What's the purpose of education? Part 1 in a continuing series.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Read the history of public education in America before you dismiss the information that I have presented.

You might not like the history, but your 'not buying it' does not change a thing.

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.

There it is! from the pen of the man who signed the Federal Reserve Act.

The book that I linked should be read by everyone. Public indoctrination centers were, in fact, designed to create a hive of workers. The sourcing is excellent, and the history presented is priceless.

But if you choose to hold fast to your preconceived notions and refuse to examine the evidence at hand, you are only proving how effective your dumbing down has been.... a testament to compulsory schooling.

I read it. What's your point? How is the system still under the sway of one person's interpretation of it over 100 years ago?

How can the goal of a publicly-funded liberal arts education for every single child somehow result in a nation of worker bees? Those are two diametrically opposed outcomes. In any event, I think your premise is highly inflated as it is.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

I read it. What's your point? How is the system still under the sway of one person's interpretation of it over 100 years ago?

Apparently you did not read it: the quote or the book. The Wilson quote was less than a hundred years ago. This is NOT the work of ONE man, it is the work of several key individuals and the WELL FUNDED foundations and commissions that they created, AND their message still resonates CLEARLY in teacher education programs.

You should read the book. You have no idea about this subject if you dont study what the CREATORS of our school system were motivated by, and how they went about to create it.

In short, you are ignorant of our public education system if you willfully ignore its history.

How can the goal of a publicly-funded liberal arts education for every single child somehow result in a nation of worker bees?

I have provided information to explain this, but you feel that you are too smart to need to read the history. That trait is PRECISELY what the public education system has sought to instill in you.

... In any event, I think your premise is highly inflated as it is.

You will not know unless you investigate. Is 'thinking' something enough for you to lock your mind into a position on something?

Do you KNOW IT in your gut :-)

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Modern compulsory public education was created to destroy the intellect and perpetuate childhood.

This is AWESOME!!

In the old days, a child was taught to read and write at an early age at home. If schooling was sought for the child, it began AFTER the 'three R's' were taught.

"In the old days" must mean two years ago, then. That was the year I volunteered in my kid's first grade class. All 18 kids showed up knowing how to read and write.

Or do you mean "old days" that your statement implies....back in the old "if schooling was sought" days. Because the rest of your thought should have gone on to talk about how schooling was NOT sought for many and they were doomed to live the exact same life as their parents, simply because their parents never "sought" more for their kids.

So in short, let's face it. Public education's goal is to keep stupid people from dooming their kids to be stupid, too. From some of the posts in this thread I'd say we're failing

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Apparently you did not read it: the quote or the book. The Wilson quote was less than a hundred years ago. This is NOT the work of ONE man, it is the work of several key individuals and the WELL FUNDED foundations and commissions that they created, AND their message still resonates CLEARLY in teacher education programs.

You should read the book. You have no idea about this subject if you dont study what the CREATORS of our school system were motivated by, and how they went about to create it.

In short, you are ignorant of our public education system if you willfully ignore its history.

I'm not going to read an entire book by some crackpot. I'm more than familiar with the foundations of our educational system, thank you very much. Whatever this book provides in terms of philosophical ammunition is more than outweighed by the works of such people as John Dewey. I defy you to show any sort of credible resource that says that public education today is more influenced by a shadowy 19th century cabal than just Dewey alone. The facts and the state of the system of public education right now simply don't bear it out and it's laughable to state otherwise.

I have provided information to explain this, but you feel that you are too smart to need to read the history. That trait is PRECISELY what the public education system has sought to instill in you.




You will not know unless you investigate. Is 'thinking' something enough for you to lock your mind into a position on something?

Do you KNOW IT in your gut :-)

I know it because I live it every day.

I myself teach kids to think for themselves and push logic and true understanding ahead of rote rehearsal and regurgitation. I'm a one-man rejection of your whole argument. I hope you'll believe me when I also say that I'm not exactly an anomaly and there are thousands of teachers out there that do it better than I do.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

I'm not going to read an entire book by some crackpot.

John Taylor Gatto was NY state Teacher of the Year, published in the WSJ, lecturer who spoke at the NASA Space Center, the Western White House, the Nashville Center for the Arts, Columbia Graduate Business School, the Colorado Librarian’s Convention, Apple Computer, and the financial control board of United Technologies Corporation.

