Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Education and Human Development

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

following
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 24

Posted 2/6/2003 10:53 AM (GMT -6)

Not sure if people would like to talk about this. But I am really interested in looking at a christian perspective of schools and human development. Especially related to urban central city schools. How the heck do you reform the schools and effectively address the needs of the kids, the parents the teachers the community, the whole deal. My central thought currently has to do with identity. Kids don't know who they are in christ thus falling into what the world says they are. I also believe that there are systemic issues related to declining urban schools that need to be addressed as well. I don't know. I just walked out of a class that gives me a headache every time and I can't think on my own. Any ideas, thoughts or recommended readings would be wonderful. Thank You.

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/6/2003 12:47 PM (GMT -6)

following,

Thinking from a systemic angle, I don't think there is a "Christian perspective of schools." There may be a "right" and "left" answer to this question, however, but not necessarily a Christian one. If we combine what seems to me to be very general guidelines for biblical stewardship with "the situation" as it stands today, we may come up with some very practical ways of addressing the mess that is the educational system as we (you) presently have it.

What you are asking, in my opinion, is a VERY PRACTICAL question and not so much a theological one, though it will be theologically informed. So first off, we want to know what is the situation, what is the problem and then we can work toward a solution.

For instance, Bruce Goldberg has written a book entitled, "Why Schools Fail." He traces the history of public schools and the dominant educational theories of the past 150 years, including behaviorism, progressivism, structuralism, and traditionalism. He argues that all of those theories are flawed because they presume that children are essentially interchangeable and thus can be educated in the same way. To Goldberg, "It is the denial of individuality, the idea that everyone must follow some general plan, that is at the core of the failure of the schools."

He argues that educators who claim they have "scientific knowledge" of what children need are sorely mistaken. From Horace Mann in the 1840s to Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch in the 1980s, Goldberg contends that such theorists simply do not understand how children learn. There is no one path to intellectual advancement.

Not all children need, or want, to learn Latin, take math for 12 years, or read from a "Great Books" list that, at best, has been randomly compiled. Instead, they should be free to pursue the things that interest them and at which they are adroit. If that were allowed, schooling would no longer be viewed by many children as tortuous and mind-numbing; it would be considered exciting and productive.

Goldberg argues that such a scenario is unlikely to develop as long as the public school monopoly remains in place. He writes that the "public school system, despite occasional lip service to the idea, has been at war with individuality."

And how do we encourage individuality? We encourage competition. And how do we encourage competition? We encourage school vouchers. If competition were introduced via a system of vouchers, the stifling effects of the one-size-fits-all educational approach could be mitigated. While he concedes that there will remain certain private schools that do not appreciate the merits of individualism--such as military academies and many religious schools--he contends that a "system of competing schools will produce a vigorous and thorough discussion of standards, and there is not even a remote chance of that happening in the present system."

In a nutshell? From a systemic angle, get the federal government, which does not nor ever did have a constitutional right to be involved in education, OUT of education. Bring it back to the state and local level where parental and competitive environments can be encouraged.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/6/2003 1:24 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I don't think there is a "Christian perspective of schools." There may be a "right" and "left" answer to this question, however, but not necessarily a Christian one.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think one of the most explicit tasks of the Christian is to fight against forces of oppression. Being familiar with inner-city schools makes one understand and recognize several different areas in which oppression is alive and thriving in our schools. I think there is a Christian perspective to everything and schools can/should also be discussed from within that framework...

Paulo Freire, a rather adorned Brazilian educator, wrote the capstone work for education in areas of poverty and oppression. "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is a worthy starting place to take this from an educational standpoint, however, social, economic, and political factors should be discussed as well.

Just to talk about one of the many aspects of this topic:
I'd have to agree with you BBBCanada on the issue that there really isn't a blanket method for children's learning. Most educational research would support an education that supports a child's learning style (of which there are many) rather than having a child conform to a teaching style. It's a difficult and overwhelming task and there are many places where it breaks down. Take for instance, the Minneapolis Public Schools. The BASAL reading curriculum is generally provided by the lowest price bidder. Whichever of the big educational publishers, such as Scholastic or Houghton Mifflin, can provide the district -wide curriculum at the lowest cost gets the bid. When every student is subjected to the same curriculum despite their learning style, there is little room for statistical changes to the usual bell curve results. Many teachers are swimming against the stream in this respect. Some teachers are closing their doors and teaching based on learning styles rather than the teaching models provided by the district/school.

Side point---We will never have a level playing field in education until the current property-tax based funding system is converted to a need based sytem.

Good can of worms FOLLOWING.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 2/6/2003 6:32 PM (GMT -6)

"oppression" is a word used to cover a multitude of failures, regardless of their reasons. Students fail in rich schools, students succeed and overcome in poor schools. If you are going to tackle the "issue" of "oppression" in inner city schools you should look at the whole range of failure, not just inner city children. You seem to be assuming that if children have the resources they will succeed. Average and above average schools would prove you wrong.
While money and technology can have an effect, I find it naive to think that having "level playing field" materially with make that much of a difference.
From my own (limited) experience as a parent and student I believe this: a child will succeed through will and the support and involvment of good parents. Good teachers help. After that everything else is secondary.

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/6/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not sure if some or all of this was directed to me, but I'll respond nonetheless.

quote:
You seem to be assuming that if children have the resources they will succeed. Average and above average schools would prove you wrong.

Nope. The funding side point was precisely a side point to articulate the level playing field of finances in education. I'm not as naive as one may think to believe that funding will solve the discrepencies in achievement of inner-city schools.

quote:
From my own (limited) experience as a parent and student I believe this: a child will succeed through will and the support and involvment of good parents. Good teachers help. After that everything else is secondary

I couldn't agree more. A stable and supportive homelife is the most important factor that will lead to student achievement.

quote:
If you are going to tackle the "issue" of "oppression" in inner city schools you should look at the whole range of failure, not just inner city children. You seem to be assuming that if children have the resources they will succeed. Average and above average schools would prove you wrong.

I'm really not making that assumption. Some kids show up to school with minimal social, familial, and environmental baggage while others have severe issues and a range in between. How often does society hold parents accountable when kids aren't achieving in school. Rarely. Parents are dealt with after issues of abuse and neglect. On the other hand, politicians never stop attracting press to talk about holding teachers accountable, and raising test scores and graduation rates. Ultimately much of the pressure to raise children lands on the education system. There is never a guarantee that children will succeed, but to the extent that we rely on our education system to solve our social ills, resources do make a difference. The job of the public school educator is not to teach, but to guide learning. Resources can definetly make a difference in that task.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/07/2003 12:31:58 AM

following
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 24

Posted 2/7/2003 2:37 AM (GMT -6)

Good stuff.
I think one of the hardest questions lies in effectively defining the problem. Is is family, is it money (though minneapolis urban schools are alloted more money per pupil than surbuban schools. although there are other monetary reasons for exisiting inequality between schools), is it poverty, is it tv? I agree with the individuality of kids. I believe that children of different ethnicity and cultural backgrounds can have completely different learning styles. we have a very euro-centric educational system and curriculi. I think one of the main things is teaching kids what they are interested in. Now, how you find what they are interested in can be a difficult question....

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:59 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual