Ignorance
Is Bliss:
The
Deprivation within the American Education System
Presented
by Beverly Tucker
To
the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society
September
1999
Introduction
This
report on the decline of American education is not all encompassing (clearly I
have bit off more than I can chew).
With so much data and statistics, as well as, conjecture and conclusions
at my disposal, I feel overwhelmed. (I use the term “feel” with tongue in cheek
since so much of what I have read about education focuses on “feelings” versus
knowledge). The problems that exist
within and stem from our deprived education system are numerous and
multifaceted. Not only do my sources
offer a staggering amount of detail regarding government and academic
ideologies, policies and methods, there are unlimited tales of injustices
committed in public schools at every level (regarding higher education, that
would be public and private). Because
of this I have mainly focused my efforts on only three areas where problems
exist: the primary and secondary schools; teachers unions and government; and
the colleges of Education.
Unfortunately I am not articulate and concise enough to properly cover all of the problems plaguing the American
education system in a mere twenty-plus pages.
It’s not possible.
As
with any contemporary topic under study it is important to reflect on its
history; therefore, I will very briefly discuss the roots and background of
American education. American
educational and intellectual foundations have roots which run deep into the
European past. With the decline and
fall of the Roman Empire, an intellectual and social stagnation began in
Europe, that is, until the Renaissance.
The Renaissance replaced a religious point of view with a secular one,
making man rather than God the focal point.
With the Reformation, however, religion again became the dominant
intellectual interest of man. Thus,
religious instruction became the principal motive and theme of education in the
English colonies. Throughout this
period, the family was the most important institution of socialization and
education. While educational
institutions varied considerably within the colonies, religion dominated both
the conduct of the institutions and the curriculum. Almost all colonial institutions of higher learning had been
private and church related. Colonists
copied educational institutions that they were most familiar with in an attempt
to preserve the European civilization
Although
science was still suspect when the American colonies were founded, it helped to
lay a foundation for the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. By the time of the Revolution new
disciplines had been added to some of the curriculums. It was determined that “difficult subjects,”
such as the sciences, mathematics and literature were to be taught for their
value as a “discipline” in order to exercise the faculties of the mind. By piquing students curiosity and
stimulating their analytical and critical abilities, American public education
was an effective and benign means of transferring knowledge from one generation
to the next. One man of this time
period, Thomas Jefferson, saw education as having two purposes: 1. To act as a sorting machine with which “the
best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish annually” to form an “aristocracy
of worth and genius,” as opposed to the aristocracies of blood that afflicted
Europe; and 2. all citizens’ “minds
must be improved to a certain degree” so they can protect the nation from the
“germ of corruption.” Unfortuantely,
the traditional goal of developing well-rounded, broadly educated citizens has
since been replaced with a need to prepare students to get jobs and to provide
skilled laborers. While most people
throughout history have had a difficult time agreeing on the purpose of
education, it has only been in the twentieth century that vocational goals have
become important. Even Ben Franklin did
not support vocational training--he supported flexibility.
In
the early 1800s, kindergartens and high schools were introduced into the
American public education system. They
were slow to catch on in the nineteenth century, but by 1900 there were several
thousand of each. The European
influence helped to shape the purpose of these new institutions and had a
significant impact through the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau distrusted books and standard
pedagogical techniques of his day and promoted emotional, intellectual and
educational freedom for children.
Although he had only an indirect bearing on American schools in the
1800s, he had a direct lasting impact on psychologist and philosopher John
Dewey and the progressive educators of the early 1900s. While Dewey would later regret the academic
deficiencies in progressive education, he was instrumental in promoting the
concept of teaching “the whole child” with the emphasis on self-esteem and
non-academic studies. Author Thomas
Toch reports that academic subjects declined between 1910 and 1930. In 1910 approximately two-thirds of the
average high school’s curriculum consisted of academic subjects, but in 1930
only one-third were academic subjects.
As early as the 1890s, the National Education Association (NEA) began a
push for broadening the purpose of schools so that by 1918 subjects such as
“health, family life, vocation, citizenship and the worthy use of leisure time”
was added to the “fundamental processes like reading and writing.” This is where the nightmare begins.
During
this same time period a trend toward the centralization of school control
emerged, diminishing local authority.
Self-proclaimed libertarian Milton Friedman noted that in the early
years of the American education system schools were controlled by the local
community. Beginning in 1794 with the
state of New York, states began creating their own departments of education
along with laws that defined the control and finance of public education in
each state. Although final authority
did reside with state governments, the dominant American tradition was one of decentralized administration, with the
local school districts wielding the most educational authority.
That
all changed in the 1900s when centralization eroded local control through consolidation: In 1900 more than 100,000
school districts existed in the U.S.; in 1960 there were 40,000 school
districts; and in the mid-1980s there were less than 16,000. In addition to this, the rapid growth of
teachers’ union in the 1960s and ‘70s, state regulations, and federal legislation
(i.e., Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 created vocational programs in high schools)
and supreme court rulings that were considered in the national interest have
encouraged centralization. Friedman
notes that since decentralization has crumbled and fallen prey to government
control and massive teachers unions “education in this country [has become]
woefully inept.” His solution to the
problem is to
provide competition in
the school system by enabling parents
to choose the schools
their children go to . . .the parent who
doesn’t want to send his
child to a government school should
be able to get a rebate
of the taxes he’s paid to support it . . .
there’s no activity
government engages in that private enterprise
can’t do for half the
cost.
He calls the primary and secondary school system in
America a “government monopoly” and “the largest socialized enterprise in the
United States (other than perhaps the military) . . . that teaches the wrong
values . . . socialist values.”
