Haim posted Sep 7, 2012 4:26 AM (GSC's remarks interspersed): > Paul A. Tanner, III Posted: Sep 6, 2012 4:50 PM > > >What you say here is not the truth. Your talk of > "The > >Gap" including your above is if not explicit then > >implicit racist talk about race. > > Reducing The Gap is the Prime Directive of the > the Education Mafia. It is not I who says so, the > Education Mafia say so. > Where, from amongst all available literature and documentation, is this so-called 'Prime Directive' to be found?
I have not seen any document informing us "This is your Prime Directive: REDUCE THE GAP!" In fact, as Kirby Urner has observed (at the opening post in the thread aptly titled 'The Gap'), it is even unclear as to just what this 'Gap' may be.
As you, Haim, seem to be the most knowledgeable person here about the 'Gap', perhaps you might like to enlighten us:
a) just what is this 'Gap' you are so vociferous about? and b) Where amongst various writings, commands, orders, etc, etc, etc, that may be available emanating from the 'Educational Mafia', we might find this famous 'Prime Directive' that you keep on and on about?
While you are about it, you might as well help me out by defining for me just who may be the members of this infamous 'Educational Mafia':
i) Is President Barack Obama a member? ii) Is First Lady Michelle Obama a member? iii) Are either or both their charming daughters members of the 'Educational Mafia'? iv) Are any members of the KKK also subscribing to membership of the 'Educational Mafia'? Names please. v) Are any or all the members of any of the neo-Nazi parties or groups members of the 'Educational Mafia'? vi) Who are the people that comprise this infamous 'Educational Mafia'? > > The Prime Directive is the > central organizing principle for all education policy > in the U.S. > Where did you get that interesting information from? How relevant and reliable are the sources from whom you have gathered this information? > >That is why it is the PRIME directive, > if you catch my drift. > I DON'T catch your drift. Hence all my questions above, which, if you answer, I might be in a position to try 'catching your drift'. > >Therefore, to speak of > education policy in 21st century America without > reference to The Prime Directive is to speak > gibberish. > IS THAT RIGHT??? Please let me have answers to some of my questions above, and I shall take this as gospel. > > You seem to think The Prime Directive is > is inherently racist. Perhaps you are right. But > you are wasting your time complaining to me about it. > If you do not like The Prime Directive, perhaps > s because of its racist flavor, you will have to take > that up with the Education Mafia. Good luck with > that. > I shall certainly take it up instanter with the 'Educational Mafia' the moment you let me know just who this 'Educational Mafia' might be. > > In this thread, Richard Hake is flirting > dangerously with speaking gibberish. > Oh? I guess you're the expert and we must bow to your advanced understanding of this. > > Hake seems > to have a hard on for the education methods of one > Louis P. Benezet, and Hake blames direct instructors > for frustrating the widespread adoption of Benezet > pedagogy. > I must confess that I knew little or nothing about Louis P. Benezet (and I really had no interest at all in gaining more knowledge), until your repeated dismissive references to him led me to do a little study. By no means am I now an expert on Benezet or his theories of education etc, but, on studying what I have found right here on the Internet (**see below), I find that your claims seem to be far from the truth.
** References to Louis P. Benezet available from Google:
There are a fair number of other background documents about and by Louis P. Benezet. After having glanced through several of them, these are the conclusions I've reached:
1) If there is anyone at this group that is "flirting dangerously with speaking gibberish", that person is NOT Richard Hake, it is Haim.
2) I believe Benezet and his ideas on education do deserve careful study. I believe Maria Montessori's work might have far surpassed Benezet's insofar as it relates to the future of education - but Richard Hake has done a valuable service indeed in drawing our attention to Louis P. Benezet. I, for one, do sincerely thank him for his efforts.
3) It is better to keep an open mind, rather than make a fool of yourself by closing your mind to everything that you do not understand. > >Although I am certainly willing to be > persuaded by the facts, my very strong hunch is that > direct instructors have approximately zero influence > on American education policy. > I really would like to see the day when you, Haim, are willing to be persuaded by the facts. > > Furthermore, Hake never analyzes the political > cal question of Benezet pedagogy, i.e., the > dissemination and adoption of this pedagogy in the > schools, in terms of The Prime Directive. > OH? I presume you, Haim, have done ALL the needed political analysis, etc. So please do answer the questions I had posed above. > > The kindest comment I can make about this lacuna is to > quote a famous criticism made by one general officer > against another general officer. In describing how > the other guy makes his plans, the first general says > of the second: "he takes everything into account > except the disposition of the enemy." > Sorry - there are no kind comments at all that I can make about the way you build and present your arguments. Which is why, in another post, I had quoted something from Hamlet for you:
"This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." -Shakespeare-Hamlet > > Formulating military plans without considering the > the enemy sounds like a preposterous thing to do. It > sounds unbelievable, until you see it being done over > and over and over. Just as Hake is doing here. > > Haim > Shovel ready? What shovel ready? > GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!")