|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| gaijinalways wrote: |
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
Hi Gaijina,
Having learned a lot from my teachers (CS Lewis and GK Chesterton) over the past several years, I can say that the most practical thing a person can do is to identify the ideal and work towards it. Practice - which merely means "doing" - without thought (which is what the ideal is about) is mindless. If you would build or change anything, you must have some sort of ideal to work towards.
|
I agree, but rather than throw out what you have, fix it. Having a revolution every time you don't like some aspect of society doesn't strike me as terribly productive.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
The trouble is, we don't agree on the ideal. It wouldn't matter if I offered my ideal, because it would not be ideal for you. My solution proceeds from a (n Orthodox) Christian worldview, and sees man as being immortal and having eternal purpose, which is to glorify God, and to be thankful for everything, including the abilities to see, hear, and write these words, and to reject ideas that oppose that as false. (I don't guess you'll cotton to that.)
|
You finally got closer to answering my question about what your philosophy of education is. Unfortunately, you've couched it in religious terms, which will be a bit difficult for people who are not religious to accept (I'm more of a naturalist myself). Again though, you haven't really stated what your principles are for education, you seem to have difficulty doing that.
What is your ideal educational system?
What would you see being taught and by whom?
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| Yet the solution you offer me - withdraw and homeschool, as some do, still has me paying school taxes and does not let me reform the public school the way I would see it. I think any discussion about what to do is useless, because we don't agree on basic philosophy. I'll charge ahead with what's practical for me, and you'll charge ahead with what's practical for you, and we'll both charge off in opposite directions, trying to drag our conceptions of what school should be with it. |
No, again, you can answer the above questions rather than running away from them. This is why compromises are often the case in real life, and people try not to live in their own utopias (well, at least not in public anyway). People have discussions about many things, and they don't just simply say, "You don't understand my position because our basic philosophies are different, so we have nothing to talk about."
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| So what CAN we talk about and possibly come to some consensus on? Only on what IS; on what HAS been done, so we can identify whose philosophy has dominated public education, and likely formed the thinking - how people think, and what they find unthinkable - of most people here. That means history, Gaijina. There's nothing else sensible that we can talk about if all of our premises radically differ. |
Again, I disagree. You seem to be afraid (for a lack of a better understanding of your motives) to state clearly what you hope to accomplish with education.
I have already stated what I thought was fairly clear cut;
'better' teaching of science and mathematics (as in motivating and making these subjects more attractive) as well as a liberal arts education. As to problems with wanting more open discussion, this can be incorporated through using technology, just like we're having this discussion now across the globe. The classroom doesn't need to be only a physical place.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| On the Tower of Babel... what you will get is the philosophy we have - one which is very good for empire-building and very bad for individuals and free thought: one based on the premise that there is no objectively true answer to the questions I posted; one that says, "It doesn't matter what you believe! |
I'm not sure where you got this from and why you think this. Rather I think that you need to objectively think about education and not just spout about ideals. So every country using this educational system is empire building....and since China's, Myanmar's, N. Korea's, etc. systems are different, they must not be doing that, yes?
I'm wondering, were you beaten when you asked the teachers a question? Did you get to ask why something was being learned?
I did, but the only bullying I got was from other students, some of who later graced the crime report in my town (really, it's true). Yes, nothing is perfect, and that includes educational systems that you may have adopted. There will always be some problem with each and every system that we use.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| It may be true for you (whatever that means) but is not true for anyone else." And so the dogmas form which make it unthinkable to insist anything to the contrary: that truth is objective and knowable, and that some beliefs more correctly describe that truth than others. |
Truth is objective? Amazing, so one nation's history is best?
Why are we getting into beliefs, seemingly bordering on religious beliefs? Are you running a church at home and does Russia allow for nonprofit status (if so, I'd suggest you take advantage of this situation)?
I'm not sure what is true for me is not true for anyone else. Would you care to give us examples? You seem to be confusing beliefs with facts.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| That is the cardinal sin in public schools today - the thing that challenges "tolerance", "diversity" and "multiculturalism" - all of which can be good things, but which can also be bad - only nobody seems to notice that. |
Again, please clarify what you seem to clearly understand, but perhaps the other posters can't quite grasp here. Multiculturalism can be bad because....