Many
in the 1980s agreed with this analysis.
After “new math” and the reform curricula of the 1960s failed, an
anti-school feeling developed in 1970 that sent many into a frenzy looking for
solutions. By the early 1980s a new
diagnosis of what was ailing American schools appeared, and a new prescription
was advanced. The problem was the
federal government. A National
Commission on Excellence in Education was established in 1983. President Reagan’s advisors recommended
improving education and training of teacher candidates and abolishing the U.S.
Department of Education. Additionally,
tuition tax credits and vouchers were recommended for parents, allowing them to
choose the school for their children.
The theory was that, in the free-market environment that would develop in
education, good schools would succeed and bad schools would go out of
business. Previous to Reagan’s
administration, educational decline had always led to increased federal involvement.
In the ‘80s it was actually viewed as part of the problem.
In his
book, Inside American Education: The
Decline, The Deception, The Dogmas, Thomas
Sowell states that the purpose of education is
to give the student the
intellectual tools to analyze, whether
verbally or numerically,
and to reach conclusions based on
logic and evidence . . .
The conveying of knowledge, and of
the intellectual skills
and discipline which give it meaning, is
ultimately what teaching
consists of. If these things are
conveyed from one mind
to another, then the teaching has
been successful.
So if this is what teaching is, and this is the
purpose of education, how are we doing?
I digress.
On the many highways and byways across America there are thousands of
business-related vehicles (work trucks, vans, “big rigs” and the like) that
exhibit a sign on the back reading “How’s my driving?” along with an 800 number
you can call if their driving is poor.
This can put bad drivers on the spot and probably get them fired from
their job, since they would be an obvious liability to the company. So, if politically correct
indoctrinaires/amateur psychologists are providing your child with an education
that has turned him into a “confident incompetent,” who are you going to call? There is
no 800 number you can dial to complain and have a teacher fired or curriculum
changed.
In
a recent Life magazine article
entitled “How Good Are Our Schools?” a 1999 public poll was conducted, with the
recent data compared to that of a similar poll conducted in 1950. It revealed that, compared to 1950 results,
current teachers are perceived as inadequately trained and less effective than
educators were twenty years ago. While
the Life poll discerned that “there
are a few excellent schools and too many horrendous ones, but most are
somewhere in between,” they proposed that the real solution for better schools
is “more active parents.” Life’s statement that “the more involved
parents get in education--their own children’s and the nation’s-- the better
our schools will become” seems to insinuate that most parents do not want to involve themselves in their own children’s educational needs and
have not even been trying very hard to do so.
Thomas Sowell, Diane Ravitch and others have dispelled this myth about most parents with their own
research. What has been discovered is
that, today more than ever, many parents are gravely concerned with the
information being fed into their children’s heads at school and, in fact, do want to have more influence on the
school curriculum. The problem is (if you can define “is”) that it’s
many of the administrators and educators
who don’t want parents involved and will go to great, deceptive lengths to keep
parents uninformed. When it comes to courses or teaching
materials that administrators think may be controversial, some are heard using
such phrases as: “keep the lid on,” “do not want controversy,” and they are
concerned about “flack from the community.”
If the solution to the decline of education in America is parent involvement
and input, then the problem is not so much the lack of parent interest. The problem is lack of parent awareness.
While
obviously not all parents are equally dedicated to their children’s education,
some of them, who have been made aware of the non-academic emphasis placed in
curriculums, are attempting to change it.
However, most are either frustrated and disillusioned with the process,
intimidated by the more arrogant educators and administrators and/or suckered
in by the deceptive course titles.
Ultimately, these parents and the general public capitulate to
academia’s self-proclaimed “experts.”
Since the 1960s a more liberal agenda has assumed control of many public
school curriculums and, of late, has successfully kept the parents ignorant of
the ideological coursework and teaching methods being applied in classrooms.
With
many of the non-academic/psychological-conditioning programs, the presumed
purpose oftentimes does not reflect what actually happens in the
classroom. The essence of these courses
is to re-shape the values, attitudes and emotions of students. Sowell refers to this as “classroom
brainwashing,” and he goes on to say that “instead of educating the intellect,
these special curriculum programs condition the emotions.” For example, biological and medical
information are rarely the basis of “sex education” courses and “health”
classes. In the late 1980s, a Kansas
sixth-grade “health” class, conducted by the school nurse, was shown a
film. Parents were given the impression
that their children would be watching a film on vitamins. A parent who saw the film testified
that:
The first three minutes of the
footage was the actual birth of a baby.
It started out with a lady with her
legs up and apart, and her feet in
stirrups or something like that,
with a doctor. It was very graphic
and very detailed. The children in
the 6th grade witnessed three actual
births. I sensed a state of shock in the little boys and girls that it
was
all
new to see a man doing what a doctor does to deliver a baby.
Even though two-thirds of the movie did deal with vitamins, the bewildered
parent “did not see any correlation between the live births and the vitamins”
and complained to the nurse. While the
nurse shrugged it off, she must have known it would be a problem with the parents,
otherwise, why would the film be promoted as one on vitamins? Thus, the deceit.
In
another “health” class at a high school in Tucson, Arizona students were asked:
“How many of you hate your parents?” In
a third-grade class in Oregon the
children were asked: “How many of you ever wanted to beat up your
parents?” A Colorado class was asked:
“What is the one thing your mom and dad do to you that is unfair?” These questions are all part of a “values
clarification” curriculum that focuses on the feelings of each person instead of intellectual analysis, and it
has become quite popular in some public schools. In many of the textbooks, in particular the “health” and “sex
education” texts, parents are characterized in negative terms, as those from an
older generation with hang ups about sex. These are not isolated incidents. There are similar examples nationwide from
California to Georgia to New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. According to a Tucson parent who testified
in hearings before the U.S. Department of Education, these classroom activities
“erode the parent-child relationship by inserting a wedge of doubt, distrust
and disrespect.” Sowell asserts that
the “undermining of parents’ moral authority” is an important aspect of the
brainwashing technique. This type of
“brainwashing” is only prevalent in
states where the primary control is with the state, not school districts. In Texas, for instance, many school
districts where teachers and administrators are of a higher quality, this type
of activity is practically non-existent.
Still
not convinced there’s a problem? Okay,
let’s review a program that has become a boondoggle in schools all around the
country. Bilingual education has become
an important aspect of the multicultural movement in schools. Bilinguilism is supposed to assist children
in their school subjects by allowing them to use their non-English native
tongue in all classes except English class.
Initially the target market of this program was the Spanish community,
but it has expanded to include Asians, Middle Easterners, Armenians, Navajos
and many others. The agenda is not, it
turns out, to focus on the best situation for the children to acquire
English-language skills, but to push foreign language as part of the curriculum
(increasing the “need,” thus, enrollments)
and promote the anti-American/anti-Western civilization philosophy that
some American and foreign activist groups espouse. Their argument is that the “societal power structure of white,
Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking Americans handicaps non-English-speaking
children.”
The
facts show that many children around the country are being placed in these
programs inappropriately. In San
Francsico, for example, hundreds of children speaking a foreign language were
placed in bilingual classes in a different
foreign language. Some Chinese
immigrants were assigned to Spanish language classes, while some
Spanish-speaking children were put in Chinese language classes. A study in Texas revealed that most students
participating in bilingual programs spoke fluent English. Even American-born, English-speaking
students are targeted just because they have Spanish surnames. Bilingualism has been referred to by some as
“a jobs program for Spanish-speaking teachers.” What ultimately happens is that the students end up mastering
neither English nor Spanish, and the majority of their parents are actually
opposed to teaching Spanish at the expense of English. Most schoolteachers recognize the detrimental
outcome of bilingual studies as well, and in Los Angeles, they have fought it
vehemently, but without success. These
opponents of the bilingual programs, or any
multicultural program for that matter, are usually the victims of intimidation
and name calling--“insensitive,” “elitist” or worse yet “racist.” Strangely, these shallow and, what should
be, meaningless tactics effectively hide the program’s failure, even though
academic research and investigative reporting have revealed over and over again
the “fraudulence of their claims.” It doesn’t
matter when a reasonable case is made with supporting facts, the program
promoters don’t have to respond to reason because they have effectively demonized their opponents. As Thomas Sowell so clearly points out,
“Education at all levels is vulnerable to promoters of their own ideological or
financial interests in the name of some group for whom they claim to speak.”
Ideological
indoctrination is not a new trend in education, however, in the immortal words
of Emeril Lagasse, it has been “bumped up a notch . . . BAM!” Some of the curriculum to which I refer is
revealed in the program of the 1991 annual meeting of the National Education
Association (NEA), America’s largest teacher’s union. Focus of the NEA at this meeting seemed to drift away from education
and toward recommended studies concerning “personal lifestyle and general
worldsaving.” Suggestions included
immigration, nuclear weapons, racial and ethnic studies, environmentalism,
housing, highways, and the “development of renewable energy resources,” just to
name a few. Authors Thomas Toch and
Diane Ravitch separately revealed that while laymen are the ones usually
pressing for “more academic rigor” and getting “back to basics” in public
schools, it is the educators themselves who press for inclusion of non-academic “personal concerns,” such
as, nutrition, hygiene, “life adjustment,” sex education, death education, and
the occult. This is happening at the
primary and secondary levels, as well as, in the universities.
It
is not just conservatives, disgruntled parents, high-quality teachers and
fed-up students who are aghast at the “prostitution of education for
ideological ends.” Some on the left of
the political spectrum have also revealed their disgust. In February 1991, for example, the New Republic claimed that
multiculturalism was “neither multi nor cultural [but an attempt to impose] a
unanimity of thought on campus.” In reference to “nuclear education” in
the classroom, the Washington Post
was critical of a “widely-used curriculum guide” complaining that it “is not
education, it is political indoctrination.”
As reported in the New Republic,
neo-Marxist scholar Eugene Genovese called this politicization of education
“the new wave of campus barbarism.”
Additionally,
some on the left are coming to the realization that many of their theories with respect to teaching
methods are not valid. One of these
theories emphasizes the child’s self-esteem over his actual academic
achievement, with the belief that once the child’s self-esteem is raised,
performance will improve. Not only have
findings from conservative research denounced this theory, so have the more
liberal findings. In 1998 the New York Times reported on the research
of Albert Bandura, professor of psychology at Stanford, that “self-esteem
affects neither personal goals nor performance.” Even in The Social
Importance of Self-Esteem, a 1989 book published by staunch supporters of
the self-esteem movement, it is grudgingly revealed that “one of the
disappointing aspects of [their findings]. . . is how low the associations
between self-esteem and its consequences are in research to date.” While the facts cannot be denied, there are
still some who cling to the self-esteem theory. As reported in the Times,
one professor said of the theory, “It will come back.”
