This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Liked this post. Two additions for consideration.
Political / ideological affiliation for all graduate programs outside of the licensing professionals (law, medicine) has shifted left since at least the 1990s. And educational / teacher's graduate programs are in a league all of their own. There's left, there's progressive, there's actual socialists, and then there's teacher's colleges. I just tried to find the report on this that I'm thinking of, but wow is Google really trash theses days. The report I'm thinking of mentions that a reason for this is that graduate education programs, even among the social sciences, has a particular resistance to, well, evidence. Think about it. If you're trying to compare the long term outcomes of a particular teach style, you have to track children over several years and then somehow control for cognitive ability, parental involvement, and personal preferences (Alice likes math naturally etc.) This is impossible almost from the jump. Therefore, a LOT, of the courses taught in graduate education courses are one step away from woo-woo bullshit. I had a family friend who, already quite liberal, shifted his graduate program to education technology (basically finding better ways to catalog and use online materials in public schools) because he was aghast and the low level of rigor in the teaching instruction courses.
It's worth looking at who teachers used to be and who they are know. Fun fact; there are more active duty Navy SEALs than there are male pre-K teachers in the US. The number of men teaching in public schools at any grade level has plummeted. This is now starting also to happen to women past 40. Classrooms are led by younger, highly educated women, who quickly burn out and do something else. Pair this with administrator's inability to really do anything with disruptive students, and classroom order and discipline is DESTROYED. Then, it doesn't even matter what the instruction style is. Repeating words, guessing them based on context - none of it matters when have the class is filming a TikTok and the most the non-binary double masters grad at the front can do is loudly clear her throat.
This post got longer than initially intended, but you caught me mid caffeine stream. There is no viable path for public education in the US for the close to mid-term. COVID was the last nail in the coffin. Parents will turn to home-schooling and private schools until teachers unions finally go bankrupt because their membership goes to zero.
By highly educated do you mean bachelor's degrees? I think few have more than that, and there are also many who are allowed to teach while working towards their bachelor's. My guess is that that "do something else" for most women is to become a stay at home mother, possibly retaining a part-time job.
And yeah, the state of education is abysmal. The good teachers try to work around the relevant laws. For instance, when a severely disabled kid is throwing a tantrum, teachers aren't allowed to intervene, even if the tantrum involves throwing around and destroying expensive equipment. Idk about whether the same rules apply to regular kids. However, teachers CAN intervene if the tantrum is threatening someone else. So they stand in front of the expensive equipment, wait for the kid to throw a swing as they inevitably will, and then restrain them. Resource teachers have strict limits regarding how many support minutes they give to students who need them, and their workarounds for dealing with these incredible regulations are absurd and often hilarious.
At its core I think it comes down to something very simple. We are outsourcing parenthood, but not trusting the government-provided parents to do their job. Parents need to be able to discipline kids and teach them morality. Giving teachers such an enormous role in kids' lives, without the ability to discipline or support any coherent worldview besides enlightened secular centrism, is doomed from the start. Of course, giving unrelated government employees a parenting role is doomed from the start anyways, so I don't want to give them even more power over kids--just pointing out the inherent contradiction in our approach.
Well I think there is some disagreement on whether we should be outsourcing parenthood at all. The group that thinks it's a good idea and the group that distrusts the government provided parents are not composed of the same people but because we've allowed so much centralization we can't seem to conceive of having different systems for these groups.
Well, I agree that it would be nice to have separate systems, but I'm not sure such a clear dichotomy exists. I think most people both think it's a good idea and somewhat distrust the teachers, with a large minority both liking the idea and trusting the teachers, and a much smaller minority disliking school and distrusting the teachers. There's a reason that among those who support school (most people) most still want restrictions on what teachers teach--they're not allowed to teach their religion, or their politics, or generally provide their own viewpoint on anything divisive. That group clearly trusts teachers less than parents, but also still wants their kids spending more time with teachers than with parents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link