tdaxp

I was going through some papers and posts, preparing for the next installment of The Wary Guerrilla, when I realized I had not posted a bibliography for my Classroom Democracy series. Throughout the series I cite chapters and journal articles but never state where I got them from. Thus, without further ado, my long occulted sources:

Bruning, R. (1995). The College Classroom from the Perspective of Cognitive Psychology. Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and Applications.

Dawson, J.D. (1996) Relations of mutual trust and objects of common interest. In J.K. Roth (Ed.) Inspiring Teaching: Carnegie Professors of the Year Speak. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. (pp. 44-53).

Halonen, J.S. (2002). Classroom presence. In S. Davis & W.Buskist (Eds.). The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of William J. McKeachie and Charles Brewer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (pp. 41-55).

Ley, K. and Young, D. (1998). Self-Regulation Behaviors in Underprepared (Developmental) and Regular Admission College Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1998, Vol. 23, 42-64.

Roth, J.K. (1996). What teaching teaches me: How the Holocaust informs my philosophy of education. In J.K. Roth (Ed.) Inspiring Teaching: Carnegie Professors of the Year Speak. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. (pp. 199-210).

Royse, D. (2001). The mental groundwork. In D. Royse (Ed.). Teaching Tips for College and University Instructors: A Practical Guide. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon. (pp. 1-24).

Ruiz, T.F.(1996). Teaching as subversion. In J.K. Roth (Ed.) Inspiring Teaching: Carnegie Professors of the Year Speak. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.(pp. 158-165).

Smith, K. (2006). "Representational Altruism: The Wary Cooperator as Authoritative Decision Maker," American Journal of Political Science, October 2006, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp 1013-1022.

Smith, K. et al. (2004). Evolutionary Theory and Political Leadership: Why Certain People Do Not Trust Decision-Makers. Presented at the 2004 Midwest Political Science Association Conference in Chicago, 2004, 1-42.

---

Classroom Democracy, a tdaxp series
1. A Parliament of Scholars
2. A Defense of Republics
3. The Life of Constitutions
4. The Evolution of Learning
5. Bibliography

Because of maddening and inferiority problems with my blog hosting service, a comment I wrote to Mark of ZenPundit did not go through. Mark had a question on deliberative learning over at my series, Classrooms Evolved, and as Mark was kind enough to link to those posts, I do not feel good letting him wait until blogspirit gets its act together. (That could, literally, take forever.)

My reply is below:

I've tried classroom democracy on community college students, gene. ed students in a survey course, and political science / international studies students in an introductory course. I think all three of these tries went better than a piagetian attempt or lecture-based attempts.

Students differed on motivation. Community college students and major students tended towards mastery orientation, with the major students taking the democracy itself as a system to master while community college students used it to help them master their technical skill. Thus the major students devised and implemented clever alternatives to the sort of democracy I layed out, while the community college students used it as a way to select tutors who would help other students in exchange for reduced assignments.

Gen. ed. students were generally performance oriented. Several times there were "coups" with a President or Prime Minister declaring his term extended -- students were focused mostly on grades and so such coups were popular (as they provided more continuity than elections in course structure).

Thus the directional nature of the classroom I describe in this series. I expect that by embedding the democracy within a curriculum you would have a more durable system for gen. ed. students, while still allowing major students the ability to play with the system if they want to.

I plan on handing out an edited version of this philosophy to students on the first day next semester. This system is designed for practical implementation.

Phil's question over at "Open Thread" is also still hanging, but Catholicgauze and Sean seem to have that covered. (I don't have the original text of my comment anymore, so I hope it stops being AWOL soon!)

The last part of this series is for future reference, and for you to verify the sources I have used. The format is more-or-less APA style, but I make no claims for stylistic competence.

The A's:

Alford, J. & Hibbing, J. (2004) .The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 707-723
Alford, J., Funk, C., & Hibbing, J. (2005) Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 154-168.
Alford, J., & Hibbing, J. (2006). The Neural Basis of Representative Democracy. Paper presented at the Hendricks Conference on Biology, Evolution, and Political Behavior.

The B's through Z's are below the fold:

We must liberate Political Science from the Barbarians.

Political scientists rarely apply the tools of political science to the problem of teaching political science. Instead, our poor field is oppressed by interlopers from psychology or economics. Students are naturally curious, the psychologists tell us, and so we should merely facilitate their natural desire to learn the materials. Or the Economists trot out their Rational Man, and tell us that our students are his clones: the student's must be forced to study by altering the utility function by punishing behaviors we dislike and rewarding the behaviors we enjoy. Everywhere these foreigner followers of the SSSM god teach us to ignore our ancient traditions and follow their strange ways.

