thing as what we want our common culture to be, and “high culture” distinguishes the elite from the norm.
Nombrilisme Vide, you’re not confrontational. I don’t agree though that culture is necessarily about continuity, although culture based on history can be very meaningful. But in the end, it’s about finding common ground with one’s contemporaries. I’m not sure what your talking about when you mention that your family and old neighbors are culturally deprived. Why did they discard the culture of their past? Was it not meaningful to them? If it was worth passing on, who dropped the ball? I think that maybe some of what was our “older common culture” is a myth.
For example, classical music has never been the “common culture,” in the U.S. Maybe for one generation, a lot of people listened to the top classical hits on the radio, and were familiar with them – I don’t know. There were various types of folk music (some of which was archived by Alan Lomax). There was religious and other popular music. And various ethnic groups had traditional music that they brought with them. But all of that was constantly changing and evolving. Contemporary music is a further evolution. How much should we force people to engage in a culture that is apparently not meaningful to them?
I agree with Laura, that what we shouldn’t tolerate is civic ignorance.
I believe that a core curriculum should be taught. Also, there is a lot of research showing that music education (and probably other challenging learning) is good for the brain. So I’m all for high teaching standards. I just don’t know why we should wring our hands about people preferring some cultural activities over others. Enlightenment comes to people in different ways.
I think this particular train of derailed thought has consumed as many electrons as it probably deserves.
I don’t think that this conversation is a derailment from our questions about “what is a meaningful education, and is it available to the poor?” In fact, a conversation about culture lies at the heart of things. “Culture” is the difference between Ugh’s public and private school choices. The set of knowledge that we want people to share is the same thing as what we want our common culture to be, and “high culture” distinguishes the elite from the norm.
Nombrilisme Vide, you’re not confrontational. I don’t agree though that culture is necessarily about continuity, although culture based on history can be very meaningful. But in the end, it’s about finding common ground with one’s contemporaries. I’m not sure what your talking about when you mention that your family and old neighbors are culturally deprived. Why did they discard the culture of their past? Was it not meaningful to them? If it was worth passing on, who dropped the ball? I think that maybe some of what was our “older common culture” is a myth.
For example, classical music has never been the “common culture,” in the U.S. Maybe for one generation, a lot of people listened to the top classical hits on the radio, and were familiar with them – I don’t know. There were various types of folk music (some of which was archived by Alan Lomax). There was religious and other popular music. And various ethnic groups had traditional music that they brought with them. But all of that was constantly changing and evolving. Contemporary music is a further evolution. How much should we force people to engage in a culture that is apparently not meaningful to them?
I agree with Laura, that what we shouldn’t tolerate is civic ignorance.
I believe that a core curriculum should be taught. Also, there is a lot of research showing that music education (and probably other challenging learning) is good for the brain. So I’m all for high teaching standards. I just don’t know why we should wring our hands about people preferring some cultural activities over others. Enlightenment comes to people in different ways.
note, I thought that Russell’s spam binned comment was new, not the one he posted earlier.
note, I thought that Russell’s spam binned comment was new, not the one he posted earlier.
The set of knowledge that we want people to share is the same thing as what we want our common culture to be
is actually pretty much diametrically opposed to
I just don’t know why we should wring our hands about people preferring some cultural activities over others.
I suppose you can invoke a common culture and then reject the examples that people offer up, but you really ought to define what you think is ‘the set of knowledge we want people to share’.
I’d put Western Music in there, as I think Russell would. What would you have to replace it?
The set of knowledge that we want people to share is the same thing as what we want our common culture to be
is actually pretty much diametrically opposed to
I just don’t know why we should wring our hands about people preferring some cultural activities over others.
I suppose you can invoke a common culture and then reject the examples that people offer up, but you really ought to define what you think is ‘the set of knowledge we want people to share’.
I’d put Western Music in there, as I think Russell would. What would you have to replace it?
I think I understand Russell’s point now. A nation of spectators who buy experiences rather than have them. And watch reality shows.
I’m not sure we’re THAT bad.
Most of the people I know have some sort of creative or involving activity that they enjoy: cooking, making cards, crochet, playing an instrument or singing, playing a sport…
The only people I know who don’t do something like that are some of my disabled clients. They watch a lot of TV.
Anecdotal, of course, based on my upper middle class semi-retired milieu.
But we are a consumer society, no doubt about that. And, in my opinion, the number of lives spent in quiet desperation is too high. Too many people have to work too many hours to get by. Exhaustion is part of our culture. And depression. And those folks who rush from low paying job to lowpaying job, always juggling bills and kids and work, well they get stuck with a culture of fast food and TV because they don’t have the time or energy for anything else. That’s my idea of hell, actually.
But I’m an artist and my heart would shrivel up and die if I couldn’t be creative.
I think I understand Russell’s point now. A nation of spectators who buy experiences rather than have them. And watch reality shows.
I’m not sure we’re THAT bad.
Most of the people I know have some sort of creative or involving activity that they enjoy: cooking, making cards, crochet, playing an instrument or singing, playing a sport…
The only people I know who don’t do something like that are some of my disabled clients. They watch a lot of TV.
Anecdotal, of course, based on my upper middle class semi-retired milieu.
But we are a consumer society, no doubt about that. And, in my opinion, the number of lives spent in quiet desperation is too high. Too many people have to work too many hours to get by. Exhaustion is part of our culture. And depression. And those folks who rush from low paying job to lowpaying job, always juggling bills and kids and work, well they get stuck with a culture of fast food and TV because they don’t have the time or energy for anything else. That’s my idea of hell, actually.
But I’m an artist and my heart would shrivel up and die if I couldn’t be creative.
Nombrilisme Vide, you’re not confrontational.
That line was, alas, a lingering remnant of an earlier time, when the post you responded to was still young and untested, and possessed a rawer, more vitriolic style. It shuffles on as a confusing artifact that makes little sense to those who never knew the context where it once dwelt.
Why did they discard the culture of their past? Was it not meaningful to them? If it was worth passing on, who dropped the ball? I think that maybe some of what was our “older common culture” is a myth.
Oh course some of it is. No question. But the fact that older traditions have been – and are being – discarded in favor of commercialized ones is not perforce a judgement on relative values. In many cases, it’s simply easier and less time-consuming to discard the older traditions in favor of prepackaged commercial offerings… especially when the commodified culture requires no context beyond what it offers.
