truthsayer's tags:
Recently, as some of you may know, I have taken to re-reading my old college textbooks.  I have been revisiting my last formal education.  The last doctrine of the educational world that I had to read, study and basically, accept as fact.  I was tested on all of this information.  I was still unfocused as a student, at the time that I took the class I will be referencing in this blog:  Sociology. 
 
It was an introductory class, and I believed, at that time, that being a sociologist or a psychologist, or at least having familiarity with the topics, would help me in life.  I have always loved people, so I knew that I would be dealing in some sort of a people profession.  I had even taken sociology in high school.  Looking back, I probably took this course believing that I would enjoy it as much as I had my high school sociology course.
 
As I have been re-reading this rather dry text book, I became fascinated with the sections on American Schools.  Of course this textbook was printed in 1977, thirty years ago this year.  It is a totally secular viewpoint, as all educational materials were by 1977, but with all that is going on in our American schools today:  Columbine, VA Tech, etc., I thought a blast from the past might really open our eyes to how far we have fallen from grace, in our American Schools today. 
 
Something is very wrong.  We are failing our children folks.  What is different today, from 30 years ago?  Could it be something that happened about 40 years ago?
 
This exerpt is taken from Sociology, An Introduction;   by Reece McGee (Editor) and Contributing Authors in chapter order; copyright 1977 by The Dryden Press, a division of Holt, Rinehart and Winston; Chapter 13, EDUCATION, p. 407-408.
 
The Function of American Schools
 
Like all formal educational systems, American schools perform the general functions we have described above (refers to section on Social Mobility).  In addition, schools in the United States reflect the social, political, and economic forces characterristic of American society and culture.  In the remainder of the chapter, we will consider the way in which American schools have been affected by and, in turn, have helped shape their society.
 
The character of the modern school in the United States has been molded primarily by a combination of the waves of immigrants that swept into the country during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; by the demands of constitutional government; and except during sporadic economic downturns, by a shortage of certain vocational skills that persisted up to the 1960's.  Responding to these conditions, the schools concentrated on three functions:  Americanization of all students, providing "equal opportunity, " and supplying vocational training.  These three factors influended the kind of socialization that still occurs in many american schools, socialization emphasizing good citizenship, practical or useful education, and the traditional American values of success, competetion, hard work, deferred pleasure, and sexual modesty.
 
-end of exerpt-
 
The italics are from the text itself.  The bold printed areas are things I, personally, want to call your attention to, as food for thought.  These school violence episodes are clearly reflecting back to us, the deterioration of our values, our mores, and our spiritual bankruptcy.  I am very concerned.  Are you? 
 
 
truthsayer
 
 
copyright 4/20/07 by Truthsayer
 
 
 
 
 


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • truthsayer said on Apr 20, 2007....

    I tried to change one of my tags to VA Tech, as that is what made me notice this section in my Sociology book...the recent tragedy at VA Tech.  Perhaps I should have looked up occurances of social deviants, 30 years ago, as well.  The frequancy of these maniac acts of terrorism are astounding to me.

    truth

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 20, 2007....
    what does sexual modesty have to do with either of those recent tragedies, truthsayer? because honestly, that's never struck me as a particularly traditional american value.

    ed
  • doyoulikeme said on Apr 20, 2007....
    I like to follow this post-
  • truthsayer said on Apr 20, 2007....

    silverwhisper:

    Degrading values ed.  Maybe you are so young that you cannot remember when America was different.  That textbook was written in 1976!  It is a college textbook!  Like it or not, in 1976, the sociological consensus was that Americans were "sexually modest".  If it didn't 'strike you as a particularly traditional american value', I am really not surprised.  But it was.  Now, it is not, apparently.

    Things have changed, and in my humble opinion, they have not changed for the better.  I do not have the "ostrich" syndrome so pervasive in our society today.

    These crazy acts of terrorism are a new thing....a dangerous thing.  Please don't be obtuse ed.  This is a problem from the McVeigh's of 1995 to the Chos of today, it has invaded our shools and is affecting our children.  There are scary similarities in the Columbine "basement tapes" and the Cho "tapes".  This is a symptom....what is the CAUSE ed?

    truthsayer

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 20, 2007....
    truthsayer, i'm surprised mainly b/c the professors were likely part of the sexual revolution of the 60s!

    as to the cause: b/c quite simply, some people are insane, cowardly, selfish jerks. surely you've encountered at least one soul in your travels who exhibits no signs whatsoever of god's love, if i may use that expression?

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 20, 2007....
    Saving for later...
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 20, 2007....
    Hmm. I don't really know what to say...

    I'm sure that "sexual modesty" was very much a traditional American value up until the point the book was written, and even beyond. Depending on what community you visit, of course; it's different everywhere in the US.

    I don't think it has much bearing though, and I don't really think you can blame the shootings on the school or on changing social mores. Or at least not on the ones listed.
  • truthsayer said on Apr 20, 2007....

    As to being surprised about it ed, you could not have been more surprised than I was.  It has been a long time since I read it.  I was surprised that it said that in 1977 too. 

    Of course there are always Godless people.  I just wonder what the sociology books say today about our "American Values".

    If there are any current college students that can cite something from a current sociology textbook or other education textbook, specifically about the purpose or focus of American Schools, I would be very interested to see it posted in this blog.

    One last thing about your comment about people that have no love of God in their hearts...

    This kid obviously had mental problems.  He was on Paxil.  The Columbine terrorists were obviously depressed and mentally ill too.

    Here's my question:

    When did our society quit looking for causes because we are so obsessed with treating the symptoms and completely ignore our moral, ethical and spiritual duty to find the causes of our social ills?

    truthsayer

     

     

  • truthsayer said on Apr 20, 2007....

    But TinSoldier, violence in the schools wouldn't have been included back then, would it?  I looked all through the textbook looking for something, some reference or inkling of what we see in schools today...the violence, is just one symptom.

    If I hadn't quoted the source, I daresay most people would have guessed that it was from the 50's or before.

    We had intellectual honesty on the last blog about history trivia...I think the best we can say here is that we don't know why these problems are so pronounced now...well, that's not entirely true...I have a pretty good idea "why".

    truth

  • beyondtheveil said on Apr 20, 2007....
    truth- When I was in high school there were 453 in my graduating class, so this was not a small school. I know of two who dropped out and about four who skipped classes.
     
    They taught all of the areas mentioned in the book. They even had a class that taught living within the family and society, and yes, sex was mentioned.
     
    To say there is no difference in students, the way teachers taught and how they were allowed to teach is patently absurd. To say there is no difference in sexual mores of then vs now is equally absurd.
     
    This could have been because of my location, but it would be very difficult for me to say we were alone in all of this.
     
    To answer your question, I've been concerned a long time. Younger people did not live this, we did.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 20, 2007....
    beyondtheveil wrote:
    To say there is no difference in students, the way teachers taught and how they were allowed to teach is patently absurd.
    To say there is no difference in sexual mores of then vs now is equally absurd.


    I don't think anyone is saying this, beyond. At least I'm not. I know there are differences, I'm just saying the differences that exist in schools are not the cause of shooting such as what happened at Columbine and Virginia Tech and other places.
  • beyondtheveil said on Apr 20, 2007....
    tin- I also would not say it is the sole cause of the shootings. I was referring to truthsayer's last paragraph in that they were more functional in teaching values and mores.
     
    It was a different time with different students in a different society in many respects. Many things we have today were almost unheard of. But again, teachers were allowed
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 21, 2007....
    truthsayer, i don't know how much our society looked for those things, and i'm kinda skeptical that we do it any less now. look at all the outrage about various political scandals, whether financial or sexual shenanigans.

    granted, that's sorta different from what we're talking about here, but i believe they're both symptomatic of related things.

    ed
  • buck_rooster said on Apr 21, 2007....
    The Gen-X'ers are getting old, and it is time to name a new generation of college students.  They have been tagged the "Me" Generation by the pundits.  This is probably a natural, (maybe even cyclical,) result of human beings evolving with new technologies.  I think the events that disturb us are different than the events that disturbed our grand parents, which are different than the events that disturbed their grandparents, and so forth through the ages.  New technologies bring new problems, and society has to evolve into something different.  Let's not forget, there is good and bad in everything!  To those of us who "believe:"  remember, "We joy in tribulation, knowing that tribulation worketh experience, and experience worketh patience, and patience worketh hope.  And hope maketh not ashamed, for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through our Lord Jesus Christ."  Or something like that! hehehe
  • truthsayer said on Apr 22, 2007....

    I am in complete and total agreement with beyondtheveil.  These kinds of behaviors being displayed in and around our schools would have been completely unacceptable in our time.  Like beyondtheveil said, they simply would not have happened.

