Tuesday, March 14, 2017

NY State cancels literacy test for teachers: it's racist









I was going to post an article today about the empty-
headed propaganda called "social sciences." It's part 
of my ongoing exposure of the destruction of the 
American education system.


But then I came across this from the NY Times:


"The [New York] Board of Regents eliminated a
requirement that aspiring teachers pass a literacy
test after the test proved controversial because
black and Hispanic candidates passed it at
significantly lower rates than white candidates."

Bad enough that only 64% of white candidates
passed the test on the first try in 2014; 46% of
Hispanic candidates passed it; and 41% of black
candidates passed it.


The logic here is stunning. Horrible test scores?
Eliminate the test.


The next step: reading is too difficult; don't teach
reading.


And/or: reading is racist.


It's, of course, the students who suffer. How can they
be taught literacy when the teachers aren't literate?


And these illiterate aspiring teachers? Who taught
them?


It's obvious that the New York State education system
is rotten at the core. Fixing it would be like trying to 
turn around an oil tanker in a small space. This latest 
move by NY Regents officials proves there is no will
and determination to undertake a comprehensive fix. 
They just want more teachers, no matter what. And 
they will get them. Why don't they just hire teachers 
off the street? Anyone who can breathe and walk will 
do.


There's really no need for classrooms, either. A great
deal of money could be saved by holding classes in 
parks and empty lots.


Here is the "social sciences" article. It's a hustle at a
whole different level:


The rise of the "social sciences": one long scam


Yet another vector has produced generations of empty-
headed college students: the social sciences that aren't 
sciences.


Anthropology, sociology.


Their practitioners study groups. National groups,
ethnic groups, tribal groups, clans, religious groups, 
groups defined  by gender, nomads, farmers, office 
workers; any way you can  slice people up into groups, 
somebody is there with a notebook and a camera and 
a hot journal paper waiting to be published.


The focus is on traditions, practices, rituals, ceremonies,
customs, rules, hierarchies.


The key is what is omitted.


The individual.


The last thing these minds want to acknowledge is the
unique individual. That would be heresy.


Also, there are no useful "individual common
denominators" to be found---and the social sciences 
are all about common denominators. Without them, 
the whole enterprise falls apart.


Individual-ology? No such thing.


By focusing on the group, the student is taught, by
inference and osmosis, that the individual doesn't count. 
Doesn't count in society, in civilization, in history, in the 
future.


This is good, if you're a collectivist. Quite good.


That's why you can attend a college and obtain a degree
in group-ology, but you can't graduate with a diploma in 
"individual studies." The latter curriculum doesn't exist.


It's quite interesting when you stop and think about it.
You have all these students (individuals) attending 
colleges, and they can't study themselves.


Professor: "Today, we're beginning our investigation of
the 16th-century XYZ Islanders, who lived for centuries 
off the coast of QRS."


Student: "Were they all the same? Were there any
individuals within XYZ who pursued their own unique 
and separate objectives?"


Professor: "Excuse me? I don't even know what that
means. suggest you listen to my lectures and read the 
studies. Hopefully, you'll be disabused of asking such 
questions."


And after a few years, it's likely the student will forget
his initial objection. He'll float with the tide. He'll learn 
that the group is all.


Here's a lesson in contemporary sociology: watch
television for year and find a drama series that features 
an individual who refuses to belong to any group or team 
(and isn't a criminal). Writers wouldn't have a clue about
how to build story lines on that basis.


Colleges batter the minds of the young until they give
in and submit to the proposition that the world is the 
group.


And this is considered a sign of maturity.


I have seen many of those students' faces. If they
exhibit maturity, it's a state of mind to be avoided at 
all costs.


3 comments:

  1. There is NO science in social science, political science or anything other than hard science of Biology, Physics and Chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. another Zionist effort to destroy this country....so why aren't all tests being eliminated because melanoderms pass them at lower rates than whites - ie those given to the students? I can assure you in all of my years in education I have never been impressed with black or latin instructors. fortunately I had very few of them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is the book NY teachers should be required to read and be tested on: This 400 page book: “How To Read A Book” by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D., published by Simon and Schuster, NY, 1940.
    Quote from the Preface: “I have tried to write a light book about heavy reading. Those who take no pleasure in knowing or understanding should not bother to read it. Those who believe that all their leisure time should be devoted to the effortless pleasures of the movies, the radio, and light romances, should not bother to read it. I am talking to the rest of us…” Adler has the distinction of being the only graduate of Columbia University to be awarded a Ph.D. without having first earned a bachelor’s degree. He was a major intellect of the 20th century, professor at the University of Chicago and Editor of Britannica Encyclopedia for many years. My late Father had this great book in his collection when I grew up in the 1940’s.

    ReplyDelete