|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2007 : 08:50:04 [Permalink]
|
| The sentence you quoted certainly should be able to be read, understood, and related by a 10 year old of average intelligence. |
What?!? What 10 year old knows what evolution is? Come on, that's just ridiculous.
| Ricky, I used my literacy skills and read the descriptions to determine probable examples. |
Bullshit. You have no idea, you just assume you know. The adjectives in the descriptions are all relative, they can give you no idea about how hard each level is, only relative to other levels. For example, the arithmetic operation they talked about, you seem to be assuming its just adding two things, or subtracting or multiplying. But you don't know this. It can be much more complex than simple arithmetic. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 09:27:20 [Permalink]
|
Ricky I know a number of 10 year olds that know what evolution is, and can explain it.
"You have no idea, you just assume you know. The adjectives in the descriptions are all relative, they can give you no idea about how hard each level is, only relative to other levels."
I do know based on the words they used in their descriptions. The other option is that their descriptions are incorrect. Words have meaning, I looked at the meaning and context of the words.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 12:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Thanks Dave, this survey describes literacy as the ability to read news papers, brochures, job application, train schedules, food labels, balance a checkbook, figuring a tip. |
That's not true at all. You're misrepresenting the report so it means whatever you want it to mean.| This is great, if you can find the price of a sandwich on a menu you have average literacy. Reading a table of contents in a magazine is average. |
Absolute nonsense. Where the hell are you getting this? Certainly not the report I linked to. Check out figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3.| 54.5% according to this survey are at or below this average level. |
Where are you getting that single number from? It certainly isn't, for example, figure 2-2.| This description of literacy is below the level of what an average ten year old has the ability to learn. |
Well, you've just shot your argument in the foot. "Ability to learn" is much different from literacy. And, you're still somehow coming up with this "ten-year-old" figure, and not telling us where it comes from.| So Dave, 54.5% of American adults can only read a menu and table of contents in a magazine; will you now admit American literacy is ridiculously low. |
I have no idea where you're getting such "data." Considering the tasks sets before them, even "below basic" people are capable of those things. Calculating the change from a twenty using a reciept is considered a "below basic" task, and it's much more complex than reading a menu.
I'll admit nothing until you cough up page numbers and actual quotes from the report saying what you're saying it says. Right now, it looks like you're just making stuff up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 19:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave I am getting the information from the document you presented.
figure 2-4, page 14, gives us the % of people in the survey that score at what level; from that the math is easy.
pages 5 through 7 give the levels of defined literacy expressed on figure 2-4.
Thanks again for the documentation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 22:39:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave I am getting the information from the document you presented.
figure 2-4, page 14, gives us the % of people in the survey that score at what level; from that the math is easy. |
Nowhere in that figure do they say anything about 10-year-olds. You have just made up that, just like you've invented the 54.5% figure which doesn't exist, since figure 2-4 is broken down by gender as well as the prose, documentation and quantitative literacy rates. What "math" did you use to come up with 54.5%?
Not only that, but the two tasks you mentioned would both be "below basic," and we know from the executive summary that 95% of all survey respondents scored at or above "below basic."| pages 5 through 7 give the levels of defined literacy expressed on figure 2-4. |
I can't find "table of contents" anywhere in those figures, and the only place I can find the word "menu" is within "Calculate the cost of a sandwich and salad, using prices from a menu," a much more difficult task than you'd described, yet at the bottom end of "basic" quantitative literacy.
You can only be purposefully lying about what the report says if you're going to be this bold about misrepresenting it. Your chuztpah is amazing.| Thanks again for the documentation. |
Yeah, if you wanted statistics to abuse, I handed 'em to you, didn't I? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:52:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave if you add the percentage of men and the percentage of women; at and below average level of literacy, and divide by two (which is correct because about half were woman and half were men) you discover that 54.5% of those in the survey are at or below average literacy as defined by this survey.
Dave I gave you the exact pages where the survey defines levels of literacy. Do not call me a lier because you have a hard time reading the information you provided.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 22:10:39 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | We have now established American literacy was in the past at exceptional levels and currently at dismal levels. Our next task is to discover why would the designers of compulsory public education desire theses results. |
What!? You established nothing! You quoted claimed literacy levels from different time periods using different sources and provided no proof that these sources were using the same kind of measurement for literacy. And that's only your first problem.