Almost forty-five years after its conception
(35 years since publication), Richard Weaver’s Visions of Order:The Cultural Crisis of Our Time is a remarkably
accurate account of the crisis that exists in our culture today. Weaver’s portrayal of the American education
system of the 1950’s sounds eerily familiar, as he described the “progressive
educationalists” as those who were “romantic enthusiasts, political fanatics,
and unreflective acolytes of positive science” that “base everything upon psychology.” Those political ideologues of the 1950s bear a striking
resemblance to those of today who support child-centered
teaching that rejects authority and discipline, allowing for “democracy in the
classroom” where everyone cooperates. Weaver referred to this progressive
education as a “wholesale apostasy,” whereby the foundations of our culture
have been deserted and supplanted with an illicit “conditioning [of] the young
for political purposes.” Oddly, though,
at the time that Weaver wrote this, he was under the impression that the
“danger carried by progressivism [was] drawing to an end,” and he no longer
considered the “Gnostics of education” as the “greatest single threat to our
culture.” If Weaver were alive today,
he would see how wrong he was about the expected turnaround in our education
system and that there aren’t many “hopeful signs,” as he put it, on the horizon
for positive change.
It
is interesting to note that the Life
poll taken in 1950 corroborates Weaver’s view of a turnaround, revealing that
many Americans believed that our public schools were “not very good but getting better” [emphasis
added]. Where this optimism for change
was coming from is not entirely clear.
However, Weaver does briefly mention space achievements in the 1950s,
leading me to think that he was probably optimistic because federal support for
the advancement of science and mathematics in the schools could upset the
progressive agenda. Weaver provided
further insight into his view when he spoke of the need for certain pressures to be a part of learning in
order for students to excel--the pressures to concentrate, develop interest and
hone the intellect. These pressures, he
stated, were absent from the progressive techniques of education, because
progressive educators believed that “learning is to be foregone in favor of the
child’s spontaneous desires and unreflective thoughts.” Weaver seemed to believe that “pressures” of
that time (like the Space Race between Russia and the U.S.) would create
“far-reaching changes in the dominant American educational philosophy” and that
the problems of American education would soon thereafter “be history.” Apparently Weaver gave too much credit to
the progressive “experts” of that time, assuming that they would be willing to
sacrifice their egos and personal agendas for the greater good.
While
Americans in 1950 were more optimistic, those polled in 1999 believe that our
schools are “not very good and [in fact] getting worse.” Most people (two-thirds of those polled) in
1950 believed that children were “being taught more worthwhile and useful
things than children were 20 years [before],” while a majority (53% of those
polled) in 1999 say that children are not
being taught more worthwhile or useful things as 20 years before. What American parents are finding is that
many teachers and administrators are pushing “feel good” tactics that “dumb
down” their kids and politically correct courses that supplant real education. To be fair, not all teachers and administrators support these state and federally
mandated programs--they aren’t all involved in these activities willingly. Nonetheless, these “non-academic intrusions” of political
ideologies and psychological-conditioning programs have pushed out much of the
traditional academic education that we as a society know is necessary to create an intelligent, competent populace.
One
of the questions from the Life
magazine poll reveals that many parents are recognizing that the problem does
not begin in the primary and secondary schools, but in fact stems from the
liberal indoctrination in colleges and universities whence the teachers
come. The question posed in the poll
asks: “Which one thing would you consider to be most important if you were
hiring a teacher for high school?” The
five choices given were ability to handle young people, education, experience,
background, and religion. In 1950, 29% of the parents polled emphasized the
teacher’s education as most important, while in 1999, 19% of the parents emphasized education. The liberal intellectual with a degree in Education does not seem
to be in demand anymore, at least not as far as some parents are
concerned. But that does not keep
certain universities from mass producing them, as on an assembly line, and then
supplying primary and secondary schools with indoctrinated “experts” to teach
little Johnny about life. The concept
of supply and demand is not balanced for most concerned parents--they are
getting far less for little Johnny (and their tax dollars) than they bargained
for. You have heard the phrase “more is
less” . . . I think that applies here.
As Thomas Sowell, Rita Kramer and Diane Ravitch point out, the deception
runs deep.
Based
on Rita Kramer’s 1988-89 study of Education Colleges around the country, the
end goal of many colleges is not to create teachers that will help students
attain skills by gaining mastery in language, symbol and abstract thought, but
to create social workers who will nurture the child and “foster life
adjustment.” During Kramer’s research
at Teachers College (at Columbia University in NYC), a graduate class professor
differentiated between “good” and bad teaching as lessons that focus on a
“mature adaptation to life’s problems versus raising achievement test scores.” One of the perceived life “problems” at
Teachers College is war. In their
“Peace Studies” course a graduate student claimed that children must be
indoctrinated early in public school.
He states:
[Peace] should be the
curriculum from first, second, third
grade on. It’s a lot easier the younger they are.
Another
said:
We have to educate this
country for peace through
cooperative learning. We
have to start young, even before
school. Now that most mothers are working, the kids
go
off at two or three.
[emphasis added]
Hmmm . . . interesting philosophy, but not
original. First of all, the contention
that the country is ignorant of the general concepts of war and peace is
ridiculous. Additionally, the
self-righteous, morally-superior attitude that they are the chosen ones to inculcate the (apparently) moronic
masses, starting at the womb, rings of totalitarianism. This dictatorial attitude and its methods
are alive, well and kicking within numerous education colleges, many teachers
unions and, of course, our present federal government.
The
institutions that Kramer visited in doing her research for her book, Ed School Follies: The Miseducation of
America’s Teachers, are not backwoods, no-name, fly-by-night institutions
with small enrollments. These schools
are much like Teachers College in that they are well-known with impressive
enrollments and images, in fact, some are down right prestigious. Teachers College of Columbia University,
Peabody College, Michigan State University, UCLA, the University of Washington
and the University of Texas are among the fifteen colleges and universities she
studied. In all of these institutions,
Kramer observed a doctrinal pattern of thinking that continued to baffle and unsettle
her. Teacher-educators at these colleges
and universities almost all believe
that the role of schools is political, not instructional. In addition, understanding has been replaced
by self-esteem as the goal of education, regardless of actual achievement. Individual performance is no longer
important and, in fact, is discouraged.
With
the goal to have everyone “feel good about themselves” and with
politically-correct forces at work, individual achievement has been replaced by
an emphasis on characteristics of certain racial or ethnic groups and their
so-called “grievances.” The focus of
interest and study is no longer on the common values and culture of
America, but on special interest groups
perceived as underdogs. This is where
cooperative learning, multiculturalism, and globalism become the mainstay of
some teacher training. These methods of
learning reject our “individualistic democratic values and institutions,”
demeaning the very groups they intend to uplift. The prospective teachers at some of these institutions are
actually trained to become therapists and social workers who will empower the
perceived underdogs and make everyone equal.
It’s a beautiful thing. These
future teachers seem legitimately eager and optimistic, and they are idealistic
about the good deeds they will do to
heal a broken society. They not only
feel a certain moral obligation in what they espouse, but they feel a moral
superiority over the “elitists” and “racists” who don’t agree with them. While there are a number of teachers who do
not come out of education colleges under this morally superior spell, many
others do. These are the very teachers
who join the many teachers unions to promote their political agendas for a
better and more equal world, without all of that repressive testing and
personal achievement. To paraphrase
C.S. Lewis, they disdain traditional academic standards and then are startled
to find incompetence in their midst.
Of
the most significant teachers organizations in the United States, the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the aforementioned NEA rank as the top
two. Together they create a powerful
lobby in Washington and the state capitols, representing most of the eleven
million teachers in the country. Large
contributions to various political campaigns have proven to be highly favorable
to their causes. They have supported
Carter, Mondale, Dukakis and Clinton to name just a few. For Clinton’s entire political career he has
been in their pocket. In December of
1991 Clinton addressed the NEA by saying, “If I become President, you’ll be my partners. I won’t forget who brought me to the White House,” and at the
1996 NEA convention, where Clinton was the keynote speaker, 91% of the NEA
delegates voted to endorse him for re-election. The NEA is, in fact, the largest lobby of the Democratic Party
and, in the years between 1976 and 1996, it sent more delegates to each of the
Democratic National Conventions than did any state. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett has said of the NEA,
“you are looking at the absolute heart and center of the Democratic
Party.” The NEA’s political
contributions and influence are extraordinary, rivaling the same of such
powerful groups as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the major tobacco
companies. While the NRA and tobacco
lobbies are regularly castigated in the media for their attempts at financial
influence on government policy, I don’t recall ever seeing the same for the powerful teachers’ lobby.
In
reference to the politically powerful yet educationally destructive NEA, Forbes magazine has called the union
“the worm in the American education apple.”
Forbes reported that while
nationwide teacher union memberships rose to around 80% in 1993, SAT scores
were 80% lower than in 1963 when
teacher union membership was less than 1%. In that thirty-year period, real spending per student has
increased five-fold. And for what? . .
. students who are less educated and more propagandized. What exactly is the NEA doing with its
estimated annual union dues of $750 million?
Well for starters, the NEA President and Executive Director have
comfortable annual salaries of approximately $400,000 combined, and with an NEA
staff of over 550 the dollars add up.
This is peanuts, however, compared to the money they spend on pet
projects and in the political arena. It
has become clear that political power, not education, is their mantra. This was summed up on two different
occasions, with the first in 1978 when Executive Director Terry Herndon
claimed:
The ultimate goal of the
NEA is to tap the legal, political
and economic powers of
the U.S. Congress. We want leaders
and staff with
sufficient clout that they may roam the halls of
Congress and collect
votes to re-order the priorities of the
United States of
America.
I didn’t hear anything about education in that
comment. . . did you? The second was in
1982 when the then-President Mary Futrell said that “instruction and
professional development have been on the back burner to us, compared to political
action.”
The
NEA doesn’t just do battle on behalf of their own agenda, they also spend mega
lobbying and advertising dollars fighting off unwanted proposals of parents and
other “evil” adversaries. A liberal
amount of NEA funds (no pun intended) are spent on advertising, such as the 1995
T.V. ad that protested proposed education legislation saying: “Do you know what
Congress is doing to our children?
Congress is cutting basic skills.”
Quite frankly, I think the union may have beat them to it. A proposal that keeps popping up at the state
level around the country and is frequently met with disdainful malevolence by
the NEA is school choice. In reference
to California’s recent school-choice initiative, that state’s NEA- affiliated
Teachers Association President D.A. Weber stated that “there are some proposals
that are so evil that they should never even be presented to the voters.” Evil?
What is so evil about parents having the option to give their children
the best education possible without being in a financial stranglehold? Forbes
referred to Weber’s remark as “frankly totalitarian.” But the battles for school choice wage on, from state to state.
While
the NEA and many public school teachers believe that “public schools are as
good as their private competitors” and, therefore, do not support school choice
or school vouchers for the public,
statistics tell a different story of their personal beliefs. According to 1990 census data reported in
the Wall Street Journal, 17.1% of
both public and private school teachers sent their children to private
schools. The Journal report reveals that school teachers choose to send their kids to private schools more often than the
general public does, particularly in urban areas; and the black public school
teachers use private schools more than white teachers; and Hispanic teachers
use them more than anyone else. Four
years later, in 1994, the percentages escalated among NEA members, with 22% choosing to send their children to
private schools. This is over double
the national average. The Journal reports that “the most ardent
opponents of private school vouchers are public school teachers,” and through
their lobbying efforts, teachers are denying “to millions of low-income parents
the very school choice that they exercise”. . . this lesson in hypocrisy is “a
terrible lesson to teach.” But the
battles for school choice wage on, from state to state.
