It goes beyond a failure to find ideas that increase education; many have embraced ideas that are clearly destructive. Our experts really don’t seem all that interested in education as most people understand this term. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography, for example, don’t seem to be priorities. What we see in education makes sense only if we assume that our educators have an agenda we don’t know about, or that they are malevolent, or both.
So what agenda, you’re wondering, are they actually focused on? What’s the answer to the mystery? Here is my deduction: that those at the top of the Education Industrial Complex, since the time of John Dewey, have been collectivists first, and educators second or third. The goal of creating an educated child was too often superceded by the goal of creating a cooperative child.
Broadly speaking, they undermined educational success in two ways. First, they found reasons to delete and dilute the curriculum. Second, the things they did teach, they often taught in confusing, unhelpful ways. I could reel off a list of 50 failed pedagogies, none of which lived up to the hype or the hope, things such as New Math, Reform Math, Constructivism, Bilingual Education, Self Esteem, et cetera.
The paradigm of bad pedagogies, of course, is Whole Word, I.E. any non-phonics way of teaching reading. Around 1931, every public school in the country was told that phonics was out, and the children should be taught by Look-Say (think Dick and Jane). This switch is one of most amazing (and revealing) events in American educational history. Try to think of another instance where a profession abruptly decided to reverse everything ordinarily done for centuries.
Once you assume that all these conclusions are true, you find there’s no mystery at all. Everything that’s happened in American education is as logical as 1 + 2 = 3. My estimation is that if we tossed out the ideological admixture, we’d see steady improvement. Don’t think we can improve things by tweaking around the edges. We need an intervention. We need surgery.
Genuine Chris Johnson says:
Greg-
Rigth now, my Jack is 4 years old, just. A year some months and we have a decision to make. We haven’t made it yet, and we don’t know quite what we’re doing. But it’s torture to think that his curiosity may be punished, or his intellect dulled.
The arguments for this is to make him tough enough to wade through bullshit and come through with his mind intact. Some sort of ‘boy named sue.’ trial by fire thing.
I haven’t decided what to do, and I don’t want it to be for the sake of expedience. But Heather and I mistrust the agenda of the Brick And Mortar schools. Big time.
-Chris
June 2, 2009 — 2:50 pm
Karen Highland says:
Greg,
This is why I homeschool. With 4 kids, I have 3 down, 1 to go. Homeschooling is growing at a rate of 15% a year.
Chris- think seriously about it. I spent equal amounts of time un-doing what my kids got in school, or teaching them what they didn’t get in school. Eventually I thought, WTH, I’m homeschooling them anyway, and made it official. My 3 grown kids thank me all the time.
And…I still help my husband sell real estate:)
June 2, 2009 — 3:39 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Boy does this hit a nerve.
I pulled our own Jack out of school in 5th grade for too many reasons to name. He escaped with this love of learning intact- for that I’m grateful.
Our daughter is there, but at this point she’s learned to deal with the admin crap without involving Mom. Few things screw me to the ceiling faster than public ed, and few things embarrass a 17 yr old faster than Mom on a tear.
I’m not convinced that private schools in general do much better at educating, although some do. Private schools do a very good job at guidance counseling, though, so perhaps that’s one big difference in results.
But of course, YMMV. Especially true in a public school. 🙂
June 2, 2009 — 3:52 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
The goal of creating an educated child was too often superceded by the goal of creating a cooperative child.
With the ultimate end of creating a cooperative proletariat, mind numbed sheep who would stand on an assembly line for hours for the reward of a 3/2/2 and a 2 week vacation. When too old to work they were shuffled off with a stipend and lifetime healthcare….OOPS!
June 2, 2009 — 6:44 pm
Don Reedy says:
There’s just no way to gloss over this issue once it’s been raised. Educators no longer educate. Teachers no longer teach. But, boy, are there plenty of administrators, boards of education, PTA’s and local interest groups. (See Greg’s mini list of “New Math, Reform Math, Constructivism, Bilingual Education, Self Esteem, et cetera.”)
Although I’ll fight like a gentleman over almost all other issues, including some that are very close to my heart, the fact of the matter is, teachers, in a like vein to Realtors, have prostituted their responsiblity to those they are expected to serve.
Now, for those of you who are teachers, or married to teachers, I don’t want to see a replay of George Bailey in “It’s A Wonderful Life.” This isn’t about A specific teacher, just like I would not write about or rale about A specific Realtor. It’s the group that I am admonishing, embarrassed by, and pretty angry at. Here’s my take.
