Public Schooling is Socialism

[Peter]

This is a piece originally published on August 29th of last year, and was intended for a Christian Conservative audience. A Baptist Pastor recommended it for his “flock” in Southern Virginia to read, and my niece forwarded it to me. It shows a neat tie-in to socialist values starting with our acceptance of mandatory public schooling.

As a former public school teacher, I had never thought of it as a problem, but I remember Adam Selene bringing up this very point. when I first graduated, I looked into private teaching acadamies but the pay was a lot less than public state-run schools, and that swayed me to the public sector.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Conservatives are up-in-arms over the Democratic healthcare scheme. From town hall meetings, to talk radio, to the internet, the voice of the people is being heard. However, I am not at all convinced that the voice of the people will ultimately make a difference in the long run. My pessimism has less to do with the sinister motives of those seeking to take over the healthcare system. On the contrary, my pessimism stems from the hypocrisy of those shouting down their representatives and claiming to be “fed up”.

While I’m sure these folks mean well, I wonder about the sincerity of their opposition in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of them (between eighty and eighty-five percent) have already accepted everything they claim to abhor about the healthcare plan. Some have already exposed this irony as it relates to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (full disclosure: I’ve opted out of Social Security and am proud to say that I am not anticipating one thin dime from the American government in my old age). However, I’m not talking about these long existing socialist programs, I’m talking about the #1 socialist welfare program in America, the public school system!

There are striking similarities between government-run education and the government-run healthcare bill currently under consideration in Congress. And it is precisely these similarities that will eventually cause the American people to lay down and take whatever the government gives them, and eventually be willing to fight and die for them. Remember, there was public outrage over government education (and Social Security) as well when it was first proposed (see the quotes here). However, nearly one hundred and fifty years later the overwhelming majority of Americans gladly put their children on the yellow prison bus every day (yes, they are the same type of busses used to transport prisoners).

JUST SAY NO TO SOCIALISM

One of the mantras we hear repeatedly these days is, “we don’t want socialism.” While that sounds good (and conservative, and constitutional, and patriotic, etc.), it rings hollow when you consider the overwhelming majority of the people leading the charge have their children in what amounts to socialized education. What’s the difference? If you’re really against government-run, socialized programs, yank your kid off the yellow prison bus and just say no.

READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT

Another catchphrase I’ve heard a lot lately is, “this is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.” Again, this is wonderful rhetoric. I love the Constitution of the United States; especially the Tenth Amendment which protects the rights of States and individuals from overreaches by the Federal Government. The amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Ironically, one of the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” is education! That’s right, the Federal Government has absolutely no Constitutional right to involve itself in education. The Department of Education is as unconstitutional as government-run healthcare. However, few of the people shouting at these town hall meetings (or reporting on it on conservative talk radio and the internet) would stand up and call for the immediate abolishment of the D.O.E. (or any of the other federal departments that exist in clear violation of the tenth amendment).

I HAVE A RIGHT TO PICK MY OWN DOCTOR

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the current uproar is the fact that people who put their children on the yellow prison bus and send them to the school designated by the State (at an age chosen by the State, on a date determined by the State, for a term mandated by the State) have the audacity to point their fingers and say, “I don’t want the government picking my doctor!” This is absolute folly. If we were serious about the moral and constitutional authority of this claim there would not be a single congressman or senator in Washington who opposed school choice as none of them would be able to win an election. However, Americans are glad to elect officials who continue to rob them of their freedom in this most basic, fundamental aspect of their lives; the education of their children.

DON’T TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE POST OFFICE

How many times have we heard someone retort, “do you want the people who run the Post Office to run your healthcare?” The answer of course is a resounding no! Whether you call it “the public option,” or something else, conservatives do not want the government to run their healthcare (see here). However, how is it that we trust those same people to run our child’s education? How is this any different? And this is not just a liberal democrat thing; George Bush was the one who gave us “No Child Left Behind.” This was a monument to socialistic, government-run, unconstitutional mis-education. This was a massive overreach by the Federal Government that met little or no opposition (see one rare example here). Where were the town hall protests? Where were the flag-waving, gun-toting protestors? Where was the political right? Instead, all we heard was, “accountability is a good thing.” Never mind the Constitution.

NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS

Then there are the people who “don’t want their money to pay for abortions or sex change operations.” This one has president Obama on the defensive. Conservative Christians are especially animated over this aspect of the bill. Suddenly, the silent Christian majority is offended at the prospect of the federal government taking their money and using it for immoral purposes. This coming from people who send their children to government schools with Gay/Straight Alliance clubs, semi-pornographic sex-ed classes, and Gramscian, neo-Marxist, neo-Darwinian curriculum. How can we complain about our tax dollars going to fund abortions and sex change operations if we gladly offer up our children to taxpayer-funded dens of iniquity one hundred and eighty days a year? This is the height of hypocrisy.

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE

We will have taxpayer funded healthcare. The Democrats have offered the full monty, now the Republicans will “dial it back” a bit and claim victory (i.e., we can come up with something just for those people who don’t have healthcare, make sure illegal immigrants don’t have access, and save Billions, if not Trillions of dollars). The result will be a slightly less socialistic system (for now) that the American people will accept gladly after seeing the beast in it’s full fury. And eventually, the furor will die down and the town hall meetings a generation from now will treat socialistic government healthcare the same way we treat socialistic programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and government education today.

If you want to know what type of government-run healthcare system Americans will be willing to settle for in the next generation, just walk outside tomorrow morning and watch the yellow prison busses take the next generation of Americans to the taxpayer-funded, government-run, indoctrination center to which they are assigned and ask yourself this question: Are they learning anything today that will give them an aversion to a government takeover of healthcare? Then ask yourself another question: If their parents do teach them to oppose socialism, read and follow the Constitution, cherish freedom of choice, shun government intervention and hold government accountable for ethical use of their tax dollars, how long will it be before they’re standing at the corner waiting on the yellow prison bus and think to themselves, “Hey, if mom and dad really believe these things... why am I standing here?”

VB

[tjohnson]

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

In the U.S. the quality of the tax-funded schools varies from town to town and district to district (we do not a a National Curriculum like they do in France). The overall effect is to produce mediocrity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 25, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[dan2100]

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

Not from my reading of history. In the US, government got involved in schools partly to socialize new immigrants -- especially non-Protestants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe. It wasn't so much to get religion out of schooling -- that came later -- but to break their Catholicism and them from maintaining much of their culture. As such, this was a form of institutionalized bigotry.

I grant that, later on, when such bigotry had become inappropriate, then the propaganda changed to all the nice stuff educated people want to hear. This is no different than how most of the drugs started out for all the wrong reasons -- to get at Blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese immigrants -- and now have a "public health" rationale. And, since most people don't bother to learn history, they simply gobble up whatever slop is offered up to explain something. (The same people are likely to believe the Constitution was all about the nation falling apart under the Articles of Confederation or that the bailouts were really going to prevent high unemployment.)

[tjohnson]

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

In the U.S. the quality of the tax-funded schools varies from town to town and district to district (we do not a a National Curriculum like they do in France). The overall effect is to produce mediocrity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, we don't have a national curriculum in Canada either it's controlled at the provincial level. You mean you don't have state controlled curriculum?

[dan2100]

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

In the U.S. the quality of the tax-funded schools varies from town to town and district to district (we do not a a National Curriculum like they do in France). The overall effect is to produce mediocrity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, we don't have a national curriculum in Canada either it's controlled at the provincial level. You mean you don't have state controlled curriculum?

I believe that, in the US, there is some state and federal input into public education, especially with all the money they dump into it. I don't think there's a national curriculum, but I believe states set state curricula and have a much bigger input into what happens at the local level. I also think the national level struggle's been going on for years. Happily, homeschooling is starting to catch on. Maybe that'll add a spanner into the works. (I hardly see any reason for coerced standardization here. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing.)

[tjohnson]

I believe that, in the US, there is some state and federal input into public education, especially with all the money they dump into it. I don't think there's a national curriculum, but I believe states set state curricula and have a much bigger input into what happens at the local level. I also think the national level struggle's been going on for years. Happily, homeschooling is starting to catch on. Maybe that'll add a spanner into the works. (I hardly see any reason for coerced standardization here. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing.)

We did homeschooling a couple years and it didn't work worth a damn for us. Maybe we weren't disciplined enough, I don't know. In my opinion where education administrators (and healthcare too) have gone wrong is this idea that "big is better". So they systematically shut down all the small schools and bus kids to gigantic impersonal institutions. I have very little respect for our school system but I would hate to see fall into the hands of religionists. Look at what happened in all the Catholic (boarding) schools where the priests were sexually molesting the students.

[dan2100]

I believe that, in the US, there is some state and federal input into public education, especially with all the money they dump into it. I don't think there's a national curriculum, but I believe states set state curricula and have a much bigger input into what happens at the local level. I also think the national level struggle's been going on for years. Happily, homeschooling is starting to catch on. Maybe that'll add a spanner into the works. (I hardly see any reason for coerced standardization here. I'm not sure why you think that's a good thing.)

We did homeschooling a couple years and it didn't work worth a damn for us. Maybe we weren't disciplined enough, I don't know. In my opinion where education administrators (and healthcare too) have gone wrong is this idea that "big is better". So they systematically shut down all the small schools and bus kids to gigantic impersonal institutions. I have very little respect for our school system but I would hate to see fall into the hands of religionists. Look at what happened in all the Catholic (boarding) schools where the priests were sexually molesting the students.

I'm shocked to see that, in terms of schooling, you seem capable of imagining only two practical options: government schools or Catholic boarding schools. Surely I'm wrong here.

And the main problem for government schooling for me is it's coercive. I don't think it's the alternative to religious schooling. Nor do I believe abolishing government schooling will mean religious schooling is the only alternative.

Regarding homeschooling, I don't think it's for everyone -- though, neither is parenting. I've seen many examples where it seems to work wonders and doesn't seem to require the parents become scholars and full-time teachers. I do think, though, that homeschooling kind of shows why coercive standardization is both unnecessary and harmful to many students. In many ways, standardization of schooling, to me, looks like standardized clothing. You won't have all kids wear the same sized shoes, for instance. Why do the same with learning?

[tjohnson]

Regarding homeschooling, I don't think it's for everyone -- though, neither is parenting. I've seen many examples where it seems to work wonders and doesn't seem to require the parents become scholars and full-time teachers. I do think, though, that homeschooling kind of shows why coercive standardization is both unnecessary and harmful to many students. In many ways, standardization of schooling, to me, looks like standardized clothing. You won't have all kids wear the same sized shoes, for instance. Why do the same with learning?

I think my biggest problem with home-schooling is that bringing children up in your home without the exposure to society in general that they get when in a school makes it difficult for them when they finally do have to go it on their own. There is a lot more going on in schools than the curriculum - and lots of it is bad I know, but keeping the kids isolated has it's drawbacks too.

[dan2100]

Regarding homeschooling, I don't think it's for everyone -- though, neither is parenting. I've seen many examples where it seems to work wonders and doesn't seem to require the parents become scholars and full-time teachers. I do think, though, that homeschooling kind of shows why coercive standardization is both unnecessary and harmful to many students. In many ways, standardization of schooling, to me, looks like standardized clothing. You won't have all kids wear the same sized shoes, for instance. Why do the same with learning?

I think my biggest problem with home-schooling is that bringing children up in your home without the exposure to society in general that they get when in a school makes it difficult for them when they finally do have to go it on their own. There is a lot more going on in schools than the curriculum - and lots of it is bad I know, but keeping the kids isolated has it's drawbacks too.

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

Also, the kind of exposure you get inside a typical public school in the US or outside of it is very abnormal from what most social situations are like outside military training camps. Think of it. You have a bunch of people around the same age with basically the same level of knowledge (or ignorance) who are lorded over by a single adult -- your basic public classroom situation -- who are only allowed to interact, outside of lunch and recess, in very controlled ways and this goes on for six to eight hours a day. Do you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? (This also seems to apply to private schooling.)

Add to this, the end result of public schooling seems to be, in terms of socialization, the formation of cliques (of course, this might be basic behavior for primates, but public schooling seems to reinforce it, don't you think?) and also many people who hold highly similar beliefs unthinkingly -- simply because they were exposed to such a narrow range of ideas and people.

[tjohnson]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

LOL, were you eavesdropping at our place? I agree with your analysis of the school system - it sucks big time, now what?

[dan2100]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

LOL, were you eavesdropping at our place? I agree with your analysis of the school system - it sucks big time, now what?

I thought my position was clear: abolition.

[tjohnson]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

LOL, were you eavesdropping at our place? I agree with your analysis of the school system - it sucks big time, now what?

I thought my position was clear: abolition.

Not going to happen, next?

[dan2100]

LOL, were you eavesdropping at our place? I agree with your analysis of the school system - it sucks big time, now what?

I thought my position was clear: abolition.

Not going to happen, next?

It can happen eventually. Until then, seek ways to get ever more people out of the system. And turn over members of the system to me for re-education.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Dan Ust

[bmacwilliam]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

Also, the kind of exposure you get inside a typical public school in the US or outside of it is very abnormal from what most social situations are like outside military training camps. Think of it. You have a bunch of people around the same age with basically the same level of knowledge (or ignorance) who are lorded over by a single adult -- your basic public classroom situation -- who are only allowed to interact, outside of lunch and recess, in very controlled ways and this goes on for six to eight hours a day. Do you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? (This also seems to apply to private schooling.)

Add to this, the end result of public schooling seems to be, in terms of socialization, the formation of cliques (of course, this might be basic behavior for primates, but public schooling seems to reinforce it, don't you think?) and also many people who hold highly similar beliefs unthinkingly -- simply because they were exposed to such a narrow range of ideas and people.

"This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world."

There are lots of crappy teachers in the public system, but lots of good ones as well. Even Conservatives and Libertarians too! I know, I've taught there. Mostly I taught Physics (I teach post-secondary now). But even in the lower high school years, not to mention the later/academic years, it was abundantly clear that specialization was necessary. I find it foolishly arrogant, if not downright laughable, that ONE parent could think they could do justice to the concept of Special Relativity in the morning, then after they've put another load of laundry on, they could teach a great lesson to their child on Shakespeare. The school I taught at even had Latin. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, a single person could teach the basic three "R's" to young children, but there's good justification behind requiring academic specialization for subjects as they get more advanced.

Parents rob their children of an enormous world of academic possibilities when they limit the sphere of education in this way. The parental bias is too powerful, and kids don't know what they're missing.

"you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? "

That's called a "Job" :-)

Bob

Edited March 25, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[tjohnson]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

Also, the kind of exposure you get inside a typical public school in the US or outside of it is very abnormal from what most social situations are like outside military training camps. Think of it. You have a bunch of people around the same age with basically the same level of knowledge (or ignorance) who are lorded over by a single adult -- your basic public classroom situation -- who are only allowed to interact, outside of lunch and recess, in very controlled ways and this goes on for six to eight hours a day. Do you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? (This also seems to apply to private schooling.)

Add to this, the end result of public schooling seems to be, in terms of socialization, the formation of cliques (of course, this might be basic behavior for primates, but public schooling seems to reinforce it, don't you think?) and also many people who hold highly similar beliefs unthinkingly -- simply because they were exposed to such a narrow range of ideas and people.

"This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world."

There are lots of crappy teachers in the public system, but lots of good ones as well. Even Conservatives and Libertarians too! I know, I've taught there. Mostly I taught Physics (I teach post-secondary now). But even in the lower high school years, not to mention the later/academic years, it was abundantly clear that specialization was necessary. I find it foolishly arrogant, if not downright laughable, that ONE parent could think they could do justice to the concept of Special Relativity in the morning, then after they've put another load of laundry on, they could teach a great lesson to their child on Shakespeare. The school I taught at even had Latin. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, a single person could teach the basic three "R's" to young children, but there's good justification behind requiring academic specialization for subjects as they get more advanced.

Parents rob their children of an enormous world of academic possibilities when they limit the sphere of education in this way. The parental bias is too powerful, and kids don't know what they're missing.

"you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? "

That's called a "Job" :-)

Bob

Great post, Bob!

[dan2100]

This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world. The parents I know who homeschool don't just lock their kids in the root cellar with some books and tell them, "Learn that lesson!"

Also, the kind of exposure you get inside a typical public school in the US or outside of it is very abnormal from what most social situations are like outside military training camps. Think of it. You have a bunch of people around the same age with basically the same level of knowledge (or ignorance) who are lorded over by a single adult -- your basic public classroom situation -- who are only allowed to interact, outside of lunch and recess, in very controlled ways and this goes on for six to eight hours a day. Do you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? (This also seems to apply to private schooling.)

Add to this, the end result of public schooling seems to be, in terms of socialization, the formation of cliques (of course, this might be basic behavior for primates, but public schooling seems to reinforce it, don't you think?) and also many people who hold highly similar beliefs unthinkingly -- simply because they were exposed to such a narrow range of ideas and people.

"This seems to show you're unfamiliar with homeschooling. The general idea is not to shelter the child completely from the outside world so that, come her eighteenth birthday, she's flung unprepared into the adult world."

There are lots of crappy teachers in the public system, but lots of good ones as well. Even Conservatives and Libertarians too! I know, I've taught there. Mostly I taught Physics (I teach post-secondary now). But even in the lower high school years, not to mention the later/academic years, it was abundantly clear that specialization was necessary. I find it foolishly arrogant, if not downright laughable, that ONE parent could think they could do justice to the concept of Special Relativity in the morning, then after they've put another load of laundry on, they could teach a great lesson to their child on Shakespeare. The school I taught at even had Latin. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, a single person could teach the basic three "R's" to young children, but there's good justification behind requiring academic specialization for subjects as they get more advanced.

Parents rob their children of an enormous world of academic possibilities when they limit the sphere of education in this way. The parental bias is too powerful, and kids don't know what they're missing.

This also seems to betray an unfamiliarity with homeschooling. You must be unaware of the resources available to the motivated homeschooling parent as well as the option to use tutors when necessary. This is no different than how parents can do all other things for their kids by relying on the marketplace or other people in the community rather than on the government or on one institution. For instance, one homeschooled teenager I know takes violin lessons outside the home. He also participates in various other projects with other homeschooled kids in his area. (Of course, he's kind of a special case and he was already taking college level course when he went to regular schools.)

"you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? "

That's called a "Job" :-)

You must have a very sheltered work experience. The place I work at now has people here whose ages range from their teens to past retirement age. People are working at their various tasks or in teams, but I've never seen, outside of social events, any sort of age-level stratification. In fact, some people are older than their managers, but all the teams I've worked with here have mixed ages and it's not dictatorial.

But even were your experience the majority one, then you're offering up public schooling as basically obedience class for future proles, no?

[bmacwilliam]

This also seems to betray an unfamiliarity with homeschooling. You must be unaware of the resources available to the motivated homeschooling parent as well as the option to use tutors when necessary. This is no different than how parents can do all other things for their kids by relying on the marketplace or other people in the community rather than on the government or on one institution. For instance, one homeschooled teenager I know takes violin lessons outside the home. He also participates in various other projects with other homeschooled kids in his area. (Of course, he's kind of a special case and he was already taking college level course when he went to regular schools.)

If you're pulling in specialist tutors for several subjects, then fine. This is the norm for home-schooling? I don't think so. To do it properly you'd need to bring in 7 or 8 subject specialists in the later highschool years. No, I haven't home-schooled. Why? Because I'm not that crazy - I've "real" schooled. I know what it's like to properly prepare engaging and thoughtful lessons for three classes (in the same subject even), but to prepare for EACH lesson that a typical 17 year old would experience in a day would be completely im-friggin'-possible - to do it right. Not to mention multiple kids! Also, "motivated parents" think they can teach and know how to teach because they've been to school. There is NOTHING better than a motivated TEACHER who hones his craft for many years in a specialty. A parent could never hope to approach that level of subject competence.

Have you ever seen a well-equipped home-school physics lab? Is this commonplace?

"you know many other situations in life where you're stuck in a room with people your age and level of training where there's one person much older and more educated who you have to pay attention to for hours at a time? "

That's called a "Job" :-)

You must have a very sheltered work experience. The place I work at now has people here whose ages range from their teens to past retirement age. People are working at their various tasks or in teams, but I've never seen, outside of social events, any sort of age-level stratification. In fact, some people are older than their managers, but all the teams I've worked with here have mixed ages and it's not dictatorial.

But even were your experience the majority one, then you're offering up public schooling as basically obedience class for future proles, no?

That's called a "joke" :-)

Edited March 25, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Peter]

general semanticist wrote:

I think a couple reasons governments got involved in education was to standardize it and get religion out of it. The idea is that if you go to high school in one locality of the country you will have a similar curriculum as any other. Getting religion out of schools is right up there next to separating state from religion in importance.

End quote

Fortunately the standardization has gotten the religion out, but unfortunately there are now charges of philosophical and political indoctrination occurring.

Former President Bush’s educational program, “No Child Left Behind,” caused teachers to teach to the federal government’s standards. Some subjects were barely mentioned or completely curtailed. The “Arts” are all but gone now as a subject in many schools.

Obama’s new program will no doubt, indoctrinate to a greater degree, seek egalitarianism, and make “social justice,” a part of the curriculum. Teachers will be held to even greater scrutiny to teach as they are told, with performance evaluations set into place that can cause loss of pay and dismissal or if the teacher is a good little Progressive, they will have tenure and raises.

My daughter is a forth grade teacher and I will ask her how things are going. I think the individual State’s curriculums have been modified at the federal level, Dan. Federal money talks and so does the barrel of a gun.

A local talk show host was saying that today, we are in a “bloodless civil war.” The Marxist agenda of the Powers That Be in Washington DC are diametrically opposed to the US Constitution, and to the patriotic, conservative ideals of the majority.

OBJECTIVISTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN A BLOODLESS CIVIL WAR. BUT NOW WE HAVE ALLIES.

We should not squander this good “crisis” as the Progressives might say, whether to influence education or the political realm.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[bmacwilliam]

The “Arts” are all but gone now as a subject in many schools.

[Peter]

I wrote:

The “Arts” are all but gone now as a subject in many schools.

Bob Mac responded with a picture of a sign that said Freinds don't let friends take the arts, or something to that affect.

Villain! Malodorous, striped cat! How can thou say nay, to the best within us?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

This also seems to betray an unfamiliarity with homeschooling. You must be unaware of the resources available ...

If you're pulling in specialist tutors for several subjects, then fine. This is the norm for home-schooling? I don't think so.

But even were your experience the majority one, then you're offering up public schooling as basically obedience class for future proles, no?

My understanding is that like much else in life, "homeschooling" (so-called) is widely varied and variegated. I met homeschoolers who formed networks with each other to capitalize on field trips to museums, bringing experts into the home, and so on. It depends. That is what freedom - a free market - is. Consider, for example, the markets for food. Do people in their own homes get good, wholesome balanced government-approved food, just like in the Army, or do they serve up any sort of cheap slop? You see the problem with that kind of "do you still beat your wife" premise.

Homeschooling is not for everyone. We tried it with no success. Our daughter was "happy" in Montessori schools, but got the most out of an alternative school created by the public schools of the rural community we lived in at the time. You never know what's for sale at the market until you shop.

We know little about education and our ignorance begins with a lack of objective epistemology.

One of the purposes of public education is, indeed, to train people to show up on time, sit down, shut up, and do as they are told, no matter how pointless it seems.

Acculturating immigrants and all the rest are other goals of other educationists, also. When my mother's mother went to citizenship classes and learned about the separation of church and state, she stopped going to church. She grew up in an "apostolic monarchy" and saw the church as a political institution of foreign occupiers.

Finally, I can remember a tug of war between two camps of "progressive education" teachers. One set was all for democracy via the statistical norm: all the kids in one classroom at one level by age. Another set was for tracking: different kids on different paths based on ability. You get that struggle among factions in any organization, but all the moreso when the resources are provided by the anonymous public.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[bmacwilliam]

One of the purposes of public education is, indeed, to train people to show up on time, sit down, shut up, and do as they are told, no matter how pointless it seems.

I am a teacher and that's not my purpose. My purpose is to do the best job I can and to help students learn as much as possible. Enjoying the journey will help learning, but enjoyment is not the primary goal.

Sometimes, you can't learn something unless you show up on time, sit down and shut up. Or, the kid next to you can't learn unless you do so. Either way, do it, or get out. This "pointless" activity is a side-effect, not a goal.

Bob

[dan2100]

One of the purposes of public education is, indeed, to train people to show up on time, sit down, shut up, and do as they are told, no matter how pointless it seems.

I am a teacher and that's not my purpose. My purpose is to do the best job I can and to help students learn as much as possible. Enjoying the journey will help learning, but enjoyment is not the primary goal.

Sometimes, you can't learn something unless you show up on time, sit down and shut up. Or, the kid next to you can't learn unless you do so. Either way, do it, or get out. This "pointless" activity is a side-effect, not a goal.

This partly the problem with mandatory schooling, don't you think? Don't you think the coercive nature of schooling today makes for disruptive students?

[bmacwilliam]

One of the purposes of public education is, indeed, to train people to show up on time, sit down, shut up, and do as they are told, no matter how pointless it seems.

I am a teacher and that's not my purpose. My purpose is to do the best job I can and to help students learn as much as possible. Enjoying the journey will help learning, but enjoyment is not the primary goal.

Sometimes, you can't learn something unless you show up on time, sit down and shut up. Or, the kid next to you can't learn unless you do so. Either way, do it, or get out. This "pointless" activity is a side-effect, not a goal.

This partly the problem with mandatory schooling, don't you think? Don't you think the coercive nature of schooling today makes for disruptive students?

Yes, for some. Although coincidentally, I only ever taught (and teach) non-mandatory subjects. My job is to teach the subject as best I can and if a student is in the way of that, they're gone. I suppose it is indeed different if the student must be there and doesn't have a choice.

What's the alternative? Mandatory schooling can be argued from many angles. One is that up to a point, mandatory schooling protects children.

Bob