That is an issue with the educational system and the way schools work. What is needed are motivated teachers and a thought out pedagogical approach. Educating the children with morals and values and transforming them into sensible and responsible persons falls mostly to teachers since school is the place they spend most of their time,  more than with their family. So the effort has to come from the school and in extension from the state to make sure that this process is possible. You can't blame a kid for not learning if nobody ever taught him or her that it is important to learn or even HOW to learn. Not everybody has this inner urge to do it on their own and some need a nudge to show them what they are cabable of. If everybody tells you that are too stupid for anything but low menial labour you will be unable to do anything else, it is a selffulfilling prohecy. This is a pedagogical challenge if there ever was one. And that is why teachers carry the weight of society on their shoulders and deserve the utmost respect and high wage and a lot paid vacation, because a good teacher takes up the slack of dysfunctional families and there is more and more of that. It is a huge issue that doesn't get enough attention because the general consensus seems to be that throwing money at lazy students is the wrong way to go, because that is NOT what improving the school system is all about.

Poverty is a tricky thing to define. I had visited my brother while he was living in Sacramento and was always shocked how expensive good healthy food was. Fast food was alot cheaper, whereas buying healthy vegetables, fruit, salad, good bread (very important for Germans - you guys don't KNOW what bread is lol) was almost unaffordable. Well, maybe it was due to the store, Wholefoods, but it seems to be the general trend. Fastfood is cheap and healthy food is a luxury. Combined with the ridiculous idea that eating tons of meat is healthy - it is the only option if you don't have money to spare for paying 3 or 4 times as much for ingredients to prepare a healthy meal for yourself and your family. I grew up on organic food bought from a local farmer or farmers market in town, and sometimes there are farmers markets around. Sacramento had one run predominantly by Mexicans, and it was possible to buy cheap veggies there, but you really had to look for it.

Unions in Germany are not like the Unions in the US, but I know too little about that to go into detail.

She wrote her book about the working poor and the way she described it, the hours are very long and work is hard manual labour which requires onthe job training. She said it was demeaning and boring and the turnover rate was so high that you couldn't afford to complain or ask for improvements. On the other hand she thought that most jobs required alot of skill, quick thinking, high stamina. I don't know if it is that easy to have some sort of career going up from working as a maid or waitress or storeclerk in walmart. But there are counter experiments as well to show that it is possible, notably Adam Shepard's Scratch Beginnings

She tried it 3 times in 3 different cities for several weeks each.

There is a famous investigative journalist in Germany who did a similar thing in the 70ies by dressing up as a turkish "guest worker" and seing what it was like. Recently, he went undercover in a bakery that produced for a prominent discounter, LIDL. His findings were quite appaling, there were no safetly measures, old equipment and ovens where workers burnt themselves regularly, mold, low wages etc. His publishing lead to publicity about this and subsequently to alot of changes. LIDL was emberassed and pissed off at him and tried to ban his book.. they claimed he went there using a false name and violated several laws of privacy da da da His name is Günter Walraff  

 

Which is a big problem. This basically results in children being forced to attend indocrination facilities, but instead of indoctrinating them with responsibility, being hard working, and morals, they are indocrinated with laziness, unfairness, working the system, and entitlement.

Yeah. Do you have a good idea how to do things differently? It isn't as simple as it sounds, educating young people and helping them to develop into responsible sensible beings. Do you chuck those out that don't make it lol.. that would be great problem solving but you'd only create problems for society that way. This problem deserves more attention on a national level.

The US had great reform pedagogics that amongst other things developed the system you have now, where teachers are very much invovled into school activities and students identify with their school sportteams etc. and have alot of extracurricular options available. I think that it isn't that a bad system and it's very different from Germany. Here, schools and universities don't have sport teams, or if they do it's just for fun of playing and there is hardly any competitive playing against other teams.There's no school spirit whatsoever here  or proud alumni meeting in homecoming dances.

Then there is the social factor of traditional families becoming less and less where both parents live together and raise their kids. Divorces can do real damage to children, and there are a ton of other social problems like social and ethnic bachround and minorities that can hinder the process of becoming a good student. And the ones that have to somehow cope with all that and ensure that kids turn out alright despite all that are the schools. Talk about national security in a different sense here.

it is called social evolution, instead of indoctrinating everyone in the country from early childhood, let people educate their own children in such manners. The result is a hetrogenous society where failed ideologies are allowed to fail, and successful ones thrive.

This evolution of cultures is why incest and canibalism is taboo in our current society. Societies that values those things have all failed.

Did you expect that I Would have no answer, or that my suggestion would be to indoctrinate everyone to MY way of thinking?

All the problems that you describe are enabled by our stupid laws. eliminate entitlement and you will see a lot less family breakdowns.

Can you elaborate on what you mean with "failed ideologies" and with what everyone is indoctrinated? There is no institutionalized ideology that is rammed down peoples throats. People are no longer strictly bound by rules or class or race and gender to a certain behaviour and that gives more freedeom. That freedom (granted by the constitution) creates a new set of challenges.

Actually, I did expect you to have no complete answer (unless you were a educational science major)  because it is a big problem and  The good answer to solve it hasn't been found yet even though people have been trying for decades, almost centuries now. There are several theories and concepts for schools being put into practice. And even if you have a perfect concept, you still need good motivated teachers that don't give up to put it into action.

Your suggestion isn't all that problemoriented though. Let people educate their own children would be a great idea if people were actually doing it. But what with mom and dad seperated and mom working all day and dad has a new family etc. (patchwork family) sometimes that education simply doesn't take place by the family. Or kids growing up in bad neighborhoods with lots of gangs and drugrelated violence, they get an education from their peers that might be stronger than what their parents tell them is right. It is a layered problem.

Yea, lets get rid of the constitution! That is what it ultimately comes down to if get rid of your stupid laws. Whose laws would you have instead..?

HA... major... I major in molecular biology, but I have enough knowledge and experience in education to fill books. Studying and "major" are not necessarily the same. You can read a book outside of class, and if all your knowledge comes from mandatory lectures and not from voluntery reading, then you are truely ignorant.

Not educating your children IS a failed ideaolgy that will fail and result in unachieving children who are unlikely to reproduce without entitlement.

The constitution requires us to indoctrinate children with the current fad? where exactly?

I was more thinking of research done in the course of majoring in the field, which is conducted by the faculty of educational science. Universities (at least in Germany) are sometimes more dedicated to research than teaching, and the final thesis required here (80-100 page paper) has to consist of independant unique research on the basis of your theory, and not just recycling secondary literature.  The science aspect is alot more broader than hands on knowledge about teaching methods, cognitive science, pedagogical psychology, school psychology, neurology - probably even molecular biology in conjunction with that, pedagogical science in a broader sense and other fields that I can't think of right now. It is necessary to know  the technical literature in your field in order to explain how and why your methodology works. Famous people in that field were Albert Bandura, Skinner, Pavlow etc. I am partly ignorant of that because I am not a educational scientist by trade even if I have rudimentary knowledge about the basics. I do know that it is alot more difficult to come up with a good way to tackle all the current problems in schools than simply blaming some undefined ideology of entitlement. It is all nice and easy to place the blame and point out those whose fault it is and a different ballgame to find a solution that works.

It seems that that is a circular problem. Sometimes I feel that it would be much wiser and efficient  to teach the parents instead of the kids or to teach children how to teach so they can teach their eventual offspring.

That's not what I meant. My statement was a reaction to your "lets get rid of all the stupid laws" because they were the root of all evil, namely the attitude of entitlement.

 

 

Oh; heh....I get it, now. Sorry. Little slow on the uptake, there.

