Hi Huw. Neo-liberal has almost nothing to do with traditional definitions of liberal. There is a long and convoluted history to the term. I might suggest Naomi Klein's book for a good definition if you are interested. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Sent: Sun 10/30/2011 7:44 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids On 30 October 2011 22:26, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote: > Hi Huw, > > My difficulty with the Gates Foundation is similar to many of the > corporate sponsors pouring money into foundations in attempts to influence > education policy. The worst among them is probably the Broad Foundation > which I believe has been highly detrimental in the corporate administrators > that they are training and then bribing impoverished school districts (with > tip money to them) to put them in power. I think they've been failures > everywhere, but of course when you have backers like that you fail upwards. > > Anyway I see many of these "foundations" as attempting to instill a strong > neo-liberal ideology in our schools. It is part of Naomi Klein's "Shock > Doctrine." These foundations are turning our school systems into the Chile > of 2011. > > Hi Michael, The connotations of the term 'liberal' in the uk are mostly positive, for instance of seeking to go beyond symptoms, such as tolerating anti-social behaviour in favour of the promise of a more permanent and significant improvement (i.e. transformation rather than containment). The other side of the coin is the notion of putting "well meaning" before realistic, or practical, implementation. Does "neo" in the political stream connote "watered down"? As opposed to its use in philosophy such as Neoplatonism. > Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my many peeves (so many I can't > even claim they are pets anymore). > Maybe you could start a peeve hive? :) Huw > > Michael > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Sun 10/30/2011 4:56 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: > [xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids > > > > On 26 October 2011 13:03, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote: > > > [...] > > There is also the idea of who is actually interviewed in the article and > > quote in the blog post. The head of e-bay isn't really that much of a > > technology person, more of a businessman, and I believe a strong > > libertarian. Don't assume the Silicon Valley people have that good a > grasp > > of education. Remember Bill Gates (I know, he's Seattle) and his > > foundation are in my opinion doing more harm than good to open and > > progressive education. > > > Hi Michael, > > Out of interest, what flavour of objection do you have to the Gates > Foundation? > > My thoughts were about the cautionary ideas exemplified by Ivan Illich > (secondary problems introduced by institutionalising monetarily poorer > countries and the like), though I'm currently fairly ignorant of what > they're actually doing. > > Huw > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca