Schools Are Not Families

We’ve already slipped down the slippery slope. How did it happen? A little at a time, and then quickly.

Americans have always been a pretty literate people. Back at the time of the founding, when the Federalist Papers were editorials written in newspapers, the regular farmer or shopkeeper would read them thoroughly, and discuss them with their neighbors. Any ideas you had about widespread illiteracy in that period of time is mostly erroneous.

Almost everyone was homeschooled—which meant women were literate as well, in case you were wondering. Beyond the home, neighborhoods would pool resources and hire a teacher. When a child got a bit older, he’d go into the family business or find an apprenticeship. Homeschooling is a pattern for educating the next generation for some six thousand years.

Public schools were invented in the industrial age, patterned after factories, to remove from the streets uncared-for children of poor factory workers.

Then John Dewey got involved, with the intent of using public schooling as a way to indoctrinate the next generation.

As M.D. Aeschliman put it, in a review[i] of the book John Dewey and Decline of American Education,

Eschewing our existing institutions and what he called the “idolatry of the US Constitution,” Dewey promoted a futuristic, socialistic idea of “the Great Community,...” Dewey’s promotion of what he called “social experimentation leading to great social change” was a working out of [Walt] Whitman’s social, psychological, and sexual radicalism and egalitarianism.

Dewey’s acolytes have been doing it ever since.

If you think free public schooling is your right, remember that “free” things from government are not free; they cost you tax money, your freedom, and sometimes even higher costs.

So, what is it schools are indoctrinating students with? The names keep changing. But the general idea is that kids should not trust their parents; they should not believe in the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization; they should not believe in God; and they should not think for themselves.

Not all teachers buy into this indoctrination plan. Many are not only well-meaning; they are good people who will teach good and useful things regardless of what higher ups tell them.

Many others want to just teach their subject matter and help kids, but they’re tied up in way too many requirements from decisionmakers above them—including in particular the teachers’ unions.

Many teachers—and nearly all today—have gone through indoctrination themselves and may not recognize what should not be inculcated into our children. The language has been corrupted in a way that it takes a clear thinker to slog through—and clear thinking hasn’t been taught in K-12 or universities for quite a while.

Those of you who are older—say, 55+—you might be thinking public schools were good enough for you, so they ought to be good enough for students today. You’d be wrong. Can a student get a decent public school education today? Yes, but not without a bunch of unwanted baggage along the way. So it depends on how much the family counters those things successfully at home—while the schools are subtly undermining trust in parents.

If you need to put so much time and energy into countering the bad influence of school, why not just do the schooling yourself? It’s not rocket science. Before the historically recent invention of public schools, practically everyone learned to read and do basic math at home. Nearly every parent felt capable.

In fact, children are designed to learn in a family setting—so much better than in a factory setting. Children learning at their own rate, among children who are at completely different learning levels, and learning each thing until they’ve mastered it before going on to the next concept, enjoying much one-on-one attention from a parent who loves them and cares about their education—that is ideal for practically every child. When a school looks at ways to improve actual learning for a child, they talk about smaller class sizes, tutoring for those not keeping up, and other ways to mitigate the shortcomings of the factory institution.

If it were only a matter of public schools not doing as well as a family, at least as a society we could talk about tradeoffs, especially for families that can’t afford to dedicate a parent to schooling the kids at home. Unfortunately, this is the least of the problems of public schools.

They haven’t been trying to replicate the teaching style of families. They have been trying to replace families.

Sometimes it sounds like they’re doing this with good reason. Shouldn’t schools teach children good behavior while they have them all those hours? Certainly they should socialize in a way that kids learn not to bully, or not to make fun of kids who are different. But this has metastasized way beyond what we want: good manners and being kind and respectful.

Have you heard the term Social Emotional Learning (SEL)?

A friend here in Texas passed along an attempt at defining it last November. The original post was written by someone named Emily Swanson, whom I know nothing about, but I gather she is from Utah, in the Jordan School District area (the neighboring district to where I grew up and went to school). She says this: 

The SEL standard is set by an organization called Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The CASEL framework (pictured below) is clear. Classrooms—Schools—Families and Caregivers—then Communities—make up a child’s experience, in that order, according to their chart. The curriculum is designed to follow this pattern.

Here is how this shows up in the Second Step Curriculum [an SEL curriculum used in Utah and popular across the country]: When parents are mentioned, it is only as part of the outer support system or as a negative. All examples of families used are negative and elicit negative emotions in the child. All positive examples are of school teachers or staff and elicit positive emotions in the child. Families are mentioned as possible members of the student’s support system alongside friends and the community (as if friends or the community were going to pay for your child’s music or sports or college). The curriculum is systemically designed to get children to rely on the school and not their families.

SEL diagram, found here

The purpose is to supplant the family. Not supplement family, particularly for children whose home situation is less than ideal, but to undermine functional families.

I had been thinking that SEL was just another thing we had to worry about in schools—in addition to Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the LGBT agenda that is sexualizing our kids in perverted ways. Now there’s this too. I thought it was using health programs and school counseling to access kids in private ways without parental knowledge.

But last night on Glenn Beck’s special, he talked about it in a different structural way than I had pictured. SEL is the umbrella used to incorporate CRT and CSE—an acronym new to me, meaning Comprehensive Sexuality Education, in other words both the LGBT agenda and the pro-sexualization we’ve been aware of for a while. (See here and here.) Beck drew a triangle with SEL at the top, connecting all three of these acronyms.

Glenn Beck, "Project Groomer"
screenshot from here

As he explains it, the CDC is involved—the Center for Disease Control. They seem to have “discovered” a thing they call ACE—adverse childhood experiences. (Sick of the acronyms yet?) Beck says, “Every kid can be grouped and categorized for something: racism, oppression, gender, whatever they need.” In other words, they discover a right to intervene with your child. Every child. For their good, they would tell you, if they tell you at all. And they have a sort of slogan: “Whole school; whole community; whole child.” They are using the school to raise the child—in a way that not only denies the parent that right but undermines the parent’s ability to do so.

ACEs are the CDC's excuse to intervene. Some, such as discrimination
or community disruption, could encompass just about everyone.
screenshot from here

So they’ll say, “We’re not teaching CRT,” or “We’re not teaching CSE.” Because they’re just wholistically “caring” for the child.

As Swanson says at the end of her post,

Of course we all want kids to learn the tools of goal setting, personal responsibility and problem solving. We need to reframe it, however, with the family at the core of a child’s life and the school and community supporting the family.

When you let the schools do the “caring,” who’s really doing that? Outside organizations such as CASEL—that’s Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. And who are they collaborating with? Planned Parenthood and the CDC. Add in the Department of Education and teachers’ unions, and you’ve got a pretty huge cabal trying to take ownership of your children and claim you should just step back and let the experts handle it their way.

Parents are waking up. But we haven’t been equipped to even understand the enemy. We’ve been fighting only a part of the enemy.

Glenn Beck showed a statement from Austin ISD (independent school district):

“In Austin ISD we believe that Social Emotional Learning is at the heart of equity-centered systems and structures.” Oh, that’s great.

See, SEL ties it all together. And that’s the driver of the “whole school, whole community, whole child” thing. And they admit it in their own curriculum publications. CRT and CSE are just parts of the pie. So, when we’re fighting one, they’re getting away with everything else. The Social Emotional Learning is how they’re getting it all done. We’ve been fighting an incomplete partial battle, focusing just on CRT or sex ed.

SEL is being implemented in Austin ISD, in Texas
screenshot from here

How do you fight the whole comprehensive enemy? With everything you’ve got. Sit in your child’s classroom every day if you have to. Be at every school board meeting. Pressure the legislature to outlaw the concepts underlying all of those acronyms: SEL, CRT, CSE, ACE—and add in DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The whole thing, when you connect the dots, is designed to create a transformed society—to create obedient, non-thinking units that can be forced quite willingly to do whatever the tyrants want them to do. Report parents who disagree? Yes. Report friends who have different opinions? Yes. I’m sure you can think up a few more examples after what we’ve seen during the pandemic, especially if you’ve studied 20^th Century totalitarian regimes.

If you thought math classes were safe from the SEL framework, you were mistaken.
screenshot from here

Glenn Beck titled his report “Project Groomer.” The opposition laughs about that use of the word groomer. It’s hard to convince parents that every child’s teacher is a pedophile. But that’s not what the word really means. Yes, there’s a lot of sexualization going on, especially in the CSE corner. You might think of it as slowly boiling the frog.

Back when we talked (here) to a Houston mother, Kelly Litvak, whose daughter had been trafficked into the sex trade, we learned the steps of grooming:

1.          Befriend—to get the target to see the groomer as someone to trust.

2.          Intoxicate—to cause inability to think clearly combined with causing friction at home.

3.          Alienate—to drive a wedge between target and family and their core values.

4.          Isolate—to separate the target from old friends who held their original core values.

5.          Desensitize—to confuse the target’s moral compass, making the previously unthinkable seem common or even normal.

6.          Capitalize—to take the target into control by the groomer, and subject to sex slavery.

Four of the six are being done by schools. You might add in causing an inability to think clearly, step 2, but without the intoxicants. And the actual sex enslavement, step 6, may not be the goal. But control of that child for life is.

That’s a lot of grooming behavior.

If you found that a family friend had been doing these steps with your child, what would you do? Hopefully you would refrain from murder. You would sever ties, and contact the police to get the perpetrator prosecuted.

You wouldn’t say, “Well, a lot of the time this friend is doing good things with my child; and I sure do appreciate him taking the child off my hands while I work.” You wouldn’t let your children be subject to this dangerous, injurious grooming another day.

The quickest solution is to pull your kids out of public schools. If you feel trapped, then you’ll have to do all the hard things.

Get informed. And get active.

My kids are no longer in school (and we pulled them out to homeschool for ten years). But my grandchildren are in public schools. And I am a taxpayer here. So I’m active where I believe I can do something useful.

This week I contacted my school board members asking them to adopt the new TEA model policy for selecting and removing materials from school libraries. This will increase transparency and better respect parental rights, and will require a district librarian to read all materials before they can be accepted, which currently is not always done. (Read a Texas Scorecard article here.) This issue came up in my school district this month at the school board meeting. (I wrote about it here.)

This morning I got notified of a need related to the upcoming Texas Library Association conference (program here).

Certainly some of it could be useful. But here are some of the highlights:

·       Ibram X Kendi: CRT author, teaching kids to be “anti-racists” (i.e., racists, especially against whites)–keynote speaker.

·       Justin Johnson/Alyssa Edwards: drag queen/performer that coaches KIDS–evening keynote/performer.

·       Jenna Sky: former MissGayUSA–featured speaker.

·       Nadine Strossen: past president of the ACLU and advisor on legislative policy.

·       A speaker from the Dallas Foundation, primary funder of the Dallas Morning News Education Lab, which has published no less than four articles critical of parent concerns over sexually obscene content in libraries. Their research was used by an activist teacher in Austin to target independent school board candidates all around the state and citizens organizing through PACs to fight transparency and accountability issues in Texas schools.      

It may be too late, but you can try calling the school board to squelch plans to send librarians from your district to this indoctrination camp—at your expense.

Something new is likely to show up tomorrow.

Swanson mentioned some places to help get yourself educated:

·        Committee for  Children, Second Step resources (to read them yourself)  

·        Parent toolkit to reject CRT, from Heritage Action 

I’ve had a few others on my list:

·        Christopher Rufo has a Critical Race Theory Briefing Book (online resource) here.

·        Christopher Rufo provides The Anti-CRT Parent Guidebook here.

·        Charles Lehman offers this Toolkit for Concerned Parents.

·        Jim Copland offers Model Legislation.

·        Michael Hartney makes the case for moving off-cycle school board elections to on-cycle, in order to empower parents, in this research paper.

·        Heritage Action has launched a site called SaveOurSchools, to help people fight CRT in their local schools.

o   SaveOurSchools provides a list of Critical Race Theory terms that may be used in our schools, here.

·        Whose Children Are They is a full-length documentary shown in area theaters Monday, March 14. Trailer here. Now available here. 

Whose children they are shouldn’t even be a question; they are the parents’ children, and the parents’ responsibility.

Civilization depends on strong, loving families raising their own children. Any institution trying to supplant the family can only lead away from civilization and into savagery. And that is no longer a vague possibility; that is what our children are experiencing at the hands of the indoctrinators—the groomers.

Schools cannot be families; they cannot replace families. And we’d better force them to get out the way of our families—if it is not already too late.

---

[i] “Permanent Revolution” (Review), by M.D. Aeschliman, review of the book John Dewey and Decline of American Education, by Henry T. Edmondson III, National Review, April 24, 2006, pp. 56-58.

The Purpose of Education

I’ve been putting together a presentation for this coming Saturday. At our Tea Party, we’re spending two consecutive meetings on education issues. My part will be on homeschooling. The beginning segment is about the purpose of education, and some history of education. Since that’s where my thoughts are today, I might as well give a preview here.

