High school curricula should be focused more than they are at present using Marxist pedagogy.

Pro has given us an earnest argument. The resolution is "High school curricula should be focused more than they are at present using Marxist pedagogy." "[Pedagogy] generally refers to strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction. ... Pedagogy is also sometimes referred to as the correct use of teaching strategies" http://en.wikipedia.org... The resolution therefore affirms that Marxist teaching methods be used to provide greater focus in high school curricula. In this debate, I have attempted to pin down exactly what the Marxist teaching method is and why Pro believes in would focus the curriculum. (a) In his most recent clarification, Pro states "This pedagogy, would not so much as 'focus' the education, as it would open it up more than possible under the current system, ..." That is consistent with my understanding from the outset, that allowing students to redirect the curriculum to suit their whims would diffuse, not focus it. It negates the resolution. (b) To focus the curriculum, the pedagogy must apply broadly. A method that applies to, say, 10% of the curriculum could not focus the curriculum. I argued that the method did not apply to science, math, most of English, vocational training, and foreign language instruction, and I asked how the method would apply in each area. Pro gave no examples outside of literature and history. Most recently, Pro said "It is true that there are very few ways to interpret how to do Matrices, Trig Functions, etc. What I am trying to convey, is that changing the way subjects are taught and discussed, would have drastic effects on a student's future in education and life." This response does not rebut my claim that the method does not apply to most of the curriculum and therefore cannot focus the curriculum. He asserts the method would have a drastic effect, but even if true that does not support the resolution. For example, teaching astrology as fact would have a drastic effect, but it also would not focus the curriculum -- nor would it be a good idea. (c) Recall that a pedagogy is a teaching method. So what is the "Marxist pedagogy" referenced in the resolution? Pro says, "My whole argument is to do away with methodologies. They create situations where some excel and other fail, ..." The resolution seems to assert that a method would be used to focus the curriculum. If the method is to not have a method, then the resolution is that the curriculum should be focused by not having any teaching methods. I suppose the teachers may know the subject matter, so long as they have no method for teaching it. But having no teaching method could not reasonably be thought to focus the curriculum. Pro thus appears to concede that proposed method for focusing the curriculum (a) does not focus the curriculum, (b) does not apply to most of the subjects it must focus, and (c) is not even a method. This negates the resolution in three different ways. While the resolution cannot be affirmed, I will proceed to specific points raised in the debate. I challenged Pro to back up his claim that "Capitalism is the foundation of our education system." He never make a link between capitalism and educational methodology. He responded by asking in return "Who says that [Communism] doesn't work?" It is not just communism, but socialism in virtually every form, both democratic and undemocratic, that was tried and failed in the 20th century. These failures were meticulously documented in "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" by Joshua Muravchik.http://www.amazon.com... The emerging countries of Africa tried every form of democratic socialism. All failed. All of the major success stories of the 20th century derived from capitalism: Hong Kong, S. Korea, W. Germany, Taiwan, Japan. India and China have succeed in proportion to casting of socialism and adopting capitalism. The relevance to education is that competition produces improvement, both through individual motivation and in improving teaching methods. Pro believes that abolishing success and failure will lead to good education. In fact, students from chaotic schools to do not learn to read or to do math. The Oakland, CA school system is an example.http://findarticles.com... Lack of standards and structure trashed the system; it did not improve it. Standards and strict methodologies are slowly being imposed with favorable results. Finally, Pro explains a book by Jean Anyon. If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are a Marxist, everything looks like a product of Class. Having affixed lenses that see nothing else, Anyon cannot properly analyze cause and effect. A racist would explain everything in terms of race, looking at nothing but the racial makeup of the schools. Anyon's work is not claimed to be a scientific study, it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is well known that the educational level of parents is the best predictor of performance in education. That is because parents provide motivation and a learning-oriented home environment. To test the effect of teaching methodology, one must therefore equalize the mix of parental environments and then study what happens with different teaching environments. Anyon did it exactly backwards, not testing teaching methodology, but reaffirming the effect of home environment. Pro advocates having no standards for success and failure, yet he cites Anyon's analysis that applies its own standards of success and failure. For example, "success" is claimed not to be measured by getting the right answer, but by applying some original method. One cannot say the "right" method, because that would be applying a standard to methods. This is all contradictory. I objected that societies need to teach a common cultural basis to improve communications. Pro says "has merit when speaking about a system that would like things to be easy" Sure, we have education in the first place to make life easier. It goes far beyond employment, we want people in the society to be able to understand each other as easily as possible. Professor of English E.D. Hirsch has written extensively on the importance of cultural literacy in education. http://www.amazon.com... It is especially important in a multicultural society like the United States, because cultural coherency is less like to develop of its own accord as in might in monocultural societies, like Japan. Every American needs, for example, to know about the Civil War, regardless of whether students think it is a fun topic or not. Pro appears to grant that his proposals would undermine cultural literacy by defocusing the curriculum. Finally, Pro asserts that given their druthers, students would select serious difficult topics to study rather than either pop topics or ideological notions instilled by their parents. He says his experience supports this. This can be tested by seeing what students demand outside of school, where they have the free choice that Pro advocates. I believe it is obvious that they do not voluntarily choose serious topics. Some do, but most do not. Pro has negated his resolution through (a), (b), and (c). Beyond negating the resolution, the whole idea of abolishing curricula and teaching methods is a bad one. The resolution is negated.