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

Pro has provided an interesting resolution for debate. When immersed in education it's natural to wonder if the process might be improved. I have not doubt it can be, but Pro's ideological approach is not the way. 1. The method proposed does not focus a high school curriculum. Focus means "the concentration of attention or energy on something." http://www.google.com... The resolution states that Marxist pedagogy will focus the curriculum on something, but what? The methodology asserts that the student "converses and argues with the teacher," but insofar as that does anything, that diffuses the curriculum rather than focuses it. It means that hours of class time will be wasted on students arguing what science is with the science teacher and what algebra is with the math teacher. 2. The methodology is inapplicable to most high school subjects. Consider learning to speak Spanish. First, "Mere memorization and regurgitation of information is thrown out" so the course has to be taught without memorizing vocabulary. Then the student will argue the speaking of Spanish with his teacher. The paradigm is inapplicable. Nor is it applicable to math, or English, or any vocational skill. In science and history, students may come pre-loaded with religious or ideological convictions so discussion is conceivable, but the majority of the class is going to be bored to tears as one student presses Marxist theory and another a religious theory. The teacher is put in the position of teaching a pig to sing: it wastes the teachers time, it annoys the pig, and it is unpleasant for the spectators. 3. There are few subjects wherein a high school student is equipped to "takes this information and analyzes it and compares it with their knowledge of the subject at the time and logically and assertively creates a new 'understanding' of the subject." The high school curriculum is mainly restricted to facts upon which there is longstanding agreement among professionals in the field. Sometimes it is not, but students are not going to be the source of revisions. That's going to be a problem for educators and policymakers to resolve. If a student does have an insight contrary to established teaching, then the main avenue for expressing it should be to publish a paper in a journal where it can be subject to peer review, and if sound it will add to the body of knowledge. 4. There are errant teachers who teach things that are incorrect and outside of the curriculum. That is not a reason to make the entire curriculum a free-for-all mechanism for "creating a new understanding." That is reason for better supervision and review of teachers. 5. Pro claims, "The new understanding is applied to their lives and methods of understanding in any manner, by de-compartmentalizing (de-centralizing) the information." There is nothing in the preceding four steps that indicates why that would happen. It is an unsupported assertion. If by some means it were to happen, then that would diffuse the curriculum rather than focus it, as the resolution claims. 6. I agree that integrating subjects is a good idea. That is best done by standard teaching techniques like solving practical problems or assigning team or class projects. Those techniques have nothing to do with conversing and arguing with the teacher. 7. A primary skill that should be taught in high school is establishing is academic discipline. That includes a certain amount of unpleasant memorization, and a strong measure of focusing on the subject matter for the purpose of absorbing it. Pro's methodology undermines learning basic skills by removing the learning of facts and encouraging everything to be argued, no matter how well established. 8. The idea that capitalism is the basis of education is false. Math, science, foreign language study, native language study, vocational skills, and 90% of education is the same, insofar as methodooly is concerned, in China, for example, is it is in Western countries. There are cultural differences, and an impact on ideology-prone subjects like history, but he basic educational paradigm is the same. For example, the book River Town http://www.amazon.com... describes the common teaching methodology in a radically different political and cultural environment. 9. Much of capitalism is plain fact, like money has time value. Those facts are independent of politics and ought to be taught. 10. I challenge Pro to explain how the method he proposes, featuring abolition of memorization and argumentation, would be applied to standard subjects like mathematics, English, and foreign languages. The resolution is negated.