Teachers Getting Militant

[Guest absolutezero]

That's not a benefit.

We had a much higher literacy rate when there wasn't a standard way of spelling, for very obvious reasons.

Evidence, please.

[Guest Steve Cook]

It's not fantasy. Some people are slow at learning. We don't all learn at the same rate.

I feel I should clarify what I meant when I said "thick kids" earlier on in the thread.

By the time the thick kids in year 7 get to year 11 they can mostly cope with the year 7 topics. Only problem is it's too late by then because they're not ready for the year 11 topics and that's what the system sorts them on.

Why does it take so long? Because they are slow at learning and don't have the same cognitive skills as most children the same age, so it takes 5 years to learn what takes some only one year.

Of course.

It always amuses me when people find it so difficult to understanding the basic concept of inherent differences in cognitive performance between people whilst at the same time having no difficulty whatsoever in accepting any other inherently physical difference between people as being self-evident. This is a particularly ridiculous position for the self-proclaimed materialist/rationalist/atheists to take since they, above all others, should have no difficulty in seeing the human brain as being just another (albeit very specialised) piece of physiology along with all other physical attributes of humans. Presumably, no-one has any difficulty with the idea that some people can run faster than others, are taller than others, have different basic body-shapes than others, have different eye colour, hair colour etc and that these differences are to large extent inherent.

All of the above characteristics are fundamentally genetic in their origin although, of course, material developmental issues such as diet and other lifestyle factors will have an effect. Nonetheless, all other things being equal, no amount of lifestyle changes will make the average human run faster than than an athlete lucky enough to be born with the right set of attributes for this talent. To be sure, most people can improve their performance in running, for example, though exercise and diet. But, there will always be a ceiling beyond which it is not possible to improve.

So, where do these physical differences originate? They originate in the long trajectory of genetic replication that led from each of our distant ancestors to ourselves. Much of the time it was based on no more than a random allowance (otherwise known as genetic drift) of certain genetic traits because they had little effect on the survival of each of our ancestors either way. However, at other times, these traits were non-randomly selected as a function of being best fitted to the environment in which they existed. No matter. One way or another, each of us is the product of a long line of genetic inheritance that has finally led to us.

As an example, the legs of gazelles are just the right length to be able to run away from gazelles. no more or less than that. And, even then, this is only statistically the case. The old, the sick and the dim witted will still be outrun by a hungry lion and so the evolutionary arms race goes on into the distant future. Gazelles will also be selected that have the right set of cognitive skills to outrun lions. One might even surmise that Gazelles should be selected to be fully physically fit right up to the point at which they drop dead. However, there are many different selection pressures simultaneously operating on the gazelle and so the final animal we are presented with is the product of a selection compromise between all of these conflicting pressures. The game of evolution never ends. The shape of the playing field changes over time, but the fundamental rules of selection in which that game is played do not.

Similarly, both we and our nearest cousins, chimpanzees, are descended from a now extinct ancestor. All of the way along the line of descendancy from them to us, there had to be genetic variation in the population. This variation was of every conceivable trait. Height, body shape, hairiness, manual dexterity to pick a few at random. Also, there was obviously variation in how our brains were structured. Chimpanzee brains are similar though different from our own. They have a much smaller frontal cortex than we do. This is implicated in many higher order cognitive functions. Also, we have a more developed occipital lobe, implicated in vision. Finally, and probably most crucially, we have a significantly more developed part of our brain on the left hand side that deals specifically with language.

To get from chimps to us, I repeat, there had to be genetic variation expressed as physical differences in the brain phenotype of our ancestors for without such variation always existing there would have been nothing for natural selection to select. Even now, we see that same variation existing in our current population. For, of course, natural section and the evolutionary process it fuels never ends. It just functionally operates on time-scales that lie well outside the span of a single human lifetime and so we are unable to directly perceive it in action. All we can witness is a snapshot in time of that variation. Which is why we see different hair colour, different height, etc etc etc.

Why does anyone suppose that this same variation does not also exist in cognitive functioning? what possible logic is there that could somehow especially exempt the human brain (just another piece of our physiology) from this variation?

The stark, stareingly obvious answer is that there is no exemption. The human brain, just like all other aspects of humans, has variation across the population. If anyone wishes to deny this logically obvious fact, then they are going to need to jettison the entire Darwinian model of the evolution of life itself.

You cant have it both ways folks.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

Evidence, please.