You calling HIM a crackpock is just priceless. It really illustrates the level you are coming from.

I'm more than familiar with the foundations of our educational system, thank you very much. ..this book ... is more than outweighed by the works of such people as John Dewey. I defy you to show any sort of credible resource that says that public education today is more influenced by a shadowy 19th century cabal than just Dewey alone.

How can you separate them since Dewey was bankrolled by this 'shadowy cabal'. Are you not aware of the FUNDING provided by "The Rockefeller Foundation" The Morgan trusts... etc?? I think you have a lot to learn about your own educational hero.

Dewey was enamored by the Prussian school system, and his patrons gave him the resources to pilot such a program in the US.

In case you are not familliar with the Prussian system of education, it is rooted In August Compte's 'positivist' vision. Of course August Compte was in turn inspired by Compte de Rouvroy St. Simon and the St Simoneans. They are the intellectual fathers of Socialism and Communism and of course "Sociology". They believed that the world should be controlled by the industrial eliitists. The St Simoneans are the people who created the concept and the term "The New World Order".

Of course this Prussian system was the system that created the German mindset in the early 20th century. Prussian schooling made great NAZIs.

The synergy is so striking that Hitler actually adopted the salute and pledge recital that was common in Dewey's schools.

The facts and the state of the system of public education right now simply don't bear it out and it's laughable to state otherwise.

Monkeys spend much of their lives engaged in laughter, but nobody ever accused them of being wise.

I find it amazing how people counter arguments with laughter instead of thought. On this board, those cute little laughing icons are nothing more than monkey screeches heard at the zoo.

Laughter is an effective defense mechanism against knowledge and truth.

I know it because I live it every day.

I myself teach kids to think for themselves and push logic and true understanding ahead of rote rehearsal and regurgitation. I'm a one-man rejection of your whole argument. I hope you'll believe me when I also say that I'm not exactly an anomaly and there are thousands of teachers out there that do it better than I do.

I admire your intent.... sincerely! No live up to it and learn something new.

[bheld]

History aside, how does this affect us now? Let's say that everything you write is correct. What does that have to do with the stated goals of public education? How are my intentions as an educator somehow motivated by the purported original intent of the creators of the system?

In its current corrupted form, what specifically can you point to in the public education system that backs up your claims?

Further, how does your claim reject public education as an ideal rather than simply give us a reason for reform?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

In its current corrupted form, what specifically can you point to in the public education system that backs up your claims?

Further, how does your claim reject public education as an ideal rather than simply give us a reason for reform?

I think that Gatto's conclusion sounds reasonable; The directives of education have changed over the years, and it cannot be said to be under the control of sinister conspirators, but its current form is like a runaway train of its original form and intent.

The force of good intentioned teachers and administration has made the system far better than its past in most ways, but the concept of compulsory education for all, with government and industry regulations and interventions, is fundamentally flawed and fails to realize the potential of the majority of students.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

So who decides who gets an education? The six year old? You're spinning back off into theory-land. Most of your questions have already been answered.

The parent obviously decides for a six year old. How you were able to go from me talking about high school students who are 15 years old or older to a six year old is beyond me. And you teach children?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

I guess he's saying if a 7 year old plans to dig ditches for the rest of his life then he should be able to choose to only take ditch-digging classes, or drop out altogether.

I never said it is the child's right to decide what classes to take. I only said that a high school student most likely knows best what they prefer to take.

It should be up to the parent, who is paying for the education, to decide when to let their child make decisions in their own education.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

So I'm a helpless cog in a machine built to turn hopeful youth into mindless worker bees? I don't buy it. Nobody is arguing that there aren't changes that need to be made, but privatization is going in the completely wrong direction.

Really? Then I have to assume you think all businesses should be state owned and operated. Because any argument you can put forth for keeping education state owned can be put forth to justify any business to be taken over by the state (all of which have been refuted btw).

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 7960

Any time someone makes a decision that puts boundaries on a system then people are going to be limited. You can say people are being indoctrinated because we force kids to take some english, some math, some history, etc, when really all they want is 4 years of shop class, but I don't believe that's indoctrination.


cliffs: how would my son have ever figured out he likes cauliflower if I never asked him to try it?