 

---utemia

I agree with this, and individual teachers do deserve more than what they get, but here, they DO get three months paid vacation every year. They only work nine months out of the year. 

America's students score lower and lower against other nations all the time, even though the government keeps throwing truckloads of cash in their direction. Let me point out that this is same institution which produced many scientists and engineers which helped earn us the moon; which made us one of the greatest world powers in history, and in less than 150 years, at that.

What's happened? The American public school system has, over the last 30-40 years, become a discipline-free zone, and a cesspool of Leftist and touchy-feely, secular-humanist indoctrination. A place where good self-esteem is valued over high grades and accomplishment; therefore, everyone is rewarded equally, no matter how dismal their performance.

Also, you don't understand how the Teacher's Union works over here. They're more concerned with getting teachers this perk and that perk, than with educating kids. They're a HUUUUGE supporter of the Democratic Party, as are ALL unions here, even though the Dems hardly ever do anything but throw them a meager bone at election time.

There has been a big debate and movment over here, for quite a few years now, over providing government vouchers for lower-class children to be sent to private and/or Christian schools, getting them out of the public school system. The union hates this, of course, because it takes money away from their public schools, and exposes how inept and inadequate their influence has made our school system, as the kids who do get out and go to private schools tend to thrive academically. The Dems, thanks to the money they get from the teacher's union, don't support it.

In his first speech, Obama praised the teachers union for their superb job and the quality education they provide America's kids; yet, his own daughters attend an exculsive private school, as do most other politicians in DC. It's okay for their kids, I guess, but not for mine.

--utemia

No, it isn't tricky at all.
"Poverty" is not a relative term. Many people who live in Third World countries run by rich, self-aggrandizing dictators (many of whom describe the movements which installed them as "People's Revolutions" and such....) live in "poverty"; they live in shacks made of old, dirty plywood and tin, with a dirt floor and beds made of whatever soft materials they can find. They have to scratch and scrabble for food, and they rarely have running water, heat, electricity (much like Iraq, until we invaded, toppled the dictatorship and provided such amenities) or vehicles. That's poverty.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, we were somberly told, time and again, that these people were the "poorest or the poor"; living in "poverty", and Katrina had taken even their meager possessions. 

Yet, in the news reports, as the camera panned across the crowds of refugees, we saw many, many well-dressed (before the looting started), morbidly obese people. Katrina taught the world that if "extreme poverty" produces anything, it's 350-pound poor people in $130 basketball jersies, $200 sneakers, and draped in gold chains and rings. That's not to say they were living it up; many may have, indeed, had crappy apartments in the Public Housing Projects, or rented crappy houses with absentee landlords. They may have had crappy cars and 10 kids (by 10 dads) they had trouble feeding. Hey; we make our choices. Do better for yourself and your family......

"Healthy" food isn't expensive; there are "no-frills stores" like Aldi, for example, where good food and vegetables are readily available, and pretty cheaply, too. Wal-Mart is another great place to get fresh veggies and meat, pretty much on the cheap.

Organic foods are always more expensive here, however, simply because, without using things like chemical fertilizers, pesticides and preservatives, they're harder to grow, and don't last as long on the shelf.

In America, there's no need to be hungry, homeless (or even jobless, really) for very long, even in a bad economy. It's still possible to work your way from a tenement to a mansion, if you try and are careful with your money.

It sounds like you need a serious reform of your educational system. Serious meaning not something where politicians try to distinguish themselves but an honest attempt to make things better for everybody. More money isn't necessarily the solution, you need a reform of how public schools are run, new concepts etc.

I like secular humanist accomplishments, it was the fertilizer for your constitution after all, don't forget that

Good selfesteem is important as well from the teachers point because a student who is convinced he is too dumb won't learn anything. You can't teach if someone is convinced that he can't learn because it is beyond him or her. And then there is the debate on how you grade in the first place.. do you give credit to someone who studieds hard on his own to go from a D to C, and is someone who has parents that make sure he does his homework everyday and has private tutors if needed and has a B average, really a smarter student? You need a balance of different norms, how much did a student get right solutions, how much has a student improved in his abilites individually, and where are his abilities in comparison to his classmates. It is up to the teacher on which norm he places the most emphasis, but all 3 are important and describe a student.

