How Did We Get Here?

Half the country today is thrilled with yesterday's results. The other half is shaking their heads wondering, "How did we get here?" The answer is surprisingly simple and obvious to probably 95% of the people who read this blog. We carefully trained people in our classrooms to vote this way.

If you read Charlotte Iserbyt The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America or John Gotto The Underground History of American Education, you already know the history. From B.F. Skinner to outcome based education, we have been working to make the American citizen one who is trained to respond to certain stimuli in a predictable way. Then those in power who want us to approve what they are doing merely need to invoke the appropriate stimuli. If you do it right, that stimuli can be reduced to a 30 second sound bite.

We decided that Prussian military training was an appropriate model for the classroom. Follow your leader without question. The collective is what's important. Uniformity equals efficiency which is the most desirable state.

We taught generations to idolize Edward Bernays who felt that  manipulation of society was necessary, because we suffer from the 'herd instinct' which he said was irrational and dangerous. We decided not to teach that Joseph Goebbels agreed with Bernays and gave the world Nazis.

We allowed progressives to take away the role of the family in raising the child and instead make the public school the source of all wisdom and knowledge. Today we call this education equity, where even the inequity of parentage is removed by placing the child, at the earliest possible age, in the uniform environment of school.  And when some tried to take education back into their own hands, those in control created whole language and fuzzy math to make parents feel dumb and unnecessary. You needed an expert to teach your child, they said, and academia was working hard to churn out these experts.

Parents felt shut out of the class and stopped paying attention to what was being taught in the classroom. This made the transition from teaching history to "social studies" so much easier. It allowed the public school system to introduce the concepts of: American Imperialism, the destruction of indigenous peoples by white European invaders, moral relativity and non-judgementalism of other cultures, anti-capitalism, anthropogenic global warming, wealthy white slave-owning deist founders and social justice, to the public school student with the parents even realizing it.

The public school system flipped our understanding of the federal government on its head. Instead of it being the least powerful or restrictive form of coalition among a group of independent states who wished to unite primarily for the purpose of defense, it became the top down dictator of public policy in all those states. Protecting the states became protecting the people, and the list of things they needed to be protected from grew and grew. Even locally, government's protective role was expanded to the point, where in a city like New York, the public needed to be protected from their freedom of choice in beverages and fats.

We taught, after World War II, that America's goal was to "spread democracy around the world," which became, "America is a great democracy." Democracies are to be idolized. We stopped teaching Alexander Fraser Tytler's progression of civilization in which he predicted that, "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

So it should be of little surprise that we have at least half our population voting for those who can promise them the most from the public coffers, who equate Democrat with democracy and think that both are good, who only have the attention span of a 30 second commercial to inform themselves prior to voting for the persons who will have total control of their lives for the next 2-6 years.

And they said our education system was failing. I would say that yesterday's election is proof positive that our public education system is a remarkable success. 

What's the Purpose of University Today? Academic Learning or Learning Identity Through Diversity? UPDATED.

Parents send college for advanced learning, right? Check out Althouse on an interesting meeting at the University of Wisconsin:

"This afternoon a troubling communication was brought to my attention that involves a threat to our diversity efforts."

"I invite you to an urgent meeting this evening at 8:00 in the MSC Lounge in the Red Gym to discuss this matter. While last minute, I urge you to participate so we can be in community regarding our response."

What's going on?!

*************************
A reader had an idea:

Horrors, the Center for Equal Opportunity is going to have a PRESS CONFERENCE at 11am and a DEBATE at 7pm. That's what they're afraid of: advocacy.

Beware: "Students' sense of identity may be threatened. Be prepared."

9/12/11 10:01 PM

**************************************

Why should students be worried their "sense of identity" might be threatened?


From "The Young Progressives" Facebook information page:


The Young Progressives, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political organization and the official Organizing for America team on campus, is a community coalition devoted to increasing political awareness in our local communities. We are college students, we are informed citizens, and we are future leaders ready to take on corporate interests and fight corruption within our government.