Your second problem is that in the second sentence here you assume (without evidence) that falling literacy must be the result of some intended design and achieved through the public education system. That's one hell of a huge assumption!
To go back to your first false assumption, let's quote you again: | The whole picture represents a lack of comprehensive literacy in current America in contrast to American literacy in the past, prior to public schooling. |
Now let's quote an article that YOU posted http://tinyurl.com/2tb5or to supposedly support your insane claims: | Historians remind us that during the last 200 hundred years, our nation's literacy skills have increased dramatically in response to new requirements and expanded opportunities for social and economic growth. Today we are a better educated and more literate society than at any time in our history. |
Dave also pointed out from this same article that the level 1 literacy levels were largely attributable to people who were immigrants still learning English, people dropping out of school, as well as people over 65 or with mental or physical handicaps. From this you conclude that the public schools are making people dumber – give me a break!
To sum-up: Jerome, you have not provided evidence that people became less literate after compulsory public schools were introduced. And even if you had, that still would not be evidence that a conspiracy of individuals is intentionally dumbing down students.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 22:37:10 [Permalink]
|
"They were generally able to locate information in text, to make low-level inferences using printed materials, and to integrate easily identifiable pieces of information. Further, they demonstrated the ability to perform quantitative tasks that involve a single operation where the numbers are either stated or can be easily found in text. For example, adults in this level were able to calculate the total cost of a purchase or determine the difference in price between two items. They could also locate a particular intersection on a street map and enter background information on a simple form."
This is 94 million out of 191 million that can do this or less.
I am sorry, but if you think this is literacy you have a very low standard. I defined literacy using Webster; these tasks do not conform to the definition. Neither does the level 3 literacy. To call this literate is to redefine the word. This is NEW THINK.
We never get to the intentional purpose because you seem to want to believe that school is making people literate. The evidence of failure is presented as an opened book. With a preconceived conclusion the evidence is discarded. There is nothing more I can do.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 05:20:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave if you add the percentage of men and the percentage of women; at and below average level of literacy, and divide by two (which is correct because about half were woman and half were men) you discover that 54.5% of those in the survey are at or below average literacy as defined by this survey. |
"Average literacy" is a new term you've invented but haven't defined. But I figured out where you got the number: you picked the Quantitative Literacy chart (leaving out the prose and document scores, because they're better), and added together the percentages for "below basic" and "basic" literacy.
You then lie about the report, and claim that someone with "basic" literacy or lower can't do more than find the price of a sandwich on a menu, or read a table of contents in a magazine. Yet the very figures you pointed to, specifically the one on page seven, gives the following examples for "basic" and "below basic" Quantitative literacy:- Perform a two-step calculation to find the cost of three baseball tickets, using an order form that gives the price of one ticket and the postage and handling charge.
- Calculate the weekly salary for a job, based on hourly wages listed in a job advertisement.
- Locate two numbers in a bar graph and calculate the difference between them.
- Calculate the cost of a sandwich and salad, using prices from a menu.
- Compare two prices by identifying the appropriate numbers and subtracting.
- Calculate the price difference between two appliances, using information in a table that includes price and other information about the appliances.
- Calculate the change from a $20 bill after paying the amount on a receipt.
- Add two numbers to complete an ATM deposit slip.
There's nothing in there about reading a table of contents or finding the price of a sandwich.| Dave I gave you the exact pages where the survey defines levels of literacy. Do not call me a lier because you have a hard time reading the information you provided. |
I called you a liar because it is obvious that you are lying about what the report says. You know where the information is and what the information is, yet when you posted here, you posted the wrong information. And it's insulting because you expected us to either not check or to not understand the report. The report, however, is clear, and you're saying things that are directly contradicted in the report.
You also wrote:| To call this literate is to redefine the word. |
One of the definitions of literate is "able to read and write." You quoted the definition yourself. So yes, the report goes well beyond that definition.| We never get to the intentional purpose because you seem to want to believe that school is making people literate. The evidence of failure is presented as an opened book. With a preconceived conclusion the evidence is discarded. There is nothing more I can do. |
The "evidence" is discarded because you appear to want to lie about it, to make things appear worse than they are. If you'd like to have a rational discussion without making bald-faced lies, I would much prefer it. But so long as I feel a need to double- and triple-check everything you say because you're not trustworthy, the discussion will go nowhere. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 06:59:50 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | I am sorry, but if you think this is literacy you have a very low standard. |
Compared to what?