The purpose of education, according to Aristotle, is to produce a great soul.

Joe Harless, in his book The Eden Conspiracy, says education should be about producing an accomplished citizen. It should teach the knowledge, skills, and information relevant to becoming accomplished members of society.

What should an accomplished member of society be accomplished at doing—regardless of how the person makes a living?

·         Obedience to the law.

·         Informed voting decisions.

·         Contributions to stability.

·         Resolution of interpersonal conflict.

·         Contributions to community improvement.

The Northwest Ordinance, one of our lesser known founding documents, written in 1787, the same year as our Constitution, says “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall ever be encouraged.”

So the purpose of education, then, is to teach religion, morality, and knowledge so that we can have good government and happiness.

Note that encouraging schools and the means of education did not mean government provided it, only that it would offer a gift of land—after surveying, one 16^th of the land would be sold to private owners, and the proceeds would be used “within that township” to help with the building of schools. No state or national oversight. No ongoing support. Simply a one-time grant to encourage building schools.

So far we’re using different words, but we’re pretty much in agreement about what we want schools to do.

According to Oliver Van DeMille, in A Thomas Jefferson Education, there are three types of

education, each with its particular purpose:

·         Public education

·         Professional education

·         Leadership education

We’ll take these in turn.

First, public education. It’s intended to prepare a person for a job, or for servant labor. It teaches what to think. It is implemented in cultures to give opportunities to the poor, to lift them from being a burden on society. The downside—everywhere it had previously been tried—is the deterioration of other education, which can’t complete with “free.”

Second, profession education. It’s intended to prepare for trade, often through apprenticeship, for skilled artisan work, and for law, medical, MBA, or other professional training. It teaches when to think, or under what circumstances to use their specialized training. So, the purpose is to create expertise. It meets this goal, but it is not a substitute for leadership training.

Third, leadership education. It’s intended to produce leaders in home and communities, entrepreneurs in business, statesmen in government. It teaches how to think. So it trains thinkers. It develops character, competence, and capacity to do the right thing—and to do it well—in business, government, church, school, family, and other organizations. It perpetuates freedom.

Historically, for thousands of years, those with resources provided home tutoring, often followed by trade apprenticeship and professional training. Meanwhile the poor got whatever minimum was necessary to make them useful—usually emphasizing physical labor over brain labor.

Public education—that first type, for preparing the poor for service labor—was first tried in America during a time when many immigrants were working in factories, and their children were left to wander the streets. This coincided with the industrial revolution.

In comes Horace Mann, an atheist “progressive.” He said,

What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good…. The common schools… shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men (quoted in Christopher Klicka, The Right Choice—Home Schooling, p. 32).

Within two generations, Mann's ideas flooded the nation. There was the problem of large numbers of poor students from uneducated families. He offered the factory model. Subjects were separated, rather than integrated. Timing was determined by ringing bells, just like in the factories. Schools were top-down authoritarian. Uniformity was paramount.

Then along came John Dewey—of Dewey Decimal System fame. In 1916 he published Democracy in Education. He’s more or less the father of “progressive” education. He had plans to “revolutionize” child training. “Self-realization” became the goal instead of “learning.” He gave no more than a casual nod to teaching English grammar, ancient history, US history, geography, classics of Western civilization, or science.

He looked upon the schools as a wonderful opportunity to indoctrinate America’s youth in the “virtues” of a glorious age where private property, the free market, open competition, and profits would all be eliminated.

What was his background? He got his PhD from Johns Hopkins, studying under G. Stanley Hall—a disciple of German socialist Wilhelm Wundt. Dewey visited the Soviet Union in the 1920s. He failed to recognize the revolutionary desolation and widespread destruction of human values, and instead described it as “a popular culture impregnated with esthetic quality.”

According to W. Cleon Skousen, in The Freeman’s Digest, May 1984, “Today we are reaping the tragic results of the pedagogical misery that America inherited from Dewey’s misadventure in experimental education.” As he explained Dewey’s history before that Soviet visit,

Long before, in 1904, he had joined the faculty of the Teachers College at Columbia University. He had then teamed up with James Earl Russell, the dean of the Teachers College, who was also a student of Wilhelm Wundt, and together they had worked for a quarter of a century diligently building this branch of Columbia University into the largest institution in the world for the training of teachers. By 1953, about one-third of all the presidents and deans of teacher training schools in America were graduates of Columbia’s Teachers College.

One of his contemporaries, Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, saw through the scheme to its logical consequences:

The disappearance of great books from education and from the reading of adults constitutes a calamity. In this view, education in the West has been steadily deteriorating; the rising generation has been deprived of its birthright; the mess of pottage it has received in exchange has not been nutritious; adults have come to lead lives comparatively rich in material comforts and very poor in moral, intellectual, and spiritual tone (Great Western Books, vol. 1, preface; pp. xii-xiii).

I may have told this story elsewhere, but there’s a segment of To Kill a Mockingbird, where the young protagonist, Scout, describes her disappointment with school. Her description of the first day of first grade (no kindergarten back then) is worth retelling.

Scout’s teacher discovers that she not only knew the alphabet, but she could read all the readers and The Mobile Register (newspaper), which she had learned naturally just by sitting with her father and reading together in the evenings. The teacher says,

“You tell him I’ll take over from here and try to undo the damage—”

“Ma’am?”

“Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now.”

I mumbled that I was sorry and retired meditating upon my crime. I never deliberately learned to read, but somehow I had been wallowing illicitly in the daily papers (p. 22 of my copy).

Apparently John Dewey was to blame. She goes on:

The remainder of my schooldays were no more auspicious than the first. Indeed, they were an endless Project that slowly evolved into a Unit, in which miles of construction paper and wax crayon were expended by the State of Alabama in its well-meaning but fruitless efforts to teach me Group Dynamics. What Jem [her brother] called the Dewey Decimal System was school-wide by the end of my first year, so I had no chance to compare it with other teaching techniques. I could only look around me: Atticus [her father] and my uncle, who went to school at home, knew everything—at least, what one didn’t know the other did. Furthermore, I couldn’t help noticing that my father had served for years in the state legislature, elected each time without opposition, innocent of the adjustments my teacher thought essential to the development of Good Citizenship. Jem, educated on a half-Decimal half-Duncecap basis, seemed to function effectively alone or in a group, but Jem was a poor example: no tutorial system devised by man could have stopped him from getting at books. As for me, I knew nothing except what I gathered from Time magazine and reading everything I could lay hands on at home, but as I inched sluggishly along the treadmill of the Maycomb County school system, I could not help receiving the impression that I was being cheated out of something. Out of what I knew not, yet I did not believe that twelve years of unrelieved boredom was exactly what the state had in mind for me (p. 37).

Maybe it’s time we re-think what is normal.

In six thousand years of human history, children have been brought up and taught by their parents. Turning that responsibility over to the state is a social experiment—an undeniably failing experiment—begun only about a century ago.

While we homeschoolers may look radical to the people around us who don’t know anything different from government institutional factory-like schools they grew up with, we are the ones following the traditional pattern.

We homeschoolers are the ones doing leadership education. We’re the ones teaching how to think.

And insofar as we do well in teaching the knowledge, skills, and information relevant to becoming accomplished members of society, we’re producing great souls.

My kids were worth it.

Dewey

Several days ago a friend of mine, gone back to school for a PhD, was working on a paper related to educational theory. She had to choose a subject from back a ways in time, so she chose John Dewey. I mentioned that I wasn’t a fan of Dewey, so she asked why (there had to be a critical part of the paper anyway). So I looked through what I had and came across a piece I wrote, in 2006, for a homeschooling newsletter. Bits and pieces of it have shown up in my other writings. [You can go to my Education Collection from July 2013.]

Anyway, I thought I’d adapt that 2006 piece for a post here. It’s a good reminder never to give power over what you value most—like the education of your children—to some “expert” or bureaucrat who doesn’t know your child the way you do.

_______________________________

John Dewey could be, whether we know it or not, the biggest reason many of us homeschool.

Let’s go back to the beginning of public education, an experiment that began with a crusade by Horace Mann. Mann believed in shifting the responsibility of educating children from parents (who had done it pretty successfully in America since the days the Pilgrims landed, and many generations and cultures prior) to the state. His “progressive” concepts allowed no room for God. Mann said, “What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good…. The common schools… shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men” ( Klicka, The Right Choice—Home Schooling, p. 32).

During the industrial revolution, public schools were built up in cities, where there were many immigrants and people working in factories, and there seemed to be a need for the public to provide education where families apparently couldn’t. So, within a generation or two, Horace Mann’s ideas were flooding the nation.