Chapter Three

Eyeless In Gaza

Something strange has been going on in government schools, especially where the matter of reading is concerned. Abundant data exist to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere. Between the two world wars, schoolmen seem to have been assigned the task of terminating our universal reading proficiency.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3j.htm

Consider first the matter of time. The average five-year-old can master all of the seventy phonograms in six weeks. At that point he can read just about anything fluently Can he understand everything? No, of course not

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3l.htm

[Guest absolutezero]

Of course.

It always amuses me when people find it so difficult to understanding the basic concept of differences in cognitive performance between people whilst at the same tine having no difficulty whatsoever in accepting any other physical difference between people as being self evident. This is a particularly ridiculous position for the self-proclaimed materialist/rationalist/atheists to take since they, above all others, should have no difficulty in seeing the human brain as being just another (albeit very specialised) piece of physiology along with all other physical attributes of humans. Presumably, no-one has any difficulty with the idea that some people can run faster than others, are taller than others, have different basic body shapes than others, have different eye colour, hair colour etc and that these differences are to large extent inherent.

All of the above characteristics are fundamentally genetic in their origin although, of course, material developmental issues such as diet and other lifestyle factors will have an effect. Nonetheless, all other things being equal, no amount of lifestyle changes will make the average human run faster than than an athlete lucky enough to be born with the right set of attributes for this talent. To be sure, most people can improve their performance though exercise and diet. But, there will always be a ceiling beyond which it is not possible to improve.

So, where do these physical differences originate? They originate in the long trajectory of genetic replication that led from each of our distant ancestors to ourselves. Much of the time it was based on no more than a random allowance of certain genetic traits because they had little effect on the survival of each of our ancestors either way. However, at other times, these traits were non-randomly selected as a function of being best fitted to the environment in which they existed. No matter. One way or another, each of us is the product of a long line of genetic inheritance that has finally led to us.

As an example, the legs of gazelles are just the right length to be able to run away from gazelles. no more or less than that. And, even then, this is only statistically the case. The old, the sick and the dim witted will still be outrun by a hungry lion and so the evolutionary arms race goes on into the distant future. Gazelles will be selected that have the right set of cognitive skills to outrun lions. One might even surmise that Gazelles should be selected to be fully physically fit right up to the point at which they drop dead. however, there are many different selection pressures operating on the gazelle and so the final animal we are presented with is the product of a selection compromise between all of these conflicting pressures. The game of evolution never ends. The shape of the playing field changes over time, but the fundamental rules of selection in which that game is played do not.

Similarly, both we and our nearest cousins, chimpanzees, are descended form a now extinct ancestor. All of the way along the line of descendancy from them to us, there had to be genetic variation in the population. This variation was of every conceivable trait. Height, body shape, hairiness, manual dexterity to pick a few at random. also, there was variation in how our brains were structured. chimpanzee brains are similar though different from our own. They have a much smaller frontal cortex than we do. This are is implicated in many higher order cognitive function. also, we have a more developed occipital lobe, implicated in vision. finally, and probably most crucially, we have a significantly more developed part of our brain on the left hand side that deals specifically with language.

Nonetheless, to get from chimps to us, I repeat, there had to be genetic variation expressed as physical differences in the brain phenotype of our ancestors for without such variation always existing there would have been nothing for natural selection to select. Even now, we see that same variation existing in our current population. for, of course, natural section and the evolutionary process it fuels never ends. It just functionally operates on time-scales that lie well outside the span of a single human lifetime and so we are unable to directly perceive it in action. All we can witness is a snapshot in time of that variation. Which is why we see different hair colour, different height, etc etc etc.

Why does anyone suppose that this same variation does not also exist in cognitive functioning. what possible logic is there that could somehow especially exempt the human brain (just another piece of our physiology) from this variation?

The stark, stareingly obvious answer is that there is no exemption. the human brain, just like all other aspects of humans, has variation across the population. If anyone wishes to deny this logically obvious fact, then they are going to need to jettison the entire Darwinian model of the evolution of life itself.

You cant have it both ways folks.

Oh! Well done, that man!

[Guest absolutezero]

Chapter Three

Eyeless In Gaza

Something strange has been going on in government schools, especially where the matter of reading is concerned. Abundant data exist to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere. Between the two world wars, schoolmen seem to have been assigned the task of terminating our universal reading proficiency.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3j.htm

Consider first the matter of time. The average five-year-old can master all of the seventy phonograms in six weeks. At that point he can read just about anything fluently Can he understand everything? No, of course not

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3l.htm

No. I meant evidence that backs up your assertion of higher literacy without a standaridsed spelling system , not a standardised schooling system.

