I found this article both very humorous and sad at the same time. The author warns that most of the next generation will not be able to cope with life. I disagree with some of his reasons why this will happen. For instance, I don't believe an evangelical Christian is a lemming any more than someone of any other organized grouping. Also, I don't think that the more a student is tested the less they are able to learn. For that to be convincing the data would have to show test scores of those who are tested less are higher than those who are tested more. After all, testing is there to track progress or at best as a motivation to get to know the material.
Some highlights of his discussion include:
I remember reading my students' papers in 10th grade High School classes. It wasn't the misspellings or the bad sentences that made no sense. Rather, it was the number of students who handed in unintelligible assignments. You couldn't tell the "smart" students from the less than average. All of them, and I mean that, had problems forming complete sentences, and had absolutely pointless papers. Now, I don't consider myself the best of teachers, but I didn't destroy the cognitive abilities in just my classes. Is it the teacher's faults? Not entirely, but I think the fact that teachers (see my previous post) let so many get away with this contributes.
The author goes on to say:
And here is what I consider the kicker:
He doesn't say it outright, but it seems the number one indicator of a good student is parent participation. That might include nothing more than financial contributions, but that is one leg up from nothing. Sadly, the less educated the parents of the next generation become then the less educated the one following will be. Is there such a thing as de-evolution? We'll see if the "Time Machine" story line (brutes underground and utopian idiots up above) becomes a reality.
I also wanted to quote a couple responses that I found enlightening:
And the wonderful response:
It’s all in the details.
Some highlights of his discussion include:
Nor does he [his teacher friend] speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don't spend enough time outdoors and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.
No, my friend takes it all a full step — or rather, leap — further. It is not merely a sad slide. It is not just a general dumbing down. It is far uglier than that . . .
It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad. . .
But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.
It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.
I remember reading my students' papers in 10th grade High School classes. It wasn't the misspellings or the bad sentences that made no sense. Rather, it was the number of students who handed in unintelligible assignments. You couldn't tell the "smart" students from the less than average. All of them, and I mean that, had problems forming complete sentences, and had absolutely pointless papers. Now, I don't consider myself the best of teachers, but I didn't destroy the cognitive abilities in just my classes. Is it the teacher's faults? Not entirely, but I think the fact that teachers (see my previous post) let so many get away with this contributes.
The author goes on to say:
. . . some of the best designers, writers, artists, poets, chefs, and so on that I meet are in their early to mid-20s. And the nation's top universities are still managing, despite a factory-churning mentality, to crank out young minds of astonishing ability and acumen. How did these kids do it? How did they escape the horrible public school system? How did they avoid the great dumbing down of America? Did they never see a TV show until they hit puberty? Were they all born and raised elsewhere, in India and Asia and Russia? Did they all go to Waldorf or Montessori and eat whole-grain breads and play with firecrackers and take long walks in wild nature? Are these kids flukes? Exceptions? Just lucky?
And here is what I consider the kicker:
My friend would say, well, yes, that's precisely what most of them are. Lucky, wealthy, foreign-born, private-schooled ... and increasingly rare. Most affluent parents in America — and many more who aren't — now put their kids in private schools from day one, and the smart ones give their kids no TV and minimal junk food and no video games. (Of course, this in no way guarantees a smart, attuned kid, but compared to the odds of success in the public school system, it sure seems to help). This covers about, what, 3 percent of the populace?
He doesn't say it outright, but it seems the number one indicator of a good student is parent participation. That might include nothing more than financial contributions, but that is one leg up from nothing. Sadly, the less educated the parents of the next generation become then the less educated the one following will be. Is there such a thing as de-evolution? We'll see if the "Time Machine" story line (brutes underground and utopian idiots up above) becomes a reality.
I also wanted to quote a couple responses that I found enlightening:
As a TV watching, video game playing 23 year old, I can certainly see why you would think there is some dumb kids coming down the pipe. We gave you Lohan, Hilton, and Ritchie. I went to a rather well funded suberban california k-12 school pre-bush and a fairly well regarded liberal arts college, and even I find myself thinking about that dreamy Zac Efron when I should be listening to a lecture. The teacher you cite works in Oakland, certainly not one of the better school systems in the country. Add to that No Child Left Behind, dramatically increased financial stratification, and more and more distractions it would make sense he sees his kids as dumb F#*%$. This is but one school out of many, though, and a relatively recent downturn. I really don't think you or your teacher friend should be quite so alarmist, especially when it stigmatizes and entire generation who were not in control. Need I remind you, who ever said the generations before us were so damn clever anyway?
And the wonderful response:
brandon: Notice your first sentence: "As a TV watching, video game playing 23 year old, I can certainly see why you would think there is some dumb kids coming down the pipe." "IS" is singular verb, "KIDS" is plural. It should be "As a TV watching, video game playing 23 year old, I can certainly see why you would think there ARE some dumb kids coming down the pipe." If at 23 you can't write a grammatical sentence, you are a case in point illustrating what Mark has just said! Also, "TV-watching" and "game-playing" probably should be hyphenated.
It’s all in the details.
Comments