Your kids won’t be as smart as me. Yes, some of them will be, but most certainly not. Your kids won’t be able to bear fruit like I have, because they have failed to have the educational system pollinate them with the basics. Your kids won’t know the joy of an education, and thus the joy of individualism, independent thought, true creativity, because they’ll have to fend off the crush of ignorance, lack of direction, and the certainty of the right triangle.
Who’s to blame? The NEA? Your local board? You, perhaps? Or could it be the rank and file, who for the past thirty years have gone about their daily task of dispensing mediocrity, dare I say hypocrisy, to those we have the never ending responsibility to protect.
Now, a couple of disclosures. I taught science once. In fact, in a small school in Ohio I was THE science teacher, 7th, 8th & 9th grade general science, 10th grade biology, 11th grade chemistry and 12th grade physics. Next, my brother was a teacher, and a really, really great one, for over thirty years. Next, while I seem to have the knack of writing eloquently about some subjects, I have never entered into verbal intercourse about education with a teacher that caused me anything but grief. Finally, and I believe to the point Greg was making in his post, you must either believe we can work our way out of this mediocrity, or believe, like me, that the patient, our kids, are being euthanized by our inaction, and more specifically, by the inaction of the rank and file teacher in every city and state in this country.
If you don’t believe me, just hear me out for a few more paragraphs. In California, where we have bankrupted our state and cities, the hue and cry from teachers vis a vis the impending $25 billion dollar deficit, and more specifically the impact of that on education, is not solution oriented. It is, rather, a bitch session. “The kids will be hurt. The class size will rise. We don’t have enough books. Extracurricular programs will suffer.” These, you see, coming from those that should revere education the most, reveal indifference to actually solving the problem. When you see a child crying out for help, do you cry, or do you find a way to reach into that child’s life and make a difference….now, not when you have enough money, time or resources to do so.
So, who’s solving the problem, and who’s not?
Parents are the problem solvers now. Home schooling is the problem solver now. Not surprising in light of the way I was raised, but again, disheartening.
Teachers, on the other hand, and again I am speaking about associated professionals who practice the art of education (just like real estate agents associate themselves with NAR and practice the art of real estate), have failed to do much more than complain that the system isn’t working. Individual successes, among individual teachers or schools, in no way reach the level of adequately ensuring our children will enjoy the prosperity and richness of a basic, well founded education.
Surgery? You better believe we need surgery, and if we don’t have the wisdom to go under the knife pretty quickly, then we won’t need surgery at all.
We’ll need an autopsy.
June 2, 2009 — 6:50 pm
Greg Dallaire says:
Greg and Dan,
You elouqently talk about the real serious problems in our public school system.
I’m actively studying the constitution and learning about our government. I sure wish I would have had more education on a wide variety of subjects.
Now that I have two little one’s I really see the power of a great education and sadly it seems the public education system seems to fail us more and more.
Homeschooling is an absolute goal for our family. Sadly I really think it’s our best option. Just going to be extremely careful that my kids still get out and socialize.
June 2, 2009 — 8:43 pm
Greg Swann says:
The Well-Trained Mind is an excellent classical home-schooling curriculum. The authors are Christians, but that part of the curriculum is interchangeable. What they’ve done is codified a form of the Roman Trivium for American home-schoolers.
June 2, 2009 — 9:13 pm
Steve Trang says:
I grew up right around the time that self esteem became the most important issue. At least that seems the case, because the older generation seem a lot less spoiled than my generation. Anyway, I still remember in 3rd grade having competitions where everybody got blue ribbons. When I asked why, I was told that it was important that nobody’s feelings got hurt. To which I responded by throwing my blue ribbon away. This reminds me of the scene in “About Schmidt” where the loser character has all his perfect attendance certificates on the wall. Anyway, this is a long spiel about how our education system fails us. Fundamentals aren’t important at all. Just make sure the kids feel good about themselves!
June 4, 2009 — 12:45 am
Steve Norris says:
I’ll toss another chip in the pot for home schooling. For all the reasons above, we’ve (my wife more than I) home schooled our two girls since birth. The Well Trained Mind is, indeed, an excellent resource and there are many, many others available. Chris, we’d be glad to help if you had any questions about the process.
A tip of the hat, though, to the few truly great teachers that are doing wonderful work in a difficult environment. I went to public school long enough ago not to have suffered too badly from it and remember several of my teachers with high regard. Currently, my oldest daughter, a sophomore, takes choir at our local high school. (It’s tough to home school for that.) The choir director here does truly remarkable work with those kids and gets music out of them that you just don’t expect from high schoolers. He loves his work, the kids love him and he for one does not settle for mediocrity. He’ll be remembered for years for the impact he makes on these students.
It’s a shame we (society)spent the last century promoting conformity over excellence, the corporation man over the passionate achiever. What a wonderful world it was.
June 4, 2009 — 9:29 pm
Joe Loomer says:
Seems to me the focus on meeting the NCLB Act guidlines has our schools “teaching the tests.” I live in an area that couldn’t have a more powerful and stark example of the demographic issues that impact public schools (and their funding). Columbia County – home to most of the affluent members of the work force – is in the top 10% for standardized (good God – I hate that word) test scores, and Richmond County – home to the actual city of Augusta – is in the lower 10%. Imagine that – the inner city sucks, the nice suburbs rule.
I drove by one of the local high schools in Augusta proper the other day, and they actually had a huge banner out front of the school and where setting up for a massive outdoor BBQ.
The banner’s title? “We Met The Standard!!”
The school’s focus solely on meeting imposed guidelines to keep the government funds and stay off the BOE’s craplist was so much ingrained in the entire community they had to have a massive celebration for achieving mediocrity!
Reminds me of a “Not the Nine O’clock News” skit I saw years ago about the Welsh National Soccer Team (who had failed to qualify for the World Cup). Instead of the traditional “Here We Go, Here We Go, Here We Go” chant, it was “Here We Stay, Here We Stay, Here We Stay!”
My favorite teachers when I was growing up threw erasers, stormed around the room with their hair on fire – absolutely passionate about whatever subject they taught.
I’ve decided Jack Canfield’s “Success Principles for Teens” is required reading for my kids.
Navy Chief, Navy Pride
June 5, 2009 — 5:26 am
Sean Purcell says:
@Don
I believe you’re right, our kids won’t be as smart as you (or me, for that matter). But – thanks to our national ignorance on all matters nutrition and the rampant spread of obesity and diabetes among children – this won’t be a problem. They won’t need to be as smart as you (or me) because for the first time in history, our children will have a shorter life span than their parents. You see, they don’t need education; they need massive, universal health care… Thank God for the new, progressive government.
June 6, 2009 — 10:28 pm
jay seville says:
We also homeschool our soon to be 5 children using many aspects of classical education. Many homeschooling families have latin as part of their curriculum early on in the child’s eduction.
Recently a poll showed the majority of young people 30 and under believe socialism is a better system than capitalism. This speaks volumes as to the dumbing down our population through government schools driven by ideology at its top levels. When one goes back to study where Dewey and other leaders in changing education were coming from it’s alarming to say the least.
Collectivism is the opposite of the original mentality of our nation. Our nation is most productive and innovative and replete with liberty when individualism reigns and is defended. Children need to be trained to eventually be great thinkers and encouraged and trained to contrive their arguments using reason and then debate/defend them so they are not vulnerable to those who would endeavor to manipulate them as merely being a member of a group thus taking from them their individual liberties….
The overwhelming majority of homeschoolers are of an evangelical or catholic background, but more and more secularists or non religious parents are coming on board to pursue excellence in raising very independent children with well trained minds who will lead wherever they find themselves and think for themselves.
June 9, 2009 — 4:45 am
jay seville says:
A great synopsis on Dewey’s collectivism and his background as it relates to public education and its suppression of individualism for the sake of elites (“society”) governing from the top down:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=565
The dismal and declining student performance at America’s public schools is no accident. Nor is the pervasive bullying by peers and repression by teachers that the brightest, best-mannered, and most accomplished students encounter in public schools today. Both are the direct results of the educational philosophy promulgated by John Dewey (1859-1952), the originator of “Progressive” education and a self-proclaimed advocate of collectivism and opponent of teaching objective knowledge in the schools. Dewey’s ideas have largely shaped the ways in which today’s American public education system works—or, more accurately, does not work.
To call John Dewey a socialist is no exaggeration or derogatory epithet. It is the literal truth. Dewey read and greatly admired Edward Bellamy’s 1887 novel, Looking Backward, which described an egalitarian utopia in which private property was abolished and the capitalist system was a relic of the past. In the 1920s, Dewey wrote extensively in praise of the Soviet education system—so much that he was invited to visit the Soviet Union in 1928 and observe schools in the USSR. He based many of his recommendations for American education on the Soviet model.
Two of Dewey’s foremost targets were individualism and objective truth. In his 1920 work, Reconstruction in Philosophy, Dewey vehemently opposed the classic Western idea of the individual as “something given, something already there.” Consequently, he derided the free, capitalistic society, where the individual tends to be viewed as “something to be catered to, something whose pleasures are to be magnified and possessions multiplied.”
Instead, Dewey asserted, society is what makes the individual who he is, and social institutions “are not means for obtaining something for individuals, not even happiness. They are means of creating individuals.” So much for the Founding Fathers’ conviction that the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are primary and that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” For Dewey, society and government come first; they shape individuals and make them what they are, and it is ultimately “society,” through government, that must decide how each individual is to best serve “it.”
Not only does Dewey’s philosophy completely overlook the existence of free will and the possibility of individuals shaping themselves; it also denigrates the pursuit of any kind of knowledge or accomplishment, unless “society” deems it to be useful. In Dewey’s words, “initiative, inventiveness, varied resourcefulness, assumption of responsibility in choice of belief and conduct… are not absolute but relative to the use that is to be made of them. And this use varies with the environment.”
That is, if “society” (that is, whichever group of powerful officials arrogates to itself the name “society”) decides that mathematics or science or literature are dangerous or not worth pursuing, then, for Dewey, this means that they are dangerous or not worth pursuing. Admirable qualities of individuals, such as resourcefulness or initiative, can also be suddenly declared vices if “society” sees fit. For Dewey, there is no absolute truth or absolute virtue; everything changes with the times, is subject to eternal flux, and can be inverted in an instant if the whims of “society” dictate it.
In education, Dewey’s view of the primacy of society was translated into the desire to socialize children above all. He wrote: “I believe that the social life of the child is the basis of concentration, or correlation, in all his training or growth. The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all his efforts and of all his attainments.” In practice, this meant an increased emphasis on group activities and children spending time around their peers and conforming to those peers’ often inane and destructive expectations, rather than learning objective facts.
Indeed, Dewey greatly discouraged the study of objective facts. He wrote, “I believe that we violate the child’s nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.” So when we encounter illiterate teenagers, or kids who cannot identify China or France on a map, or high school graduates who cannot string a grammatically correct sentence together, or college students who must take remedial algebra because they cannot solve a simple linear equation, we are actually seeing what Dewey wanted to happen. Learning reading, writing, mathematics, or geography early sets children apart from their “society” of peers and inhibits the kind of subjection and conformity that Dewey tried to bring about from an early age.
Dewey most detested talented young students who strove to learn as much real knowledge as they could, irrespective of the obstacles placed in their way. He admitted this explicitly when he wrote in The School and Society (1889), “The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.” Because learning objective knowledge empowers the individual and enables him to obtain greater heights of accomplishment and virtue, Dewey saw this as a threat to the social engineering he wanted to attain. Anything that did not directly fit into his agenda of top-down control was to be discouraged—and, of course, one cannot centrally plan human curiosity, ingenuity, ambition, and desire for self-improvement. These qualities resist Dewey’s impulse to create the individual; thus, the natural implication of Dewey’s system was to stifle and suppress such attributes.
We no longer need to be puzzled as to why public school teachers so often sit by idly while the majority of their students taunt, harass, threaten, and even physically assault their most accomplished classmates. Indeed, we need not even be surprised that some public school teachers encourage such bullying by rudely suppressing genuine questions from exceptional students and accusing them of “monopolizing” classroom time. These educators are simply implementing Dewey’s ideas.
Within public schools, the “society” that Dewey glorifies consists of the ever-changing trends, prejudices, fashions, and behaviors of the majority of school-aged children; “socializing” children means getting them in line with how most of their peers behave—even if this includes cursing, promiscuity, risky “experimentation,” and ganging up on the children who are “different.” What is important under the Dewey system is not adherence to some universal and absolute standard of the true and the good, but rather conformity to whatever social standard has been established within a given age group—which is virtually always the dismal lowest common denominator.
If Dewey were alive today to see America’s public schools, he would not consider them failures. They are the faithful embodiments of everything he wished to attain. If anything, Dewey would want the public schools to teach even fewer objective facts and allow even less outstanding individual accomplishment by students. But those of us who desire a future in which people are free, prosperous, and competent will beg to differ.
June 9, 2009 — 5:06 am