After
seven years as head of the NEA, Keith Geiger resigned his position in 1996 to
go to work for the Clinton presidential campaign. Upon leaving the NEA, he declared that he had played an integral
part in making the union a strong political organization, with his proudest
achievement being to move it “into a mode where they’re receptive to talking
about reform.” I have two problems with
that statement. First of all, they and
the federal government have been “talking” about reform for over thirty years, so clearly this is
not a new concept, and it surely is
not any great accomplishment. Which
brings me to my second problem. After
all those years of leading the NEA toward a “receptive” discussion of reform,
all Geiger has to show for his efforts is an overall lowering of academic
standards. There was nothing in their
discussions about school choice, or competency testing of teachers, or
decentralization, or merit pay, or competition, or the responsibility of the
NEA to turn back the tide of destructive teaching ideas like inventive spelling
and creative math. What has come out of
the reform discussions is an emphasis on self-esteem, multiculturalism,
cooperative learning, and continued liberal political activism.
The NEA has had many
successes in regard to their influence inside the beltway. One of the more pronounced achievements came
in 1990 when Congress was persuaded to authorize a $65 million environmental
education project. While on the outset
this may sound worthy, it has in fact produced more government bureaucracy and
classrooms full of misguided environmental activists (who probably can’t read
or write at their designated grade level). From this effort a new division of the EPA was established, the
Office of Environmental Education. At
least twenty-nine states now require public schools to offer environmental
instruction, with many directing it to be part of the entire curriculum for all grade
levels. It must be taught in history,
geography, civics, health, English and math.
Mathematics textbooks in Waukesha, Wisconsin middle schools have chapter
sections titled “Save Planet Earth.”
One section discusses the benefits of recycling aluminum. Another section examines what is being done
to protect endangered species and how the student may be able to help. We’re talking about a math book. Some school board members tried to stop the
$148,000 purchase of these math texts to no avail, complaining that “it’s more
of a political comment than a lesson in mathematics.”
Not
only is the process of environmental education offensive, but so is the
content. There exists within the pages
of the textbooks a disparaging view of all mankind, specifically
Americans. The Wisconsin Policy
Research Institute examined 65 textbooks’ portrayal of environmental issues and
found that science, health and geography texts represent “human beings as evil,
and blames the United States in particular and Western industrial society in
general for every environment ill.” Dr.
Michael Sanera, director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Environmental
Education, states that in America’s public schools “scare tactics predominate
and scientifically sound information is largely missing” from environmental
education. For example, Exploring a Changing World, a geography
textbook published by Globe Book Company claims that China “ has a lot to show
the developing world about producing food . . . They rely on human labor rather
than expensive machines.” What they
failed to mention is China’s use of political prisoners as slave labor. In a history text, The American Odyssey, published by Glencoe, the U.S. had been
forewarned by environmentalists in the ‘70s that our “natural resources were
being abused and destroyed by” . . . governmental support of “industrial growth
and commercial development” and the “greed and unscrupulous actions of
businesses that placed profit ahead of responsibility.” Gee, what do you think they’re selling
here? What they don’t tell students is
that, when adjusted for inflation, natural resources and energy prices have
been level or have fallen for many years, which suggests abundance, not
scarcity.
In
addition to the offensive process and textbook content, most state
environmental education laws actually push for activism. This is demonstrated in the wording of their
laws, requiring schools to provide a “motivation for action,” or calling for
“the commitment to act,” or proposing that students “contribute to
decision-making processes.” Parents are
legitimately concerned. Some teachers
and their textbooks are teaching students how to become politically involved in
supporting specific leftist issues through picketing and protesting,
fundraising, boycotting products that pollute, writing to congressmen and
lobbying for the ozone, overpopulation and the saving of trees. One of the most popular books being used in
classrooms in the 1990s is 50 Simple
Things Kids Can Do to Save the Earth. It tells children: “Kids have a lot of
power. Whenever you say something,
grownups have to listen . . . So if
saving the Earth is important to you, then grown-ups will have to follow
along.” (those poor kids are being
built up just to be let down). Another
book has a section titled “Tips for Successful Lobbying.” Aside from the indoctrinal propagandizing,
there is another obvious aspect of this that offends parents. A student’s class time that is being spent
on political activism, is time not
being spent on basic education skills like reading, writing, math and
science.
Many
people wonder how the educrats get away with such blatant malfeasance. It’s all in the presentation (any first year
business major knows that). The
marketing strategies of the NEA and AFT are quite effective and are, in fact,
ingenious. By creating feelings of
guilt among the masses, referring to education as an “investment” in the future
(of course they don’t tell you whose
future you’re investing in), they gain public approval and financial support
for the education establishment without giving away any of their trade secrets,
i.e., teacher incompetence, political agendas, and brainwashing teaching
methods. In some areas of the country,
they have successfully created an image of themselves as undeniable “experts”
which discourages too many questions from the masses about financial,
administrative and instructional operations, making the general public feel
intrusive and ignorant about the needs of their own children. Therefore, with the public shamed into
depositing large sums of money into the school coffers and disinclined to
intrude into the affairs of the schools with questions about expenditures,
course content, and teacher competency, our system of education has become a
wealthy cabal, left unchecked for the most part.
