Showing posts with label Prussia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prussia. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

pass the barf bag

External Locus of Control

I made myself sick today. I found out P - 20 isn't preschool-20 (college) as I thought. Oregon, Michigan, Kansas ( and likely every state) have websites about P - 20 which state it is prenatal - college. Yes, prenatal. To quote http://www.michiganschildren.org/Speaking-Up-For-Kids/what-is-p-20.html,
"p 20 is a cradle-to-career approach to education recognizing that education does not start and end at the classroom door". 

Yes....no sugarcoating here, they overtly mentioned a government sanctioning of cradle to grave control.
Here I thought all along, phew I have my kiddos until pre-school or kindergarten. I have them for their most influential formative years, go me! Take that, government! My dreams were shattered today. No longer are my children my own, but part of the state, parens patriae, the idea of the state as parent, since, apparently, these elitist experts know best. No more mommy knows best...this world is too "complicated" for us simple folks, an idea dating back to the Utopian goals of the Progressive Era and the notion of social efficiency.

Let me provide a disclaimer and interjection. I do not inherently see a problem with prenatal care and early childhood education. Our infant mortality rate and pregnancy complication rates are quite dismal for a first-world country. As a mother of two, I am all for prenatal care. As a teacher, I am all for early childhood education. During my first year of teaching, I found out that many kindergartners in my poverty stricken school neighborhood came to school utterly unprepared. Many had never used crayons or held a pencil. They had never even heard the ABCs and did not know their own name (often called mijo/a, baby, etc at home). I kid you not. These children are the most in need of intervention and the most targeted for such things. Therefore I wish to reiterate that I advocate prenatal care and early learning.

The Factory Model

But if history means a darned thing, this scares me... targeting the most at risk populations can mean they receive a stellar education that teaches them to think, ask questions, create, innovate, argue. Or it can teach them job skills like how to ring up a burger and fries and how to operate a vacuum, you know, skills that CC offers through the 70% weight of informative text in Language Arts courses.

The idea of scientifically managing the population to control them, as part of a Utopia, is hardly new. It originated in Prussia (see http://3rseduc.blogspot.com/search?q=prussia for background info on Prussia's influence on our education system) as noted at http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/09/john-taylor-gatto/the-prussian-connection/ A concept called

"psychological parenthood" began to take shape, a radical notion without legal precedent that would be used down the road to support drastic forcible intervention into family life. It became one of the basic justifications offered during the period of mass immigration for a compulsion law intended to put children under the thrall of so-called scientific parenting in schools"

This idea that the families of the nation were ill-equipped to raise children; that scientific management thereof could save us, is prominent in the past and perhaps today.

in "Education for social efficiency: a study in the social relations of education" By Irving King (1915),

"It was devised as a means of insuring that the child should learn certain things which he would not be able to learn satisfactorily if he were left to pick up things for himself by imitation and simple contact with the life that was going on daily about him. As culture increased in complexity, more and more of the burden of education had to be shifted to formal agencies, specifically to the school"

From the same document,

"And this education must be largely wrought out through the school. The ideal of a social life adequate to modern conditions of living must take its place as an object of explicit and conscious training, just because it is too complex and difficult to attain in any other way"

For a nice outline of the Progressive Era and the influence on society and education, visit http://people.uncw.edu/ricej/education/The%20Progressive%20Era%202%20Social%20Efficiency.htm

As the Progressive Era rolled in, social efficiency reared its ugly head. I don't like using wikipedia as a reliable source, but instead of quoting ten separate sources to validate wiki, I will give you the wiki definition of social efficiency- I could not have said it better.






Social efficiency educators" such as theorists Ross, Bobbitt, Gilbreth, Taylor, and Thorndike were aiming to design a curriculum that would optimize the “social utility” of each individual in a society. By using education as an efficiency tool, these theorists believed that society could be controlled. Students would be scientifically evaluated (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their predicted role in society. This involved the introduction of vocational and junior high schools to address the curriculum designed around specific life activities that correlate with each student’s societal future. The socially efficient curriculum would consist of minute parts or tasks that together formed a bigger concept. This educational view was somewhat derived with the efficiency of factories which could simultaneously produce able factory workers. Critics believe this model has too much emphasis on testing and separating students based on the results of that testing.
Social efficiency keeps at it; A.H. Lauchner, a principal in 1951, said,


 "not every child has to read, figure, write and spell...that many of them cannot or will not master these chores." 

Meaning, why teach true academic curriculum to certain children to whom it would be a waste?