Nombrilisme Vide, you’re not confrontational.
That line was, alas, a lingering remnant of an earlier time, when the post you responded to was still young and untested, and possessed a rawer, more vitriolic style. It shuffles on as a confusing artifact that makes little sense to those who never knew the context where it once dwelt.
Why did they discard the culture of their past? Was it not meaningful to them? If it was worth passing on, who dropped the ball? I think that maybe some of what was our “older common culture” is a myth.
Oh course some of it is. No question. But the fact that older traditions have been – and are being – discarded in favor of commercialized ones is not perforce a judgement on relative values. In many cases, it’s simply easier and less time-consuming to discard the older traditions in favor of prepackaged commercial offerings… especially when the commodified culture requires no context beyond what it offers.
you really ought to define what you think is ‘the set of knowledge we want people to share’.
I’d put Western Music in there, as I think Russell would. What would you have to replace it?
I am happy with a very traditional view about what a curriculum should look like, including western music. I would add that I would include mandatory musical instrument education, physical education and art. Not only that, but I’m a huge advocate for a liberal arts college education. So I’m good with all of it.
This is the catch: my background is European-American, and I come from a middle-class white family background, and was born in the ’50’s. These things have been important to me, and I share them with many people I know. What I’ve discovered is that people who don’t come from my background don’t necessarily share my views about what’s important. Even some people who do share my background put a much greater emphasis on things like religious dogmatic piety, sports, or other things that I don’t value much at all.
I wasn’t the best student ever. This was partly laziness and lack of focus, but it was also an inquisitiveness about nonacademic things. School was cultural. Hanging out with friends, etc., was also cultural. I had some catching up to do in terms of formal learning, so I did that by reading. I went to law school. I practiced law, and learned through that discipline a huge amount of “culture”.
It turns out that there’s “culture” wherever you turn. Some of it requires discipline (and that kind of “culture” is extremely rewarding to me). Some of it requires human interaction, and that kind of culture is also sometimes difficult, and sometimes very rewarding. Making something that requires time, discipline and skill, is rewarding (and “cultural”). Making something that friends can enjoy is “cultural”. Attending important social events is “cultural”. Making Thanksgiving turkey is “cultural.”
Someone who enjoys the company of friends, and listens to rap music, and knows how to use language and idioms that are quirky and specific to his or her social group, and is a pleasure and beloved to his or her peers – I just have trouble claiming cultural superiority to that person, even if he or she knows nothing about Julius Caesar, or Bach’s Inventions, and doesn’t really care about turkey.
you really ought to define what you think is ‘the set of knowledge we want people to share’.
I’d put Western Music in there, as I think Russell would. What would you have to replace it?
I am happy with a very traditional view about what a curriculum should look like, including western music. I would add that I would include mandatory musical instrument education, physical education and art. Not only that, but I’m a huge advocate for a liberal arts college education. So I’m good with all of it.
This is the catch: my background is European-American, and I come from a middle-class white family background, and was born in the ’50’s. These things have been important to me, and I share them with many people I know. What I’ve discovered is that people who don’t come from my background don’t necessarily share my views about what’s important. Even some people who do share my background put a much greater emphasis on things like religious dogmatic piety, sports, or other things that I don’t value much at all.
I wasn’t the best student ever. This was partly laziness and lack of focus, but it was also an inquisitiveness about nonacademic things. School was cultural. Hanging out with friends, etc., was also cultural. I had some catching up to do in terms of formal learning, so I did that by reading. I went to law school. I practiced law, and learned through that discipline a huge amount of “culture”.
It turns out that there’s “culture” wherever you turn. Some of it requires discipline (and that kind of “culture” is extremely rewarding to me). Some of it requires human interaction, and that kind of culture is also sometimes difficult, and sometimes very rewarding. Making something that requires time, discipline and skill, is rewarding (and “cultural”). Making something that friends can enjoy is “cultural”. Attending important social events is “cultural”. Making Thanksgiving turkey is “cultural.”
Someone who enjoys the company of friends, and listens to rap music, and knows how to use language and idioms that are quirky and specific to his or her social group, and is a pleasure and beloved to his or her peers – I just have trouble claiming cultural superiority to that person, even if he or she knows nothing about Julius Caesar, or Bach’s Inventions, and doesn’t really care about turkey.
At least in Italy the opera was what the daily soap is today at least for urban dwellers (the Vienna opera too had very cheap tickets for standing places, so even poor people could afford it now and then). And similarly most of it was crap, written in a month forgotten in a month. The inventor of the Grand Opera, Spontini, hack-wrote several dozen operas before ‘The Jewess’, of most not even the title has survived. Bohemia too had a very rich tradition of ‘high’ music produced and played by commoners. The land exported musicians because in-country one could not live of it alone (result of supply hugely exceeding demand). Classical music as purely elitist entertainment can be found in some countries but it is by no means universal (special case: Russia. There secular music both high and low was simply illegal* up to Peter the Great).
*not that it stopped people from singing but getting caught could become very painful.
At least in Italy the opera was what the daily soap is today at least for urban dwellers (the Vienna opera too had very cheap tickets for standing places, so even poor people could afford it now and then). And similarly most of it was crap, written in a month forgotten in a month. The inventor of the Grand Opera, Spontini, hack-wrote several dozen operas before ‘The Jewess’, of most not even the title has survived. Bohemia too had a very rich tradition of ‘high’ music produced and played by commoners. The land exported musicians because in-country one could not live of it alone (result of supply hugely exceeding demand). Classical music as purely elitist entertainment can be found in some countries but it is by no means universal (special case: Russia. There secular music both high and low was simply illegal* up to Peter the Great).
*not that it stopped people from singing but getting caught could become very painful.
Hartmut, regarding opera and soaps:
Something that comes up a lot when we’re talking about the arts is that people have some kind of crazy belief that contemporary poetry (maybe literature, generally), and music sucks compared to the miracles of the past.
What they’re not understanding is that we haven’t weeded out the immortals yet (certainly not while the artists are alive!). I just feel like slapping them (like the old movies, when slapping was okay – oh, the nostalgia).