    Sorry ed and TinS.  There are forces at work here, but they cannot work without our hands, our feet, our mouths, and our minds.   

    It isn't the only influence working against our youth of today...the acceptance of violence in the media, entertainment and even the glorification of violence in gangs, the new videos circulating of kids fighting (even girls fighting girls) for entertainment, the anarchy subculture, the easy access and circulation of the filth of the most vile kinds, perverting the use of "free speech" that so many died to establish and preserve in this country...even the so called "snuff films".  It is utterly disgusting.

    All of our experience (beyond, me and others that are older, that know what it was like then, compared to what it is like now) shouts that if this generation is in trouble...we all are in trouble. 

    There are no real values or mores taught in the schools today, other than those that are, once again, taking real values of respect and tolerance, and perverting them into stupid euphamisms like "live and let live"...no values, no mores=live and let live.  Keep your mouth shut, your eyes shut, and live in denial, telling yourself that everything is F.I.N.E.

    That textbook quote says it all.  The so called "sexual revolution" was such a lie.  Such a lie.  Like you said ed, many of the stupid, selfish subculture of the 60's that were proponents of the "sexual revolution" haven't reaped the consequences of their actions...the children since Gen-X, right up to the children of today, the "Me Generation", as buck_rooster says, they are reaping the rotton fruit, the spoiled fruit of the 60's. 

    Like Billy Holiday's song, there is unholy fruit, this generation is overmedicating their pain, they are dying and killing, themselves and each other...the victims and their killers should be left hanging in the trees, right where they have been unjustly sacrificed, so that the rest of us cannot possibly forget, or look away, or escape the smell of their rotting flesh.

    We have failed them.  We have failed God.  Choose this day...choose this day.

    truthsayer

     

     

     

     

  • truthsayer said on Apr 22, 2007....

    buck_rooster, you and I may both be Christians, but I am pretty sure thay I have a different annointing than you do.

    The scripture you quoted is true, of course.  This is a sign of the times, and a sign of the "end of times".  It is not the end of the world as the fear-propagating environmentalist would have us believe; but, our character, our itegrity as a body-human has not grown-up in the Spiritual realm as our knowledge has increased, as the Bible fortells. 

    I count all persecution as joy.  When I am truly being persecuted for my belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.  All the things you quoted, must happen in order for the word to be fulfilled...but...and this is where you and I must not agree.  I cannot, in good conscience, sit silently by while I know that there is a better way, and that people clearly do not understand.  

    I have sort of an Elijah annointing, because I was willing to receive it.  As the prophets of Baal...like athiests and others that worship non-entities, I KNOW what is wrong, and I won't stop until I know that I have called down the Truth of God, to burn up all their false altars to false gods. 

    I know there are others that have not bended the knee to Baal, so to speak and to quote God's response to Elijah, but they often remain silent.  I do not have that luxury.  I commited my all and all to the kingdom of God, over 25 years ago.  I meant it then and I mean it now.

    I will never be among the false prophets that say, "Peace, peace" when there is none.  There is peace in Christ, and in God's kingdom which is at hand.  But if people refuse to operate in the kingdom principles...then from where will come the signs, wonders and miracles that today's skeptics, those weak in faith, weak in hope and with little discernment, must have, in order to believe? 

    Like you said in one of my other blogs, we have to have the Holy Spirit in order to bring this to pass.  I have a difficult task, I know.  But in 1982, He gave me the words to pray.  I prayed them, and I agreed to do, what no one else wanted to do, but that which must be done, in order for His kingdom to come.  I still accept that duty, and I count it all joy when I deal with unbelievers and believers alike...that it is my solemn duty to explain, with God's help,  that which has not been understood, but must be accepted, to save as many as we possibly can, before this age comes to a violent close, and the new age, of the millenial reign and rule of Jesus Christ, BEGINS.   God's desire is that all be saved.  So, it is my desire too.

    I am here to crush his head...an Eve annointing so to speak.  I will not give up, until He comes to take me Home.

    your humble servant,

    truthsayer 

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 22, 2007....
    truthsayer, you are inaccurately referencing my statements by ascribing a meaning to them that was not present when i made them. please do not do that.

    ed
  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    Where? I hate inaccuracies, as you know; and I love correcting them, or clarifying misunderstandings.  Tell me where I did that, and I would like to correct it, or them.

