Quote:

---

So the idea that some kids going off half cock is in some way indicative of a lack of tradecraft in the area of protesting is wrong, spontaneous protests are messy, I'm not sure you can teach a better technique.

---

Quote:

---

More than 160 students in six different classes at Intermediate School 318 in the South Bronx - virtually the entire eighth grade - refused to take last Wednesday's three-hour practice exam for next month's statewide social studies test. Instead, the students handed in blank exams.

Then they submitted signed petitions with a list of grievances to school Principal Maria Lopez and the Department of Education. "We've had a whole bunch of these diagnostic tests all year," Tatiana Nelson, 13, one of the protest leaders, said Tuesday outside the school. "They don't even count toward our grades. The school system's just treating us like test dummies for the companies that make the exams."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
There are several parts to his reaction to standardized teaching (a) "What" is taught and (b) The "way" it is taught. (a) I agree that the current curriculum sucks. But the reason for standardized curriculum is to prepare everyone equally (one hopes) for participation in the world of work. You don't want to drive on a multi-lane bridge designed by Joe, who learned it from his grandpappy in exchange for lawn mowing because grandpappy once built a creek bridge. The benefit of teaching is that humans can accumulate knowledge over many generations, not re-invent the wheel every generation.

---

Quote:

---

He has a simpler, smaller paradyne in place here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
On the other note, about smaller paradigms, that's a little more complex than your making it, but not so much - the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base, what I have described before as incremental minimalisim.

Example: If we choose to dismantle structure A, then we will lose Technology B and the ability to produce product C.

Do we have perhaps an alternate tech or product we can live with ?
If not, are we all ok with losing B & C ?

If-Yes-Next Structure...

And so on and so forth, to a point where folks are comfortable with, which is far more likely to be somewhere in between here and a horse and buggy culture, it was just a convenient example of the degree it could be taken by folk hell bent on it - but not necessarily where it WOULD go.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...no question of fault since the other driver blew about twice the legal limit and was in my lane, but a pain in the ass all the same.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry for the late response, some drunk plowed nose to nose into #35 and the freakin heater core blew out and sprayed hot coolant all over my feet, which didn't do jack to the right one as it's plastic, but the left one is kinda burnt, not to mention the hassle and paperwork, no question of fault since the other driver blew about twice the legal limit and was in my lane, but a pain in the ass all the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
if you want to contradict the experts, then I'd like to see those degrees and the reasoning why.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
if you want to contradict the experts, then I'd like to see those degrees and the reasoning why.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
'The experts' just KNEW Saddam had WMD. The highest paid, best trained, most technologically proficient peeps on the planet, right? Lots of degrees in that bunch....
'The experts' just KNEW margarine was better for you than butter.
'The experts' just KNEW the Earth was flat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


I hope you are back to your usual self soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The experts KNEW how to avoid double posting....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
What I fail to see is how dismantling useless and counterproductive Govt agencies that suck up money and resources like there's no end, limit our rights and freedoms, and can't seem to manage at any time to actually do the intended job - would kill our tech base ?

---

Quote:

---

Example: If we choose to dismantle structure A, then we will lose Technology B and the ability to produce product C.

Do we have perhaps an alternate tech or product we can live with ?
If not, are we all ok with losing B & C ?

If-Yes-Next Structure...

---

Quote:

---

It seemed earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences, which simply isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

I think you're pretty clear here about technology being on the potential chopping block

---

Quote:

---

And before you cry strawman remember this local, isolated, barter society is one YOU posited.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If someone said that, it sure hell wasn't me, as usual - what's it gonna take for y'all to not throw other peoples arguments at me as if I made them

---

Quote:

---

Do you have any IDEA how annoying this cycle is getting ?

---

Quote:

---

Well I don't see how it's NOT bloody obvious that should you scale down the industrial base REQUIRED to produce something, that you won't be able to produce it - time and time again I have said this, pointed it out over and over again, that in a reduced industrial base you WILL take a technological hit, and time and time again have been told I either didn't say it, or said something else.

---

Quote:

---

Frem, I quoted you.

---

Quote:

---

It seemed earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences, which simply isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

You're premise maybe that you remove structure A and you lose technology B and thus product C, you don't need to argue that's what you're saying, we know that's what you're saying. Perhaps before getting on your high horse and martyring yourself you should find out what other people are saying yes?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, you did not - you attributed to me a statement I never made and in fact have argued AGAINST every single time it's been brought up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
On the other note, about smaller paradigms, that's a little more complex than your making it, but not so much - the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base, what I have described before as incremental minimalisim.

Example: If we choose to dismantle structure A, then we will lose Technology B and the ability to produce product C.

Do we have perhaps an alternate tech or product we can live with ?
If not, are we all ok with losing B & C ?

If-Yes-Next Structure...

And so on and so forth, to a point where folks are comfortable with, which is far more likely to be somewhere in between here and a horse and buggy culture, it was just a convenient example of the degree it could be taken by folk hell bent on it - but not necessarily where it WOULD go.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

I did not say this.

In fact I never said or even suggested this, ever, at any point in any discussion here, whatsoever, period - end of line.

---

Quote:

---

And yet in thread after thread, after having that pointed out repeatedly, you continue to attribute to me a position that not only do I not hold, have never held, but in fact do not agree with.

---

Quote:

---

And in thread after thread, I have pointed that out, again and again, and I am sick of it to the point of fury, especially when it wrecks otherwise useful discussions, as it apparently has here - and I am completely done being polite or reasonable about it.

---

Quote:

---

I DO need to argue it, because somehow every fucking time I SAY that, some shithead comes around and tries to claim I said we could remove structure A without consequence, which is what is pissing me off, I am sick and tired of playing this fucking game with you people, when I say something five and six times only to be told I didn't say it, said something else, or "but what you really MEANT was..."

---

Quote:

---

I took MORE than enough of that shit in the FLDS thread, and far too much over this stupidass argument I never made in the first place - do I have to preface every fucking post I ever make with it because you seem to have less longterm memory than a common mayfly ?

---

Quote:

---

Or should I just quote whole damn posts at you, in triplicate ?

---

Quote:

---

FREMDFIRMA
Anarchist Propaganda Minister
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 12:06

Ok, now...

It's not that I don't feel the Gov should be teaching, but they really should separate themselves a bit more substantially from the process, public education as it is currently done is pretty terrible, and I have a particular beef with Civics, Social Studies and History classes being so propaganda-laden as to be ineffective at imparting actual knowledge of events.

As for any idea of ME teaching folk, heh, other than History, Small Engine Repair and perhaps Anarchist Philosophy, I am not especially qualified to teach most subjects, but I can most certainly assist someone in improving skills they do know - having the rare ability to "light the fire" and make folk WANT to learn does not in this case translate into knowing how to teach beyond a rare few subjects.

You might be surprised that most of my beefs actually echo yours, in fact.

I too think the curriculum and style sucks, we really need to go more hands-on in many cases and show the real world benefits of being able to USE that knowledge - the home economics class I took way back when was probably one of the best educational setups I've seen, as they had an artificial "store" and checkout line where one could put into practice not only what they had learned in that class but also demonstrate how good math skills could benefit you directly.

There's much to be said for not reinventing the wheel either, but we really should go back to phonics and meaning based reading of the Lippincott model rather than the rote memorisation and see-n-say Caldwell model.

I don't know if those are actually the proper names, but due to the changeover, I got one, and my sister got the other, and it really shows in our reading and language comprehension and abilities, even this many years later.

Other than that, our basic curriculum isn't THAT bad until about grade four-five.

The artificial social structure is pretty awful, and the same authoritarian cycle of squeeze-resistance-squeeze more which has failed in every other damn thing it's applied to simply isn't going to work, these kids have to understand the REASONS for rules and those rules should make SENSE in a real world sort of way - a little communication in that respect would go much, much further than simply putting the boot down and giving orders, a school is not a factory production line, and unless you want to run the place like a kennel or prison, and I have seen that too many times in public schools to deny it happens very often - you MUST have a bridge of communication with your students, and it MUST go both ways.

I don't have anything against standardised testing per-se, it's just that when you're doing little else but prepping for and taking them, you're not actually TEACHING, because you are artificially limiting the subject - and to make schools financially dependant on these things just feeds a bad cycle.

