[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Debian experts?

Paul Heinlein heinlein at madboa.com
Wed Feb 21 20:23:33 UTC 2007


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Rich Shepard wrote:

>  This is not at all surprising. There are many studies that have 
> demonstrated the appalling lack of knowlege about geography (many 
> high school students cannot locate their home state on an outline 
> map of the country), name their elected officials (from the local to 
> the federal levels) or Supreme Court justices, or many other facts 
> we take for granted.

For the sake of what would someone need to know such things?

What knowledge is necessary for being a valued member of a social 
group? This knowledge is physical (self-sufficiency), moral (avoiding 
taboos), linguistic (how to communicate and listen for concerns), 
cultural (to assimilate and interpret shared behaviors), and whatever 
three-R's variety is necessary for economic involvement.

What parts of "knowledge" should receive priorities in formal 
education?

The larger question that doesn't so much get asked is how large is the 
social sphere for which we should educate children. Do we need to 
educate people so that they can be a valued member of every community 
on earth (a very, very high standard!)? the entire anglophone 
community? the US of A? an ethnic group within Oregon? the economic 
community of northwest Multnomah county? a family clan?

I think a *lot* of mischief takes place because we don't agree on the 
scope of community to which we're educating people.

Me, I like to think that I'm aiming my daughters to be able to operate 
in the scope of North American urban business/cultural community and, 
to a lesser extent, the worldwide anglophone community. Note the 
communities I haven't targeted: North American rural/farming, Central 
or South American, African, Far Eastern, etc. Hopefully my daughters 
will have the skills for self-education should they choose to operate 
in those communities, but for now it's not part of the scope of the 
education I'd emphasize for my children.

I have some good friends, on the other hand, whose daughter has some 
learning difficulties. No one (including me) has ever categorized her 
disabled, but learning is difficult for her. As she's grown, her 
parents have started to limit the scope of the community for which 
they're seeking her education. I suppose that community could be 
characterized as basic self-sufficiency in Clackamas county. They 
would care little whether she ever learned to recognize Oregon on a 
map (though I suspect she can), but they want to know that she can run 
a household, hold down a basic job, manage a checking account, and 
travel to necessary locations.

My friends and I live in different school districts, but imagine we 
not only lived in the same district, we also served on the same school 
board. What arguments we could have about what constitutes a good 
curriculum for high school students -- I aiming for baccalaureate 
success, they for baseline economic viability.

Who's right?

Everyone involved the process of curriculum building -- parents, 
teachers, administrators, students -- needs to answer the scope 
question first and foremost.

There are lots of good answers -- different people need different 
things. The answers need to be assigned priorities. Only then can any 
satisfying debate over curricum begin.

-- 
Paul Heinlein <> heinlein at madboa.com <> www.madboa.com



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list