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| While I speak about what I know best - America and Russia, it applies to all western countries, who have all adopted pretty much the same model - the Prussian one. Classes of 30 children, one teacher, 6 lessons or so broken up by bells, with minor variations, one aimed at teaching standardization and obedience, not free and genuinely critical thinking. |
Hmm, your school must have been in a different universe than mine. Though of course, ideally we would have smaller classes, with open discussion every day (actually we had this in some of my classes). But you really think that students don't do this already outside of class? You think they don't question what their teachers said? And nowadays, can't students access open discussion on the Internet (well, the ones who have Internet access can, anyway)?
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| The individual teacher can do nothing against that organization or philosophy and expect to remain a teacher long. What we can discuss objectively is how that philosophy came to be the controlling philosophy that formed so many of us, and why one cannot disagree with it and hope to become a public school teacher. |
I disagree. You can work to change the system inside the system, but if you simply hide behind a religious tome and keep complaining, you probably are right, you probably won't change much. |
Hi Gaijina,
I'm cutting back on my posting for now; don't want to seem to be ignoring you.
It seems difficult to respond to your questions because I already have. Your use of language characterizing me as "fearing", "running" and "hiding" is simply miscasting/misunderstanding me.
If I think something actually and objectively true, and not merely my opinion or merely personal belief, then obviously I will attempt to teach that and form any system of education around it, whether the base philosophy be religious or no. You will, as you have admitted, disagree with that, and so we will be trying to form one education system around completely different answers to the most fundamental questions of life. Thus, we cannot possibly cooperate, unless we both agree that what we believe does not matter and happens to actually not be truth, which I, for one, certainly won't. If we admit that we do not have truth, how can we pretend to teach it to our children?
If my most fundamental principle is that we are creations of God, that our life has definite and objective meaning and purpose, and not merely ones that we create for ourselves, and you disagree, then how can we propose to co-educate? For what reasons should I care about the sciences and liberal educations? If life is meaningless, then so are they. Our very ideas of good and better pull in opposing directions. One thing I would start with is teaching philosophy and religion from the very beginning. An approach that openly declares it dogmas is far preferable to the public one which hides its dogmas and pretends it doesn't have any. At least a person has the chance to think about that which has been openly taught. It is the "hidden curriculum" - that which is assumed and not spoken of - that is what I am objecting to.
It seems you have admitted that you don't grasp that tolerance, etc. can be bad as well as good things. That was my point. If the thing to be tolerated, or the thing to be "diverse" or "multicultural" about is not defined, then it can mean anything. It can mean to tolerate poison and treachery; diversity which is the spice of life can choke if it becomes the whole soup. Does a person have a right to reject diversity and multiculturalism? Do they have the right to refuse to tolerate a poisonous mushroom?
Anyway, over the next month and a half I am limiting my posting, and don't think it a good idea to continue if the attitude is one of insulting and belittling another's position rather than seeking to honestly understand it. I do think the subject worthy of discussion, and would, later on in spring, be happy to continue it if you are honestly interested in understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher posted
| Quote: |
Of course there will be more employment opportunities in USA than in Russia with a degree, but that reflects the job market, rather than the quality of education.
|
But I am trying to show there is a relation between the two. Better research, government policies, etc. will increase the business opportunities and jobs. Bad government policies, such as those that led to the USSR splintering, will obviously decrease both of those, business opportunities and jobs. I don't think the current Russian government has improved the levels of court protection that much as well, another major factor in encouraging businesses to flourish.
johnnyenglishteacher posted
| Quote: |
| However, I am realistic enough to know that if they turn up at a job interview clutching their 2.1 degree in English Literature, then they will have an advantage over a literature student from, say, Hungary or Slovakia, where students have to work much harder for their degrees. |
But you do realize they may have studied for that degree in their native language rather than in the literature language, yes? This is very common in Japan where English Literature majors can't speak or write English, and sometimes can barely read it. So, let's see, I am going to hire a literature major for....
Contrast this with my older sister who graduated with a dual major in French and Political Science who studied and lived in France and also used French when she lived in Egypt. In addition, my younger sister studied Spanish literature in Spanish as well as British literature, which the latter is what she now teaches as an assistant professor.
johnnyenglishteacher posted
| Quote: |
| Having graduated from a prestigious English university, I met more than my fair share of students who spent more time getting drunk than reading books. |
Actually, I met some who weren't literature majors, some were even gasp science and math majors...yes, GPAs come in all sizes and shapes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| It seems difficult to respond to your questions because I already have. Your use of language characterizing me as "fearing", "running" and "hiding" is simply miscasting/misunderstanding me. |
But you still haven't answered my main questions, so that would appear to me to be you acting evasively.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| ....if we admit that we do not have truth, how can we pretend to teach it to our children? |
I think you want to replace 'truth' with values. Values are tricky, as they are closer to being belief systems than any so called 'truth' I know.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| An approach that openly declares it dogmas is far preferable to the public one which hides its dogmas and pretends it doesn't have any. At least a person has the chance to think about that which has been openly taught. It is the "hidden curriculum" - that which is assumed and not spoken of - that is what I am objecting to. |
Depends on how much you like dogmas (and dogs). I think a lot of things are not absolute, and I highly doubt that any religiously backed education has no 'dogmatic' core or agenda.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| It seems you have admitted that you don't grasp that tolerance, etc. can be bad as well as good things. That was my point. If the thing to be tolerated, or the thing to be "diverse" or "multicultural" about is not defined, then it can mean anything. It can mean to tolerate poison and treachery; diversity which is the spice of life can choke if it becomes the whole soup. Does a person have a right to reject diversity and multiculturalism? Do they have the right to refuse to tolerate a poisonous mushroom? |
I think you're getting bogged down in trying to over-qualify what you say to the point you end up saying very little, if anything at all.
I'm wondering, in this home schooling you're doing with your children, are you introducing the other religious tomes that your children should be aware of; The Upanishads, the Koran, The Taoist Way, etc...?
Or are you simply deciding for them which tome is most 'true'?
For some reason, I find god exists as much in a tree as a person or in any particular book.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| I do think the subject worthy of discussion, and would, later on in spring, be happy to continue it if you are honestly interested in understanding. |
I am interested and wish to discuss it, but as I said, you continue to not answer the questions I posted as to what you would suggest. I gave specific suggestions and my general philosophy. You seem to have a hard time stating what your philosophy for education is, beyond talking about your religious beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gaijinalways wrote: |
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| It seems difficult to respond to your questions because I already have. Your use of language characterizing me as "fearing", "running" and "hiding" is simply miscasting/misunderstanding me. |
But you still haven't answered my main questions, so that would appear to me to be you acting evasively.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| ....if we admit that we do not have truth, how can we pretend to teach it to our children? |
I think you want to replace 'truth' with values. Values are tricky, as they are closer to being belief systems than any so called 'truth' I know.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| An approach that openly declares it dogmas is far preferable to the public one which hides its dogmas and pretends it doesn't have any. At least a person has the chance to think about that which has been openly taught. It is the "hidden curriculum" - that which is assumed and not spoken of - that is what I am objecting to. |
Depends on how much you like dogmas (and dogs). I think a lot of things are not absolute, and I highly doubt that any religiously backed education has no 'dogmatic' core or agenda.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| It seems you have admitted that you don't grasp that tolerance, etc. can be bad as well as good things. That was my point. If the thing to be tolerated, or the thing to be "diverse" or "multicultural" about is not defined, then it can mean anything. It can mean to tolerate poison and treachery; diversity which is the spice of life can choke if it becomes the whole soup. Does a person have a right to reject diversity and multiculturalism? Do they have the right to refuse to tolerate a poisonous mushroom? |
I think you're getting bogged down in trying to over-qualify what you say to the point you end up saying very little, if anything at all.
I'm wondering, in this home schooling you're doing with your children, are you introducing the other religious tomes that your children should be aware of; The Upanishads, the Koran, The Taoist Way, etc...?
Or are you simply deciding for them which tome is most 'true'?
For some reason, I find god exists as much in a tree as a person or in any particular book.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| I do think the subject worthy of discussion, and would, later on in spring, be happy to continue it if you are honestly interested in understanding. |
I am interested and wish to discuss it, but as I said, you continue to not answer the questions I posted as to what you would suggest. I gave specific suggestions and my general philosophy. You seem to have a hard time stating what your philosophy for education is, beyond talking about your religious beliefs. |
Hi Gaijina.
You seem to see my references to religion as something apart from philosophy. I see it AS my philosophy. That's why you don't see the answer I have given several times (and seem to see me as "running away", etc), and why I have said it is useless to try to build something together. If you control the system, you will make it along lines that, by definition, differ from mine and will teach my kids starting from assumptions that you see to be true. If I control it, I will teach your kids from the assumptions that I see to be true. Some things, you may say, that will make no difference on. Math will still function the same way, etc. But how we see math, or physics, or history, will still be shaped by the worldview espoused by the system. If my assumptions admit no compromise, then that's the end of the conversation.
That's why I said that the only thing we can talk about and possibly agree upon is what IS and how it came to be that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hi Gaijina.
You seem to see my references to religion as something apart from philosophy. I see it AS my philosophy. |
There is theology and philosophy, though I would agree at times they are very similar.
| Quote: |
| That's why you don't see the answer I have given several times (and seem to see me as "running away", etc), and why I have said it is useless to try to build something together. If you control the system, you will make it along lines that, by definition, differ from mine and will teach my kids starting from assumptions that you see to be true. If I control it, I will teach your kids from the assumptions that I see to be true. Some things, you may say, that will make no difference on. |
I think again, you're not realistically building any public system of education and should home school your own children because you can control that (though I wonder if your kids will like that or not). If you want no compromises in how you build the system and duck out of any attempt to discuss it, you won't be able to make any usable system for a wider population. Interesting how you like that word 'control', ideally with even public education no one is controlling it, it should be built with students, government, the public, and teachers all supplying elements and contributing to improving them so students can get more out of their time in school and better function in a changing world.
| Quote: |
| Math will still function the same way, etc. But how we see math, or physics, or history, will still be shaped by the worldview espoused by the system. If my assumptions admit no compromise, then that's the end of the conversation. |
Yes, again, you seem afraid of compromise, whereas I'm not. Reality and ideal situations are not the same. Again, what are these assumptions and could you state them clearly? Do they all trace back to 'your book' again?
| Quote: |
That's why I said that the only thing we can talk about and possibly agree upon is what IS and how it came to be that way.
|
No it is that way because you're afraid to say what education should be so we would have something to discuss. Too bad Roger disappeared, at least he had something to say.
Well thanks again for the links again anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're right on the first point, in that I should clarify that my religion is the source of my philosophy, and does not exist apart from it.
I think that as long as people have to pay to support public schools that they might as well try to influence them, rather than simply withdraw and let those who do not teach the nation's children.
Casting me as "afraid" seems to be a substitute for better argument - or even a complete lack of other argument. For example, are scientists who support evolutionary theory "afraid" of compromise with creationists? Or is it that they see something to be actually true, something else to be actually false, and are unwilling to compromise on that? Just teaching "a little" falsehood, I suppose, could be seen as a good compromise by your argument. Only we're supposed to not want to teach anything that's false at all.
I'm not casting you as "afraid" or "stupid" or anything of the sort. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Forgive me if I have seemed to insult you anywhere along the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rusmeister,
Hardly, but the example you give is not a good one. You can't teach faith in god, people either have it or they don't.
And yes, you seem to be afraid to clearly state what your educational platform is. You're still not doing a very good job of it. As I stated earlier, saying you cannot discuss something tells me you are afraid to do so. You certainly have the linguistic tools to do so, you just need to try and do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gaijinalways wrote: |
Rusmeister,
Hardly, but the example you give is not a good one. You can't teach faith in god, people either have it or they don't.
And yes, you seem to be afraid to clearly state what your educational platform is. You're still not doing a very good job of it. As I stated earlier, saying you cannot discuss something tells me you are afraid to do so. You certainly have the linguistic tools to do so, you just need to try and do it. |
| Quote: |
| You can't teach faith in god, people either have it or they don't. |
This is true of thinking adults. They choose. But children can be taught.
My educational platform?
As soon as you define what that is...
With all due respect, since you don't seem to understand me from what I have written, I doubt you will understand even if I write ten more posts. It's not a matter of fear; it's that you exclude my terms from the very beginning. As soon as you say, or even imply, that religion is irrelevant, and has or should have nothing to do with education, you have excluded any hope of meaningful dialog with people that think differently. After a thousand posts, you're still going to come back to the enormous gap between us - our differing answers to those questions I posted. How we see the world, our worldview, will determine what exactly we think education should be. That's why a smart move for an intelligent man is to become consciously aware of the worldview/philosophy he WAS indoctrinated into, and can hardly question it if he is unaware of what exactly that was, or worse, thinks there wasn't one. He walks around, believing many things...because he was taught to believe them - and this goes for irreligion as fully as for religion. They are the starting assumptions that he is often unconscious of. The advantage of religious education is that it is generally screamingly loud and clear on consciously teaching that worldview, and that unlike secular education, a person can hardly not know what the starting principles of thought are supposed to be. It is the public school graduates who are most often ignorant of the precise nature of the worldview they were taught, because it is assumed and not spoken of.
But if you insist on going in circles - since my statement of what I believe will in no way bring us toward any agreement on anything (and statements of faith are generally disapproved of here - like in public schools, and public life in general) - then the conversation is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
gainjinalways quote:
"You can't teach faith in god, people either have it or they don't."
This is true of thinking adults. They choose. But children can be taught. |
Scary, need I say more. Yes, you can teach children to believe almost anything. Well, up to a point. It doesn't mean that you should.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| As soon as you say, or even imply, that religion is irrelevant, and has or should have nothing to do with education, you have excluded any hope of meaningful dialog with people that think differently. |
I don't think so, it's just that unless you're sending your kids to a religious school, most reasonable people think that's not a purpose for a 'regular' school to deal with.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| He walks around, believing many things...because he was taught to believe them - and this goes for irreligion as fully as for religion. |
I disagree, most people examine things at some point and find they don't believe in some of them later, it's called growing up. Some people also start believing in some things they weren't even aware of earlier, it's called discovery.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| The advantage of religious education is that it is generally screamingly loud and clear on consciously teaching that worldview, and that unlike secular education, a person can hardly not know what the starting principles of thought are supposed to be. |
Right, that we know what we know from our priest (and because he allows us to...).
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| But if you insist on going in circles |
No, it's you who is doing that. I have been very consistent in asking questions that you kept avoiding. You finally have come close to an answer, that religion is part and parcel of education. Wow, that wasn't so difficult now, was it? If you had stated that much earlier this would have gone much quicker.
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| since my statement of what I believe will in no way bring us toward any agreement on anything (and statements of faith are generally disapproved of here - like in public schools, and public life in general) |
No, but I would be curious to hear how you will teach other subjects besides science and math, but you seem to be afraid to tell me. And dare you teach about other religions?
rusmeister posted
| Quote: |
| then the conversation is over. |
You told me early on there was nothing to discuss, because that's what you thought. You must have interesting talks with anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
Let me spell it out for you, I was raised as a Protestant Episcopalian, so I am very familiar with what Christians believe. Believe it or not, most of them can talk about it, and wouldn't consider forcing their faith on people who don't have the same faith as they do.
Would I tell my kids not to study theology? No, of course not, but obviously my approach would be different than yours to teaching it. I would teach them about a variety of religions, not just one that I believed in.
Oh well, thanks for giving me an interest in studying G K Chesterton, though I'm afraid he will sound a bit too much like Lewis (the religious bits, I mean). But, I enjoyed reading Orwell recently, so I should be in for some good reading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Kalgukshi
Mod Team
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Posts: 6613
Location: Need to know basis only.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest that everyone quickly, very quickly, get back on topic and concentrate on discussing the message rather than the messenger. If not, this thread will no longer be available.
Also, discussions of religion are not appropriate for this board and especially not appropriate on the General Discussion Forum. If you want to have a private discussion regarding religion or some other topic, the PM mode is available.
This thread is temporarily locked so that everyone can digest the above. When it is unlocked, postings in violation of the above will result in sanctions.
EDIT: Provisionally unlocked.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=76124
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=79166 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redriots
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there are two factors at play here:
Firstly, recent graduates with TEFL qualifications are looking to gain experience, so they are willing to work for less pay and under more demanding conditions (e.g., travelling to various lessons in a day, teaching extremely split shifts).
Secondly, a degree is an objective demonstration of academic achievement -- it is, for lack of a better word, "tangible". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