The question I always ask is this: how many of them have you read, before you gave up in disgust? Whose opinion are you trusting to sort out what to read?
Of course, when we’re experiencing “culture” as it happens, it doesn’t seem like “culture” as curated by our forebears.
Hartmut, regarding opera and soaps:
Something that comes up a lot when we’re talking about the arts is that people have some kind of crazy belief that contemporary poetry (maybe literature, generally), and music sucks compared to the miracles of the past.
What they’re not understanding is that we haven’t weeded out the immortals yet (certainly not while the artists are alive!). I just feel like slapping them (like the old movies, when slapping was okay – oh, the nostalgia).
The question I always ask is this: how many of them have you read, before you gave up in disgust? Whose opinion are you trusting to sort out what to read?
Of course, when we’re experiencing “culture” as it happens, it doesn’t seem like “culture” as curated by our forebears.
But we are a consumer society, no doubt about that.
Aye. There’s the rub. When relations are increasingly commodity relations, something gets lost. The world is coarsened and depersonalized. The shared sense of community is attenuated. I kinda’ think that’s what Russell was getting at, and if that guess is correct, I would pretty much agree…farmer’s markets, organic co-ops, and local book clubs notwithstanding.
We are the richest nation in the world with astonishing productivity. So why do people work more hours now than ever before? Why is there no heightened sense of leisure and self awareness? Why is so much of the spectrum of human activity denigrated because it cannot be marketed and priced?
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
But I sympathize in either case.
But we are a consumer society, no doubt about that.
Aye. There’s the rub. When relations are increasingly commodity relations, something gets lost. The world is coarsened and depersonalized. The shared sense of community is attenuated. I kinda’ think that’s what Russell was getting at, and if that guess is correct, I would pretty much agree…farmer’s markets, organic co-ops, and local book clubs notwithstanding.
We are the richest nation in the world with astonishing productivity. So why do people work more hours now than ever before? Why is there no heightened sense of leisure and self awareness? Why is so much of the spectrum of human activity denigrated because it cannot be marketed and priced?
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
But I sympathize in either case.
We are the richest nation in the world with astonishing productivity. So why do people work more hours now than ever before? Why is there no heightened sense of leisure and self awareness? Why is so much of the spectrum of human activity denigrated because it cannot be marketed and priced?
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
I’ll agree that these are problems with our society, and our economic system. But isn’t blaming our “culture” essentially blaming the victim? I honestly think our “culture” is doing okay in spite of the sins of capitalism.
We are the richest nation in the world with astonishing productivity. So why do people work more hours now than ever before? Why is there no heightened sense of leisure and self awareness? Why is so much of the spectrum of human activity denigrated because it cannot be marketed and priced?
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
I’ll agree that these are problems with our society, and our economic system. But isn’t blaming our “culture” essentially blaming the victim? I honestly think our “culture” is doing okay in spite of the sins of capitalism.
sapient, on the other hand so many masterpieces that we know of are lost because they went through a period where they were not considered keepworthy (not even talking about those deliberately destroyed for ideological reasons). And it’s not just ancient art. Even undisputed cinematic masterpieces got lost or survive only in mutilated form, as fragments or even just still images. And many would love to strangle media executives that ordered tape recycling with those same tapes (and NASA lost, it seems, large parts of the data from the moon flights for the same reason, tapes overwritten to save money).
sapient, on the other hand so many masterpieces that we know of are lost because they went through a period where they were not considered keepworthy (not even talking about those deliberately destroyed for ideological reasons). And it’s not just ancient art. Even undisputed cinematic masterpieces got lost or survive only in mutilated form, as fragments or even just still images. And many would love to strangle media executives that ordered tape recycling with those same tapes (and NASA lost, it seems, large parts of the data from the moon flights for the same reason, tapes overwritten to save money).
Hartmut, yes. Fortunately (perhaps), anything new that comes up will be preserved for eternity with the interwebs.
It’s true that history is written by the winners, and there are likely many lost masterpieces. Still, no one is a prophet in their own land, so it’s easy for people to dismiss the important masterpieces that happen now.
But I still don’t really understand russell’s attempt to distinguish between “hobby” and “cultural act”.
Example: I have some chairs that are badly worn. If I took two weeks away from my job and recovered them myself, would that be “culture” or “hobby”? Or necessity? Or art? Or political preference?
I mean, I’ll probably just find someone to do it who has time, knows how, and gets paid. Is that commoditization, even though my mother might have done it herself? Is it bad?
Hartmut, yes. Fortunately (perhaps), anything new that comes up will be preserved for eternity with the interwebs.
It’s true that history is written by the winners, and there are likely many lost masterpieces. Still, no one is a prophet in their own land, so it’s easy for people to dismiss the important masterpieces that happen now.
But I still don’t really understand russell’s attempt to distinguish between “hobby” and “cultural act”.
Example: I have some chairs that are badly worn. If I took two weeks away from my job and recovered them myself, would that be “culture” or “hobby”? Or necessity? Or art? Or political preference?
I mean, I’ll probably just find someone to do it who has time, knows how, and gets paid. Is that commoditization, even though my mother might have done it herself? Is it bad?
I just think a culture is healthier if people can work on their higher Maslow (sp?) needs, rather than being stuck in a rat race for the lower ones.
I also think that a culture that has leisure and a reasonable standard of living will have broad participation in all kinds of activities which stretch the imaginations, talents and intellects of the participants. I think people will find in their hearts something they love to do if they have the chance.
But they do need the chance. Most people aren’t going to be starving artists. Starve, maybe, or do art. But not both at the same time.
I just think a culture is healthier if people can work on their higher Maslow (sp?) needs, rather than being stuck in a rat race for the lower ones.
I also think that a culture that has leisure and a reasonable standard of living will have broad participation in all kinds of activities which stretch the imaginations, talents and intellects of the participants. I think people will find in their hearts something they love to do if they have the chance.
But they do need the chance. Most people aren’t going to be starving artists. Starve, maybe, or do art. But not both at the same time.
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
Dude, I never ever ever smoke weed – good bad or indifferent – while reading Marcuse.
Madness lies that way.
But I still don’t really understand russell’s attempt to distinguish between “hobby” and “cultural act”.
I’m really not trying to distinguish between “hobby” and cultural act.
You stated that nobody could engage in handcrafts unless they were (a) rich enough to not have to work, or (b) didn’t have any work in the first place.
Which sounded to me like you were relegated handcrafts to the world of hobbies. Or, maybe, desparation.
It was just a response to your statement.
So look, a couple of things.
First, sapient, you seem to be responding to my comments here as if they are some kind of attack on you and your friends and family, personally. That’s not remotely the case.
If somebody makes a comment about American Culture writ large (note the caps) they aren’t necessarily making a comment about your personal life.
Second, a lot of the back and forth here from you (sapient) and thompson seems to be in response to this (from me), specificially:
I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.
Which was basically an aside, a cranky throwaway in response to NV’s comments about his experience in France.
Obviously, there is a cultural life in the US, because any society of human beings creates and participates in a culture. It’s kind of what we do.
My point, in full, which you are free to reject utterly if that suits you, is that in the modern US, much of our cultural life has become commodified. Because most of every aspect of our lives has become commodified.
By “commodified” I mean has been turned into something for sale. So, for lots of folks, their relationship to their own culture – the way that they participate in it – is via buying stuff.
(NOTE – THAT MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU PERSONALLY. ADJUST AS NEEDED)
Opinions about whether this is good bad or indifferent vary, but my opinion is that it’s not so good.
The story about “the loneliest monk” still does crack me up, lo these many years later.
Either that, or Russell just had some bad weed while re-reading Marcuse.
Dude, I never ever ever smoke weed – good bad or indifferent – while reading Marcuse.
Madness lies that way.
But I still don’t really understand russell’s attempt to distinguish between “hobby” and “cultural act”.
I’m really not trying to distinguish between “hobby” and cultural act.
You stated that nobody could engage in handcrafts unless they were (a) rich enough to not have to work, or (b) didn’t have any work in the first place.
Which sounded to me like you were relegated handcrafts to the world of hobbies. Or, maybe, desparation.
It was just a response to your statement.
So look, a couple of things.
First, sapient, you seem to be responding to my comments here as if they are some kind of attack on you and your friends and family, personally. That’s not remotely the case.
If somebody makes a comment about American Culture writ large (note the caps) they aren’t necessarily making a comment about your personal life.
Second, a lot of the back and forth here from you (sapient) and thompson seems to be in response to this (from me), specificially:
I suspect there no longer is anything recognizable as an American culture. We swapped it for an enhanced shopping experience.
Which was basically an aside, a cranky throwaway in response to NV’s comments about his experience in France.
Obviously, there is a cultural life in the US, because any society of human beings creates and participates in a culture. It’s kind of what we do.
My point, in full, which you are free to reject utterly if that suits you, is that in the modern US, much of our cultural life has become commodified. Because most of every aspect of our lives has become commodified.
By “commodified” I mean has been turned into something for sale. So, for lots of folks, their relationship to their own culture – the way that they participate in it – is via buying stuff.
(NOTE – THAT MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU PERSONALLY. ADJUST AS NEEDED)
Opinions about whether this is good bad or indifferent vary, but my opinion is that it’s not so good.
The story about “the loneliest monk” still does crack me up, lo these many years later.
I mean, I’ll probably just find someone to do it who has time, knows how, and gets paid. Is that commoditization, even though my mother might have done it herself? Is it bad?
As a one-off, no. If nearly everyone approaches most things this way, maybe.
I think you’re taking this commoditization-of-culture thing as an absolute, all-or-nothing proposition, sapient. It seems to have been meant as more of a relative thing – relative to the way things once were in this country, and relative to the way things currently are or may be in some others.
And I don’t see much in the way of blame or suggestions that it represents the end of the world. Though maybe there’s just a touch of get-off-my-lawn in there somewhere.
I mean, I’ll probably just find someone to do it who has time, knows how, and gets paid. Is that commoditization, even though my mother might have done it herself? Is it bad?
As a one-off, no. If nearly everyone approaches most things this way, maybe.
I think you’re taking this commoditization-of-culture thing as an absolute, all-or-nothing proposition, sapient. It seems to have been meant as more of a relative thing – relative to the way things once were in this country, and relative to the way things currently are or may be in some others.
And I don’t see much in the way of blame or suggestions that it represents the end of the world. Though maybe there’s just a touch of get-off-my-lawn in there somewhere.
how many of them have you read, before you gave up in disgust? Whose opinion are you trusting to sort out what to read?
One reason I hang out here is that folks around here actually seem to have read/listened to/watched/partaken of this stuff. It also helps that we have a nice leavening of non-USaians who are good at gently saying ‘that’s not always the case…’ So keep it up, for what it is worth.
how many of them have you read, before you gave up in disgust? Whose opinion are you trusting to sort out what to read?
One reason I hang out here is that folks around here actually seem to have read/listened to/watched/partaken of this stuff. It also helps that we have a nice leavening of non-USaians who are good at gently saying ‘that’s not always the case…’ So keep it up, for what it is worth.
First, sapient, you seem to be responding to my comments here as if they are some kind of attack on you and your friends and family, personally. That’s not remotely the case.
russell, I didn’t mean to take your comments personally, although now I realize that I have. I’ve done so, based upon (as you guessed) my belief in the people I know who are so well educated, vibrant, culturally aware and interested, and who want to do good things. And who are doing good things, sometimes foregoing money to do so.
But also it’s fun for me to argue. Thanks for allowing me to think out issues through this medium.
First, sapient, you seem to be responding to my comments here as if they are some kind of attack on you and your friends and family, personally. That’s not remotely the case.
russell, I didn’t mean to take your comments personally, although now I realize that I have. I’ve done so, based upon (as you guessed) my belief in the people I know who are so well educated, vibrant, culturally aware and interested, and who want to do good things. And who are doing good things, sometimes foregoing money to do so.
But also it’s fun for me to argue. Thanks for allowing me to think out issues through this medium.
Even undisputed cinematic masterpieces got lost or survive only in mutilated form, as fragments or even just still images.
In many, if not a lot of cases, that is due to copyright laws.
Hartmut, yes. Fortunately (perhaps), anything new that comes up will be preserved for eternity with the interwebs.
In a SF novel I read, some of the 23rd century characters complained about their 20th, 21st century predecessors keeping and preserving so much damn junk and clutter.
