Moonlapse's Private Blog

Interesting how he makes a distinction between instruction and education. What's your take on it, Moonlapse?

 

-- Nephele

It's just a new confirmation of the view that I have adopted which essentially states that forced mass schooling in the United States was designed from its very beginnings not to educate, but to manufacture human resources using a pragmatic, institutional 'machine' which by its very nature lacks any empathy or conscience. This was done for the 'common good' because it creates in the masses the potential for corporate efficiency and consumerist conditioning which are required to accommodate mass production. Both primary and secondary schooling, or instruction, were inspired by the systems set in place in the Kingdom of Prussia as attested to in Horace Mann's writing and by the rise of research universities in the German model such as Johns Hopkins, Stanford, the University of Chicago, etc.

 

The entire overhaul was undemocratically driven into government policy primarily by the educational foundations controlled by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, and Ford. In fact, there was strong opposition and rebellions from the lower class citizens who were supposedly the main beneficiaries of the new policies. I'm sure the intents were not malicious, but the effects were not misunderstood either. I see it as the efforts of these exceptionally capable and successful men (some of whom were self educated) to make the system work better in the same way you would improve a mechanical system. The problem with this is that it leaves no room for real education and that mechanical systems can never treat humans as humans and still be efficient at producing the intended results. Research universities can surely crank out discoveries useful to industrial progress using positivist methods, but resources would be badly wasted if they also attempted to create classical intellect. People who are unable to thrive in this system of labels, grades, and hierarchies are essentially separated out like chaff, even if they have intellectual potential.

 

The result as I see it is that this system produces the kind of people who are better managed by experts than having to manage themselves, which undermines our old tradition of democracy and self-sufficiency. Consider what Walt Lippmann has said:

 

The thesis I venture to submit to you is as follows: That during the past forty or fifty years those who are responsible for education have progressively removed from the curriculum of studies the Western culture which produced the modern democratic state; That the schools and colleges have, therefore, been sending out into the world men who no longer understand the creative principle of the society in which they must live; That deprived of their cultural tradition, the newly educated Western men no longer possess in the form and substance of their own minds and spirits and ideas, the premises, the rationale, the logic, the method, the values of the deposited wisdom which are the genius of the development of Western civilization; That the prevailing education is destined, if it continues, to destroy Western civilization and is in fact destroying it.

I realize quite well that this thesis constitutes a sweeping indictment of modern education. But I believe the indictment is justified and here is a prima facie case for entering this indictment.

 

The lesson is, I think, a fairly clear one. In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality. This class is irresponsible, for it acts upon information that is not common property, in situations that the public at large does not conceive, and it can be held to account only on the accomplished fact.

This is not quite related Moon, but I was reminded of it while thinking of how much I dislike the state of affairs with forced indoctrination (er education).

 

As part of the new "orientation" for incoming kindergarteners, the school principal (supported by the board of education) has asked people to sign up for having a social worker visit their home simply to make sure the child is "ready". The form to sign and "grant permission" doesn't contain any suggestion that one can decline this concept but simply provides for a time for the visitation to take place before enrollment is completed. Since these people are government employees and have the potential ability to manipulate my family's status and personal freedom, I view this as a direct violation of the 4th amendment (since clearly they are doing this to evaluate and stem off issues that they see as problems either at the moment or in the future.) I suppose if people sign up willingly it is their own problem, but that's because very few people in this country are aware of the constitution and it's founding principals.

 

I've been making a stink about this locally, but I generally get looked at with blank stares by the sheep who think that schools are actually designed to be helpful and positive influences. Of course, I readily admit my own hypocrisy in that I am sending my children through the public education system because of requirements for future employment, but I am "educating" them at home in addition to the public indoctrination.

All I can say is that you have my utmost admiration because if the human race turns out all right, it will be because of parents like you. At the moment, I'm personally too afraid to voluntarily bring any kids into the world, for their own sake.

I would not be opposed to the teaching of literacy -- the basic ability to read and to write -- being the sole occupation of our nation's public schools. Freedom is what our nation is about, and I don't believe that illiterate people can truly be free people.

 

PP, the parenting commitment of you and your wife has my admiration, too. I chose not to have children not because I'm worried about the state of world -- I'm simply selfish and not willing to make that commitment of time and effort. Although, my man and I often take our neighbors' kids to museums in the city, or to the Bronx Zoo. But the choice is always ours, and we can always hand the kids back to their parents at the end of the day.

 

-- Nephele

I would not be opposed to the teaching of literacy -- the basic ability to read and to write -- being the sole occupation of our nation's public schools. Freedom is what our nation is about, and I don't believe that illiterate people can truly be free people.

