I have to wonder if it would be better to have mandatory school through middle school and then let students decide if they want to go on to high-tech school -- school that would provide the remaining high school years plus two years of tech school education (with associated degrees). This school would be free to participants but the students would have to want to learn. Let those that do not so choose the enter emplyment with the minimal skill they have and get a dose of reality: they could always apply to tech-high for the next year.
Interesting, I have felt for over 30 years a similar proposal for secondary education should be considered.
I would turn the last 2 years of high school into one of four things.
1. College (as in free junior college) for those inclined toward an academics-based career. 2. Trade school for those inclined toward the various skilled endeavors such as carpentry or auto mechanics. 3. Traditional High School for those whose involvement with sports, drugs, prom nite, or other social endeavors precludes them from maturing sufficiently enough to make an early decision. 4. Required military service for the disruptive, and required stockade confinement for the still disruptive.
However, I think the idea that all of high school should be replaced with such a proposal is also worthy of consideration.
Under such a scenario, the basics of readin,' writin,' and cipherin' would have to be covered prior to high school, which would leave no time to teach Creationism or ID. However, the fanatics should be allowed to go to Bob Jones or equivalent high school for the knowledge-phobic as per their First Amendment right to remain ignorant of both science and religion. I understand that the graduates of such a program would have a future in an uncommonly awful presidential administration should the majority of voters once again allow themselves to be cowed by appeals to fear rather than hope or logic.
I have never understood how grown-ups claim that it is a good thing for a kid to "think critically". What is the role of a qualified teacher if the word of a preacher has the same weight in science class.
I'm not sure I follow. My boss, the VP for instruction, has made teaching critical thinking an imperative because surveys have shown the students here tend to lack this quality relative to other colleges (what a surprise ). She even brought in a consultant to teach critical thinking and toward the end of her presentation what was the example of refusal to think critically?
Climate change denialism.
What an uproar that caused among some of the reality-challenged 'round these parts.
Don't be so hard on teaching critical thinking. It would take one class session to dismiss creationism based on evidence because only the most fanatical and guilty would not realize:
The creationists are in general dishonest, intellectually lazy dimwits whom I totally loath.
Sometimes I think go ahead, force the teaching of whatever state-approved church those wretched morons could actually agree on (it would never happen in the US because the morons here can't even agree good health is desirable). Seems to have worked wonders in creating atheist majorities in the UK and parts of Scandinavia.
But then I have to remember, belief in the separation of church and state is about as American as it gets.
If you are somewhat confused as to the definition of critical thinking among educators in this country, please feel free to read my signature.
Although it would be quite difficult to criticize the educators in Finland, seeing how they are well-trained and respected, unlike here.
Don't take too much critical thinking to figure out why Finland is #1 while the USA is #28. Perhaps a bit of critical thinking is just what our politicians and voters need.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
In these anti-evolution laws, "critical thinking" is a creationist code word that is applied to evolution and anything else that contradicts their religious beliefs. In practice it means letting their particular religious beliefs, and any ideas they can find to support them, no matter how contrary to evidence, be accorded equal weight when offered in opposition to agreed-upon scientific theory.
Then obviously the term "critical thinking" is not the proper term for "teach the controversy." Otherwise, the anti-gay, anti-education, climate change denial platform of the Texas Republican Party would not denounce critical thinking.
The reason that entity is against critical thinking is because they want to abolish public education in favor of home schooling in order to prevent their children from learning about dangerous ideas like science, tolerance, or questioning beliefs.
No am not going to play "who is the real Noah Webster" with you. I know what critical thinking means here as opposed to what it may mean somewhere else because I am here.
So what's the deal? Are you really against the idea of "question authority?" Do you really think the truth won't become apparent? Are you against the ideal behind my signature?
Damn, you appear more pessimistic than Schopenhauer.
In other fields of science creationists really have no interest. Its not as if they were fighting for better science education!
Letting creationists dictate how science is conducted and taught is like letting first graders dictate their curriculum.
Yeah, as if I disagree.
Am I now a straw man?
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
Did they denounce 'critical thinking' in the general sense?
The platform of the Texas Republican Party is beyond stupid. But the Texas GOP actually qualifies the term to refer to the teaching they oppose. It is the rest of the world that understands the GOP to effective oppose 'critical thinking' in the general sense. The GOP wants to undermine any teaching that might cause a critical thinking student to question his religious beliefs. Criticizing science if fair game.
Not quite sure I understand your point or the nuance.
quote:Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Perhaps this would help:
"We oppose the teaching of . . . , critical thinking skills. . ."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Edited by anglagard, : OK, the qualifier "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
So that's what they are going on about. Guess they don't want their kids to grow into adults and leave the nest.
Pathetic.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
First, I would like to thank saab93f, Coyote, and NoNukes for making me aware of how the term "critical thinking" is being abused.
I truly had no idea and apologize for any arrogance shown in what I mistakenly thought was a rather clear-cut definition.
Coragyps writes:
This is a lovely example of Newspeak, with the addition of some confusion on the part of some of the fundies as to what the script is supposed to be this week. "Critical thinking" is good when the Discovery Institute uses it to mean teaching discredited biological or meteorological bullshit as an "alternative viewpoint" to science. But "critical thinking" is doubleplus ungood if it means teaching kids to, y'know, think critically about things like religion, democracy, what would constitute a just society........anything that might challenge the authoritarian mindset that the Fundipublicans (among others) hold so dear.
That was essentially my conclusion before I even read your post.
How much lower can this scum get after not only declaring war against science but also against the English language.
I will now be very vigilant against this Orwellian abuse.
Once again, thanks all for the tip.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
™ Version 4.0 Beta
). She even brought in a consultant to teach critical thinking and toward the end of her presentation what was the example of refusal to think critically?