ON GOVERNMENT RHETORIC ABOUT EDUCATION
By Publius II
In the late eighteenth century Jefferson wrote to Madison, wondering: “——- whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them.”
Nineteenth century French philosopher Federic Bastiat: “——— are all citizens today to be stamped, like coinage, with the same image? On what basis would they be cast in the same mold? And who will possess the mold? A terrible question, which should give us pause.”
During the mid-20th century the late prominent news commentator Walter Cronkite: “——- lies at the bottom of every problem we have. If the people were truly self-informed, were truly philosophical, were truly aware of our associations with one another, (then) presumably our dialogue and our reporting would be considerably better than it is.” Note his emphasis on truth.
“The tragedy is, we aren’t educated to any degree. ——– the public does not have a capacity of making an informed judgment. … so we’re handicapped from the beginning.” This thought will explain how this situation evolved. It will surprise, — nay, shock — some readers.
A presidential blue ribbon commission’s 1984 report is titled “A Nation at Risk.” It contained a stark warning: overhaul the educational system or suffer the consequences.
In 2006 the Koret Task Force examined this report and produced a sequel titled “Our Schools and Our Future … Are We Still at Risk?” The grim finding was YES. Practically none of the original report’s recommendations had been implemented.
Michael Badnarik (2004 candidate for president): “When the Department of Health, Education and Welfare was established in 1953, American students ranked number one in the world in the fields of math and science.”
Recently an international research project on educational standards included 41 countries. Top rankings went to Singapore, South Korea, and Japan. Ranked 6, the Czech Republic spends one third as much per student as does the US.
Many advanced countries had low rankings. And the US of A? That proud nation was ranked 28 out of 41.
How did all this happen? There is an explanation, but rhetoric from today’s high and mighty provides only thin gruel. Here are some examples.
Elder President Bush called himself “the education president.” In a 1990 media blitz he introduced his “Goals 2000” program for overhauling education. But the teachers unions’ lobbyists torpedoed it by bringing bags of tainted money to congressmen.
President Clinton loudly proclaimed that during his second term education would be his highest priority. But his ten-point proposal said nothing about teachers unions. They have been blocking improvements in the system for decades.
Diane Ravitch was elder Bush’s assistant secretary of education. She urged Clinton to place his proposed national testing program with an independent agency and not the Department of Education.
This did not happen. Done right, national testing would reveal the sickness in the K-12 system. Irate parents would demand that tens of thousands of incompetent teachers be fired.
In late 1999 nearly 200 top mathematicians and scientists urged the secretary of education to drop fuzzy math from the program. They argued that education would be dumbed down.
Four Nobel Prize laureates also signed the letter. Some power here, so what was the result? Zilch. Dirty money won.
Sadly, in today’s US when even the world’s most talented people line up against money they lose. More sadly, they are not the only ones who lose.
President GW Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act was hyped all over media creation as the solution to a major problem related to education. But the Congress was way chintzy with the money.
And NCLB switched scarce resources away from gifted children in favor of dull students. The former group will contribute outstanding leaders in the future. Or, will it?
There is no hard proof that this result was planned by the elite class. But consideration of the above avalanche of evidence leads logical thinking toward this conclusion.
And to a grim possibility: Maybe the Department of Education was established to discourage quality education. Citizens have heard the rhetoric, of course, but this thought is focused on reality. Pocket Gofer 10 elaborates.
Andrew J. Coulson wrote a book called Market Education: The Unknown History. He reviewed thousands of years of data. Private education consistently beat government-controlled schools in providing what parents desired for their children.
Public money means government control. He who has the gold makes the rule, in this case even when it is not his gold. Taxpayers are buying an expensive but bum product. They and their children are being ripped while members of Congress pocket union dollars.
Here is the core of the problem, and it will shock many concerned people. It is not just the money. Good education produces thinking citizens, and this type of citizen scares the pants off members of the elite class in government.
Specifically, some educated peasants (as elitists perceive the people) may get to thinking, develop suspicions and investigate them. They would surely expose what government is really doing behind the rhetoric. Antebellum plantation owners harshly discouraged education among their slaves. Hmm.
A good background in American history would enable thinking citizens to compare previous governments with today’s. Is the government’s sneaky strategy working? A 2011 Fordham study grades each state on the quality of its history standards. Twenty-eight states received a “D” or an “F.”
Jefferson was on target. Educated citizens would “—— preserve peace and order ——–.” Today there is no peace and the economy is far from in order.
