The View From 1776

Believe It If You Actually See it

New York Times columnist David Brooks lauds the Obama administration for standing up to teachers’ unions for the purpose of improving education results.

His praise may be premature.  The administration is only in the discussion stages with teachers’ unions.  In any case, you can be sure that Federal funding of education will remain a lever to compel indoctrination of students with moral relativism and the socialist version of history.

 

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/24 at 12:36 AM
  1. Perhaps the education secretary will out-muscle the reactionary unions and professional educators, but the biased slant of instruction will undoubtedly remain because the teachers are in lockstep with the liberal Democratic Party's ideologies.

    And yet, it still may be progress to attain a higher level of achievement on performance tests. After all, the three R's and science are the main objective of the elementary and high school years.

    The unnoticed problem is that most popular tests are unreliable indicators of whether a test taker has actually learned anything useful. The fact is that the IQ and achievement tests work well for students interested in math and science--where "pure" IQ is paramount to success. However, in all other fields, which most college students pursue, the IQ tests are seriously flawed.

    James R. Flynn's book "What Is Intelligence" establishes convincingly that IQ tests fail to measure what is often called EQ or emotional intelligence. The latter are according to Flynn such things as critical acumen and wisdom. And even then, he concedes that both IQ and EQ together account for only 60% of an individual's potential success and contribution to society.

    During the past 100 years the rise of IQ tests have given preferred status and premier college admission to those with the mere 20% competency indicated by IQ. That is why the leading universities are producing so many "brilliant" but incompetent leaders. (Think of McNamara of the Kennedy Camelot team that pursued the Vietnam War as a poster boy for the Harvard-Princeton-Yale products of the 20th Century)

    It would be unfortunate if future educational reform's emphasis on IQ type achievement continues to sort out the least competent minds and characters for higher academic training while the more truly competent are shunted aside.
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/25  at  08:30 AM
  2. Never forget:

    NO ONE IS SMARTER THAN THEIR CRITERIA.
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  10/25  at  09:02 AM
  3. Jim:

    So right on !! My fear is that those with the "wrong" criteria (and "wrong" kinds of brains) are gaining admission to all the "right" schools and colleges, and thereby gaining admission into the rulimg elites that are doing all the "wrong" things for the country.
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/25  at  09:08 AM
  4. Tom C,

    I have noted JJ does at least argue coherently, if not always well researched or presented. He takes from the liberal press a few solid points and sidesteps the more outlandish claims. In that, he is, at least, a cut above David who argues (if we can call it that) only from bias, and repeats whatever rubbish he thinks adequately trumps reason. JJ doesn't seem, however, to build much of an argument of his own beyond the talking points of media, party, and feel-good movements; and has yet to challenge those on anything. He is also more than a little averse to acknowledging the other side has anything to offer. Still, give him a chance, a few pointers, and a little encouragement and he may improve. After all, if we are to stimulate fresh ideas, we need this to be more than an echo chamber.

    Don
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  11:54 AM
  5. Oops, posted that last in the wrong comments section. It belongs with 'Carbon Dream' comments.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  11:56 AM
  6. Gentlemen,
    Please do not validate the fool's false center; a hungry and needful ego, bearing tons of guilt and inferiority - and no purpose in life.

    Good intentions are wasted. Are you willing to accept a responsibilty for such historical foolishness in the presence of a valuable youth society of ignorant but worthy ones? Are all points of view expressions of integrity?

    Please: call the fool a fool.
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  11/01  at  04:54 PM
  7. As I am already here, I may as well comment on the Brooks NYT article.

    Brooks claims to be a conservative, but that is really stretching the definition. Culturally, societal-ly, and politically he is somewhere between left-libertarian and socialist. He can only be described as conservative fiscally, and that with significant reservations; this article being a case in point. Apparently, he's abandoning even his fiscal reservations when it comes to 'The One'. I am amazed he didn't choke on the sheer size of this pork-chop while swallowing without so much as cutting it into manageable portions.

    Where is the biting analysis telling us why this is such a good deal Brooks can
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  05:12 PM
  8. Jim,

    Even kings require fools if only to entertain. Occasionally, we need them just to get things rolling around here.

    J. Jay at least makes an attempt at reason (which is more than we can say of David whose only interest is in irritating) and appears to be capable of learning. I long ago learned the best way to handle the David
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  06:03 PM
  9. Teaching the conservation of the principles that made the greatest nation in world history is our affirmative message. If a fool is 'entertaining' then that is one too many!

    There are too many eager young worthies who really want to know the best, most creative, courageous way to go!

    Neither you or I nor Mr. Brewton need fools for us to articulate principle and criteria for the definitive creature, earth's Choicemaker.

    We have plenty of ammo material without being bored by superiority. Your admission is questionable and appears to reflect personal doubts noted by some of the simple-minded fools. They assume you are 'weak.'

    Responsibility for valdation is for real. No thanks. A fool is a fool. Their choice. Their results. selah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  11/01  at  07:01 PM
  10. This all reminds me of the characterization of big government advocates as "useful idiots." Perhaps they are "fools" but this whole issue was settled long ago.

    Our Declaration of Independence claims that certain truths are "self evident." And that is that government is for the people and must not abridge their freedom and independence. Only a fool or an idiot would want to go back to a system where governments dictated personal behavior--like whether they had to buy health insurance, wear seat belts and helmets, abstain from Happy hours or trans fats, be totally innocent of "hate," give up smoking, or go to a particular government run school. Such is the Brave New World of automatons.

    And that is why Sarah Palin is so appealing--she is against all that c--p. Half-way measures will not do. We need a new direction. Name me one Republican who calls for real reform.
    Posted by bill greene  on  11/01  at  07:24 PM
  11. There won't be one politician who hasn't already experienced reformation in their personal life. In simple terms, we mean 'grow up.' No one will accept personal responsibility greater than their sense of personal value. Small wonder, they don't know what to conserve, what to reform, and what to throw out...

    Obama's solution is based on an inaccurate definition of 'human.' Mr. Jefferson's, based on Christian principle - which he adored, has survived replacement. Worthy conservation is far better than any collectivist fairy tale. So be it.
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  11/01  at  07:54 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.