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

I appreciate Pro's clarifications. It will improve the debate. [1] Pro failed to explain how, in his words, a method that "puts more control in the student" would focus the curriculum. Perhaps Pro would like to spend hours discussing Marxist dialectics, but some other students may prefer to discuss pop music, electronic gaming, skateboarding, or whatever. In many places, students may prefer to discuss the Bible as it applies to science or history, rather than what the standard curriculum provides. Allowing free reign to student determination is not going to focus the curriculum. The example of Pro gave of picking out one literary character and discussing that character at greater length is fully within the scope of present teaching methods. Pro said that one of his teachers did it, and my teachers did it many years ago when curricula were more rigid today. What is important is that the major features of the curriculum be held in common. Students need, for example, an exposure to Shakespeare and that ought not be put aside in favor of the current interests of students. Some things are genuinely more important than others. Another reason for come curricula is to promote cultural literacy. The concept is that all citizens ought to have a common vocabulary of phrases, metaphors, and parables. That is desired to improve communications. For example, knowing what "Thou doth protest too much" means saves a great deal of wordy explanation. For the purpose of cultural literacy, it doesn't matter so much what the common body of knowledge is, only that it is held in common. Finally, a common curriculum is important as a basis for cumulative learning. An employer is well served by being able to assume that a high school graduate knows how to read. If the student goes to college to study math, it's important to have a reasonable assumption of what was taught in high school. a student might still need remedial education, but it limits the bounds of what may be needed. [2-5] I think that Pro concedes that the concepts of "arguing and coming to common understanding" and "abolishing rote memorization" are largely inapplicable to high school curricula. He could not name anything to which they applied in mathematics and foreign languages. "Interpretation of the material" is almost completely inapplicable to vocational education, science, computers. Pro is passing lightly over the fact that his whole proposed is about 90% inapplicable. He claims it works sometimes in history and literature, but that's about it. Even in the areas where it applies, Pro assumes that the discussion would go in the direct he desires, Marxism, rather than in other directions, like religion or pop culture. An example will support by next point: What is wrong with this proposal? "I propose a new system of education in which all students perform all of their homework assignment to the best of their abilities on time, they prepare properly for classes, they stay awake and attentive during classes, they never create distractions, and when they do not understand something, they forthrightly and clearly articulate the nature of what they do not understand." Those are good ideas, right? The error is the proposal is that it is not a system of education, it is an ideal of what ought to happen under many systems of education. A system of education involves a methodology for achieving the goals of education, not a vision of a more perfect world in which wonderful things happen reliably. One major defect in Pro's proposal is that it merely proposes and idea. If there are any teachers that do not want students to articulate their lack of understanding, such teachers are rare. There are at least three reasons why students do not do so: (1) they do not want to appear "stupid" in front of their classmates, (2) they do not know how to articulate the nature of their lack of understanding, and (3) they don't want to hold up the whole class with a lengthy discussion of a particular point that others may already understand. There is nothing in Pro's proposed system that alters any of these circumstances. Pro is proposing an ideal, not a methodology. To sure some teachers are better at evoking the right kinds of question from students and answering them in a way that does not side track the whole class. Possibly something could be done that would improve the training of teachers to generally improve that skill. However, there is nothing in Pro's proposal that addresses that. The defect in Pro's proposal is common to communist theory in general. It proposes an unachievable ideal, not a rational methodology. Pro asserts "My comment that Capitalism is the foundation of our education system, was to point out the facts espoused in Jean Anyon's article." Ok, I give up, what are those claimed facts, and how are they derived from capitalism? It is true that communist idealism is not taught, and it shouldn't be taught, because it is untrue and doesn't work. the mystery deepens as Pro goes on to assert, "Much of the education that I propose, is taught in certain areas in the US. Although, not exactly my proposed theory, the education in certain areas is largely about the student's independence and dominion over his/her own education. The problem is, these schools that focus on true education, are centralized in communities in which wealth prospers. This comes back to the root of Capitalism." So, capitalism leads to wealth, a true assertion. But that, according to Pro, then leads to teaching according to communist doctrine, which is puzzlement. Pro should first establish the truth of the assertion that certain wealthy areas have abandoned the use of curricula, and in fact placed education under the dominion of students. That is a bold claim that requires substantial evidence. The next step after that is to show that this is a good thing, producing a better education than traditional methods of structured learning according to a curriculum. I will concur that certain areas, like California, have standards that require the teaching of political correctness according to leftist ideology. For example, standards require that pioneer women cannot be shown riding in a cover wagon while pioneer men walked, even though historical facts contradict the political correctness. There are literal hundreds of demands of political correctness. Children cannot be depicted eating cookies in stories, by tofu is acceptable. Is that he doctrine that Pro means? It is documented, for example, in the book "The New thought Police" by Tammy Bruce. http://www.amazon.com... High school students, nor college students for that matter, simply do not know enough to claim dominion over education. It's a good idea to have student's ask questions and discuss subjects, and for teachers to spend more time on aspects of the curriculum that pique student interest. Teachers who can make the material appealing to students are better than teachers who manage to make everything boring. None of that requires a communist ideological revolution in teaching. Curricula should be structured to serve as a basis for future learning and to support living productively in society. Pro has presented nothing concrete or factually substantiated that would improve education. His idea is to somehow infuse curricula with empty idealism in the hope that something wonderful would be achieved. He offers no evidence that would happen.