Around five decades ago the elitists concluded that it is much better to keep the rabble dumbed down. Logically, this is done most effectively if government at all levels retains control over education. The “progressive education” movement of the 1960s probably had this elitist objective in mind.
In George Orwell’s 1950 book entitled 1984 the proles (ordinary citizens) were brainwashed to believe that “ignorance is strength.” The timing of the book almost matches the elitists’ conclusion about government control. Just a coincidence?
Someone said, “If you think education is expensive just try ignorance.”
Here is a little-known truth. Any society where whom you know is more important than what you know has no need for a good education system. What you know connects far closer to truth than does whom you know. And a whom-you-know society leads to bribery, tyranny, loyalty to person rather than principle and other corruption.
This is why the elite class acts to discourage good education. Members fear truth’s ability to blow the lid off their hidden agenda, which is shifting wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the rich and enhancing their own power and prestige. Jefferson: “The art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
There is a well-hidden conspiracy between government officials and the teachers unions. Union money bribes congressmen who create job protection for incompetent and lazy teachers. Corrupt congressmen spend the tainted money to get re-elected again and again. The news media cooperate in the deception so that uneducated citizens and their children get suckered again and again. See PG3.
Cooperative news media are in effect press agents for the government. Thinking citizens know that government fears truth and hence the need for media-assisted deception. This fear renders the media all but useless for educating the people about their government. Jefferson surely had a point.
It is amazing what the people will accept when they understand the reasons for abuse by government and can see the end of it. But when the media avoid truth who will educate the people? Who will provide the information that citizens need before they can discuss the situation and act to remedy it? Publius II is trying.
This hidden conspiracy enables both congressmen and the unions to keep their druthers. For tax-paying peasants and their children the only remaining question is, where do they fit in?
Democracy speaks to this issue. In an authoritarian government the elitists want dumb citizens. Such citizens will believe politicians when they put forth the baloney about fighting to preserve democracy. This turbo-charged rhetoric distracts people from thinking about the truth: Their democracy has been stolen.
In a democracy people govern themselves. Elected public servants seek out smart citizens because they need their ideas, recommendations and guidance in order to do a better job. Citizens are their bosses. They know they must shape up or get shipped out at (or before) the next election.
Democracy thrives on dissent and respect for minority rights, including the right to speak out and be heard. Today government calls dissent unpatriotic or worse and dissenters are often punished. Every potentially good idea for building a better society originates in a tiny minority: one thinking, concerned and (often) dissenting citizen.
Therefore in a democracy high quality education is essential. Active and concerned parents will accept nothing less for their children.
Today someone who is willing to dig past the mainstream news media can find evidence of a bottom-up force for change in education. Business executives who prefer to hire talented US citizens along with foreign-educated experts are putting their money toward providing educational vouchers.
Foundations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, are also providing vouchers in school districts where corrupt public officials refuse to commit taxpayer money to this purpose. Vouchers provide assistance for children and not schools. They permit concerned parents to choose the best schools for their children. They place no restriction on choice: public, private, religious, charter, magnet, etc.
This truth endures forever: There is nothing like competition to induce improvement in any organization. A public bureaucracy lacks this vital and continuous goad in the ribs. Comfortably entrenched bureaucrats perceive any change as a threat. Citizens in a democracy perceive change as an opportunity. In this way they move society forward according to their druthers.
A good education not only enables citizens to look forward to changes in society. It eggs some of them on to initiate change, to become examples of that tiny minority mentioned above. These citizens participate in discussions and debates to obtain good ideas, but they don’t stop there. They also possess the courage to be strong and persistent public advocates on behalf of those good ideas. Society needs originators, advocates and constructive criticism in order to build, maintain and enhance democracy. See PGs 10 and 13.
Today most of the few voucher programs rely on tax money. But as mentioned above there are others starting up that rely on private foundation money. The latter alternative is definitely preferable because it is funded by voluntary donors and denies the dead hand of government any opportunity to interfere.
He/she who has the gold makes the rule, but in this system donors would have a voice. They would shift their money away from foundations that do not closely monitor managers of school systems to make sure that money spent brings maximum results. Managers would know this and pursue excellence accordingly.
Critics would argue that such a system would bury poor schools as students abandon them during parental searches for excellence for their children. This would happen. But in practically every such instance there would be several successful managers eager to acquire each one. The winning bidder would immediately set about installation of his/her own proven techniques.
Poor teachers would not last six months on the job. School managers would provide excellent training for the good ones. They would reward merit for excellent performance rather than seniority.
New educational computer programs are available and would be used by dedicated teachers, who would often function as coaches. Young children would “discover” something new to them on the screen and squeal with delight. (This has already happened, but such instances get little press.)
The principle of discovery learning is a proven superior tool. The situation of a bored teacher standing in front of a class of youngsters (the old, archaic “chalk and talk”) is similar to a bird of prey who regurgitates partially digested food into the mouths of its chicks. It is perceived as baby food by kids who have passed that stage and want to reach out and experience the thrill of discovery.
Furthermore computers have unlimited patience. This means that a slow-learning child would acquire a specific skill equal to his/her faster peers. Because achievement-based learning would replace time-based learning every student would advance with about equal skill levels. There would be no more “social promotions.”
A healthy attitude toward learning would be brought home. Parents wanting to help would find their offspring “pre-sold” and ready to work with them. The implications for a future of continuing learning would become obvious. These at-home learning experiences would enhance a parent-child bond that could last indefinitely.
Delighted parents would happily become involved. Managers would know that economies of scale (big schools with students bussed to them) do not work well in K-12 education. Small schools placed in neighborhoods would enable parents to take an active role.
This system would obviously mean construction of many new schools. But the taxpayer would remain unharmed as school managers borrow construction funds in the private market and amortize the debt along with meeting operating expenses as time passes.
Citizens without children would also benefit. There would be far fewer people incarcerated and costing them instead of working on the outside, paying taxes and contributing toward better government. Furthermore they would be far less likely to be robbed or murdered or suffer theft or damage to property. Today school and religious shootings are a widespread menace. Everyone would want artificial intelligence predicting violent behavior in society’s misfits. Such shootings could vanish. See PG1.
Another criticism argues that schools in wealthy areas would have parents topping up vouchers in order to provide extra advantages for their children. But a manager would seek out excellent students and encourage the outstanding among them to attend his/her school. (Parental bribery is a scandal as we write.)
This practice would minimize the difference between schools in rich and poor areas because some of the students in any school would come from relatively poor neighborhoods. Admittedly, this would remove a few parents from proximity to their children’s schools. But this would be unusual, and an outstanding student may need less parental guidance.
Managers would be sensitive to individual student test scores while recruiting top students. They would also be interested in aggregate scores because this information would provide parents with a resource to help them decide which school would be best for their children among several in a community.
Testing would be done by an independent organization. Foundations would hire testing contractors with proven track records. A poor contractor would face dismissal. Foundation employees would check frequently to see that teachers do not “teach to the test scores.” (When teachers are coaches in computer-assisted instruction this would not be a problem.)
As the new systems develop managers would ask foundations to provide funds to reward outstanding teachers. This is part of any merit-based system. The news media would provide time and space for award-winning academic accomplishment along with excellence in sports and other news. Parents would see these announcements and be motivated to visit such schools with an eye toward enrolling their children.
Furthermore if government is kept clear of the system it would have no opportunity to keep citizens dumbed down. It would have no such incentive because even at the national level officials would seek dissenting opinions from intelligent and thinking citizens. And there would be no money handy that might tempt them.
Federic Bastiat would find no mold in education. There would be no top-down, one-size-fits-all system. Every K-12 graduate would have his/her own unique set of skills and his own motivation to succeed. Managers of business and nonprofit organizations could search for talent suitable to their unique firms from a wide pool of applicants. Top officials in the best colleges would be hypersensitive to graduates of the best schools as they too seek excellence.
Today’s Walter Cronkite would find school systems oriented toward truth. There would be an emphasis on what you know. Henry P. Brougham said, “Education makes people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.”
There would no need for teachers unions keeping incompetent teachers on the job. These bureaucracies would either morph into organizations that were more effective at useful activities or simply vanish.
Future studies of education systems worldwide would find US students as they were in 1953 (see above). Governments in other nations would find the “brain drain” problem less severe as more young US citizens fill the needs in businesses and other organizations for top talent.
From the Far East comes this truth: “The pleasures of the senses are ephemeral. The pleasures of the heart may turn to sorrow. But the pleasures of the mind are with you till the end of your journey.”
To summarize, many citizens share Publius II’s deep concern about the sad state of K-12 education in this country. He hopes that this essay will make a meaningful contribution toward much-needed improvement. Pocket Gofer 10 elaborates.