1.)You have not established, using a consistent standard that literacy today is worse than it was before public education. The Encarta Encyclopedia did not say what the standard for literacy was except to say “read and write”, and more people can read and write in America today than could before public schooling, so that whole argument is in the toilet.
The second article you cited: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3872 also does not establish any clear standard for what is considered literacy. For instance, when talking about literacy rates for English boy in the marines and Navy, the author says they “could read”. There are other parts of the article where the author seems to interchange the term “literate” with “could read and write”. Of course, as Ricky pointed out, more people can simply read and write today in America than could before public education.
The author of the above article isn't clear about how he's defining the terms. He write:
On my calculations for 1880, when national compulsion was enacted, over 95 percent of fifteen-year-olds were literate.8 This should be compared to the fact that over a century later 40 percent of 21-year- olds in the United Kingdom admit to difficulties with writing and spelling.
On his calculations of what? And what is he using for a standard for literacy? This paragraph implies that not having difficulty with writing and spelling is part of being literate, but that assumption is not supported by evidence. In other words, the author is being rather manipulative.
The quote you cited (on page 11 of his thread) from the Journal of Education of January 1828 also doesn't yield much useful info. First of all, it does not say how the schools mentioned were funded, which I'd like to know since the roots of public schooling go back to the 1600's in America. It also says absolutely nothing about literacy, much less establishing a standard by which literacy is measured.
For another thing, you are arguing for a conspiracy that goes back to the mid 1800's, despite the fact that educational priorities, values, as well as social and economic structure have radically changed since then. For instance, the article you references also mentions the role of religion in the first compulsory public schools in America:
The commissioners observed: "Morality and religion are the foundation of all that is truly great and good; and consequently, of primary importance."13 The Bible, in common schools, was to be treated as more than a literary work. The commissioners particularly recommended the practice of the New York Free Schools (the charitable establishments) in "presuming the religious regard which is due to the sacred writings."
Even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices would rule this unconstitutional in public schools today! And you expect us to believe that there has been a consistent intent – so far left unexposed – to dumb down our kids with public schooling for the past 150 years? This is more than far-fetched, Jerome. It is just plain irrational. You are looking for something that isn't there. If you want to argue that education could be handled in a much better way, then put forward your ideas. But arguing that there is a conspiracy to intentionally poorly educate children in America is stupid.
Your other sources continue to work against you. You used Encarta Encyclopedia to establish that literacy used to be better, and you quote this line: “In 1750 nearly 90 percent of New England women (and virtually all men) could read and write”
Here |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/30/2007 07:01:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 07:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Your whole argument has fallen apart. Just admit it. |
He can't. If public schooling is a plot to keep people from being literate, then drop-outs like him should be more literate than the schooled people, but in general they're not, as the report he linked to found. On that basis, his OP was a non-starter, but he started it anyway, so he can't back down. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:21:33 [Permalink]
|
You guys are not reading the entirety of what I post. Your arguing against your chosen aspects of the information taken out of context. As I said there is nothing more to say.
I could provide evidence of funding and stated intentions of those that designed the public schools to create "non-critical thinking cogs"; but alas you will not accept even the words spoken out of the mouths of the perpetrators.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:23:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave any 10 year old that can not do the tasks you posted from the "average literacy" as defined by the survey, has been failed by someone or something.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | You guys are not reading the entirety of what I post. Your arguing against your chosen aspects of the information taken out of context. As I said there is nothing more to say. |
Bullshit. I have argued against your premise, as well as against all the claims you have made to support that premise. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:33:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave any 10 year old that can not do the tasks you posted from the "average literacy" as defined by the survey, has been failed by someone or something. |
I agree such a child would have been robbed, by language, or dropping out, or any of a number of other reasons. But that's not the point: you brought the ten-year-old figure into the discussion, and refuse to support it as relevant to adult literacy which you've defined differently than the authors of the report.
You're also claiming that those things represent "average literacy" as defined in the report, but the report specifically does not define "average literacy" as a category, so your lies about it continue.
And now you're claiming that you could provide evidence in support of your claims, but you're not going to because of your prejudice against us.
And the crack about "chosen aspects of the information" is a laugh riot coming from you, who cherry-picked the report, taking data points from only the category with the worst performance and then claiming that it represents "average literacy."
So keep on lying, Jerome, in your lame attempts to save face. It just makes this more entertaining. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Compulsory Government Education
Topic Locked