Then along comes John Dewey. (Yes, he is the one who created the Dewey decimal system.) He took Horace Mann’s ideas, and made them worse. I’m about to quote a chunk of material from our history book God’s Hand in the Building of America, Volume 1, by Glenn & Julianne Kimber, starting at p. 269. They quote from an article by Cleon Skousen, whom you might know as the author of The 5000-Year Leap and The Naked Communist. (I’ll reference as they do.)

In 1916, John Dewey published his book Democracy and Education, in which he advocated an entirely new, revolutionary approach to child training. The American schools have never been the same since.

John Dewey called his brainchild “progressive education” but even liberal educators such as Robert M. Hutchins called his whole conception regressive education.

Dewey received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins where G. Stanley Hall, a disciple of the German socialist philosopher, Wilhelm Wundt, indoctrinated him with the vision of a welfare state with the schools serving as the change agent to bring it about in our generation.

Democracy in Education turned out to be a planned pattern of anarchy in education. Something called “self-realization” became the goal instead of “learning.” Nothing but the most casual reference was made to English grammar, ancient history, US history, geography, the classics of Western civilization, or even the basic sciences. School was to be just fun, with each student doing his own thing in a climate of permissive, unstructured confusion.

Contemporary educators of national stature treated Dewey with respectful demeanor but expressed professional horror when they saw what Dewey was promoting as “progressive education.” Robert M. Hutchins declared: “His book is a noble, generous effort to solve…social problems through the education system. Unfortunately, the methods he proposed could not solve these problems; they would merely destroy the education system” (Great Western Books, vol. 1, p. 15).

In practice, Dewey practically threw traditional “book learning” out the window. Dr. Hutchins wrote: “The disappearance of great books from education and from the reading of adults constitutes a calamity. In this view, education in the West has been steadily deteriorating; the rising generation has been deprived of its birthright; the mess of pottage it has received in exchange has not been nutritious; adults have come to lead lives comparatively rich in material comforts and very poor in moral, intellectual, and spiritual tone” (Ibid., preface; pp. xii, xiii).

Dewey looked upon the schools as a wonderful opportunity to indoctrinate the American youth in the virtues of a glorious age where private property, the free market, open competition and profits would all be eliminated. He visited the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and, instead of recognizing the wasteland of revolutionary desolation and the widespread destruction of human values, he blissfully described it all as “a popular culture impregnated with esthetic quality” (John Dewey, Impressions of Soviet Russia, [New York; 1932], p. 44).

Long before, in 1904, he had joined the faculty of the Teachers College at Columbia University. He had then teamed up with James Earl Russell, the dean of the Teachers College, who was also a student of Wilhelm Wundt, and together they had worked for a quarter of a century diligently building this branch of Columbia University into the largest institution in the world for the training of teachers. By 1953, about one-third of all the presidents and deans of teacher training schools in America were graduates of Columbia’s Teachers College.

Today we are reaping the tragic results of the pedagogical misery that America inherited from Dewey’s misadventure in experimental education. (W. Clean Skousen, editorial, The Freemen Digest, May 1984). 

Back to my voice again. I remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird a few years ago, where the young girl, Scout, describes her disappointment with school. Her description of the first day of first grade (no kindergarten back then) was hilarious. Her teacher discovered that she not only knew the alphabet, she could read all the readers and The Mobile Register, which she had learned naturally just by sitting with her father and reading together in the evenings. The teacher said,

“You tell him I’ll take over from here and try to undo the damage—”

“Ma’am?”

“Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now.”

I mumbled that I was sorry and retired meditating upon my crime. I never deliberately learned to read, but somehow I had been wallowing illicitly in the daily papers (p. 22 of my copy).

Apparently John Dewey was to blame. She goes on:

The remainder of my schooldays were no more auspicious than the first. Indeed, they were an endless Project that slowly evolved into a Unit, in which miles of construction paper and wax crayon were expended by the State of Alabama in its well-meaning but fruitless efforts to teach me Group Dynamics. What Jem [her brother] called the Dewey Decimal System was school-wide by the end of my first year, so I had no chance to compare it with other teaching techniques. I could only look around me: Atticus [her father] and my uncle, who went to school at home, knew everything—at least, what one didn’t know the other did. Furthermore, I couldn’t help noticing that my father had served for years in the state legislature, elected each time without opposition, innocent of the adjustments my teacher thought essential to the development of Good Citizenship. Jem educated on a half-Decimal half-Duncecap basis, seemed to function effectively alone or in a group, but Jem was a poor example: no tutorial system devised by man could have stopped him from getting at books. As for me, I knew nothing except what I gathered from Time magazine and reading everything I could lay hands on at home, but as I inched sluggishly along the treadmill of the Maycomb County school system, I could not help receiving the impression that I was being cheated out of something. Out of what I knew not, yet I did not believe that twelve years of unrelieved boredom was exactly what the state had in mind for me (p. 37).