When
some of the public does question
politicians and the education establishment about spending habits and denounce
the incompetency of some administrators and teachers, the attacks are almost
always fended off with the battlecry ‘We need more parent involvement! It’s for the children . . . it’s for future
generations!’ When the government tells
you they need more parent involvement, watch your wallet, because it more
accurately translates to: ‘We want more money!’ Anytime there is a deficiency pointed out, the excuse is that
there is not enough money. This excuse
is only effective, however, when combined with the guilt factor. This use of the guilt factor is nothing new
to the political left. It has been an
effective tool to gain public support for myriad government-controlled programs
since the early years of this century.
The guilt factor usually leaves the general public ashamed and
oftentimes afraid of the consequences.
A good example of this involves the recent proposed tax cut by
Congress. Prior to his veto, President
Clinton is reported as saying:
If the Republicans send
me a bill that doesn’t live up to our
national commitment to
education, I won’t hesitate to veto
it. . . . If it sends me a bill that turns its
back on our children
and our future, I’ll send them back to the
drawing board. I
won’t let Congress push
through a budget that’s paid for at
the expense of our children and our future prosperity. . . .
[Congress plans to] pay for their pet
projects at the expense
of our children’s education. [each emphasis added]
Pardon me, but, what a self-righteous load of
crap. Pet projects? I’ve got your pet projects. The American education system has become one big experimental pet project, and that
my friends is why the future of our children looks bleak. As Congressman J.C. Watts said, the current
argument regarding American education is not about money, it is about
control. He asserts that Clinton’s
“Washington-knows-best solution” for education undermines parents and local
control of institutions.
If
bigger school budgets, which the education establishment is constantly
campaigning for, equals better education, then why are there so many examples
of good money being thrown after bad?
I digress. In recent years
professional sports has become the target of criticism for the excessive
salaries paid to individual players and for the ridiculous price tags on season
tickets. Basketball and baseball are
among the worst. If money can buy you
the best, why have the Dodgers, with the largest payroll in professional
baseball at eighty-four million dollars,
been ranked on more than one occasion this season as the worst team in that
entire sport? The difference between
the Dodgers and the public schools is, Dodger management will make the
necessary adjustments to improve their team by discontinuing contracts of
high-priced, non-performing players while schools will continue to pay for
incompetent tenured teachers.
In
1995, a lead editorial in The Washington
Post stated that the District of Columbia is ranked as #1 in the nation for
“per-pupil expenditures,” spending more than $500 million a year on their
public schools. Yet, in every category,
student performance is ranked the lowest in the region. Additionally, there exists poorly supplied
classrooms throughout DC and no effort has been made to improve the teaching
work force. The problem is not a shortage
of funds, it is poor usage of
funds. Education dollars are being
spent on bureaucrats, not on teaching children. In 1991, David Boaz revealed in his book, Liberating Schools, that between 1960 and 1984 the number of public
school teachers grew by 57%, while principals and supervisors grew by 79% and
staffers by 500%. Money is actually
diverted away from hiring better quality teachers. A local Houston primary school teacher said of the money issue:
“Where else can you get a college ‘professional’ for the bargain basement price
of $19,000 a year--you get what you pay for.”
And, as spending increased, test scores went down. Former Education Secretary William Bennett
wrote in 1994 that, since 1960, primary and secondary education spending has
increased 200% while SAT scores decreased by 73 points. In 1993 a liberal think tank, the Brookings
Institution, published Making Schools
Work which admitted that “funding is not related to school quality.”
Thomas
Sowell refers to the American education system as a “tightly controlled
monopoly” whereby the supply of both customers and labor are controlled almost
entirely by the education establishment.
The government assists this monopoly by enforcing compulsory attendance
laws and by denying parents the right to better control their children’s’ education
with school vouchers and school choice.
The labor force is also controlled with required education (“Mickey
Mouse”) courses to achieve permanent tenure.
These requirements keep out any non-conforming, free-thinking
prospective teachers who may disrupt the current education status-quo. Based on mental test scores (from ACT, SAT,
GRE, vocabulary, reading comprehension tests) since the Progressive Age, data
reveals that education majors typically score below the national average. These are the very people who go on to
become college professors in the education field as well as teachers and
administrators in our public schools.
Sowell sums this up by saying:
Some of the least
qualified students, taught by the least
qualified professors in
the lowest quality courses supply
most American public
school teachers. It is Darwinism
stood on its head, with
the unfittest being most likely to
survive as public school
teachers.
So, is this really for the children? Of course
not. The children don’t benefit from an
education that leaves them feeling good about being stupid. The benefactors are the people who
ultimately gain financially and develop certain power: politicians and legislators with a common agenda;
professors teaching the required education courses; public school administrators;
tenured or “senior” teachers; the morally-superior idealists who are in it to
“save the world”; program promoters (such as Quest International and Planned
Parenthood) and psychologists; and textbook publishers-- one local primary
school teacher refers to it as the “billion dollar textbook scam.” This is big business, folks.
Since
I mentioned it, I would like to briefly speak to the issue of tenure. Tenure or seniority varies in the public
school systems from state-to-state. The
difficulty in removing an incompetent senior or tenured teacher from his job in
most states cannot be overstated.
Tenure is an important aspect of many teachers’ careers in both the
public schools and on university campuses.
The current tenure system’s over-devotion to teacher’s rights is rivaled
only by the South’s over-devotion to state’s rights during the American Civil
War. Tenure was first introduced to
American university campuses in 1915 with the intent of protecting academic
freedom. While a professor’s classroom
conduct was to be fair and balanced whereby he would not indoctrinate students
with personal views on an issue without first offering optional or opposing
views, his conduct and beliefs outside
of the classroom would be protected.
