Public Education -- For What?
Bracing news from Cheryl Miller:
only 63 percent of the surveyed teachers (the majority of whom teach U.S. history) think it’s “absolutely essential” to teach students about America’s past. Given this historical apathy, it’s a small miracle that only 40 percent say their students haven’t carefully studied the nation’s keystone documents — the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
America’s public schools were once thought to provide the cornerstone for an informed citizenry. What made “e pluribus unum” a fact was a common understanding of the rights and responsibilities we had as citizens and the role the government played in providing sound and effective self-rule.
The long-running debate about national curricula long ago boiled down to a simple fight: one side wanted to strengthen the ability of states and localities to independently shape what students learned in public school; one side wanted to weaken it. But the battle for national standards is a bit different. Well-meaning math-and-science boosters want us to beat China and India at their own game -- to the exclusion of virtually anything else. The corruption and trivialization of the humanities encourages, and threatens to justify, a headlong rush toward the transformation of education into the competitive, state-subsidized production of quantitative experts -- beating China by joining them in their three thousand year old love affair with the administrative state.
Alas, all the grant money in the world cannot turn every child into an engineer or a hard scientist. The collapse of interest in teaching or learning about America's foundations dramatizes, as it deepens, a crack-up of our political culture itself. In the absence of any higher, more commanding truth, the foremost lesson to be learned in America's public schools is that everyone (everyone like you, anyway) goes to public school. Equal socialization into an everyday life of standardized routine -- is this what our children will learn defines us as a people? No -- there are plenty of other people who have been subjected to that. But coming up with another answer requires a modicum of courage and more than a bit of conviction. These are still more often to be found at the local level than at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
It wasn't that long ago that "civics" was required in public schools. I don't know, with the current state of public education, if I would want it to return.
Aug '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
Only a genuinely religious person can appreciate, "...endowed by their Creator....and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Once it was generally accepted that "God is dead" (Nietzsche, ca. 1890), it became just a matter of time before the Western Tradition and its successful republics began collapsing.
There can be nothing sacred, nor can their be authentic honor to a non-believer. It's impossible for an atheist or agnostic to take America's founding documents seriously, and they become just crinkly parchments with silly scratchings on them.
But they know they can fake patriotism just long enough to get into the bloodstream and contaminate the body politic
Jul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
"He, alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." Adolf Hitler
Jul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
I don't know if that's relevant anymore, Kenneth. ClaireSteynClaire keeps reminding Us that Our societies are aging rather quickly.
Jul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
James Poulos, Ed.:Well-meaning math-and-science boosters want us to beat China and India at their own game -- to the exclusion of virtually anything else.
Surely the problem with American public education is not that it stresses hard sciences (one can only wish) but that the monopolistic, over-regulated, ideologically driven behemoth is, teachers' union sinecure aside, a failure in every respect.
May '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
All this is yet another demonstration distant (Federal) decision-makers lack not only the courage and conviction, that you mention, James, but also the power to implement and sustain local effectiveness.
No matter how well thought out or rigorous the national standards, if you cannot execute to that level at the local level all is for naught. With powerful national unions and the Dept. of Education calling the shots, what hope do parents have?
Oct '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
The saddest part is: we're damned if they do or damned if they don't. When the public schools do teach history, the Founding Fathers are presented as a bunch of self-serving, slave-beating, genocidal sexists. They also teach that the real Enlightenment began with the election of FDR, whose New Deal lifted this country out of the Great Depression!
Re: Public Education -- For What?
River: Only a genuinely religious person can appreciate, "...endowed by their Creator....and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Once it was generally accepted that "God is dead" (Nietzsche, ca. 1890), it became just a matter of time before the Western Tradition and its successful republics began collapsing.
There can be nothing sacred, nor can their be authentic honor to a non-believer. It's impossible for an atheist or agnostic to take America's founding documents seriously, and they become just crinkly parchments with silly scratchings on them.
But they know they can fake patriotism just long enough to get into the bloodstream and contaminate the body politic · Oct 13 at 1:27pm
Controversy, River! Controversy! Do all of the Founders pass that test?
May '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
I agree with herb. What's worse, no history or history taught badly?
Aug '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
Ragnarok
James Poulos, Ed.:Well-meaning math-and-science boosters want us to beat China and India at their own game -- to the exclusion of virtually anything else.
Surely the problem with American public education is not that it stresses hard sciences (one can only wish) but that the monopolistic, over-regulated, ideologically driven behemoth is, teachers' union sinecure aside, a failure in every respect.
Yep.
Sometime folks want to boost math and science so badly not to beat any other country, but simply to see that bright kids willing to work hard aren't shortchanged on basic skills like understanding fractions by an incompetent system.