What we oughta do, is have a standard set of more or less "finals" for each grade and leave it at that, make them a requirement of advancement to the next grade, and add a few elements of ceremony and tradition to that so that the child sees their own accomplishment actually acknowledged and respected, which will encourage them and offer emotional support in an environment strangely devoid of it in these days.

As for the incident in question - the school completely failed to take advantage of a truly great educational opportunity here, Fletch mentions unintended consequences, and what better way to teach about them than in an actual environment where they can be effectively shown and demonstrated in a semi-controlled environment ?

As well, there's the hypocrisy issue of teaching the value of nonviolent social protest on the one hand, and then penalizing it severely the instant that students choose to utilize that method, don't think for a moment that particular little "lesson" hasn't made an impact here, which is going to have it's own set of unintended consequences using the force-resistance-more force model.

I think they had a great teaching opportunity here and not only blew it, but did so in such a way that it's going to have a long lasting negative impact on the relationship between the students and educators here, is what I mostly meant.

I will not delve too deep here into the artificial social structure, since it's a seperate issue which has been discussed at length before and isn't fully applicable to this particular situation, but that's also a factor in the problems of our educational system so I feel it should be briefly mentioned regardless.

The two things we most need to improve matters seem to be more flexibility in the curriculum and more communication between students, educators, and administrators.

----

On the other note, about smaller paradigms, that's a little more complex than your making it, but not so much - the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base, what I have described before as incremental minimalisim.

Example: If we choose to dismantle structure A, then we will lose Technology B and the ability to produce product C.

Do we have perhaps an alternate tech or product we can live with ?
If not, are we all ok with losing B & C ?

If-Yes-Next Structure...

And so on and so forth, to a point where folks are comfortable with, which is far more likely to be somewhere in between here and a horse and buggy culture, it was just a convenient example of the degree it could be taken by folk hell bent on it - but not necessarily where it WOULD go.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it/B]

---

Quote:

---

Let me repeat it one more time so that you jackasses fucking for once might acknowledge it for more than sixty seconds.

---

Yeah, lets repeat it one more time so the stupid lying fucking moron can get another chance of getting it:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
On the other note, about smaller paradigms, that's a little more complex than your making it, but not so much - the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base, what I have described before as incremental minimalisim.

Example: If we choose to dismantle structure A, then we will lose Technology B and the ability to produce product C.

Do we have perhaps an alternate tech or product we can live with ?
If not, are we all ok with losing B & C ?

If-Yes-Next Structure...

And so on and so forth, to a point where folks are comfortable with, which is far more likely to be somewhere in between here and a horse and buggy culture, it was just a convenient example of the degree it could be taken by folk hell bent on it - but not necessarily where it WOULD go.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

-Frem

---

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=33772#613066

Quote:

---

But it sure didn't stop the shitheads that wanted to do just that, and trying to be reasonable with you fuckwads hasn't either, and if you want to nitpick over a mere simplification of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT that happened MONTHS AGO, just to be assholes because you have nothing of actual USE to contribute to the topic at hand....

It might be a better idea if you just shut the fuck up and let folks who ARE willing to discuss the topic do so, for once.

---

No, what would be a better idea is that instead of being a collosal troll, instead of being the argumentative moron you accuse everyone else of, instead of lying about what you said, what would be better is if you acted like a half decent human being for once in your fucking life. If your quote was poorly stated BY YOU, a decent human being wouldn't be calling everyone else liars, wouldn't be saying that a direct quote of words THEY FUCKING TYPED, were typed by someone else, a decent human being would appologise for stating their position poorly, and try to state it better. A lying hypocritical brainless argumentative peice of shit troll would flat out lie, tell people the direct quote wasn't written by them, and insult those reading their fucking words.

Pop quiz, frem, what did you do, exactly?

Quote:

---

Which is, again, Problems within the educational system and potentive concepts for solution - and if you ain't discussing THAT, from this point, you'll be discussing with yourself, although I think for some of you that's rather a common practice.

---

Yeah, someone here seems to be having problems along those lines.

If you were trying to prove you're nothing but a hypocritical lying retard cunt, bravo, mission accomplished.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Quote:

---

ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,200 employees and $68.6 billion budget are dedicated to:
• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

---