What other countries can learn from Singapore’s schools

The island-state has much to teach the world. But other countries are reluctant pupils. One reason is that Singapore favours traditional pedagogy, with teachers leading the class. That contrasts with many reformers’ preference for looser, more “progressive” teaching intended to encourage children to learn for themselves. Although international studies suggest that direct instruction is indeed a good way of conveying knowledge, critics contend that Singapore has a “drill and kill” model that produces uncreative, miserable maths whizzes. Parents worry about the stress the system puts on their children (and on them, even as they ferry kids to extra classes).

 Yet Singapore shows that academic brilliance need not come at the expense of personal skills. In 2015 Singaporean students also came first in a new PISA ranking designed to look at collaborative problem-solving, scoring even better than they did in reading and science. They also reported themselves to be happy—more so than children in Finland, for instance, a country that educationalists regard as an example of how to achieve exceptional results with cuddlier methods of teaching. Not content with its achievements, Singapore is now introducing reforms to improve creativity and reduce stress (see article). This is not a sign of failure, but rather of a gradual, evidence-led approach to education reform—the first of three lessons that Singapore offers the rest of the world.

The United States certainly isn't interested. The fact that traditional pedagogy works at teaching children and progressive education doesn't is something the American educational establishment does not want to hear. So what if their kids are academically advanced and American students struggle to read? Progressive education means never having to face the facts.

I don't mean to rant, but when the proof is in front of your face and you refuse to see it, the problem is with you. And by "you" I mean all of the educrats (as Michelle Malkin refers to them) Columbia Teachers College, school administrators, politicians, and everyone else who insists that progressive education, which has been a monumental failure for generations, is still the way to go.

Read the whole thing. It's short.

The Hard Stuff, by Wayne Kramer

I wrote a book review. Yes, I'm an MC5 fan from way back. But too, this is a really good book. Wayne Kramer is an excellent writer, and he's led quite a life, not one for the week or squeamish. There is a language warning for both the book and the review. This is to be expected when discussing the MC5.

While the MC5 was doomed to a short but intense life, they, and Kramer, had a tremendous effect on what would become 1970s punk rock, originally a small movement, but one that opened the door to metal and new wave, which led to alternative, grunge, hardcore, indie, regional punk movements, and other mini and micro musical genres. Their reckless stage and record energy helped create both the punk and metal templates. They were heralded by later bands like The Clash and the Damned. Nick Lowe told Kramer, “I stole everything from you, Wayne.”

As Kramer writes about the MC5’s second album, “Back in the USA”, which was released in 1970, “This record was exactly what the punks were looking for; it was sharp and to the point, with short songs and a sarcastic perspective. The record was a rejection of the grandiose, overindulgent, superstar rock culture of the sixties.” Why didn’t the punks pick up on their first record? According to Kramer, it came out too early (in 1969), and the record company never promoted it. Of course, use of the word, “motherfucker” on that first record did not endear them to the record company, department store executives, or parents.

The MC5 went the way of many other high energy, high debauchery bands. They were only able to put out three records before self-destructing. Some bands that embraced the same ethos were able to rise out of the ashes. There is a learning curve that they were able to intuit and follow in order to survive. Not so, the MC5.

Whose Truth?

It's obvious that when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh and the charges leveled against him by Christine Blasey-Ford, that most of us believe one or the other based on our politics, whether we are a Trump supporter or a Trump hater. And minds were made up as to whether or not Kavanaugh is fit to sit on the Supreme Court even before these charges were leveled, again, based on politics.

But that's not what I want to talk about. Rather Detroit Free Press columnist, Nancy Kaffer, in her piece on this fiasco, says:

It's not OK to demean, degrade and dismiss an intelligent, accomplished woman as she tells her truth to the nation's most powerful legislative body. 

Tells "her truth?"

But if Blasey-Ford is telling her truth, and Kavanaugh is telling his truth, does that mean they're both telling the truth? If so, is is a case of Schrodinger's Grope? And if we accept that they each have their own truth, doesn't that mean that there is no objective truth? They must both be believed? And if we're all entitled to our own truths, how do journalists, like Nancy Kaffer arrive at the truth? Because I was under the apparently mistaken impression that one of the objects of journalism was to dig for and present the objective truth.

If we all have our own truths, what does that say about our news sources who claim to be truthful? Are they telling THE truth or their truth? Kaffer and the Free Press are anti-Trump and are constantly calling him out, as many news sources are, on his lies. But are they really lies or are they Trump's truths? If we all have our own truths rather than sharing a truth, we will share increased confusion.