 

Since illiteracy and innumeracy undermines self-sufficiency, they also undermine freedom. But shouldn't that be the argument against a state monopoly in education? Competition typically promotes efficiency and innovation, so if we want better schools for a free society, maybe freedom should extend to schooling itself.

I agree. If there's one thing that will ensure the prolonged survival of overly expensive services at low quality, it's a government enforced monopoly. Any real competition and free choice would greatly reduce expensive and defective schooling.

It's just a new confirmation of the view that I have adopted which essentially states that forced mass schooling in the United States was designed from its very beginnings not to educate, but to manufacture human resources using a pragmatic, institutional 'machine' which by its very nature lacks any empathy or conscience.

 

**grins** I got along well in school, much to others' dismay, at times, because I refused to be "manufactured" into a human sheep. I lucked out, and for the most part got teachers who WANTED me to think independently and encouraged me to "break the mold". I don't think that those teachers were representative of the views and intents of the school system in general however.

 

When I was quite young, they *tried* to make me "fit" and when I refused, they had no choice but to deal with me.

 

The example that comes to mind of the schools' "indoctrination" at this point in time is the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, I have absolutely no problem with saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school (and, let it be known, I have no problem with the words "under God" even though I am not Christian). However, I do have a HUGE problem with the fact that children are taught, from kindergarten on, to say the Pledge every day at the start of school. They are taught to say it, without being taught what it means (I had been saying it for a full six or seven years before I was taught what it meant.) They are also taught to say it without, for the most part, being informed that they have a right NOT to say it.

 

For those of you not in the States who are unfamiliar with the Pledge it goes like this:

 

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands

One Nation, under God

With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

Now, if you choose to say it, and know what it means, more power to ya! However, when I was old enough to understand, and finally had it explained to me WHAT exactly I had been pledging for 6+ years, I was PISSED. Because, let it also be know, I do not take oaths and pledges lightly...I had been taught to parrot this particular pledge from a very young age...taught that it was "the thing to do"...and ostracized by the other children if I did not say it (I had a habit of just mouthing the words). If I had thought about it, in my younger years, I would not have said it at all.

 

Not only do I think that I oughtn't have said it in my younger years, but I don't think ANYONE should be saying it unless they have a pretty good understanding of what they are saying.

 

(and that concludes my rant for the day.)

I'm for the free market in education, but I should say that I don't think it's a panacea. If the state monopoly in education were ended, a wide variety of competing educational philosophies MIGHT be put into practice, but it could also result in many minor variations of the dominant philosophy of education (Dewey). Moreover, even in the best case scenario, there would still be the problem of knowing which methods were actually working and which ones weren't. My guess is that a free market secondary school system would resemble the university system, where the reputation of different schools depends much less on the quality of training delivered than on the quality of the process of choosing already talented and motivated students. Not that that's entirely a bad thing.

However, when I was old enough to understand, and finally had it explained to me WHAT exactly I had been pledging for 6+ years, I was PISSED. Because, let it also be know, I do not take oaths and pledges lightly.

 

What was your objection to the pledge?

I'm for the free market in education, but I should say that I don't think it's a panacea. If the state monopoly in education were ended, a wide variety of competing educational philosophies MIGHT be put into practice, but it could also result in many minor variations of the dominant philosophy of education (Dewey). Moreover, even in the best case scenario, there would still be the problem of knowing which methods were actually working and which ones weren't. My guess is that a free market secondary school system would resemble the university system, where the reputation of different schools depends much less on the quality of training delivered than on the quality of the process of choosing already talented and motivated students. Not that that's entirely a bad thing.

I think that if free market education was continually allowed without central manipulation, it would take about as long to get out of this mess as it did to get into it: 100+ years. In the meantime a lot of errors would be made, but at least the cumulative effect would be productive.

What was your objection to the pledge?

 

My objection (other than the fact that I do NOT believe that this country stands "for liberty and justice for all"...) was that I consider something of that nature...worded that way in particular to be a VERY SERIOUS thing to say. Not something to be taken lightly...and had I been encouraged to think about what it was that I was saying, I would have given it a lot more thought.

 

But, I said it without knowing what it was I was saying, for years, before I had the experience to understand that it should be something that is taken seriously. I had basically been pledging to uphold *something* without knowing what it was that I was pledging to uphold; and when I came to understand what, exactly that meant, to me it meant that I had some sort of obligation to uphold what I had previously pledged.

 

My objections aren't to the pledge itself, exactly, they are to the fact that children are encouraged (or, when my mom and grandmom were in school, *forced*) to pledge something without any real knowledge of WHAT they are pledging.