No more! It is time for the colonized to become the colonizers! Our hammer and sickles and evolutionary analysis and wary cooperation theory. Let us rise up and seize the commanding heights our own field's future!
Political science is the study of social conflict and interpersonal interaction. Current research into genetic factors imply that certain traits are in-born, and I propose that these can be exploited for pedagogical ends. Humans are loss-avoiding, in-group-supporting, out-group-competing, cheater-punishing machines, and it is time we apply these facts to education. (I realize that the direction of this paper is separate from the week's focus on international relations and comparative politics, but I believe it is no less useful.)

An agile Constitution can be changed, so that the weaknesses can be fixed and not become avenues for anti-democratic forces. This is as true for the constitutions in Classroom Democracies as the constitutions in Federal Republics. Of my classes last semester, one added a Supreme Court, one established a Lebanon-style division of offices, and one abolished the Assembly.

1. The Supreme Court

Classroom Democracy builds rational academic behavior by exposing students to multiple perspectives through peer interaction. Different options, such as whether to spend a day watching a movie or studying for an exam, are considered by the students. Regular elections rewards students who have good study skills to share, and allows them to act as mentors for students who are not so knowledgeable. Democracy is very Vygotskian, as it relies on dialog and zones of proximal development.

However, social interaction can be stressful. It requires students to consciously weight alternatives, which is mentally more taxing than trusting an authority figure. When the teacher is dedicated to democracy, the students cannot revert easily to their role of passive receptacles of knowledge. One class, however, succeeded in doing just that...

One reason Classroom Democracy succeeds is the powerful human drive for socialization. "Students have a more enjoyable and profitable learning experience when they feel connected to each other," (Royse 6), and hands-on role-playing (11) such as classroom democracy enable this. Classroom democracy succeeds because it is founded on social interaction, and "the most successful programs for developing critical thought have been those involving social interaction" (Bruning 4).

The innovative nature of classroom democracy makes this doubly true, as its unusual processes challenge "established orthodoxies" (Ruiz 159) and force students to be aware of how they learn and how they want to learn. Socialization encourages students to develop "self-regulation [to] use personal (self) processes to strategically monitor and control his or her behavior and the environment" (Lee and Young 32). Whatever we would wish, many college students do not develop study skills because they are never given any control of their learning in a classroom environment. Classroom democracy allows students to develop self-regulation in a Vygostkian, zones-of-proximal-development, style by working with more established learners in deciding how to learn.

"A Guide to Womenomics," The Economist, 12 April 2006, pg 73, http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6802551 (from Sean Meade at TPMB).

A plan whose success involves your own extermination, whose concept of strategy is limited to high-kinetic conflict, whose description of stability operations is building-guarding, is one doomed to failure.

That's why the recent Economist article on women and work should be read suspiciously. The piece is a slipshod collection of half-truths and deceptions in support of social experiments that destroy the nations which adopt them.

And you thought The Economist was just a girlie magazine.

"Average-Wage Earners Fall Behind: New Job Market Makes More Demands but Fewer Promises," by Jonathan Krim and Griff Witte, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37628-2004Dec30?language=printer, 31 December 2004.

A very complex article, tied together by the changing economy and the need to prepare for it. While reading, I was struck by the opportunities Senator John F. Kerry threw away.

In the middle of a story of a retraining worker, a surprising complaint

If she can't stay on her husband's health plan, her costs for health insurance offered by the hospital will be $200 a month, more than five times as much as at the airline. There are no pension benefits beyond the option for a 401(k) savings plan and few job protections. She makes $2 an hour less than before; to have a chance at higher pay, she will need to continually train herself in new areas.

Reading this I was less than sympathetic. I have never had a job were I could expect to sit on my knowledge. Paragraphs later the theme repeats..

This new era requires that workers shoulder more responsibility and risk on the way to financial security, economists say. It also demands that they be nimble in an increasingly fluid job market. Those who don't obtain some combination of specialized skills, higher education and professional status that can be constantly adapted will be in danger of sliding down the economic ladder to low-paying service jobs, usually without benefits.

The article has switched from the specific to the general, but still it reads like a litany. But then the "Ah ha!" moment

In the political world, debate over labor market restructuring has been dominated by finger-pointing about free trade or the ethics of offshoring, rather than by discussion of possible solutions.

Exactly. Kerry bizarrely railed against "Benedict Arnold CEOs," painting himself as an economic luddite, but then shut up, exposing himself as a flip-flopper. But did he ever focus on a real way to solve the issue? Restricting trade would be more idiotic and more radical than Kerry was capable of, but where were his real answers? If he could have jumped ahead of Bush, proposal globalization-era solutions to globalization-era problems, he could have painted W as the candidate of the pass. Instead JFK v 2.0 became the candidate of JFK 1.0 America, surrounding himself with unions and labor-intensive heavy industry.