The Young Progressives

BREAKING: A radical right-wing think tank, the "Center for Equal Opportunity," will launch an attack on UW-Madison's diversity programs tomorrow. Their attack will begin with a press conference at 11 am at the Doubletree Hotel, where they may file a lawsuit against the university. At 7 pm, their president will participate in a scheduled debate against a UW law professor re: ending affirmative action. Students' sense of identity may be threatened. Be prepared

Maybe that's the "troubling communication" that threatens the university's diversity efforts. I wonder if it gives as much attention and call to action to student academic achievement as it does to student diversity programs. What is the purpose of a university? To prepare students to be STEM ready or focused on "sense of identity" based on race, gender or sexual orientation?

*******************************
From Althouse:

UPDATE: Well, it's not that we fell in the U.S. News rankings. Last year:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison ranked 13th among public institutions in rankings released today (Tuesday, Aug. 17) in the U.S. News & World Report's 2011 Edition of America's Best Colleges.

UW-Madison also tied for 45th among 262 national doctoral universities. In the 2010 edition, the university ranked ninth among public institutions and tied for 39th among national doctoral universities.

This year, we've gone up to 10th among public institutions and 42d among national universities.

**************************
Maybe that's the point the university is missing: focusing on "who you are" (identity) vs. "what you know" dilutes the academic reasons to obtain a higher education degree. Let's go back to the title of the meeting of the university's message:

"This afternoon a troubling communication was brought to my attention that involves a threat to our diversity efforts."

Falling rankings involves a threat to "our diversity efforts?" What does the university mean by this statement?

Arne Duncan Would Have Become President in Case of a Catastrophe

Twitter Alert!

Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12)
9/8/11 6:14 PM
Secretary Duncan will rule the world if there's some sort of disaster tonight. He's the one cabinet official not at Capitol during speech.


If you are an educational wonk you saw this tweet tonight. It sent shivers up my spine thinking about Duncan's Race to the Top redistribution of education and personnel (think about "fairness" and not so much about "education" and you've got the plan) and how he would institute that in the event of a disaster if the top officials were unable to carry on their duties. His total lack of understanding the Federal role in education is stunning (the DOE really is not constitutional) and I would expect he would continue that dim view of the Constitution should he ever have the top political position.

How do you think Duncan would rule as President in the case of a disaster? Just today, Duncan was on his Rust Belt Bus Tour (another "Magical Mystery Bus Tour") and the purpose of a plan of his Chicago visit to a high school was announced:

The purpose, according to Duncan's office is to "discuss and celebrate the progressive education reform happening across Illinois."

What does "progressive education reform" entail? Google those words and you'll find references to Dewey, Montessori, social justice, no competitive sports, child-centered, democracy, to name a few. Now let's look at what Duncan wants with Race to the Top and his vision for education:

Some of Duncan's vision includes:

• Federal mandates masqueraded as state choice
• Standards and assessments are nationalized (which is illegal)
• Redistribution of teachers and administrators and students
  
• Programs that track infants through the education system through age 20 and into the workforce with data shared with various federal agencies and private vendors
• The establishment of community centers in schools that will feed your child breakfast, lunch and dinner and provide medical clinics for their physical needs

Those are just a few of the progressive ideas he has. He wants to be your "Education Daddy"! Forget Uncle Sam. You've got Uncle Arne. In the event of a disaster during the President's speech, he'd be your perky progressive pal.

Come to think of it, is he any different than any other Cabinet Secretary or Czar in this administration? Maybe the thought of Arne Duncan taking over shouldn't send shivers up your spine. You might as well just shrug your shoulders because it's business as usual. He's just another progressive official implementing a progressive agenda we've seen in all the other Federal departments.

What is Character Education?

First a little background. The word for character comes from the Greek word charakter which literally means “to engrave.” Moral (from the Latin root moralis) character is the engraving of the code or customs of a people which is the social glue that allows them to live together. The family is the first wave of character development or engraving of virtuous principles onto the child. Society is expected to support this process by modeling behavior of good character. The schools also influence character by reinforcing high moral standards and redirecting behavior that deviates from those standards and strains social cohesion.

