Reading 1

American Education by Spring Chapter 1

"...some people argue that the goal of public schooling should be to reduce teen-age pregnancy..." (American Education, Spring, p.3)

I am not quite sure how to wrap my mind around this response. For the most part the education system historically reflected the moral beliefs at the time thoughout US history. As the moral beliefs changed then the education system changed due to the breakdown of families and support groups for children. If society accepts more options as viable then isn't education working at a cross purpose in attempting to educate and push for one option?

One main goal of the education system is crime reduction. This is a perfect example of my question. In the 1960s a liberal (in the sense of punsihment not necessarily political leanings) judicial system began a campaign to reform the system. In doing so many crimes that had previously held higher penalties were lightened. This in turn created a more levelled understanding of crimes in America and one became more or less worse than another (adultery not becoming a crime at all). An effect of this is a lightened viewpoint of the consequences of adultery.

Can and should schools work against human nature and the subsequent implications for historical problems (poverty)? In context, American poverty is very different from world poverty. What classifies as poverty here is upper middle class in Caribbean nations.

The fact that Jefferson wrote for public consumption that he wanted to rake from the rubbish (rubbish meaning all other school age children) some how amuses me (American Education, Spring, p.8). It is so very interesting to read something that is over 200 years old with a 2010 lens. I strongly agree with Jefferson that a main goal of the education system is to teach children to read. For me Reading = Power. Learning to read is more than a goal for society, it is a goal with the self-interest of the student in mind. Literal dangers await the illiterate at every turn and while there are many functionally illiterate people in the world, I believe the best and mostfair option is to teach everyone to read.

Slaveholders in the Antebellum South enacted laws to prevent salves from learning to read for a reason and it hurts my heart today to see many students choose to be ignorant by refusing to learn to read (or learn basic math).

I am not in agreement with Mann's philosophy on education with a common political creed. Mann's beliefs are contrary to key human tendencies. That is that when confronted with conflicting opinions, humans tend to seek out people who are in agreement with them. Wayne Wanta a Professor of Journalism and Executive Director of The Center for the Digital Globe has done research to determine reasons why people become more polarized when discussing ideas instead of more central. Mann's attempt to "bring everyone together" was a failed Utopian ideal that we still cling to today.


"Both show pictures of gay couples, including a drawing of two men in bed." (American Education, Spring, p.17)
When boundaries are pushed sometimes people miss the forest for the trees. Were my 7 year old son to bring home a book with two men in bed my immediate response would not be to the fact that it is two men but that NO BED ativities should even be suggested to a 7 year old. Children are forced to grow up too fast in this society as it is. The picture is not age appropriate for a school to require as reading!

This question was disingenuous at best: "Why was there no mention of unions or churches?" (American Education, Spring, pg. 25) The obvious answer for the churches part is that the media consistently demands separation of church and state. How could that be included without immediate hue and cry in opposition?

Cultural Studies by Chris Barker

Right from the start I have respect for the author for admitting to selectivity and a form of bias (though not in a negative sense so much as an expected consequence of writing that which we are interested in and passionate about).

I'm having trouble understanding the question and picture of the world. I would consider a picture of the planet earth culturally irrelevant. In fact I consider it more objective than the creation of a globe (which occurred hundreds of years prior to space travel) which would contain political and geographically created boundaries.

I find the book lacking and biased in relying on a definition of capitalism through the use of Marxism and it's core beliefs on why capitalism is "bad."

I would be intereted to find how a country like the Czech Republic has changed as it has 3 main economic ruling ideas governing the countries in the past 100 years. This would be an fascinating study on how the culture has evolved or changed based on these changes and how the Marxist view of cultural studies can or may be affected by economics.

How does the language of Cultural Studies change with respect to written and oral text? Oral responses give more meaning and depth than written texts because they contain more than words; they contain nuance and phrasea and tone lost in texts.