Monday 29th of April 2024

not everyone can be successful at copying and pasting without real guts and artfulness.....

 

I've been keeping up with what's going on in education because ~children are the future~ and holy shit, we're in deep trouble. The system is currently being assaulted from multiple angles, and while COVID is a major factor in its dysfunction, it's really more of an accelerant for trends that have been ongoing for years. Here's a completely unscientific and non-comprehensive breakdown of why our future generations are going to be non-functional:

The Society

We all know how little trust US culture has in education, so no point in spilling more pixels on it

 

[longpost][effort] The US education system is on the brink of total collapse and we're all completely screwed.

2 years ago....

 

The Parents

This section is going to be mostly anecdotal because crawling through parenting publications makes my eyes bleed, but I've been watching this shit go on for years so whatever. Even beyond factors like SES and family structure (for the sake of brevity I won't get into factors largely beyond parents' control), there's a vast body of evidence pointing to the fact that how parents parent has a large effect on what their children turn into. Research consistently demonstrates that children of parents with authoritative parenting styles have the best outcomes, including in academic achievement, while children of parents with permissive and neglectful parenting styles consistently underperform. It is perhaps these parents that demonstrate the  involvement and high expectations in their children's education that are also linked to success.

Ok here's where it gets anecdotal. In my completely unscientific observation, parenting trends have shifted to become extremely permissive (see: attachment parenting which gets completely fucking bonkers once you scratch past the surface). Although it's good that it's no longer acceptable to beat children, it seems to have become normal for parents to attempt to shy away from even mild forms of discipline and thus fail to correct problematic behaviors. Without authoritative (even authoritarian would be better) parents providing their children with structure through a system that mixes reward to enforce good behavior and punishment to extinguish bad behavior, they'll be ill-equipped for the classroom.

But there's something even more pernicious happening than granola parenting- parents are exposing their children to long periods of screen time from a very early age. This poses a serious, serious problem; in early childhood, people's brains rapidly adapt to the environment they're being brought up into -- for example, aboriginal australians develop very strong spatial cognition to survive terrain with few landmarks. Parents who give their children regular access to youtube kids and tiktok are literally, unironically giving their brains permission to permanently adapt to a world of rapidly-changing, oversaturated, narrative-free stimuli. Even the most structured parenting can't overcome that.

The School Boards

School board positions across the country are typically filled with elected or politician-appointed members that pander to what voters or politicians want in order to obtain and keep their jobs. Despite the fact that BOE appointees don't have to have any understanding of how education works, they hold immense power over the school districts they oversee. Like publicly-traded companies, school boards show their stakeholders (voters) that they're successful through quantitative metrics like operation costs and graduation rates, which, like publicly-traded companies, often leads them to do things to boost these short-term metrics at the expense of meaningful long-term goals. Examples of common and extremely destructive policies commonly put into place to cook the books are 'avoid Fs at all costs' (i.e. shuffling kids along until they graduate barely literate), 'avoid suspensions or expulsions at all costs' (more warm bodies = more funding), and 'create an inclusive environment' (i.e. eliminate SPED resources to save money).

Of course, they are also increasingly expected to achieve ideological wins that at best do nothing to improve education quality. With education having become ground zero for COVID and culture wars, the true value of schooling to many voters and BOEs across the country (a low-cost babysitting service that hands out good grades and diplomas and doesn't teach anything that challenges what area parents are trying to indoctrinate their kids into) has been laid bare.

The Administrators

Over the past couple decades, the education system has shifted into a 'the customer is always right' service model. As with school boards, admins are concerned with boosting their quant metrics so that their schools appear to be 'good'. Their preoccupation with numbers like graduation rates, in addition to their fear of angry parents, has made behaviors like grade inflation, shuffling unprepared kids through the system instead of holding them back until they learn the material (which makes catching up increasingly harder to the point where we end up with high schoolers (and college students) who are functionally illiterate) and refusing to discipline disruptive students (who hinder learning outcomes for the rest of the class).

Like fresh-faced middle-managers, school administrators are often on the look-out for feel-good trends they can adopt (or pay lip-service to) to demonstrate to parents and teachers that their schools are on the bleeding edge of developments in education theory -- but without making tough, expensive, or unpopular changes that might actually improve student outcomes. In fact, the ways in which these concepts are implemented tend to conveniently cut costs (e.g. special ed staff) or improve metrics (e.g. disciplinary actions) while passing additional burden onto the teachers and tanking education quality for students. A historical example that is now deeply-entrenched within education systems internationally is mainstreaming, which likely harms student performance. A more recent example is restorative justice; extremely hard to implement correctly in the classroom, these programs often amount to admins allowing students to engage in disruptive or even violent behavior consequence-free, with nary a hint of 'restoration' or 'justice' involved.

The burden of executing administrative and school board vision lies almost entirely on the backs of teachers. Faced with feral kids who are often so far behind that they're literally incapable of understanding class material, a directive to prevent kids from failing at all costs, and job creep, the role of the teacher shifts from teaching to meeting the ever-changing whims of parents and superiors. But at least administrators force them to suffer through team building exercise-tier bullshit generously invest in their future through professional development!

The Teachers

Faced with disrespectful and even hostile parents, unsupportive admins, stingy and politically-motivated school boards, and hellraising students, teaching is no longer a viable career path. Contrary to the common wisdom that 'those who can't do, teach', a high proportion of teachers -- particularly highly-needed specialists -- enter the field from other backgrounds because they want to help our youngest citizens thrive. If teachers can no longer teach, the profession is treated with disrespect, and licensing requirements (particularly for those much-needed specialists) are extremely time-consuming and costly...who's going to want to be a teacher?

You may have noticed that most of the links in this longpost are pre-pandemic. Even back then, attrition rates and teacher shortages were so high that schools in some areas were hiring teachers from the Philippines to fill in the gaps. With COVID and culture war bullshit to contend with, teachers are now starting to quit and retire en masse, and teaching program enrollment has declined to the point where those positions can't conceivably be filled.

The kids

They're reportedly quite often little shits who are incapable of engaging in activities that require critical thinking, creative thinking, or attention, but given how much adults are failing them, who's to blame?

Predictions for the future

The deterioration of the public education system (+ parenting) is quite possibly one of the biggest risks to the future of the country. Some predictions for the next decade and beyond:

  • Upward class mobility will be next to impossible for US natives: Children who aren't placed in high-quality private schools won't have the skills necessary to obtain a college degree. The secondary education system may be faced with relaxing its standards to shuffle people through (which has been happening, albeit at a much slower pace than K-12), thus further devaluing US bachelor's degrees and leading companies that can afford to be discriminating to require more proof of skill (i.e. low- and unpaid internships) before investing in young workers.
  • More immigration will be necessary to maintain economic output in key sectors: Because we won't produce enough skilled workers ourselves, we'll need to import more skilled workers from developing countries to work in sectors that require both a degree and talent.
  • Young adults won't be able to engage in critical thinking or reading: This is already a problem that the country faces due to poor-quality parenting and poor liberal arts education, but it'll intensify, which has implications not only for how they think about politics but things like susceptibility to scams.
  • Young adults won't be equipped with the ability to engage in long-term planning: The aforementioned poor-quality parenting and poor liberal arts education will leave young adults unequipped with long-term planning skills and the ability to delay gratification, leading to an increasing adoption of exploitative gig work and financial illiteracy. This is already happening among zoomers
  • A vicious gutting cycle: As is the case with other social programs, the deterioration of the public education system will provide conservatives with justification to further destroy the system because why invest in it if it's not working? This is likely part of the strategy for some of the recent state attempts to relax qualification standards.

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/vwt1na/longposteffort

_the_us_education_system_is_on_the/?rdt=64852

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...........)

 

educating dummy.....

JACKSON, Tenn. (AP) — When he looked to the future, Grayson Hart always saw a college degree. He was a good student at a good high school. He wanted to be an actor, or maybe a teacher. Growing up, he believed college was the only route to a good job, stability and a happy life.

The pandemic changed his mind.

A year after high school, Hart is directing a youth theater program in Jackson, Tennessee. He got into every college he applied to but turned them all down. Cost was a big factor, but a year of remote learning also gave him the time and confidence to forge his own path.

“There were a lot of us with the pandemic, we kind of had a do-it-yourself kind of attitude of like, ‘Oh — I can figure this out,’” he said. “Why do I want to put in all the money to get a piece of paper that really isn’t going to help with what I’m doing right now?”

Hart is among hundreds of thousands of young people who came of age during the pandemic but didn’t go to college. Many have turned to hourly jobs or careers that don’t require a degree, while others have been deterred by high tuition and the prospect of student debt.

What first looked like a pandemic blip has turned into a crisis. Nationwide, undergraduate college enrollment dropped 8 percent from 2019 to 2022, with declines even after returning to in-person classes, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse. The slide in the college-going rate since 2018 is the steepest on record, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

WATCH: Breaking down the arguments as Supreme Court hears challenge to student loan relief plan

Economists say the impact could be dire.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/why-more-americans-are-skipping-college

free censure.....

 

‘Shocking’ scale of UK government’s secret files on critics revealedThis article is more than 1 month old 

Dossiers were compiled by 15 departments after scouring social media activity to vet people invited to speak at official events

 

Fifteen government departments have been monitoring the social media activity of potential critics and compiling “secret files” in order to block them from speaking at public events, the Observer can reveal.

Under the guidelines issued in each department, including the departments of health, culture, media and sport, and environment, food and rural affairs, officials are advised to check experts’ Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. They are also told to conduct Google searches on those individuals, using specific terms such as “criticism of government or prime minister”.

The guidelines are designed to prevent anyone who has criticised the government in the previous three to five years from speaking at government-organised conferences and other events.

In September, the Observer revealed how three early-childhood education experts discovered that the Department for Education tried to cancel invitations for them to speak at government-funded events because they were judged to have been critical of government policy. Many more education experts and school staff have since uncovered files of their critical social media posts held by the department.

However, it has now become clear that the practice is widespread across government and is probably targeting large numbers of individuals. The scale of the monitoring was uncovered by human rights experts at law firm Leigh Day and shared with the Observer.

The revelations will be hugely embarrassing for a Conservative party that regularly claims to champion free speech and has slammed universities for allowing students to “no platform” experts with whom they disagree.

Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, who is pursuing legal action against the government on behalf of at least two experts, said: “This is likely to have impacted large numbers of individuals, many of whom won’t know civil servants hold secret files on them. Such practices are extremely dangerous.”

Gregory maintains that these hidden checks are unlawful, running contrary to data protection laws and potentially breaching equality and human rights legislation.

Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert, was disinvited in April from giving a keynote speech at a UK defence conference after officials found social media posts criticising Tory ministers and government immigration policy. He told the Observer this weekend that he knows of 12 others who have uncovered evidence of similar government blacklisting, most of whom are frightened of speaking out. But he said far more will be unaware they ever failed secret vetting.

He said: “The full extent of this is shocking and probably not fully known. I was lucky enough to be given clearcut, obvious evidence. It’s truly awful.”

Kaszeta hired Leigh Day to take the government to judicial review, prompting the disclosure of evidence on its surveillance policies, and finally a confirmation in August that 15 departments had withdrawn these guidelines pending a Cabinet Office review. He received a public apology in July.

“I don’t have a duty of impartiality. Nor should I,” Kaszeta added. “Trying to extend the civil service code to me because I was merely going to talk to an audience with a handful of civil servants is utterly wrong. I’m not a revolutionary Trotskyite.”

The Observer has seen details of the monitoring guidelines used in several government departments.

Defra, DCMS and the Department for Business and Trade all stated that as well as searching social media, officials should do a background check on Google, and useful search terms would include “criticism of government or prime minister”.

DCMS recommended viewing “a minimum of five to 10 pages of results” covering a period of three to five years. It explicitly told officials to keep a file on the individual, saying: “Make sure you record this information for future reference.”

DfE had specific guidance for vetting speakers at its stronger practice hubs – a network for nursery staff across England. This states that if someone has criticised the DfE or its early years policies, “engaging this person to speak … is unlikely to be appropriate”. If a person has commented favourably on someone else’s negative post they are also “inappropriate to speak”.

The DfE’s departmental guidance, seen by the Observer, recommended a Google search on proposed external speakers going back five years as well as social media checks. But in response to an FoI request from the campaign group Privacy International last year, the DfE said three times that it “does not conduct monitoring, investigations or intelligence gathering on members of the public”.

Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director at Privacy International, which has been investigating social media monitoring by the government for many months, said: “If the government is blacklisting people for using their right to free expression in a very valid way then that is very dangerous.”

She added: “Making a concerted effort to search for negative information in this way is directed surveillance.”

Lib Dem peer Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who convened a debate in the Lords on government social media vetting after Kaszeta’s blacklisting, said: “It is a horrifying notion that only people who agree with you should be involved in policy discussions.”

He added that vetting experts was “the opposite of diversity and inclusion” and a “huge waste of civil servants’ time”.

Jonathan Wolff, the Alfred Landecker professor of values and public policy at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s a sign of weakness to refuse to engage with challenge. And it’s an even greater display of fragility, or petulance, or both, to refuse to listen to people on one issue because they’ve criticised you on another.”

Smita Jamdar, partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau who has been advising universities on how not to fall foul of the government’s new higher education “free speech tsar”, said: “The double standards here are astonishing.”

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office said: “As the public would expect, civil service events must reflect the civil service’s impartiality.”

He added: “The government is committed to protecting free speech. We are reviewing the guidance and have temporarily withdrawn it to prevent any misinterpretation of the rules.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/shocking-scale-of-uk-governments-secret-files-on-critics-revealed

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.... AND THIS GOES FOR YOU "THE GUARDIAN"....