Even undisputed cinematic masterpieces got lost or survive only in mutilated form, as fragments or even just still images.
In many, if not a lot of cases, that is due to copyright laws.
Hartmut, yes. Fortunately (perhaps), anything new that comes up will be preserved for eternity with the interwebs.
In a SF novel I read, some of the 23rd century characters complained about their 20th, 21st century predecessors keeping and preserving so much damn junk and clutter.
The Pop History Dig: Exploring the History & Power of Popular Culture
The Pop History Dig: Exploring the History & Power of Popular Culture
In many, if not a lot of cases, that is due to copyright laws.
Also it took many years before film was recognized as an art and not just throw-away entertainment. I believe the attitude towards music has been similar in earlier times. I guess Bach would be extremly surprised that all his cantatas (especially the simple ones) are still performed centuries after his death. He had to compose about one per week to be performed on the next Sunday, so he likely did not see them (all) as eternal art. Rossini famously said that it was only necessary to watch just one of his Italian operas because in essence ‘if you have seen one you have seen them all’.
In many, if not a lot of cases, that is due to copyright laws.
Also it took many years before film was recognized as an art and not just throw-away entertainment. I believe the attitude towards music has been similar in earlier times. I guess Bach would be extremly surprised that all his cantatas (especially the simple ones) are still performed centuries after his death. He had to compose about one per week to be performed on the next Sunday, so he likely did not see them (all) as eternal art. Rossini famously said that it was only necessary to watch just one of his Italian operas because in essence ‘if you have seen one you have seen them all’.
Dude, I never ever ever smoke weed – good bad or indifferent – while reading Marcuse.
Aha! Then you have read Marcuse? You have my sympathy. 😉
Dude, I never ever ever smoke weed – good bad or indifferent – while reading Marcuse.
Aha! Then you have read Marcuse? You have my sympathy. 😉
And russell, I’m sorry if I piled onto you a little. It wasn’t my intent. I think I finally understand what you’re saying. I disagree and I’ll close out with what I hope is an optimistic perspective, even if its not a convincing perspective.
I think a lot of great things have been said and don’t bear my shoddy efforts at repeating them. But I’d like talk about the “consumer culture” for a moment.
I don’t buy it (ha ha). Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
I am baffled by the concept of a nation that comes together to watch a cultural phenomenon (the superbowl) is a nation without shared culture.
You might not like football, and perhaps feel that its not as enriching as a good opera…but I hardly feel sporting events watched by the masses is a new phenomena.
Of course, people don’t participate in the superbowl, they watch it. But people do play football. Especially on Thanksgiving, families will go out and play a few snaps. I see kids playing 2-hand touch in the street and in the park all the time. Football, love it or hate it, is a cultural aspect of the US.
I mean, didn’t the president delay a speech recently for a football game?
Someone asked upthread (and I forget who) if I know any modern composers. I do, although there is question as to whether they will be known in 10, 50, 100 years. Or outside a small enclave geographically. But I imagine 200 years ago there were a host of composers who weren’t good enough or lucky enough to be preserved.
Musicians in every town? I know several guitarists, a drummer, 2 bassists, 3 keyboardists…If you’re decrying the ability of bands and symphonies to go on tour rather than a composer relying on local talent…well, internal combustion and jet turbines have made travel far cheaper. I’m sure even Brahms would have loved to work with a set group of people if he could.
Do we pay for entertainment? Yeah, we do. But humans always have. The musicians who played Beethoven and Brahms got paid. Shakespeare got very wealthy off of his plays. Does that make Shakespeare “not culture”? Because it was definitely commoditized.
What makes Shakespeare better than the host of movies we can watch today. Well, quality, natch…but there were a lot of playwrights from that time that didn’t make it. But Plan 9 from outer space will hit the dustbin someday too.
Is there a lot of trashy magazines these days? Nothing but pulp, I say! Trashy paperbacks? Penny dreadfuls, I call ’em.
We have far more options to choose from. Even in the category of “classics”. I mean, classic rock doesn’t postdate Tchaikovsky by that much…maybe 60 years? Sinatra even less. That’s going to increase the Balkanization of culture consumed to some extent, I’d agree.
But I don’t think we are merely a nation of consumers. We are doers and makers as well. I don’t think much has changed in that regard in the last 10 years, or 50 years, or 100 years.
But that’s my perspective. And I understand someone who comes to a different one, and am not offended by its presence. Without the constant guardians of culture, even more would be lost.
Whoah, way too long…
And russell, I’m sorry if I piled onto you a little. It wasn’t my intent. I think I finally understand what you’re saying. I disagree and I’ll close out with what I hope is an optimistic perspective, even if its not a convincing perspective.
I think a lot of great things have been said and don’t bear my shoddy efforts at repeating them. But I’d like talk about the “consumer culture” for a moment.
I don’t buy it (ha ha). Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
I am baffled by the concept of a nation that comes together to watch a cultural phenomenon (the superbowl) is a nation without shared culture.
You might not like football, and perhaps feel that its not as enriching as a good opera…but I hardly feel sporting events watched by the masses is a new phenomena.
Of course, people don’t participate in the superbowl, they watch it. But people do play football. Especially on Thanksgiving, families will go out and play a few snaps. I see kids playing 2-hand touch in the street and in the park all the time. Football, love it or hate it, is a cultural aspect of the US.
I mean, didn’t the president delay a speech recently for a football game?
Someone asked upthread (and I forget who) if I know any modern composers. I do, although there is question as to whether they will be known in 10, 50, 100 years. Or outside a small enclave geographically. But I imagine 200 years ago there were a host of composers who weren’t good enough or lucky enough to be preserved.
Musicians in every town? I know several guitarists, a drummer, 2 bassists, 3 keyboardists…If you’re decrying the ability of bands and symphonies to go on tour rather than a composer relying on local talent…well, internal combustion and jet turbines have made travel far cheaper. I’m sure even Brahms would have loved to work with a set group of people if he could.
Do we pay for entertainment? Yeah, we do. But humans always have. The musicians who played Beethoven and Brahms got paid. Shakespeare got very wealthy off of his plays. Does that make Shakespeare “not culture”? Because it was definitely commoditized.