Character education seems like a relatively modern catch phrase, but it has a long history. If you want to know more about its history in America, a good place to start is the StateUniversity.com website. Highlights from this article are this:

• character education has always been a part of our public schools;



• early schools used the Bible as the primary tool for teaching character, but other moral texts were also used;



• the religious diversification of society, as waves of immigrants populated the country, sensitized the public to the use of specific religious texts for teaching character, so a more secularized approach was developed;



• this secularization of character education led to moral relativism and “value-free” teaching and the almost complete breakdown of character by the 1960’s;



• by the 1980’s a lack of discipline and academic achievement in public schools was believed to be the motivation for parents who loudly petitioned the government to recommit to character education in the public schools for their children’s sake.

Today after more than a dozen years of Presidential emphasis, from Clinton to Obama, character education is once again firmly ensconced in our schools.

To the extent that such education achieves the goals of maintaining discipline and providing children with the moral code of conduct necessary for living in society, most people support character education in public school. Moral virtues, such as honesty, responsibility, and respect for others, are shared values that would meet little resistance by parents if taught or upheld by the school. One need only turn to the Boy Scouts for a realistic list of character traits to be promoted in schools: [from the boy Scout Law] “A Boy Scout is; trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”

There was, however, a derailing of the definition of morality that took place in the twentieth century. German intellectuals and writers like Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche, Austrian Sigmund Freud and English scientist Charles Darwin introduced concepts like humanism and moral relativism and were instrumental in the founding of the Progressive Movement. Their influence was felt in the education reform movement as well. As a result, among parents today, there is less confidence about which morals would be taught, and an overriding skepticism about public school character education.

In addition, there are many teachers who feel very uncomfortable with the tools they are required to use or the message they are required to teach in their school’s character education program. When voiced, their concerns have been routinely belittled or rebuffed. One teacher even confided to us that she is now embarrassed to tell anyone she is a teacher because of what she is required to do in the classroom. Many are afraid to speak up because they fear losing their job as a result.

For administrators, who are pressing for character education, to be disrespectful or patronizing of the educated professionals in their employ who wish to question a rationale or offer an alternative, is reason enough for everyone else to question their credentialed ability to teach character or values to others. Children learn best by example and this certainly does not seem like an example of good character.

For Missouri teachers who share this sense of disenfranchisement from the process of teaching, we recommend you submit your experiences with local school administrations or school boards who rebuffed your complaints about character education to the 24th State Blog at pm@24thstate.com (you may request anonymity in your e-mail).

The Battles in the Academic Asylum as fought by David Horowitz...and local watchdogs

Here's an article from one of my favorite writers, Robin of Berkeley from American Thinker, writing about David Horowitz. I agree with Robin, he is a fearless modern day Paul Revere:

One of Horowitz's burning passions is restoring sanity to our schools. For years, he's launched a virtual one-man campaign to expose the extreme left-wing bias among university professors. Horowitz figured out early on what the radicals were doing: earning their Ph.D.s, infiltrating the universities, and brainwashing students into radical ideology. With tenure-for-life academic positions, the radicals then brought like-minded professors into the fold and shut out conservatives.

Robin talks about David's zeal in exposing the left progressives' agenda in higher education. As she writes in American Thinker:

he has made it his life's mission to expose the Left's extreme agenda. Like a modern-day prophet, Horowitz forecast that a Shadow Party, masterminded by George Soros, would seize control over the Democratic Party.

We posted about Horowitz' fortuitous email I received which provided the answer to the question I posed in a previous blog, when and why is the State Department involved in education? Horowitz detailed the donors to the Clinton Foundation and their stated progressive left goals:

Clinton Foundation donors Peter Lewis, Bren Simon, and George Soros are also members of the Democracy Alliance, the nonprofit that would create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups—a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement.

Read the entire article at American Thinker. I'll leave you with the last paragraph:

Horowitz is a warrior, a real man, not the feminized kind that our universities spawn. He sticks his neck out for women treated as subhuman under radical Islam, and for college students, who are pressured and bullied. He's an unwavering, tenacious voice of sanity in the academic asylum.

If Horowitz can almost singlehandedly take on higher education, make it your resolve to watch your schools on the local and state level. The academic asylum is not limited to higher education any longer. It's even at the kindergarten level.