Somewhere along the line the basis for the tenure system was turned on
its head so that tenured professors are now protected to espouse any belief
they may have inside of the
classroom. This “faculty unaccountability” appears to have
developed with the progressive educators of the 1920s (like John Dewey) but did
not become so widely accepted and degenerated until the 1960s. As a student, I was personally subjected to blatant, unabashed displays of rabid
political opinion by (easily) dozens of instructors. And almost all of them were tenured, at Stephen F.Austin, Sam
Houston, and Kingwood College.
In the name of tolerance and political correctness
injustices are committed regularly at schools and universities, trampling upon
mission statements across the fruited plain.
This hypocrisy has found its way into primary and secondary schools,
major universities and community colleges.
Many of these institutions hire instructors as full time faculty for the
express purpose of appearing
politically correct and “diverse.” The
concern of the highest levels of some administrations is, in fact, not to hire
the best candidates based on their merit and job skills, but to hire the
candidates who can best make the institution appear more tolerant and, in the words of our illustrious U.S.
president, Bill Clinton, “look like America.”
It is a clear case of symbolism over substance. The public schools are influenced by
specific state and federal hiring guidelines.
When these schools submit to government audits, they are often cited for
a shortage of minority hirings. So, who
are the universities and colleges keeping up appearances for? Well, we know the research institutions are
doing it for government funding purposes, but what would motivate a community
college to be so politically correct?
Many of them claim that it is demographics. They usually want to appeal to the broader populace in their
district because it will help the college grow with the community, . . . and
it’s the right thing to do. In reality
they are appealing to a higher power--their own egos. They want the recognition and status among their peers for being
a progressive institution that can offer the same qualified education to
students as a major four-year university.
The good news in this degradation of our education system
is hard to discern, but it is there if you look close enough. It is bureaucratic (and educratic)
inefficiency. Milton Friedman notes:
If government were
spending its money efficiently, there’d be
no hope for us to
restore a free market. What killed the
Russian
communists? It wasn’t the bankruptcy of their ideas that
brought down the Soviet
Union; it was the inefficiency of their
bureaucrats. And while government disposes of half our
income,
it does it so
inefficiently that its actual control is much less.
Although our government has
been growing in size and function at a rapid rate, moving away from free
markets and freedom, toward centralized control, it cannot possibly continue at
this pace with the increasing restlessness of the general public. With all of the school-choice and
school-voucher initiatives out there on the horizon, with more and more parents
protesting in cities like Chicago and New York City for their children to be taught
“the basics,” and with no solid evidence that the liberal approach to education
works (in fact data actually proves it doesn’t), the national mood is ripe for
educational revolution. The saving
grace will have to be “a wide-moving public opinion” which I believe will have
to bring about far-reaching changes in the education colleges and in
decentralized control, causing this nation to re-evaluate itself as a people.
Woe
to the man who has to learn his principles in a time of crisis. Ray
Stedman
Milton
Friedman often claims that good ideas don’t have a chance of being accepted,
much less adopted, until there is a crisis. Well, we’re there. While there are no quick fixes for this nation’s education
problems, there are measures that can be taken that will provide positive results. The first and most important measure that
must be taken immediately is to remove the intrusive meddling of the federal
and some state governments, and return control of the schools to the local
communities. Only when control of
federal dollars are returned to the local level will we see any real positive
changes. The best way to do this, as
Reagan’s administration stated, is to dismantle the Education Department. School administrators and teachers should be
responsible for student performance and achievement, not for time-consuming implementation of ineffectual federal
regulations and filling out mounds of paperwork. In addition, school vouchers and/or school choice should be
alternatives to the public school system, particularly for those parents who do
not presently have the financial ability to take advantage of private
schools.
Other
important measures that need to be considered in the pursuit of an improved
education system include several measures: implementation of merit pay at every
level, so that teachers are free from having to conform to various political
ideologies and may advance in their profession based on achievement;
restructure teacher education by emphasizing academics, judging the graduates
by “how much they know, not just how much they care”; and, finally, advance the
original purpose of schools, which is to impart the culture, as well as, the
knowledge and aptitude necessary to preserve it.
There
are still good teachers out there making a difference. Sussex High School math teacher Adele Jones
is one such example. Her students
thought she was a difficult but outstanding teacher who inspired them to
excel. One student sent her a note
stating:
I’m proud of my 92
average! Why? Because I actually
earned it. Probably it’s the first time I had to earn a
grade.
That is self-esteem “the old-fashioned way.” But the Sussex High principal, John
McCarthy, didn’t see it that way. Jones
was summarily dismissed by McCarthy in 1993 when she would not lower her
academic standards--she had reported an excessive amount of D’s and F’s for her
students. McCarthy viewed D’s and F’s
as “negative grades,” undermining his goal to “use positive [emphasis added] reinforcement to improve the self-esteem
of kids.” Not all of the good teachers
receive such treatment. There are still
many out there who are causing students to learn by challenging them
intellectually. You know the type I’m
talking about--like the one who inspired you--the
one you so respected and were maybe even a little afraid of. You would complain about how that teacher
required too much work from you and had standards too high, but it was a way of
testing yourself. Only when we hold
ourselves to high standards are we satisfied by our achievements.
What this research has done for me personally is remind me why I changed careers to become a teacher a few years ago. It’s not just “for the children.” It’s for the preservation of our culture. Political agendas that undermine our humanities and social sciences, and emotionally charged demagogues who decry lessons of western civilization as “Eurocentric” have successfully constructed a chasm between generations. The generation of students in public schools and colleges today are, in many cases, being denied the knowledge of their heritage. Instructors should be accountable. They are obligated to offer students a fair and balanced history of their culture while requiring them to work for their education, holding them to high standards and encouraging them to achieve. That is what teaching is about.