    Thanks,

    truth

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2007....
    in the comment directly following buck_rooster, in the sixth paragraph, beginning in the fourth sentence. you begin "like you said, ed" and then add a whole bunch of things i didn't say. i'm inclined to think however that perhaps you intended to use someone else's name there rather than mine?

    ed
  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    TS, and perhaps, ed:

    What is the cause then?  The problem in any system is always in the input, never in the process.  So what else has changed, in our educational system's input?

    Obviously the content of our current educational system is wont, at best; wrong, at worst.  By input, of course, I mean people (teachers, administrators and any other people group that has influence on our educational system), ideas/concepts/etc., and information or content.  We are all systems within systems. 

    Our current educational system, childcare/daycare, and family systems (and all the politically correct lies that perpetuate them) that have daily, weekly, monthly and yearly charge of our youth, have failed, overall. 

    The children, adolescents, teens and young adults in college, are screaming that we have failed.  How many more will have to be sacrificed on some materialistic humanistic "feel good" altar before we heed their blood curdling cries?

    truthsayer

  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    CORRECTION

    To clarify one of my comments, so that no one misunderstands my reference to ed, he actually said:

    truthsayer, i'm surprised mainly b/c the professors were likely part of the sexual revolution of the 60s!

    What I mean, in referring only to that one statement by ed, is that the professors that were a part or promoted the 'sexual revolution of the 60's', is that the children and young adults today...including the Gen X'rs, imho, are the ones reaping the consequences of the 60's...not the professors themselves that promoted the weird sexual rebellion of the 60's.

    Is that okay ed?  I don't want to offend you...but your comment was appropriate in pointing out the hypocrisy of some professors today.  Arrogant power mongers don't have any answers for today's youth.  They say everything is fine.  Well, they quite clearly are not.

    I hope this clarifies that the only thing I was referring to about ed, was his comment about the professors and the sexual revolution of the 60's...no other comments of mine, are referencing him or his opinion. 

    truthsayer 

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2007....
    thank you, truthsayer. you've gone above and beyond and i do appreciate that, sir.

    i thnk that there are several factors at play here, re: the cause, and i think one that goes overlooked quite often is that we tend not to hide things nowadays that we might have back in the day, in addition to the fact that a whole lot more things are treated differently nowadays than in the past.

    i think to address your questions properly and at sufficient length to satisfy either of us however, perhaps a blog entry of my own in response might be the most efficient method?

    ed
  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    I look forward to your 'take' on it, as a young person.  But I do hope that you will defer to the elders in the crowd when we tell you, by experience, what was true of our era.  There are people that are older than me in soulcast too, and I was raised to ask their opinion, respect their opinion, and defer, gracefully, to their opinion when necessary.  I wish that the daycare generations would show the same respect for their elders...my children do.  But most, I fear, did not have this instilled in them as beyondtheveil and I did.  Our concern for those younger than us, is genuine, and it runs deep.

    I had 12 teenagers on one of my radio shows in 1997 or 1998.  They spoke quite candidly with me about the values of their generation, compared even to my own.  One of the teenagers was my oldest daughter, one was my nephew who ran with a TOTALLY different crowd.  They all held the same general beliefs and values however...it was eerie.  I could only conclude that since they were the first of the daycare generation, it had to be a major difference in their value orientation. 

    If I have inspired a blog from you on this subject, since I think you are in your late twenties or early thirties, I will be most interested to read it.  You don't have to include this information in your blog, but I would like to ask you a question:  Were you taken to daycare, preschool or to a babysitter, or even a nanny if your mother worked outside of the home?  If you would respond to that one question, in here, I would most appreciate it.

    Thanks,

    truth 

  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    Or, if you are concerned about your answer being too long in here...c'mon friend ; )  Take up as much space as it takes to say what you want to say!

    truthsayer

  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    *Possible Correction*

    BTW, I don't want anyone to think that beyondtheveil subscribes to every word that I wrote either.  In referring to beyondtheveil, I used his comments as a starting point, a place of agreement as a foundation from which to posit all the rest of my comment.  Not to say that he would agree with all that I had to say.  Only that I AGREED WITH EVERYTHING HE HAD TO SAY.

    Hope I didn't offend you BEYONDTHEVEIL, with anything that may have been perceived insinuating that beyondtheveil and truthsayer were in total agreement about everything that truthsayer had to say.