But as displaced workers fail to make the transition into new jobs that afford them the same kind of lifestyle as their old ones, economists say that politicians ignore the issue at their own peril.

What might Kerry have done?

Last year, the Labor Department launched a pilot wage insurance program that would provide workers age 50 or older with half the difference between their old salary and their new salary when they're forced to take lower-paying positions following a layoff. Workers would also get a tax credit for 65 percent of their health insurance premiums. But the eligibility requirements are many -- the layoff, for instance, must come because of competition from abroad. As of August, only 715 workers nationwide had enrolled.

Some contend that such ideas only touch the edges of a looming crisis. While they may help individual workers in the short term, they don't address the larger difficulties faced by the workforce in adapting to the demands of 21st century jobs. For that, these labor market experts say, the educational system will have to continue to raise its quality and reach a broader population.

He should have gotten ahead of Bush. A Republican administration is proposing a backward-looking plan that is immediately out of date and unpopular plan.

Thomas Bradtke, a manager at Boston Consulting Group, said that for the United States to retain its technological leadership and create new job-producing industries, it will have to keep coming up with a large share of the world's innovative ideas. At a time when other countries' students are routinely testing higher than American children in science and math, that's not a given.

What if Kerry would have attacked failing public schools? What if he would have proposed a system to support school choice, economically benefitting the poorest Americans most? This would be big government in the best sense: federal action to protect and defend America's vital interests.

Carnevale, who was a member of the White House advisory committee on technology and adult education in the Clinton administration, argues that the country needs the equivalent of an industrial policy focused both on getting more people through college and on retraining them for new jobs.

Don't stop there. We need an "industrial policy" that doesn't waste the first 18 years of the life of every public-school American. JFK 1.0 had the vision required for pro-American federal efforts, and won an election against an incumbent party. 2.0 was an "upgrade" worthy of Microsoft.

"Home schooling," by Jerry D. Wilson, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, http://www.argusleader.com/editorial/Sundayarticle9.shtml, 2 January 2005.

A great letter to the editor of SFAL by Mr. Wilson, a resident of my ancestoral homeland of Scotland, South Dakota.

I am writing about the home-schooling issue.

I do not understand why the state thinks it can have its cake and eat it, too. For example, the state wants to put many home-schoolers under the microscope under the guise of accountability. However, some officials want to exclude home-schoolers from things like tax-funded scholarships and after-school sports activities.

I think the state needs to worry about problems in its own public schools before it gives home-schoolers who score higher on ACTs (on average) a hard time.

South Dakota is a very home-school friendly state. This brings families to the state of South Dakota.

Why on earth would the state wish to mess that up?

Exactly.

"Home School Standards," by Chad M. Shuldt, Clean Cut Kid, http://www.cleancutkid.com/index.php?id=102, 28 December 2004.

"Should more be done for our public schools?," by Chad M. Shuldt, tdaxp, http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2004/12/26/attacking_success.html, 28 December 2004.

Commenting on a recent post here, Chad M. Shuldt says

This comes down to a question of accountability. Should home-schooled students be subject to the same standards as public-schooled students? I would ask why should they not be?

Expounding on this on his blog, he repeats

Home-schooling presents a great option for parents, and I know several people that have done it. However, I have often wondered why there is no real accountability when a child is home schooled. The extent to which parents are upholding their responsibility in a home-school situation needs to be measured somehow. It comes down to accountability and responsibility.

Should home-schools be more like public-schools? Only if we want to be more like Tunisia.

Our public schools are terrible. Is this the fault of parents? Teachers? Principals? Politicians? I'm not interested in blame-games. Clearly we have a systemic failure in public education. We are approaching the problem in the wrong way, and getting terrible results for our efforts.

Public schools must be more like home-schools. They must be more accountable to parents. They must be more agile and more competitive. They must not be owned by unions and politicians.

American public schools are unacceptably terrible. Asking if home-schools should be as good as U.S. public school twists reality.

Home schools are great friends of education reform. They are a cannibalizing agents. Their success tells the rest of the educational world "be more like us." Why should we punish success and reward failure? Why waste effort burdening successful schools with the same regulations which have dragged down the rest?

To those who claim to care about accountability: why are you not holding public schools accountable? Every moment you slow down education reform, every roadblock you build against new educational methods, every regulation you burden those who do not accept "better than Tunisia" with, saves public schools from accountability. The bankruptcy of the current system is exposed. Millions of students waste away in useless mush mills every school day. And Kooistra's proposed reforms would only build the prison walls higher.

Why should home schools not be held to the same standards as public schools? Because home schools should not be that terrible.