Skip to main content

Why, unlike Finland, here we torture kids and teachers

When I heard the news last week that the Department of Education is aiming to subject 4-year-olds to high-stakes testing, all I could do was shake my head in disbelief and despondently mutter a slightly altered riff off "The Big Lebowski's" Walter Sobchak.

Four-year-olds, dude.

[. . .]

Finland's story, recounted in the new documentary "The Finland Phenomenon," is particularly striking. According to Harvard's Tony Wagner, the country's modernization campaign in the 1970s included a "transforming of the preparation and selection of future teachers."

"What has happened since is that teaching has become the most highly esteemed profession [in Finland]," says Wagner, who narrates the film. "There is no domestic testing ... because they have created such a high level of professionalism, they can trust their teachers."

[. . .]

Where Finland rejects testing, nurtures teachers, and encourages its best and brightest to become educators, we fetishize testing, portray teachers as evil parasites, and financially encourage top students to become Wall Streeters. (David Sirota, “Testing 4 year olds isn’t the answer,” Salon, 8 July 2011)

Why

The obvious reason, as stated by a previous poster, is that we do not sufficiently love our kids. We still send them to school to humiliate them, abandon them to testing that will tell them that what they are are all potential misfits that need to be kept under constant, if distant, surveillance and control. We like them this way: a whole nation of little Big Macs, so still inherently sloven, slacking and ill-defined we have just cause to round them up and send them off to war or prison or low-paid assistants-to-aging-boomers life-long servitude, without much accord for their rights as affirmed human beings.

Some people in this country have experienced the long and slow growth in empathy that can happen when one generation of mothers gives to their daughters slightly more empathic treatment than they themselves received. These type would make teaching the most respected occupation. Others have grown not at all; are barbarians; and if left to their own would make education nothing but a lengthy series of humiliations and hurts, and life would be for their children mostly about recovering from hurts, not generating anything exciting and new. "Society" would sit still for milleniums, which was the case for our earliest ancestors, who had just barely arisen from the muck, and true kindness had not yet come in the universe.

We do not respect teachers, but we make our ivy-league professors into old-world gods. We cannot allow teachers full respect because that would make us truly in spirit democratic, which we aren't comfortable with because it puts ultimate authority, ultimate responsibility, too close to home. We sense that our own psychic makeup is such a disorded mess that we need institutions, distant bankers, ivory-tower professors, removed presidents, up high enough to not have their truly mundane status revealed to us on an ongoing basis, to keep Chaos at bay. Teachers, despite an earnest attempt to armor them with professional status, we make seem as now but older examples of the inadequate kids they teach, as a reminder of what inevitably happens to you when you keep kids so close: you get leached upon, you get contaminated. They, like the kids they teach, are inevitably lost, and so schools become garbage bins into which we can project and contain our own vile hatred and blame-worthy insufficiency, which serves the purpose of getting rid of it and pressing in the contaminants that the school as institution may yet need help in enclosing.

Our society has been bad, and we seek its punishment. The worst part of our story isn't that Big Business is really just an agent to accomplish the suffering we feel we as a society deserve, it is that liberals have decided that the problem will only rest with them and other elites -- a fiction the poor can actually live with, actually WANT, because they've known since birth that respite is only possible by placating angry, little you-despising gods.

Link: Testing 4 year olds isn’t the answer (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...