"Present as history"
The present simply does not explain itself. And the complaints about the present _in_ the present have a wonderful record of proving to be nonsense.
For a useful understanding of the present, then, one must try to grasp it from some hypothetical future perspective. Since we don't possess crytal balls, this hypothetical future cannot be 'derived' by merely projectincurrent empirical data tino the future (since we have no idea _what_ empirical detail is relevant and what is not. Hence the needed historical perspective can only be a _goal_ which can be concretely described without pretending to be a prophecy. For example, it is incorrect to describe "good teaching" as a goal: we don't know what good teaching is. (I would say that good teaching is NOT a property of any one classroom, any one teacher, any one pedagogical method, or any one curriculum. It is the result of the interaction of more factors than it is or ever will be possible to list.
Tentatively, the goal from which we must view the present is the goal of good pay, good working conditions, and job security for _all_ teachers -- regardless of any 'evaluations' of any one teacher. In fact, it is quite possible that a school that does not contain a sprinkling of really bad teachers will be less effective. One of the teachers who did the most for the development of my "critical" faculties was probably close to the worst teacher on the Western Michigan faculty. But just because of that, a number of us were forced (or felt forced) to think more, argue more, talk to each other more, etc. A whole faculty made up of teachers like that would be a mess. A faculty that does not have _some_ teachers like that is probably a greater mess.
Incidentallwho did the most for the development of my "critical" faculties was probably close to the worst teacher on the Western Michigan faculty. But just because of that, a number of us were forced (or felt forced) to think more, argue more, talk to each other more, etc. A whole faculty made up of teachers like that would be a mess. A faculty that does not have _some_ teachers like that is probably a greater mess.
I would say that the only _political_ reason to pay any attention whatever to studies which "evaluate" current education is to gain an understanding of the _weapones_ the enemy is using in their attack on the u.s. working class. (We all do believe, don't we, that the enemy of one is the enemy ofall?) The focal point of the current attack on the working class is the attack on the providers of public services, and the focal point of that attack is the attack on teachers as responsible for poor education.
We have to fight that. That is what we have to _think_ about, not about how poor current education is.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:28 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] How Much Do College Students Learn, and Study?
On Jan 26, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Alan Rudy wrote:
> Yup, its the teachers'/professors' fault for not mandating greater rigor
> (and I know that's not what you meant to imply, Doug
Now of course I don't mean that, but there really is something terrible going on, with, you know, kids today not reading. You may have noticed that thread on the Progressive Sociologists list the other week, looking for suggested excerpts from The Communist Manifesto to assign, because the full text is too long. It's about 40 pages, for god's sake. This is very bad. We can talk for a long time about what's produced this situation, but it's still very bad.
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk