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

1. This pedagogy, would not so much as 'focus' the education, as it would open it up more than possible under the current system, that would stifle any attempt to change from the normal 'study Shakespeare, you understand literature now', or 'Read this or that, you are educated now'. What if a student wants to read "The Mismeasure of Man" and learn about controversial topics, such as biological determinism. Or, read "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work", and learn how education is regimented for certain, social, reasons. (I will elaborate further on this, since I failed to explain how it applied to my argument earlier). What my resolution addresses, is that our system of regimented curricula, should be altered to a system that leaves room for change, by students and teachers alike. This prevents education from 'being controlled'. My opponent is under the impression that if this were to be the case, that students would deviate from 'important' elements in education and focus more on trivial subjects, like "pop music, electronic gaming, skateboarding, or whatever". This is a bit of an exaggeration; yes, it is highly possible that students would sometimes talk about 'useless' subjects, but, knowing myself and fellow students, they would not forget about the 'boring' parts of education; rather, opening up the curricula, keeps students from having disdain towards the system, and intrigues their brain towards exploring literature or history, they deem as helpful to their education and understanding of the world. This system of, 'putting control into the student', is practical. Let's say a teacher wants the children to read a book, and write a paper on early American immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The book the teacher wants them to read, is Maggie: Girl of the Streets; so that they students can see how life was as an Irish immigrant in that time period. Let's say this book is required by the Local Board of Education (in the current education system). But, a student student decides that the book How the Other Half Lives, would give him a better understanding of the true lives of immigrants and the hardships they faced. There is a problem, he is not allowed to read and report on this, since the Board of Education deems this as not as important as reading Maggie. If, in my espoused system, this were to happen, the student could use any resource he could find, that, in his/her eyes, seemed a good foundation of knowledge. This is a small example, but conveys a hint of what I am proposing. ------------ My opponent sees my pedagogy as being inapplicable to high school. 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. My opponent distorts my views; I do not wish for a class discussion to go towards "Marxism, rather than in other directions, like religion or pop culture. ", as this would contradict my purpose. ------------ "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. " - This is true, to an extent. What my opponent says, has merit when speaking about a system that would like things to be easy. Yes, it would be more difficult for an employer to understand what a particular individual 'understands' if a controlled curricula was not in place, but that is not what is ultimately important. What is important, is that students learn, not on behalf of what society and a board of people believe they should understand and be exposed to, but how to decide for themselves what is important to them, and what would further their knowledge. ---------------- "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. " Methodology- . http://jaguar.eb.com... My whole argument is to do away with methodologies. They create situations where some excel and other fail, and stay there (i. e. America's distortion and misapplication of Binet's IQ system). I propose a way to go about things, with open ends; not a set of rules that must be followed. This would contradict my purpose. I guess you could assume, from an extreme standpoint, that I am for the abolition of curricula. -------------------- "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. " -Quite a bold statement. It is untrue and doesn't work [Communism]? First off, this is for another discussion and should have no bearing on this argument, as it will only benefit Con, because of voters who have preconceived and tainted opinions towards Communism. Second, who's to say it doesn't? Just because it has been distorted and used by demagogues as a way to power, doesn't mean it can't work. Welcome to any ideology in human history. --------------- Now to explain Jean Anyon's book "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work". Different schools in the US were studied, in regards to their teaching methods, and found to be directly affected by the social status and hierarchical standing of the community attending the schools. Anyon classified 4 different school 'qualities': Working Class, Middle Class, Affluent Professional, Elite. In the working class, children were taught certain methods of finding the answer to a problem, and expected to exactly replicate this method. Then on tests, the answer was the only important factor determining their grade; as the teachers assumed they went about it the way they told them to, and didn't even check to see if they learned a new way to get the answer (understanding how a student got the answer is the most important factor, as it explains their problem solving method; which can be evaluated to help the child attain answers more efficiently). While in the Elite school, students developed their own method of problem solving, they interacted as student and teacher equally, and argued as to what method is most proficient. The Elite method has turned out better than the working class method. Just observe how wealth distribution is sustained. I do not agree with this (How the improved education sustains wealth distribution, purposely), but the end result gives proof that this type of education can work; in regards to what Con sees as "important" information. I wish I could add more information, but I do not have room. I urge to vote Pro based on the argument, not preconceived opinions. I apologize if