    Faithfully,

    truthsayer

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2007....
    truthsayer: i am perhaps a tad oversensitive today--i didn't sleep as much as i would normally like last night. i will see if i can assemble a responding blog entry in the next day or two. fair?

    ed
  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    Do what you need to do silverwhisper.  No problem here.  I just wanted you to answer that one question, perhaps when you are in a better mood.  I have had this theory for a long time now...having worked in education for quite a while, it is a hard topic for many, because the dynamics of peer to peer values seem to have replaced the tradition of thousands of years, of respecting one's elders.  I will understand if you choose not to answer.  No problem, either way, ok? 

    C'ya later & no worries,

    truthsayer

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2007....
    truthsayer, I really don't understand what you are saying a few posts above. I certainly hope I haven't disrespected youre views in anyway whether I agree with them or not.

    My main point is that there have been more changes in society than just in schools, which I thought was where you started at.

    As for "daycare" generation, I've never heard that term before. Heck, I'm nearly forty and I've never been in a daycare myself, even though I had baby sitters as a child until I was old enough to watch my younger siblings.

    My kids have spent a very small amount of time in daycare either.

    Some of your comments in this blog have lost me...
  • truthsayer said on Apr 23, 2007....

    Oh heaven's no TinSoldier.  I am pretty much unoffendable.  You are more than welcome to disagree with me.

    If you sense a lot of angst here, it is because I feel so passionately about our children.  I feel passionately about all children in the world.  I think we have a whole generation of children in trouble, and I think they are being pretty much ignored. 

    I know the problem is more than just our schools.  You and I agree on that.  I am saying that the problems that our schools are reflecting back at us (like the textbook suggests) tell us that our society is in trouble...not just the children, adolescents and young adults...our society is in trouble, and acting like we aren't, or being in denial, won't help us or our children one whip.

    Nope, I coined that term on my little radio show.  I was invited to do explore that as a master's thesis at Wyoming, but I wasn't ready to resume my masters degree at that point.  At least not in education.  I have had another invitation recently, from another university, so I suppose I should not give up on that just yet.  But they would hate me in education, at least I think they would!

    I wasn't asking you to respond to me about the daycare thing!  I am sorry.  I will get back on here tonight or at least tomorrow and see if I need to do some clean up work in this blog ; )  Sorry if I have confused you...that is never my intent, but it is my problem, once I become aware of it.  This is why I usually answer each comment separately.  Every now and then, I combine responses...but, this is invariably what I encounter.  I am very sorry for the confusion. 

    You are right.  There have been may changes in society that have affected our current reality.  Like I mentioned our desensitization to violence through video games, TV, movies, etc. 

    I might ask you this:  What other "changes in society" do you feel reflected in our schools...for the better or for the worse?

    I just know that taking prayer out of the schools (and public places) has been a huge factor.  Things that were clearly not allowed before, seem to be fair game now. 

    I just want to thank you for making me hum and sometimes, sing, "One Tin Soldier" for hours after I see your nick here in soulcast!

    truthsayer

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2007....
    Sorry, I thought the "daycare" thing might have been aimed at me, well, not directly but tangentially, and that's one of the things that caught my eye.

    As for changes in society surely there are too many to mention and I don't personally think that they are all bad necessarily. I'll give it a shot later though.

    I don't think that things are that bad overall -- just different. Yeah, my kids are doing well and I'm doing okay, and a lot of people I know are as well. However I do see people that aren't doing so well and for whom the changes in society haven't necessarily been for the better.

    Then again, I knew people like that existed back in the '70s as well when I was a child. Some of them were even worse -- when racism and sexism were much more tolerated by society. where they aren't so much now.

    I just want to thank you for making me hum and sometimes, sing, "One Tin Soldier" for hours after I see your nick here in soulcast!

    Heh. You're very welcome! I love that song.
  • truthsayer said on Apr 24, 2007....

    I look forward to your comments, if you should choose to share more of your personal insights TS.  Thanks for coming back so that I could clarify things.

    I am not sure that things are so much better for women though my friend.  Either that or sexism is sort of a misguided term for what women actually experience.  I was just watching the news last night and women still earn 20 cents on the dollar, even with a college degree and even if they work twice as hard as their male counter parts.  There may not be as many slaps on the behind, but their is still a huge gap that has always been apparent and acceptable; or else it wouldn't still be that way.

    The only thing I can see that would effect our children of today is that mothers are out working for that extra 20 cents per hour, while their children are in school, preschool, daycare or with babysitters.  They aren't getting much of their parents time.

    Wasn't it on one of your blogs that you showed how much time we actually spend with our families per week?  Maybe it was beyond or satyr.  I cannot remember.  But it is important. 

    Anyway, thanks for all of your thoughtful comments.  I appreciate them very much.

    truthsayer

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 24, 2007....
    20 cents on the dollar? Do you have a reference for that?

    Off-topic, I know. The first link I found on Google News said 77 cents on the dollar.

    There are reasons for that, too, that don't all have to do with sexism. Although some reasons do.

    Of course, my wife makes much less than I do what with her being a stay-at-home mom and everything. And if/when she re-enters the work force she's going to still be making a lot less than most men her age -- probably pretty close to minimum wage actually.

    Another reason is career choice, of course.

    Wow. This seems like quite a tangent from the original subject...
  • truthsayer said on Apr 26, 2007....

    Yeah, give me a few days, I have many commitments this week.  I saw it on TV, just have to remember what show by picking the brains of my SO!  We were shocked that it is still so much lower...so it caught our attention. 

    I know it said that there were many "reasons" possible for why it was so...but I doubt that any of those reasons matter much to the woman making so much less than her male counterpart.

    Career choice?  Maybe, but it said that these stats were regardless of college degree, or whatever, on the woman's part. 

    Yes, we perhaps digress...but maybe not.  The world isn't as 'evolved' as some would lead us to believe, is it?

    Later TinSoldier.  Thanks for stopping back in.  I'll find out what we were watching.  

    truthsayer 

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 26, 2007....
    I know it said that there were many "reasons" possible for why it was so...but I doubt that any of those reasons matter much to the woman making so much less than her male counterpart.

    There is no individual "woman making so much less" though -- it's a statistic not an individual. That's what I'm trying to say.
  • truthsayer said on Apr 27, 2007....

    Yes, statistics are numbers...but there must be a large group of women, represented in that statistic right?  Or what is the use of statistics?  I know people groups can distort them, or misrepresent them, if that is what you mean.

    SO went out of town, so I haven't had a chance to talk about that show.  Thankfully, I am the one that got to stay home this time!  I don't even care if it rains today...I am going to garden in it anyway ; )

    Have a super weekend TinSoldier.

    truth 

  • beyondtheveil said on Apr 28, 2007....

    truth- In reference to you mentioning childcare/daycare, I don't see this as a distinct disadvantage necessarily. Sociological studies have been done on this. They found that children from good daycare have better social skills than ones who were never in daycare. This is not to say its better to have children in daycare than at home, only to say it is not, repeating myself, a distinct disadvantage. The main problem arises from not having anyone. Experts of today are now giving the example of illegal immigrants. It is not the immigrants causing most of the crime in their communities, but the children of immigrrants who have no one at home because their parents are working hard to make ends meet.

    Ed- I believe I understand what you have said. This topic is extremely complicated. This involves cultural and technological changes over a period of decades. My comment did not refer to why things were different, but that there is a difference in ingrained values and morals from the general population in this generation to those of decades past. In refering to schools, I have three children who have completed twelve years of public school and the system is not allowed to teach and control as they have in the past in my opinion. I believe sociological studies and pundit opinions bear this out. You mentioned wanting to go into this in more detail and as always I would like to hear it.

  • truthsayer said on May 02, 2007....
    Good thing I went back three days into my conversations to make sure that I hadn't ignored anyone's comments. 
     
    Thanks for all of your comments in here beyond.  It has been a real eye opener for me to reread all of these 'old' textbooks.  They aren't even that 'old'.  I didn't realize how different the world was, just twenty - thirty years ago.
     
    The study I mentioned was reported on mainstream media.  It was comparing daycare/preschool children to stay-at-home-mom-household children.  I don't think they got into qualitative criteria of 'good' daycare as opposed to 'bad' daycare.  I am not aware of the study you mentioned, nor the good as opposed to bad, criteria. 
     
    Latch key kids are one thing...sounds like you are describing chaos...no order and no supervision at all.  I suppose there isn't much good that can come of that, is there?  A few, I am sure, must even be the exception to that 'rule' though.  We always have exceptions, don't we?
     
    Thanks again, for the excellent discourse.
     
    truthsayer

Comment on "The Function of American Schools 30 Years Ago"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously