Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 20:22:04 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD generalised propositional truths"

    Hi Platt,

    On education:

    [Platt]
    Your knowledge of the educational field is ten times mine, so I doubt if I can
    contribute much to a discussion of it's proper role in a moral
    society. I read your historical material on the subject with interest and thank
    you for it.

    [Arlo]
    What I hoped to show with some of the historical background to compulsory
    eduction in America, is that somewhere along the lines it has become unclear
    what the "purpose" is. In addition to the taxation issue, I am also thinking
    about what a MOQ-based educational system would entail (no grades, for example,
    a la ZMM?) I think you could certainly contribute a great deal to this.

    [Platt]
    > Some points I could debate, but doubt it would be fruitful. For example:

    > 1) A high school diploma means a lot compared to dropping out which today too
    many kids do for any number of reasons.

    [Arlo]
    Certainly. But at present it alone is not sufficient for most meaningful
    employment. The point is that since "taxation" is supporting it, I think it
    should have a value-reason for being extended to or cut-off at 12th grade...

    [Platt]
    2) If high schools educated to higher standards than is now deemed acceptable,
    the diploma could be much more meaningful. (If pigs could fly . ..:-)

    [Arlo]
    Which is one way to rethink about the 12th grade cut off. Should we rethink the
    purpose of high school, and what is taught, to make a high-school diploma
    capable of providing "meaningful employment"? The "apprenticeship" model of
    Germany I mentioned could be one solution. But, is this in line with the MOQ?
    In ZMM, Pirsig talks about letting students "drop out", get a hard-knocks
    education, and potentially return to the school motivated by Quality, rather
    than money, grades or degrees. Can/should all education be like this? Should we
    abolish "compulsory" altogether?

    This gets back to "purpose". One of the original "purposes" was to turn out
    "good citizens", and teach life skills, hygiene, etc. If it is to teach a basic
    set of skills, what goal does that basic set serve? Health and hygiene?
    Vocation? Art? Literacy? Informed citizenry for voting purposes?

    [Platt]
    I would ask why draw the line at college?. Why not fund postgraduate work
    and life long education? So I guess my answer is the line has to be drawn
    somewhere. Not a very good answer perhaps, but there it is.

    [Arlo]
    Yeah, if the purpose of compulsory eduction is to provide skills to enter
    meaningful careers, it would seem like you'd have to either (1) revision HS
    diplomas (as stated) or (2) extend support. Or, rethink the purpose of
    compulsory education. Maybe it shouldn't have anything to do with "careers".
    Maybe it should be an informed citizenry. In which case, should HSs drop
    vocational training altogether? Should it be literacy? In which case maybe
    compulsory education should only extend to around 10 years, and let youth enter
    paid-yourself vocational/college/business/etc schooling earlier.

    [Platt]
    > I appreciate your position. I feel the same about discussing education in
    general. I need a lot of clarification, perhaps beginning with the role of
    teacher unions which seem to be beholding to one political ideology.

    [Arlo]
    In principle, I agree with you. Schools should not be biased politically.
    Interestingly, the key to me would be to attract more "conservatives" into
    teaching. And, while I think labor unions are needed, I don't agree with
    compulsory membership. You'll never end "individual bias", but if you had a mix
    of liberal and conservative positions represented by teachers, would that help?

    [Platt]
    Perhaps we can settle for agreeing that education in an MOQ moral society, being
    supportive of the intellectual level, should be subject to coercive taxes on
    citizens. The extent of such taxation will always be open to question, but for
    practical purposes decided periodically by democratic means.

    [Arlo]
    I'd agree. But I think this gets me back to "purpose". Everything should derive
    from that, no? According to the MOQ, what should be the purpose of a compulsory
    education? Would it support compulsory attendence? (E.g., have it "publically
    supported" but leave attendence to be voluntary) Once we get that (IF we get
    that :-)), then the extent of support should follow logically, eh?

    I don't really have any answers to this. I'm hoping your or someone else can
    help refine this.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 20:35:21 BST