[Injin]

No. I meant evidence that backs up your assertion of higher literacy without a standaridsed spelling system , not a standardised schooling system.

There is no standardised spelling system without a schooling system.

[Injin]

Of course.

It always amuses me when people find it so difficult to understanding the basic concept of inherent differences in cognitive performance between people whilst at the same time having no difficulty whatsoever in accepting any other inherently physical difference between people as being self-evident. This is a particularly ridiculous position for the self-proclaimed materialist/rationalist/atheists to take since they, above all others, should have no difficulty in seeing the human brain as being just another (albeit very specialised) piece of physiology along with all other physical attributes of humans. Presumably, no-one has any difficulty with the idea that some people can run faster than others, are taller than others, have different basic body-shapes than others, have different eye colour, hair colour etc and that these differences are to large extent inherent.

All of the above characteristics are fundamentally genetic in their origin although, of course, material developmental issues such as diet and other lifestyle factors will have an effect. Nonetheless, all other things being equal, no amount of lifestyle changes will make the average human run faster than than an athlete lucky enough to be born with the right set of attributes for this talent. To be sure, most people can improve their performance in running, for example, though exercise and diet. But, there will always be a ceiling beyond which it is not possible to improve.

So, where do these physical differences originate? They originate in the long trajectory of genetic replication that led from each of our distant ancestors to ourselves. Much of the time it was based on no more than a random allowance (otherwise known as genetic drift) of certain genetic traits because they had little effect on the survival of each of our ancestors either way. However, at other times, these traits were non-randomly selected as a function of being best fitted to the environment in which they existed. No matter. One way or another, each of us is the product of a long line of genetic inheritance that has finally led to us.

As an example, the legs of gazelles are just the right length to be able to run away from gazelles. no more or less than that. And, even then, this is only statistically the case. The old, the sick and the dim witted will still be outrun by a hungry lion and so the evolutionary arms race goes on into the distant future. Gazelles will also be selected that have the right set of cognitive skills to outrun lions. One might even surmise that Gazelles should be selected to be fully physically fit right up to the point at which they drop dead. However, there are many different selection pressures simultaneously operating on the gazelle and so the final animal we are presented with is the product of a selection compromise between all of these conflicting pressures. The game of evolution never ends. The shape of the playing field changes over time, but the fundamental rules of selection in which that game is played do not.

Similarly, both we and our nearest cousins, chimpanzees, are descended from a now extinct ancestor. All of the way along the line of descendancy from them to us, there had to be genetic variation in the population. This variation was of every conceivable trait. Height, body shape, hairiness, manual dexterity to pick a few at random. Also, there was obviously variation in how our brains were structured. Chimpanzee brains are similar though different from our own. They have a much smaller frontal cortex than we do. This is implicated in many higher order cognitive functions. Also, we have a more developed occipital lobe, implicated in vision. Finally, and probably most crucially, we have a significantly more developed part of our brain on the left hand side that deals specifically with language.

To get from chimps to us, I repeat, there had to be genetic variation expressed as physical differences in the brain phenotype of our ancestors for without such variation always existing there would have been nothing for natural selection to select. Even now, we see that same variation existing in our current population. For, of course, natural section and the evolutionary process it fuels never ends. It just functionally operates on time-scales that lie well outside the span of a single human lifetime and so we are unable to directly perceive it in action. All we can witness is a snapshot in time of that variation. Which is why we see different hair colour, different height, etc etc etc.

Why does anyone suppose that this same variation does not also exist in cognitive functioning? what possible logic is there that could somehow especially exempt the human brain (just another piece of our physiology) from this variation?

The stark, stareingly obvious answer is that there is no exemption. The human brain, just like all other aspects of humans, has variation across the population. If anyone wishes to deny this logically obvious fact, then they are going to need to jettison the entire Darwinian model of the evolution of life itself.

You cant have it both ways folks.

True that.

You can't believe complete guff like the above and be said to be rational or probably even sane.

It's one or the other.....

[Guest Steve Cook]

True that.

You can't believe complete guff like the above and be said to be rational or probably even sane.

It's one or the other.....

So, I take it you do refute the entire Darwinian model of the evolution of life.

Are you some kind of loony creationist?

[SNACR]

You do raise some valid points in all this but it's all based on your experience in schools, god knows how many years ago. There's some rot too.

This is a BIG issue and does need addressing. Not sure if this will ever happen though. At best, such ideas have lip service paid to them. Until a child masters reading they're not going to get very far. Note I didn't say writing.