The book review that led to my writing this piece was of the book John Dewey & the Decline of American Education: How the Patron Saint of Schools Has Corrupted Teaching and Learning, by Henry T. Edmondson III. Here’s a quote from that review:

Eschewing our existing institutions and what he called the “idolatry of the US Constitution,” Dewey promoted a futuristic, socialistic idea of “the Great Community,” whose “seer” for him was the polymorphous, promiscuous, egalitarian egotist-aesthete Walt Whitman, who sang both of himself [“Song of Myself” is one of Whitman’s famous works] and of future “democratic vistas” (National Review, April 24, 2006, p. 56-58).

This is later in the review:

Dewey’s promotion of what he called “social experimentation leading to great social change” was a working out of Whitman’s social, psychological, and sexual radicalism and egalitarianism…. Dewey slandered a wide range of more conservative or traditionalist education-policy thinkers and critics as “fundamentalists” obsessed with a fruitless, retrograde “quest for certainty” (the title of his 1929 book). In this regard he is the father…of our contemporary “post-modern”deconstructionists, with their attacks on “foundationalism” and “logo-centrism.”

The review mentions a truth-speaking Columbia Teachers College professor named Isaac L. Kandel, who saw through Dewey decades ago in his book The Cult of Uncertainty (1943): “A Jewish immigrant writing in a dark time, Kandel knew that Dewey’s influential denial of history, traditional learning, and moral common sense in teacher training and the schools was a new form of barbarism. We are living with its consequences.” 

The point of all this quoting is this: In six thousand years of human history, children have been brought up and taught by their parents. Turning that responsibility over to the state is a social experiment—an undeniably failing experiment—begun only a little over a century ago. While we homeschoolers may look radical to the people around us who don’t know anything different from the government institutional factory-like schools they grew up with, we are the ones following the traditional pattern.

We don’t need to reproduce schools at home; we’re better off reproducing the homes of our founding fathers. We don’t need to teach “group dynamics” (what some people call socialization); we’re better off teaching our children acceptable family behavior. We don’t need our children taught by professionals; we’re better off having them taught by the parents who have a stake in helping them achieve all they can.

Oppression through Education

This is the last of a five-part series of posts on educational concerns. (The other four are here, here, here, and here.) All of this was triggered by discussions a couple of weeks ago about a national curriculum being imposed, called Common Core, and a Texas alternative called CSCOPE.

I am not an expert on these specific curricula. But you can look things up as well as I can. Common Core has this mission statement: 

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

Why common standards?

Building on the excellent foundation of standards states have laid, the Common Core State Standards are the first step in providing our young people with a high-quality education. It should be clear to every student, parent, and teacher what the standards of success are in every school.

Then you can click on the specific standards for math and English language arts. But I have this additional question: We’ve had a US Department of Education, a cabinet level organization, since Jimmy Carter implemented it in 1979—so why has it taken more than three decades to take this “first step in providing our young people with a high-quality education”? What have they been trying to do thus far, if they couldn’t even take a first step until now? Just marching in place? Going backward? Gathering data that suddenly now all makes everything possible?

And if we’ve had this US Department of Education failing to do its stated purpose for thirty-three years so far, why should we trust that now, suddenly, without a positive track record, they’ve got the solution to all of our state, local, and individual student education challenges?

If I understand correctly, the US Department receives taxpayer dollars, which filter through various bureaucratic offices, and get sent back to the states—to be used as the federal government dictates. And right now a chunk of that is attached to strings, particularly the requirement that Common Core be used. They have a map showing that all but a few recalcitrant states have succumbed to the bribe.

Texas is one of the recalcitrant ones. Governor Perry stated clearly that we Texans would not take federal dollars with federal strings attached, which would limit our ability to meet our needs here. Go Perry!

But then we learned that, in its place, Texas had adopted something called CSCOPE. Technically, it’s not “curriculum”; it’s called “instructional material,” so the State Board of Education doesn’t have oversight. It’s just a tool to help teachers plan their teaching to match state testing requirements. Innocent enough, right? Turns out, not so innocent.

I first learned about CSCOPE last fall, at a local Tea Party meeting. We have several people there who regularly attend our local school district board meetings. And right about then there was an uproar about the way CSCOPE presented sex education, particularly to very young ages. And one of the additional difficulties with CSCOPE is that it’s all online, rather than a textbook that can be reviewed. This is supposed to make it more cost effective, because things can be changed online as needed, without reprinting costs. But it adds additional copyright challenges. The entities creating and selling CSCOPE have approached that problem by refusing parental review and forcing teachers to sign non-disclosure statements. Not even the chair of the State Board of Education was allowed to review the materials.

Just to clarify: parents don’t get to see what’s in it, and teachers aren’t allowed to tell parents what’s in it. A couple of teachers who have gone ahead and talked over concerns with parents (after parents hear some worrisome things that their kids are being taught) have been reprimanded, fired, or forced to leave the teaching profession. (Here is one parent's run-in with CSCOPE curriculum.)

Parents in our district, specifically about the sex education, caused such an uproar that, rather than keep defending the curriculum, the district withdrew CSCOPE as the source of sex education. I don’t think that means all CSCOPE has been discarded in the district, however. And it’s used in about 80% of Texas independent school districts.

I don’t have all the data points, but it appears that the “progressive” indoctrination within CSCOPE, and there is plenty of that, is supported by the same supporters as Common Core. Common Core even sought to purchase CSCOPE at one point. Shadowy figures like George Soros are mentioned as among the funding sources way in the background. Maybe true? I don’t know. I guess I’m paranoid enough about tyrannists that I see it as a possibility.

Texans don’t generally sit still while some foolish “experts” try to walk over us. We stand up. Some of that has begun to happen. My state senator, Senator Dan Patrick, introduced legislation, just before the deadline for filing a couple of weeks ago, a bill to provide oversight for CSCOPE. I think scrapping it would be a better option than tweaking it. Nevertheless, there is now going to be an oversight board. Here’s the press release from the CSCOPE website concerning the agreed upon changes.

Glenn Beck spent a day  talking about CSCOPE on his show (March 7; this article has several videos within, all worth watching) identifying some of the problems. There are many problems, and some of the guests on his show also described it as only a mediocre curriculum, as far as usefulness in teaching students.

What we must not do is get into an argument about whether the curriculum is good or bad, or good enough. Quality is not the primary question.

My curriculum was written on my computer, as I got to it each semester, outlining our plans, and keeping our records. It was good enough. A curriculum does not have to be flawless; it only has to be flexible and customized to each student. No matter how good a standardized curriculum is, it will not meet the needs of kids who are either fast, slow, or different-style learners.

Some of the discussions about these factory-style curricula showed math that the Beck guests all agreed was fuzzy and stupid. My son Political Sphere called me after he saw it and said, “That looks like what we did.” Before we homeschooled, back when the boys were in elementary school (a gifted magnet school), we were working on getting math facts faster. So we played around with a book called Mathemagics: How to Look Like a Genius without Really Trying. One of the tricks in it was helping you do multiplication in your head, doing the tens first and then adding the ones. Second son, Economic Sphere, used to do 2x2 multiplication in his head, as a second grader, faster than I could do it either in my head or with a calculator. We used this book again the summer after his freshman year of college, and he was doing three-digit division in his head about that fast. I’ve later learned that similar approaches work for Asians because of the way their languages say numbers. And in the book Cheaper by the Dozen, the Galbraith kids, back about 90 years ago, were taught similar calculation skills that their dad drilled them on and enjoyed showing off.

The point is, there might be specifics within the curriculum that we might disagree on, as to whether they are good ideas, at least for some students. And there might be stated overall goals, like teaching critical thinking skills, that would be hard to disagree with. So the argument must not be about whether this curriculum is good enough, because that allows the assumption that some hypothetical standardized curriculum would be acceptable.

These curricula must be stopped because there is a serious risk that standardized curricula can be used (and have been) for indoctrination and control—whether they are effective education tools or not.

Father of modern education, Horace Mann, let us know the plan in the 1800s: “What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good.”

His acolyte, John Dewey (yes, the one who created the Dewey decimal system) took Mann’s ideas and made them worse. He took great classic books out of schools, and offered up moral relativism, promoting socialist ideology through so-called scientific education expertise. He’s made so much “progress” that we’re barely still able to assert that a standardized curriculum that promotes socialism and denigrates America is a bad use of our tax dollars.