What makes Shakespeare better than the host of movies we can watch today. Well, quality, natch…but there were a lot of playwrights from that time that didn’t make it. But Plan 9 from outer space will hit the dustbin someday too.
Is there a lot of trashy magazines these days? Nothing but pulp, I say! Trashy paperbacks? Penny dreadfuls, I call ’em.
We have far more options to choose from. Even in the category of “classics”. I mean, classic rock doesn’t postdate Tchaikovsky by that much…maybe 60 years? Sinatra even less. That’s going to increase the Balkanization of culture consumed to some extent, I’d agree.
But I don’t think we are merely a nation of consumers. We are doers and makers as well. I don’t think much has changed in that regard in the last 10 years, or 50 years, or 100 years.
But that’s my perspective. And I understand someone who comes to a different one, and am not offended by its presence. Without the constant guardians of culture, even more would be lost.
Whoah, way too long…
I think Russell is right, but I also think that shift from doing to buying is inevitable given the shift in work.
My grandmother didn’t have a job outside the house. She worked at home. She sewed, made soap, caned chairs, killed chickens, made quilts…her daily routine was bursting with homegrown handicrafts because that’s what she did to keep the family clothed and fed.
Nowadays she’d be a greeter a Walmart spend her free time in line at the foodbank, pick up clothes for the kids at the second hand store, and buy the basic stud like soap that people used to make. The modern version of my grandmother might have a hobby of making specialty soaps for Christmas presents or she might crochet with yarn from the Dollar Store while watching TV.
IN other words the shift from making to buying happened because the making used to be the job and now working to earn money is the job so that the stuff that used to get made can be bought.
But, obviously, this is a shift that happened over a very long period of time.
And it is just part of the picture of the transfer from doing to buying. Take music, for example. Go back far enough and the only way to hear music is to listen to someone play an instrument. Now there’s los of ways to hear music without ever touching an instrument or even knowing someone who plays one. I suppose that results in fewer people playing instruments, although that isn’t necessarily the case.,
I think Russell is right, but I also think that shift from doing to buying is inevitable given the shift in work.
My grandmother didn’t have a job outside the house. She worked at home. She sewed, made soap, caned chairs, killed chickens, made quilts…her daily routine was bursting with homegrown handicrafts because that’s what she did to keep the family clothed and fed.
Nowadays she’d be a greeter a Walmart spend her free time in line at the foodbank, pick up clothes for the kids at the second hand store, and buy the basic stud like soap that people used to make. The modern version of my grandmother might have a hobby of making specialty soaps for Christmas presents or she might crochet with yarn from the Dollar Store while watching TV.
IN other words the shift from making to buying happened because the making used to be the job and now working to earn money is the job so that the stuff that used to get made can be bought.
But, obviously, this is a shift that happened over a very long period of time.
And it is just part of the picture of the transfer from doing to buying. Take music, for example. Go back far enough and the only way to hear music is to listen to someone play an instrument. Now there’s los of ways to hear music without ever touching an instrument or even knowing someone who plays one. I suppose that results in fewer people playing instruments, although that isn’t necessarily the case.,
I think a lot of the disagreement has (perhaps unconsciously) to do with some of us using “culture” in one sense, and others using it in another.
First, we have “culture” in the anthropological sense: how a group of people characteristically behave. That kind of culture changes all the time, but the only way a group loses its culture is to disappear as a group.
Then we have “culture” in the sense of the way the elite, or esthetic, parts of the population behave. Once, an possibly still today in Italy, grand opera was part of the general culture in the first sense. But today, it is definite “culture in the second sense. Similarly, “pop” music is not “culture” in the second sense, but definitely is part of the culture of how people behave (they listen to it in huge numbers).
It is, as a rule, “culture” in the second sense that education tries to inculcate into our children. On which they are tested when trying to get further educational opportunities. And the loss of which gets lamented. They don’t get taught about culture in the first sense because there is no point. Nobody ever had an SAT question about ABBA, for example. (Which would have missed, being not paying attention to pop music in that era.)
I think a lot of the disagreement has (perhaps unconsciously) to do with some of us using “culture” in one sense, and others using it in another.
First, we have “culture” in the anthropological sense: how a group of people characteristically behave. That kind of culture changes all the time, but the only way a group loses its culture is to disappear as a group.
Then we have “culture” in the sense of the way the elite, or esthetic, parts of the population behave. Once, an possibly still today in Italy, grand opera was part of the general culture in the first sense. But today, it is definite “culture in the second sense. Similarly, “pop” music is not “culture” in the second sense, but definitely is part of the culture of how people behave (they listen to it in huge numbers).
It is, as a rule, “culture” in the second sense that education tries to inculcate into our children. On which they are tested when trying to get further educational opportunities. And the loss of which gets lamented. They don’t get taught about culture in the first sense because there is no point. Nobody ever had an SAT question about ABBA, for example. (Which would have missed, being not paying attention to pop music in that era.)
russell, I didn’t mean to take your comments personally
No worries. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Though maybe there’s just a touch of get-off-my-lawn in there somewhere.
Damned right!!
Rotten kids today, with their ding-dang gang-bang style dancing. When I was a kid we just called it “playing horsey”.
Aha! Then you have read Marcuse?
Not that I can recall….
And russell, I’m sorry if I piled onto you a little.
No worries, I have big shoulders.
I am baffled by the concept of a nation that comes together to watch a cultural phenomenon (the superbowl) is a nation without shared culture.
Just to reiterate in the hope of possibly clarifying, my statement that there is “no American culture” was hyperbole.
My point is not that there is, literally, no American culture, but that the quality of American culture – more specifically, the quality of people’s relationship to their own culture – has been degraded through commodification.
See, I don’t need to read Marcuse, I appear to be freaking channeling him. Yipes.
In any case, it was basically a cranky aside. There is obviously a range of opinion on the subject.
russell, I didn’t mean to take your comments personally
No worries. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Though maybe there’s just a touch of get-off-my-lawn in there somewhere.
Damned right!!
Rotten kids today, with their ding-dang gang-bang style dancing. When I was a kid we just called it “playing horsey”.
Aha! Then you have read Marcuse?
Not that I can recall….
And russell, I’m sorry if I piled onto you a little.
No worries, I have big shoulders.