I believe that the problem with American Education is that we are indoctrinating anyone we educate. It is our culture we are indoctrinating them with. In my field, a standard reading list looked completely different in 1955. As culture changes, our education should absolutley change with it. Why pretend that our reading lists, our history books, and even our science lessons are not slanted in some way, in favor of our culture, and extending it's appeal to others? I work with students at the University level, and the aspect of Tutoring that always astounded me was how students that literally JUST walked off the plane here, and are new to our culture have significant differences in their educational students than natives. Their culture places expectations on behavior as early as we do, and all the while we are forming children to fit in a cultural structure. In The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline by Robert Scholes, he has several areas in his text discussing how English Curriculum, the Canon, and reading lists are purely visions of acculturation. It isn't just what students read, it is the way they are taught, and conformed into Americans. North Korea does the same thing, and some are disgusted at the "brain washing".

It's not bad that the purpose of education is to indoctrinate people into a mainstream culture (Which is why the more education a person has, the more likely they will codeswitch their dialects, depending on the audience). It is beneficial for "upward mobility".

[7960]

I'm not going to go back and forth with you, because you "know" what you know and I know what I know, but this statement

Originally Posted by RockPusher

the concept of compulsory education for all, with government and industry regulations and interventions, is fundamentally flawed and fails to realize the potential of the majority of students.

is wrong.

[7960]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I believe that the problem with American Education is that we are indoctrinating anyone we educate. It is our culture we are indoctrinating them with. In my field, a standard reading list looked completely different in 1955. As culture changes, our education should absolutley change with it. Why pretend that our reading lists, our history books, and even our science lessons are not slanted in some way, in favor of our culture, and extending it's appeal to others? I work with students at the University level, and the aspect of Tutoring that always astounded me was how students that literally JUST walked off the plane here, and are new to our culture have significant differences in their educational students than natives. Their culture places expectations on behavior as early as we do, and all the while we are forming children to fit in a cultural structure. In The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline by Robert Scholes, he has several areas in his text discussing how English Curriculum, the Canon, and reading lists are purely visions of acculturation. It isn't just what students read, it is the way they are taught, and conformed into Americans. North Korea does the same thing, and some are disgusted at the "brain washing".

It's not bad that the purpose of education is to indoctrinate people into a mainstream culture (Which is why the more education a person has, the more likely they will codeswitch their dialects, depending on the audience). It is beneficial for "upward mobility".

We're indoctrinating our children through their reading lists.

Show me.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 7960

We're indoctrinating our children through their reading lists.

Show me.

That is my point. It's not just about reading list. The act of education is akin to indoctrination. It is not a coincidience that public schooling became compulsory during the biggest migration influx.

It is why we have ELD classes. Why so many schools have dances, and certain scheduling criteria. They are all in training to become Americans. Therefore, they learn what Americans should know. Our versions of history, our versions of quality literature, our examples of art. It's not so much that we show "American history" or "American Literature", it's that whatever it is we are showing is intended to create value. We teach math because we value people who can do a certain level of Math. We teach Writing because in our culture, a certain level of profieciency is expected. Some people end up with less, and they get by through life.

Every country that has an educational system is molding people. This agenda is not a concsious work, it is how culture and societies function and survive.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Every country that has an educational system is molding people. This agenda is not a concsious work, it is how culture and societies function and survive.

Uh, no. Societies function and survive by producing food and other goods. Culture is a result of the laws and geographic location of a people.

Many societies still do not have mass access to formal education, and still survive and have a culture.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

The parent obviously decides for a six year old. How you were able to go from me talking about high school students who are 15 years old or older to a six year old is beyond me. And you teach children?

The problem is that not all parents are capable of making that decision for their children.

Feel free to just address the issue also instead of taking swipes.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Really? Then I have to assume you think all businesses should be state owned and operated. Because any argument you can put forth for keeping education state owned can be put forth to justify any business to be taken over by the state (all of which have been refuted btw).

Assume away, it doesn't change this argument. I don't really see how an argument I use in favor of public education could be used to promote the idea of nationalized potato chip production, but whatever.