Again, there is a problem here but I think one of the reasons for this is that teachers are held in such low esteem by some so the cleverer people don't want to do it. I'm one of the cleverer ones but I stopped caring what other people thought when I was about 15.

That said there are some cracking teachers coming through but I'd not be happy with some of the recruits teaching my child.

This is changing. The old brigade can be like this but proper teaching, rather than ""busywork" is becoming the norm. Copying and writing doesn't mean the child actually learns anything.

I'm a science teacher and I don't get the kids to write very much at all. The problem with this is parents keep ringing me up asking 'why hasn't Johnny been doing any work in science?'. I then have to explain that not much writing does not equal not much work.

Again, this is changing.

Agreed. It's a menace.

This is in my view a very significant problem. The culture of the constant humouring/entertaining of helicopter parents overbearing interference in their child's education is something quite recent and should be ended. I've got a feeling it was part of some government pledge/centrally planned initiative.

That's another problem as well education seems to be a magnet for academics and theorists who view the state education system as their own personal laboratory. Add to that the love affair with importing every educational fad from the US whether suited to our culture or not.

[Injin]

So, I take it you do refute the entire Darwinian model of the evolution of life.

Are you some kind of loony creationist?

No, you've completely misunderstood (or misapplied) darwin.

If you check a flock of birds or a herd of animals, you will find fractional, teensy weensy differences, not the huge ones that back up your argument.

Humans just aren't that different. We like to big it up because we are individuals but really, we aren't. The tallest ever person and the shortest ever person don't have the extreme difference you talk of, even. Same with the heaviest/lightest/strongest/weakest/fastest/slowest/brightest/dimmest.

The gap simply isn't the huge gulf you invoke.

[Guest absolutezero]

There is no standardised spelling system without a schooling system.

So what you're saying is that you have no proof to back up your assertion?

[Injin]

So what you're saying is that you have no proof to back up your assertion?

Was there a standardised spelling system before mass schooling?

No.

That's about as close as I can get you. It's very hard to prove negatives, as you will know.

[Guest absolutezero]

If you check a flock of birds or a herd of animals, you will find fractional, teensy weensy differences, not the huge ones that back up your argument.

You're saying they all look the same! That's just birdism!

[Injin]

You're saying they all look the same! That's just birdism!

[Guest absolutezero]

This is in my view a very significant problem. The culture of the constant humouring/entertaining of helicopter parents overbearing interference in their child's education is something quite recent and should be ended. I've got a feeling it was part of some government pledge/centrally planned initiative.

That's another problem as well education seems to be a magnet for academics and theorists who view the state education system as their own personal laboratory. Add to that the love affair with importing every educational fad from the US whether suited to our culture or not.

I've no real problem with parents who have a concern over the education of their child and take the time to get in touch but most can't get past writing = work. I ask them if they've talked to their child and asked them what they've been doing in their science lessons. The answer is usually no.

One thing I have a major problem with is homework. I'd ban it.

[Guest absolutezero]

Was there a standardised spelling system before mass schooling?

No.

That's about as close as I can get you. It's very hard to prove negatives, as you will know.

I'm asking you to prove me a positive though, if you turn it on its head.

Show me that a standardised spelling system caused a drop in literacy.

[Injin]

I'm asking you to prove me a positive though, if you turn it on its head.

Show me that a standardised spelling system caused a drop in literacy.

I can't do that, because it arrives with the schooling. Either the schooling or the standardised spelling could be responsible (or both partly to differing degrees.)

[Guest absolutezero]

No, you've completely misunderstood (or misapplied) darwin.

If you check a flock of birds or a herd of animals, you will find fractional, teensy weensy differences, not the huge ones that back up your argument.

Humans just aren't that different. We like to big it up because we are individuals but really, we aren't. The tallest ever person and the shortest ever person don't have the extreme difference you talk of, even. Same with the heaviest/lightest/strongest/weakest/fastest/slowest/brightest/dimmest.

The gap simply isn't the huge gulf you invoke.

That's because in nature, natural selection is allowed to happen. Not so with humans.

With humans we look after our 'weak'. Other species tend to let the "non-desirables" die out.

The blind and or deaf from birth would all be dead by now if humans allowed natural selection to happen.

Also humans are spread all over the globe and have adapted to different conditions and habitats. The birds you mention tend to all live in similar conditions - hence not much difference in appearance.

[SNACR]

I've no real problem with parents who have a concern over the education of their child and take the time to get in touch but most can't get past writing = work. I ask them if they've talked to their child and asked them what they've been doing in their science lessons. The answer is usually no.

One thing I have a major problem with is homework. I'd ban it.

I agree on homework. Same sort of thing as parents remonstrating with the school over the school/teacher's perceived deficiencies. It's just displacement activity.

It goes along the lines of: 'I know I'm always at work and don't give the attention to my child's upbringing they deserve. Therefore, I'II show an intense interest in my child's homework in a sort of theatrical spasm of 'look what a conscientious parent I am everyone'.

I think it's good for children to have some time without intervention from their parents and knowing they can't always resort to getting them to sort their problems. Obviously, parents should go to parent's evening, events etc. and contact the school in cases of serious bullying etc., but otherwise should stay well away and leave teachers to their jobs.

It's a growing culture and we're forever seeing intervention from parents with part-time Saturday students we employ. Some of them seem to half expect the manager to provide some kind of version of parents evening.

[Guest Steve Cook]

No, you've completely misunderstood (or misapplied) darwin.

If you check a flock of birds or a herd of animals, you will find fractional, teensy weensy differences, not the huge ones that back up your argument.

Humans just aren't that different. We like to big it up because we are individuals but really, we aren't. The tallest ever person and the shortest ever person don't have the extreme difference you talk of, even. Same with the heaviest/lightest/strongest/weakest/fastest/slowest/brightest/dimmest.

The gap simply isn't the huge gulf you invoke.

No, you've completely misunderstood the nature of individual differences and the critical role of the context in which they operate.

If I were an alien from space observing humans form a distance, i would observe that they were all pretty much the same form that level of analysis. They all were born, lived and died over approximately the same time span. They all knew how to learn the basics of living in more op less equal fashion. However, as I move my level of anlysis to a greater resolution, I would observe differences that, from my inital perspective had seemd insignificant, make significant day-to-day differences in performance from individual to individual. It all depends on your level of analysis.

The development of modern civilisation and all of the specialisations of labour it has generated means that otherwise irrelevant individual cognitive differences become massively amplified in their implications for economic success. These differences are no less real by virtue of the fact that they only have a significant effect of the performance of the phenotype in the specialised environement of an advanced industrial civilisation.

Indeed, one could construct an argument based on these cognitive differences being rather irrelevant in any other context than an industrial civilisation being a plausible reason to suppose that such differences might have quite a large range to them. The reason being, that if they are otherwise so irrelevant, natural section would have been able to get less of a handle on them than for other traits (such as the need for two eyes). In other words, difference in cognitive functioning may have some genetic drift to them. i don't beleive this for a second. but, it is one of the impl,ications of what you seem to be suggesting even if you don't realise it.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

No, you've completely misunderstood the nature of individual differences and the critical role of the context in which they operate.

If I were an alien from space observing humans form a distance, i would observe that they were all pretty much the same form that level of analysis. They all were born, lived and died over approximately the same time span. They all knew how to learn the basics of living in more op less equal fashion. However, as I move my level of anlysis to a greater resolution, I would observe differences that, from my inital perspective had seemd insignificant, make significant day-to-day differences in performance from individual to individual. It all depends on your level of analysis.

The development of modern civilisation and all of the specialisations of labour it has generated means that otherwise irrelevant individual cognitive differences become massively amplified in their implications for economic success. These differences are no less real by virtue of the fact that they only have a significant effect of the performance of the phenotype in the specialised environement of an advanced industrial civilisation.

That's right Steve.

"If I was an objective observer you would be correct, Injin. but i have a loony proposition to defend so have a strawman or 12"

[Guest absolutezero]

I can't do that, because it arrives with the schooling. Either the schooling or the standardised spelling could be responsible (or both partly to differing degrees.)

So in other words this business of schooling reduces literacy isn't a fact. It's an Injinfact.

[SNACR]

That's right Steve.

"If I was an objective observer you would be correct, Injin. but i have a loony proposition to defend so have a strawman or 12"

To be fair you're on more than first name terms with loony propositions yourself

[Injin]

So in other words this business of schooling reduces literacy isn't a fact. It's an Injinfact.

Oh no it's a fact - I just can't remove the standardised bit from the schooling (because it cannot happen without it.)

Either schooling caused the illiteracy directly, or it did it via standardisation.

Either way schooling is at fault, just one way there is an extra step.

[Dubai]

Haven't read all 32 pages, so if this is a repeat, apologies.....

Emma Bradford, an unemployed shop worker from Stevenage, said: "Did you just say that teachers want a 10% pay rise? Is that what you fvcking said?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society...e-200904141700/

Doesn't necessarily represent my views, but it is funny....