I am baffled by the concept of a nation that comes together to watch a cultural phenomenon (the superbowl) is a nation without shared culture.
Just to reiterate in the hope of possibly clarifying, my statement that there is “no American culture” was hyperbole.
My point is not that there is, literally, no American culture, but that the quality of American culture – more specifically, the quality of people’s relationship to their own culture – has been degraded through commodification.
See, I don’t need to read Marcuse, I appear to be freaking channeling him. Yipes.
In any case, it was basically a cranky aside. There is obviously a range of opinion on the subject.
See, I don’t need to read Marcuse, I appear to be freaking channeling him.
Or Robert Bork. 🙂
See, I don’t need to read Marcuse, I appear to be freaking channeling him.
Or Robert Bork. 🙂
Quite a few years ago at the neighborhood middle school the kids and teacher s put on an after school event that was meant to be a celebration of what each student conceived of as his or her cultural heritage. It was a very diverse school: African American, India, Native American, all kinds of Asians, all kinds of Eastern Europeans, Russians, and, of course, third or fourth or fifth generation Europeans.
I wandered around looking at the displays the kids put up. I was pleased by the fabrics and crafts and pictures of dances and jewelry and so on, with the music in the background at each booth..,except when the booth was AA or white American. The AA and white American booths were modern pop culture: rap, Hannah Montana, clothes with sports logos.
I found myself doing that Bork snob thing: rejecting everything that didn’t represent what I would have decorated a booth with if my school had held such an event when I was in middle school back in the day. Except that I was much more tolerate of cultural artifacts from outside the US.
But what’s the difference between a booth with a picture of a dance that’s traditional to India and a booth with a picture of Micheal Jackson dancing? For a while millions of American kids tried to dance like him just as millions of Indian kids try to learn the steps of a dance in India. Those pictures represent something many kids wished they could do well and tried to do, if only when no one was watching.
But still I think I understand what Russell was getting at: somehow cultural phenomenon in the US goes from grassroots to store shelves. In the case of Haight/Ashbury it only took about a year. Then there’s the icky feeling of being tricked or used somehow. As if the love beads of 1967 were authentic but the love beads of 1971 were not.
Hence the recurrent conversation in America about what is authentic and what isn’t. This happens in relations to blues, rap, country, and other forms of music. In country it’s the argument over what is “commercial” vs real. IN blues its the argument over the authenticity f the musician, whether the musician has the right kind of experiences to give the right feeling to the music. And so on.
And sometimes American cultural phenomena are astroturfed: the Monkees, Hannah Monatana, the Kardasians.
Or sometimes i’s a perfect storm of grassroots, commercial, and astroturf: Christmas.
Quite a few years ago at the neighborhood middle school the kids and teacher s put on an after school event that was meant to be a celebration of what each student conceived of as his or her cultural heritage. It was a very diverse school: African American, India, Native American, all kinds of Asians, all kinds of Eastern Europeans, Russians, and, of course, third or fourth or fifth generation Europeans.
I wandered around looking at the displays the kids put up. I was pleased by the fabrics and crafts and pictures of dances and jewelry and so on, with the music in the background at each booth..,except when the booth was AA or white American. The AA and white American booths were modern pop culture: rap, Hannah Montana, clothes with sports logos.
I found myself doing that Bork snob thing: rejecting everything that didn’t represent what I would have decorated a booth with if my school had held such an event when I was in middle school back in the day. Except that I was much more tolerate of cultural artifacts from outside the US.
But what’s the difference between a booth with a picture of a dance that’s traditional to India and a booth with a picture of Micheal Jackson dancing? For a while millions of American kids tried to dance like him just as millions of Indian kids try to learn the steps of a dance in India. Those pictures represent something many kids wished they could do well and tried to do, if only when no one was watching.
But still I think I understand what Russell was getting at: somehow cultural phenomenon in the US goes from grassroots to store shelves. In the case of Haight/Ashbury it only took about a year. Then there’s the icky feeling of being tricked or used somehow. As if the love beads of 1967 were authentic but the love beads of 1971 were not.
Hence the recurrent conversation in America about what is authentic and what isn’t. This happens in relations to blues, rap, country, and other forms of music. In country it’s the argument over what is “commercial” vs real. IN blues its the argument over the authenticity f the musician, whether the musician has the right kind of experiences to give the right feeling to the music. And so on.
And sometimes American cultural phenomena are astroturfed: the Monkees, Hannah Monatana, the Kardasians.
Or sometimes i’s a perfect storm of grassroots, commercial, and astroturf: Christmas.
Or Robert Bork.
Apparently, there are many aspects of Robert Bork’s life that I am not aware of.
Or Robert Bork.
Apparently, there are many aspects of Robert Bork’s life that I am not aware of.
Apparently, there are many aspects of Robert Bork’s life that I am not aware of.
In his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork went on a long-winded rant about just about everything he doesn’t like about America including popular culture.
Apparently, there are many aspects of Robert Bork’s life that I am not aware of.
In his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork went on a long-winded rant about just about everything he doesn’t like about America including popular culture.
I think a lot of the disagreement has (perhaps unconsciously) to do with some of us using “culture” in one sense, and others using it in another.
[…]
It is, as a rule, “culture” in the second sense that education tries to inculcate into our children.
Basically, to use the language of linguistics, we’re looking at a descriptivist/prescriptivist divide. Which is completely natural, and the cultural version of this dichotomy has a lot in common with the linguistics one, not least because they have significant overlap.
The only explicitly normative judgement that I would cast out as a closing thought on whether there’s cause to be worked up in the prescriptivist sense is that the linguistic parallel can hold, albeit broadly. The move from producer to consumer of cultural artifacts has a not-dissimilar effect on cultural diversity as e.g. the move from many patois to unified national languages, or to be more parallel still, the effect of mass media on dialects. There is a richness and diversity that will not perforce be lost entirely, but it will be reduced simply because there is less unique output to be consumed due to mass production. Which isn’t bad from a purely descriptivist POV; it just is. In fact, less variety means more cultural (or linguistic) homogeneity, and that has benefits. A shift of perspective further towards prescriptivism will of course reduce your appreciation of this, however…
I think a lot of the disagreement has (perhaps unconsciously) to do with some of us using “culture” in one sense, and others using it in another.
[…]
It is, as a rule, “culture” in the second sense that education tries to inculcate into our children.
Basically, to use the language of linguistics, we’re looking at a descriptivist/prescriptivist divide. Which is completely natural, and the cultural version of this dichotomy has a lot in common with the linguistics one, not least because they have significant overlap.
The only explicitly normative judgement that I would cast out as a closing thought on whether there’s cause to be worked up in the prescriptivist sense is that the linguistic parallel can hold, albeit broadly. The move from producer to consumer of cultural artifacts has a not-dissimilar effect on cultural diversity as e.g. the move from many patois to unified national languages, or to be more parallel still, the effect of mass media on dialects. There is a richness and diversity that will not perforce be lost entirely, but it will be reduced simply because there is less unique output to be consumed due to mass production. Which isn’t bad from a purely descriptivist POV; it just is. In fact, less variety means more cultural (or linguistic) homogeneity, and that has benefits. A shift of perspective further towards prescriptivism will of course reduce your appreciation of this, however…
Bork went on a long-winded rant about just about everything he doesn’t like about America including popular culture.
I suspect that there would be some daylight between what Robert Bork and I would find objectionable about modern American culture.
Bork went on a long-winded rant about just about everything he doesn’t like about America including popular culture.
I suspect that there would be some daylight between what Robert Bork and I would find objectionable about modern American culture.
I’ve been racking my brain for years trying to figure out who russell reminded me of. I finally have my answer. Robert Bork and russell – two peas in a pod.
I’ve been racking my brain for years trying to figure out who russell reminded me of. I finally have my answer. Robert Bork and russell – two peas in a pod.
Okay, I take it all back. My beloved holiday, Thanksgiving, is the new, earlier “Black Friday.” Apparently stores will be open, and stuff in on sale.
Okay, I take it all back. My beloved holiday, Thanksgiving, is the new, earlier “Black Friday.” Apparently stores will be open, and stuff in on sale.
I mean “stuff is on sale.” Apologies to all for my faith in American culture, and my bad editorial habits.
I mean “stuff is on sale.” Apologies to all for my faith in American culture, and my bad editorial habits.
sapient, I’d be more concerned about Christmas shopping happening on Thanksgiving if it hadn’t seemed this year like the shipping season got going before Halloween. By the time the decade is out, we will doubtless be starting at Labor Day.
sapient, I’d be more concerned about Christmas shopping happening on Thanksgiving if it hadn’t seemed this year like the shipping season got going before Halloween. By the time the decade is out, we will doubtless be starting at Labor Day.
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
Why do you hate America so much?
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
Why do you hate America so much?
We’re trying to sabotage the recovery, Hartmut. Because we’re freelance right-wing terrorists.
Either that or there’s something about solvency that we gradually found to be appealing enough to strive for.
In any event, hilzoy would be doubly pleased to discover that we recently paid cash for a Prius.
We’re trying to sabotage the recovery, Hartmut. Because we’re freelance right-wing terrorists.
Either that or there’s something about solvency that we gradually found to be appealing enough to strive for.
In any event, hilzoy would be doubly pleased to discover that we recently paid cash for a Prius.
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
In any event, hilzoy would be doubly pleased to discover that we recently paid cash for a Prius.
This is hope and change that I can believe in.
FWIW.
And no, that’s not a weird sideways swipe at Obama, I just think all of the things slarti describes here are good things.
We’ve more or less opted out of the mass-consumption Christmas paradigm.
In any event, hilzoy would be doubly pleased to discover that we recently paid cash for a Prius.
This is hope and change that I can believe in.
FWIW.
And no, that’s not a weird sideways swipe at Obama, I just think all of the things slarti describes here are good things.
wj, I’m all for a booming economy, or whatever. But it turns out that a lot of working people can’t take Thanksgiving Day off. That’s a huge hit to the idea that this is a secular American day-with-family.
I’m not a huge shopper (although, occasionally, I buy myself and others nice things). I know people who like being consumers, and good for them – I don’t have time to scrutinize or judge. But c’mon. Give people a break on Thanksgiving. Who wants to try on clothes after turkey dinner? Let’s not do this! (Groan.)
wj, I’m all for a booming economy, or whatever. But it turns out that a lot of working people can’t take Thanksgiving Day off. That’s a huge hit to the idea that this is a secular American day-with-family.
I’m not a huge shopper (although, occasionally, I buy myself and others nice things). I know people who like being consumers, and good for them – I don’t have time to scrutinize or judge. But c’mon. Give people a break on Thanksgiving. Who wants to try on clothes after turkey dinner? Let’s not do this! (Groan.)
In the aggregate, are people going to spend more simply because they have that one additional day to shop that they previously didn’t? No, but it’s a race to the bottom, because no one wants to lose market share. It’s a soulless thing, it is.
In the aggregate, are people going to spend more simply because they have that one additional day to shop that they previously didn’t? No, but it’s a race to the bottom, because no one wants to lose market share. It’s a soulless thing, it is.
But I’d like talk about the “consumer culture” for a moment.
I don’t buy it (ha ha). Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
Black Friday at WalMart.
Today, right now.
more.
One from last year.
After the DoD, the nation’s largest employer.
The Walton family hold more personal wealth than the lowest 42% of people in this country combined.
People camp out, for days, to be first in line for this.
Such a small percentage of what we do, and who we are.
But I’d like talk about the “consumer culture” for a moment.
I don’t buy it (ha ha). Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
Black Friday at WalMart.
Today, right now.
more.
One from last year.
After the DoD, the nation’s largest employer.
The Walton family hold more personal wealth than the lowest 42% of people in this country combined.
People camp out, for days, to be first in line for this.
Such a small percentage of what we do, and who we are.
Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
Black Friday.
Such a small part of what we do.
Yeah, people line up for iphones, I suppose. But that’s such a small percentage of what we do.
Black Friday.
Such a small part of what we do.
Yes, the thread is dead dead dead, but nevertheless:
White paper from Sweden’s ministry of employment regarding the effect of their reform:
Trouble in Paradise.
Money quote:
Yes, the thread is dead dead dead, but nevertheless:
White paper from Sweden’s ministry of employment regarding the effect of their reform:
Trouble in Paradise.
Money quote: