These comments are taken and elaborated upon from an earlier post I made on this subject.
Her interview reflects what I have observed as a social science substitute teacher in the public schools and as a PhD graduate student in the social sciences. I think this explains why we have an uneducated electorate which has been the subject of DU rants as well as the genesis for the popularity of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and George W. Bush.
She noted in the interview that content has been taken out of the political science and history curriculum – the absence of this content leaves Americans very weak in the social sciences compared to foreign counterparts. As a high school basic government teacher, the content (i.e., American Government, concepts like separation of powers) I am asked to 'present' at the high school level is very, very, basic political science - should be explained in grade school - any foreign student would know at least this much about American Government. The teaching of socialism vs. capitalism is omitted from all curricula I have seen – unless socialism is taught as a dimension of the evil communism (Cuba, the Soviet Union). As immigrants become scapegoats, bilingualism or the exposure to Spanish as a second language is considered a heresy in the public school curricula.
I have seen that that undergraduate foreign students studying at the university have been accepted into graduate classes. Typically these foreign students speak several languages and know more American politics and history to the extent that undergraduates have been elevated to graduate classes. Regarding foreign languages – bilingual education is frowned upon in the US where abroad multi-lingualism is the norm for blue collar and white collar adults…
I use the word lightly as 'present' - in most of the classes I have substitute taught in - they teach to questions...to supposedly raise scores on college entrance exams or other state scores. The concept of learning a subject because it is exciting or fascinating is totally lost - there is no love of learning....You learn facts to answer questions that might be given on placement tests...Context is lost...
The absence of content in the social sciences - the absence of passion in learning - may be why the students I have taught (advanced placement in some of the 1,500 top schools in Maryland) just don't seem to care. They are rude and unruly and the reason I don't substitute teach anymore - rather than throw pearls to swine. This explains why the adult population doesn't care about the social sciences. With the subsequent lack of interest in the social sciences it in some instances loses its funding, unless of course its funding is from the State Department, Homeland Security, DoD, or the intelligence agencies.
Even within academia at large - what is taught within the social sciences varies greatly between schools, universities and junior colleges. Even within the political science community – the approach to the discipline varies between universities – the area studies approach and the recognition of knowing foreign languages – is confronted with the approach that the discipline should be context neutral and rely solely upon empirical studies and research proven through statistics.
Ravitch attributes the absence of content in other than the math or hard sciences (less biology which is challenged by proponents of teaching creationism as an alternative to science; and the environmental sciences with its challenges from the deniers of the theories of global warming) to the Lynn Cheney challenging liberal education in the 1990s - I think that the challenge to the 'controversial' content of education goes back even further to the early 1970s and the Powell Memorandum...
Powell, a corporate lawyer, later appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court. His memorandum circulated in private before his S/C appointment, argued for the development of a body of a pro-corporate scholarship within academic institutions and also through corporate sponsored think tanks a la the Rand Corporation, CATO Institute, et. al. These blossomed in the 80’s and 90’s. He was no doubt reacting to the social movements of the 60s (civil rights,the Feminist Movement, American Indian Movement, etc., the peace movement). These radical 60s forces threatened capitalist paradigms and institutionalized power.
I also disagree with Ravitch that this will happen in the future - it is already happening as noted by our undereducated electorate....furthermore academia has been/is/will be co-opted by big business and the military industrial complex – Studying at even the undergraduate level requires funding – DoD and the CIA through a controversial program called the Minerva project are providing scholarships to study foreign languages, history and politics at major universities…Universities also attract other corporate sponsorship for research grants in the hard sciences.
Peace to the powerful!
References to the Powell Memorandum
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabilit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr .
http://www.truthout.org/100109A References to the Minerva Project
http://minerva.dtic.mil /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_research_initiativ... http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/8969-procuring-... 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