Yeah, that is undeniably true. But poverty is always analyzed in relation to what others have around you in a specified region, like a state or country. There is no absolute norm of what poverty consists of. You can't compare a Sao Paolo, Lagos, Calcutta, Manila etc. slum to New Orelans because these cities have nothing in common with New Orleans, not the culture, gross national income, economy, average wages, political system, educational level of the population etc. Poverty in a 3rd world country isn't the same as poverty in western industrialized nation.

I believe Iraq had working utilities and irrigation systems even before you invaded.

--utemia

There has been reform; as I said, American education used to be one of the best in the world. The "reforms" of the last few decades have undermined that, and weakened the system. Study now concentrates on political correctness, i.e., Multiculturalism, gender/race studies, situational ethics and moral relativism. All this combines to weaken moral and cultural resolve in the people. Our culture/civilization is coming apart at the seams, and our educational system is one of the primary factors in the collapse. When they took God out of the schools, the decline began. Believe it or not, the American public school system used to start their day with prayer; now, you're lucky if they say the Pledge of Allegience to the Flag.

--utemia

"...are endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable Rights...."---Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence

America was founded on Christian values, by men who were Christian believers. Unfortunately, too many of us HAVE forgotten that.

---utemia

Sure good self-esteen is important, and one of the best ways to bolster that is through accomplishment. However, accomplishment is often downplayed in our schools, because kids who, perhaps, aren't as smart as others, or as talented as others (which are just a fact of life, so...just deal with it) might feel bad about themselves. So, instead of working with the students, and encouraging them to work harder, tests are often dumbed down, everyone gets a blue ribbon, and exceptionality takes a hit.

Also, tests are often dumbed down to make the teachers look  better; students in one school district I read about some time ago were not as adept at math and spelling as in other, surrounding districts. Instead of concentrating on those subjects, however, the subjects/tests themselves were simply made easier, so the teachers in that area wouldn't have to work so hard, or look so bad in comparison. Thank the Teacher's Union and the local school boards.

---utemia

I understand that; and that's what I'm saying.....what they live in, in those areas, is poverty. I feel sorry for them. "Poverty" in America is not having two TVs with cable. That's ridiculous; yet, we're expected to feel shame because Little Johnny can't watch his favorite show in his bedroom. I don't feel sorry for "poor" people in America, because there's no reason to live like that here.

---utemia

Over half of Baghdad, I know, was without electricity and running water. The UN, through the "Oil for Food" program (bribery scandal) had given Saddam millions to upgrade the system they had in place, and to expand it. The money was never spent for this, of course. Saddam simply took it and ran, like the soulless, psychopathic weasel he was. This was discovered after we invaded, to Kofi Anan's embarrassment (if indeed he was capable of such a thing) and was downplayed by the soulless, sociopathic weasels in the UN, who enrich themselves on the suffering of the world for which they're supposed to be providing.

In 2005, I read an article in the local paper, about a locally-born Army engineer, who worked on projects bringing both water and electricity to the rest of the city. That was just one of the many good things the world--and most shamefully, our own--media ignored about our efforts in Iraq.

Well, yes, they had been british settlers beforehand. European settlers were mostly Christian by default, that's all there is to it.

The idea that the individual has rights and is not determined by religion or society and that all men are created equal are values and ideas that stem from humanist beliefs and the enlightenment movement/philosophy. It doesn't stem from christian values but they are included in that because the enlightenment movement happened in Europe and Europe is predominantly christian.

 

This is what's called "arguing semantics".

Regardless, they were Christians, and based their new nation's system on traditional Judeo-Christian values, and the idea that God bestows individual rights and freedoms at His discretion. This was an ideal which served us well until the 1960s, when, culturally, we started to seriously question and drift from that notion, and it's really been all downhill from there.

I am sorry, it is more than just arguing semantics. Christian moral values are present in the enlightenment movement, but it was not a fact of life in 1776 that everybody should be treated equal and has the same rights, the idea of human dignity,  that the individual matters, that reason and logic are more important than ideology and religion and that religion or society should not determine one's future. The consitution is a testament to humanistic achievements and not the result of faithful christians, even though humanist philosophers were christians. You just have to go and look how the world was ruled in the 18th century where the church was a political power and the society was organized in a feudal way where you were born into a certain class, peasant, aristocracy or clergy and that determined who you could be. That is also part of judeo-christian values and history. You seem to have a pretty misty eyed idea about that. 

Human dignity is derived from the fact that man is the only being capable of reason and thus can give himself laws and binds himself to follow this laws and rules and moral values. Man is borth subject and object of the law and moral values and only beings that can do both have dignity. I can't further into exact detail of philosophy here because I don't know enough to make a reasoned argument here, but it's still more true than your idea of a christian state.

You should read up on some of these humanist philosophers, Jean Jaques Rousseau, Fichte, Emanuel Kant, Schopenhauer.. they were pretty smart and their ideals are what glues most modern democratic constitutions together, not religious values.

---utemia

Well, that's funny; here, all this time, I thought that was why the first Pilgrims came to the New World, and why America was fashioned in the manner in which it was....because they didn't care for the way Europe did things, and wanted to make a country where those mistakes were not made.

It wasn't perfect, no....but then, it had to be built within the parameters of their culture and world as it was then. That's one reason why they left slavery in, even though none of them really liked it. It was just part of the economic game back then. Jefferson said 'Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears; you don't like it, but you don't dare let it go."

And I never said Christianity was "what held it together"....I simply stated that the men who built the framework for America were Christians, and designed it to be a Christian nation with the values that went along with it.

Jesus said "the first shall be made last, and the last shall be made first"....this means that, in God's Kingdom, everyone will be equal, as He intended.

They tried to do that as well as they could, in that time period.

 

That doesn't really jive with what I know of the pilgrims and their strict religous beliefs woud have never allowed for the individual to do what they want. They were rigid and prejudicial and alltogether pretty horrible and dreary people - especially since they had been persecuted themselves. Just read Hawthornes "Scarlet Letter" and you get a good idea about how society was like. They didn't really mind the church having political power and ruling peoples lives, they just minded that it wasn't them who had the power and that's why they left to a place where they could do what they wanted. I don't think the pilgrims really minded the fact that some were born to rule and others were born to serve and that everybody had their designated place in life and that no personal merits could change that.

If they had really wanted to do things differently they well damn should have left that out. It just illustrates the fact that the individual didn't matter as much as the group/society with its norms and rules did. And the the constitution changed that because for the first time it was written down as a law that everybody should be treated equal and that every individual, regardless of sex or ethnicity and social background, has the same entitlement to be treated accordingly. The idea of the individual was radically new and totally opposite to the pilgrims society. It is not something that religion came up with, the churches (and any cults around the world really) like it when people follow their rules and obey. Freedom and equality are threatening their exclusive claim to spiritual leadership and power, and that! is what the consitution did. It disempowerd the political hold of the churches over the government and at the same time also made sure that the government had no control over the churches.

They were christians because almost everybody was, it wasn't by design. But as I said above, the values of freedom, equality, individual rights, the entitlement of everybody to be treated according to those rights, these things are secular humanistic achievements. Otherwise you'd have had a theocratic religious dictatorship and not a country where everybody can be someone, no matter where you come from, what you believe, what background you have. It is a tremendous accomplishment, and much bigger than any religous dogma or nebulous values that allowed for slavery among other things.