I'd add that those wanting to boost mere reading comprehension to the exclusion of pretty much all else have my sympathy, too. (It's so maddening to meet a bright kid who still can't read.)
As it is, there are distinct downsides to learning US History as it's normally taught in public schools, anyhow, since a lot of it boils down to "FDR was a God". It's frankly easier to learn history on your own with good reading comprehension than it is to unlearn the history you were taught.
Jul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
That seems implausible. First, all sorts of atheist materialists venerate the acquisition and exercise of power, thus power is sacred to them. Second, the notion that the authenticity of honor is dependent upon belief in a higher power begs the question: why? Fear of retribution? Certainty of salvation? But honor, of course, dictates behavior regardless of consequence.
Edited on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:54pmJul '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
This is exactly why I am uncomfortable with the entire notion of "national standards". As long as thousands of towns across America devise their own curricula, some will screw it up, but most will get it right.
Once a national standard is established, it invites intellectual rent-seekers to leverage it towards their ends. Given the nature of progressive vs. conservative attitudes, it will inevitably skew those standards in the wrong direction.
Seeking to define and enforce "good" national educational standards is to seek conservative ends through progressive means. Somehow, the end result of that is never what we wished for.
May '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
It's not about education but here's my story about "national standards.'
I had to have the bricks replaced in the chimney of my mom's house. The mason said I had a choice of solid or semi-solid brick. I asked, thinking about price, what was the difference? He said, taking me more literally, that solid brick had two holes in it while semi-solid brick had three holes.
So I asked him how come solid brick had holes in it and he said that's what the government called solid. When the Feds got into the housing and lending game that was their "national standard"
Then he really floored me by saying the Feds only demand that housing last twenty years.
Nice standards.
Edited on Oct 13, 2010 at 8:12pmOct '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
*Sigh* Sadly, a blood relative of mine is going down that same trail. When it comes to regarding the influence of Christianity on America, he changes the narrative to focus on the negative stuff. Same when it comes to presenting Western civilization in general.
And what happens to be on his reading list? Howard Zinn's revisionist history.
What I suspect is sadder still, is that this hard leftist leaning will help him land a job once he's done with his degree.
Oct '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
Patrick Shanahan: This is exactly why I am uncomfortable with the entire notion of "national standards". As long as thousands of towns across America devise their own curricula, some will screw it up, but most will get it right.
Once a national standard is established, it invites intellectual rent-seekers to leverage it towards their ends. Given the nature of progressive vs. conservative attitudes, it will inevitably skew those standards in the wrong direction.
Seeking to define and enforce "good" national educational standards is to seek conservative ends through progressive means. Somehow, the end result of that is never what we wished for. · Oct 13 at 7:14pm
At the risk of running afoul of Godwin's Law, 1930s Germany had a concept called Gleichschaltung that attempted this very thing--bringing commerce, education, even churches under a "national standard" of decreed values.
Of course, it is a necessary tool for regimes with totalitarian aims. Makes work easier for the centralized government.
But, it is antithetical to a free society.
Aug '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
James Poulos, Ed.
River: Only a genuinely religious person can appreciate, "...endowed by their Creator...."
Once it was generally accepted that "God is dead" (Nietzsche, ca. 1890), it became just a matter of time before the Western Tradition... began collapsing.
There can be nothing sacred, nor can their be authentic honor to a non-believer....
But they... can fake patriotism just long enough to get into the bloodstream and contaminate the body politic
Controversy, River...! Do all of the Founders pass that test? ·
Excellent question, James. I've researched this for much of my life (American history being my passion), and the answer is a qualified yes. There's not enough room here to make the full case, but all the Founders who count (some don't, like Benedict Arnold) had faith enough at least to hold open the door for an active God of Providence. No God-centered society ever existed free of doubts, nor can there ever be one. Doubt is a healthy facet of the human mind, and the Greeks and Romans at their height felt nagging doubts; which the Founders knew of. Great nations aren't damaged by it.
But Marxism-progressivism is virulently anti-God.
Aug '10
Re: Public Education -- For What?
Patrick Shanahan: This is exactly why I am uncomfortable with the entire notion of "national standards". As long as thousands of towns across America devise their own curricula, some will screw it up, but most will get it right.
Once a national standard is established, it invites intellectual rent-seekers to leverage it towards their ends. Given the nature of progressive vs. conservative attitudes, it will inevitably skew those standards in the wrong direction.
Seeking to define and enforce "good" national educational standards is to seek conservative ends through progressive means. Somehow, the end result of that is never what we wished for. · Oct 13 at 7:14pm
Precisely.
My passionate feelings about good education give national standards a powerful visceral appeal, but I eventually learned better than to succumb to that temptation. Keep it local.
Have you ever read "Leviathan on the Right"? Eye-opening book.
Edited on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:25am