Entries Tagged 'Revering Democracy' ↓

For every question about improving education, my answer is the same – bring understanding, imagination strong character, courage, humility and generosity to the situation.  This is always my answer because this is an inspiring, useful definition of what it means to be educated.  It inspires and challenges teachers and students as it tells them what to do in every situation —  bring understanding, imagination strong character, courage, humility and generosity.

Continue reading →

The previous blog described the belief that our definition of “educated” should always be open to democratic debate.  Where has that belief led us?  Here are examples from the Education Week article, “State Lawmakers Make Curricular Demands of Schools.”

Continue reading →

My education colleagues agree that we should define what it means to be educated, and then they ignore the question.  When I ask why they don’t do the philosophical thinking needed to define “educated,” I find out we hold opposite beliefs.  I believe a universal definition is right in front of us.  They believe there is no such thing.

Let’s examine both beliefs, starting with theirs.

Continue reading →

At the 8:50 mark of his 60 Minutes interview, Christopher Hitchens (March 6, 2011) said, “If I could change just one thing, it would be to dissociate the idea of faith from virtue.”

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2011/03/06/christopher-hitchens-60-minutes/

Hitchens wants people to be virtuous but not religious because he regards virtue as good, and religion as the source of all tyranny. He believes three things about our virtue discourse:

1. People associate being virtuous with being religious.
2. Nothing could be further from the truth.
3. Belief #2 never gets through because of Belief #1.

Somebody should tell Hitchens The Six Virtues of the Educated Person “dissociates the idea of faith from virtue.” My book describes a virtue definition of “educated” that has nothing to do with religious faith. If these virtues were religious, they could not be an inspiring, useful definition of the educated person for American public schools.

Somebody should tell him soon. He has stage 4 cancer.

I just received an email from Michelle Obama. She wants me to be the first to know Charlotte has been chosen to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

(Thanks, Michelle. I assume this is your way of thanking me for the email I sent you, describing how you could defend your statement about being “proud” of America for the first time in your adult life. I was concerned that speaking this truth would cost your husband the election. We Americans don’t respond well to truths we don’t like. I still wonder how your husband’s team kept that under wraps. Silly me — I thought you should clarify your meaning by reminding us that pride is a vice and humility is a virtue. Then your statement could be interpreted to mean, “I have always been humbled by American accomplishments, but I naturally feel proud on the occasion of my husband’s nomination for president.”)
Continue reading →

In a recent Learning for Democracy essay I argued that the following American public education experiments have failed:

(1) providing equal educational opportunity via democratically elected governors at the local and state levels,
(2) improving education via the social science improvement paradigm.

We have invested 160 years in the first experiment and 60 years in the second; but politicians, scholars, citizens, and education writers continue to call for the reform of public education. My essay describes the failures of these experiments and argues that educational governance must replace democratic governance and an aesthetic improvement paradigm must replace the social scientific one.

Read it at: (Registration is free.)

https://ojcs.siue.edu/ojs/index.php/lfd/article/viewFile/1939/483

I ask for counter-arguments in the article. Post comments below.

Now that MSNBC has exploded over President Obama’s “compromise” with Republicans, I want to return to Jon Stewart’s claim that MSNBC and Fox News are guilty of the same kind of biased journalism. In my earlier False Equivalency blog I asked readers to compare how often Fox News and MSNBC commentators prop up a “straw man.”

This is a debating technique that distorts an opponent’s belief, and then ridicules the distortion. In the earlier blog I claimed MSNBC does this much less than Fox News, making a false equivalency of John Stewart’s claim that the two channels do the same thing from opposite perspectives. I told Stewart that political discernment makes him funny, and he needs more discernment before making MSNBC the liberal equivalent of Fox News.
Continue reading →

It’s early December. I am reading final papers from fall semester and planning new courses for spring. I have been moved by both experiences.

I am moved by the reflections of teachers who love their students. Elementary teachers love their little ones — the imagination, the questions, the sincerity, the innocence. Middle grade teachers love their pre-teens — the struggles, the needs, the cooperative moments and the challenging days. High school teachers love their teenagers — the enthusiasm, the energy, the blossoming potential.

I teach adults. I love my students (who are teachers) for their dedication, strength, and generosity. Many of them have written beautifully about their classroom and school struggles, and I have been deeply moved this week.
Continue reading →

At his Washington rally, and during his Daily Show interview with Chris Wallace, John Stewart claimed Fox News and MSNBC are guilty of the same kind of biased journalism.

After the Washington rally, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann argued that this is a false equivalency.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/olbermann-tackles-false-equivalency-between-msnbc-and-fox-defying-jon-stewart//

Several months ago I wrote a Facebook message to a high school classmate on this topic:

This is how I describe the difference between right-wing and left-wing media:

The liberal media use the actual words of conservatives (sometimes out of context, sometimes not) to ridicule their ideas and philosophy. The right-wing media distorts the words (and beliefs) of liberals, and then ridicules them.

You can watch for yourself, any night of the week, except weekends.

Let’s see who is right — John Stewart or me. Watch O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. and count how many times they distort liberal beliefs and then ridicule them. Do they realize they are doing this? In the language of debate competitions, they “prop up a straw man and knock it down.”

Then watch MSNBC (Schultz, Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, O’Donnell, etc.). Which side wins the straw man competition? All the Fox News viewers who commented at the end of the linked video should try this little experiment.

Yes, John Stewart — yours is a false equivalency. Your comedy is funny because it discerns both ridiculous truths and ridiculous distortions. You need more discernment on this one.

American people crap — On the PBS Newshour (October 28, 2010) pollster Ann Selzer said the economy is the major issue in the November election, but American voters don’t know which side to blame.

Cut the crap — American voters watched for eight years as prosperity became economic meltdown, and they don’t know which side to blame? This is like baseball fans watching the team make five errors in the last inning, and then blaming the relief pitcher for the loss.