Instead of providing a coherent rebuttal, Doug first appeals to non-existent authority:
I think that's a good idea. Get a job in an elementary school classroom. Be the teacher for 1 year. Report back when you know something based on real classroom experience. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have no valid claim to know.Then he goes all post-modern on me and denies the existence of truth (and I suppose beauty as well):
The difficulty here is a reality vs. perception dispute. Truth claims about objective reality can be challenged on the basis of either perceptual error or definitional disagreement. We'll get nowhere trying to resolve such questions. Any further attempts to argue or prove anything should be taken to a judge.Then he displays his lack of understanding of what an argument really is by claiming not to have made an argument when, in fact, he has:
My post was not an argument, so much as an observation about the effects of recommendations for practice that come from outside a local context.Then he proceeds to make another argument, and a not too well thought out one at that:
Flexibility, and responsiveness to student needs is necessary for teachers to teach students. Best practices emerge from practice, they are not imposed as a matter of policy.Huh? Here Doug is using the word "teach" to mean something other than activity that results in students actually learning. This is his "best practice" and he's upset that taxpayers are telling him to stop doing it as a "matter of policy." Then he tries to shoot the test data messenger of his failed "best practice," but his aim is off:
The use of testing data to support an argument, and insistance on empirical proof for everything we know while simultaneously denying the validity of personal knowledge, is absurd.See, Doug's personal knowledge trumps empirical data because Doug's personal knowledge permits him to ignore the fact that he hasn't adequately taught many students in his charge. Doug doesn't understand that the reason why we have standardizrd tests in the first place is to guard against these little disconnects from reality.
Lastly, Doug attempts to censor me:
If I have the blog settings adjusted correctly, any further comments from you will be moderated for content. I don't want this thread to become a didactic exercise in futility, which it has already tended to be. You've disrespected me and my colleagues - calling us idiotic educators - in a mean spirited, and personally disagreeable manner. I owe you no respect. Your opinion is a blight, an obfuscation, a parade of ignorance. As a conversationalist, you rate with telemarketers, who I dismiss as soon as I hear their voice.
I ain't buying any.
A cowardly reaction if ever there was one especially considering that his Derrida-esque viewpoint effectively precludes him from actually losing the argument. Though I suspect Doug realizes that his silly justifications won't play well in the court of public opinion, at least among those who haven't drunk the constructivist Kool-aid already.
Do you like the way Doug strung together a bunch of of unsupported conclusory statements into the form of an argument (or is it an observation?) demonstrating that he really might not know what an argument is.
It is one thing to think you are right. It is quite another to continue to think you are right in light of the overwhelming empirical evidence that you are not, to the point that you are afraid to even entertain that you are wrong by censoring the opposing view.
I am constantly amazed that these free thinking educators are so afraid to be challenged by opposing viewpoints. I'll be sure to take out the hand puppets the next time I argue with Doug.
Update: Mr. Loon has upped the ante on his cowardly censoring ways by redirecting links away from his site that originate here. Just use google and click on the first link. What a cowardly jackass.