Okay so my point here is this, social efficiency used the "science" of test scores to drive curriculum to scientifically manage the populace, to determine which students were to be doctors and which were to be laborers. With the p-20 data tracking system, a student with behavioral issues, an IEP, low math test scores may be pigeonholed- on purpose- into becoming a manual laborer, even if their dreams and skills are in interpreting law or motivating students or what have you.

Sire, you say, this cannot happen. Or perhaps it is an old fuddy duddy idea that never came to fruition and never will. To re-quote one of my posts from this year,

From http://www.wiche.edu/info/publications/FrameworkForAMultistateHumanCapitalDevelopmentDataSystem.pdf
"The workforce sector wants information about prior training in
high school and postsecondary institutions as a foundation for
working with both education sectors to address identified skill gaps
in the workforce, as well as to identify equity gaps with respect
to demographic representativeness by job category. Knowing the
education sectors’ capacity to respond (i.e., by increasing the flow
of graduates with particular skill sets) will also help the state decide
whether to invest in education to address skill gaps or establish
incentives to induce more workers with needed skills to move
into the state. Moreover, linking with the education sectors would
provide labor market analysts with a wealth of data that would be
useful for examining equity in employment."

This document is a modern document, written sometime between 2009-2013, and it states that schools can increase the flow of graduates with certain skills. How might they do this? If society needs more engineers, or fast food workers, how will it "increase the flow" without either data manipulation (suddenly Johnny's test scores plummet and his education is individualized to send him into fast food) or using tracking to label students (everyone who struggled in science gets to work in fast f

Your Secret is Safe With me

Everyone keepos saying the data collected will remain anonymous, and will solely be used to improve prenatal care, career readiness programs, etc, But of course the data will be shared with any government organization or third party vendor or person in education (textbook companies, educational consultants) which will remain anonymous once out of the school level. Students will be numbered, data will be meta data, and it will be secure. (Just like our IRS records, social security info, etc which surely has never been compromised...ha ha).

"Anonymous" meta data is extrapolated from identifiable data, those "80% have graduated on time" had names and identities attached to them.  Collect some meta data such as addresses, parent's names, etc and enough datamanipulating can lead back to the student. Or, if anyone decides to be evil, a school official could leak identifiable student data, or how to access it (ie that student #642t50 is Jane Plain). But don't worry,,,your data is "safe".

Which leads back to social efficiency... whitehouse.gov had said,

Pearson will share data into the Learning Registry about many of their existing teaching resources including those that support CCSS so that they can be used n each students' personal learning path

Yep, right back to pigeonholing students in a certain direction as part of social efficiency, or as we call it now, human capital.  From http://www.csctulsa.org/content.php?p=195 we bring you,

The P-20 concept is a way of thinking and acting that promotes systematic aligning of multiple education, health, and social support resources to best advance human capital development from prenatal through postsecondary and employment, and on to sustained lifelong well-being...

See, my long-winded post does all come together right there. And it scares me. It is wrapped up in a pretty package- who doesn't want "sustained lifelong well-being"? But the question is, who decides what well-being means? Perception is everything and one man's well being could be another man's hell. Is the government's idea of my well being what I desire? Likely not, since obviously life- and my own well being- are "human capital" and must be micromanaged and decided for me.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

I am Sparta!


Prussia studied the city-state of Sparta. Why?

First, a little about Sparta, a city-state which was basically a war-mongering nation in what is now Greece. Everything centered around the military.

Spartans were essentially sorted into castes; Spartiates (receiving all rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan men treated as Spartans), Perioikoi (freed men), and Helots (state-owned slaves and enslaved non-Spartan residents).
Helots had violent uprisings often, so the Spartiates and especially Perioikoi were trained in warfare to squash Helot dissenters. A secret police existed to kill Helots to keep them under control. The only way for a Spartan man to achieve high rank in society was to become a secret police, those able to kill for the state were the only ones "worthy" of distinction and rights.
The Helots' lives were quite under the control of the government. The government could call upon them at any time to serve at war. Additionally, they did not own land but rather rented it and had to obtain government permission to move.

Spartan government practiced infanticide, a eugenic principle, where every newborn was inspected for its worthiness and exterminated if deemed inferior or unnecessary.

The secret police were rather intertwined with the agoge, Sparta's educational system, which took boys from the home at age 7 to train them for battle, making them state-owned until death.

The agoge, in addition to its focus on militarism, promoted conformity and the importance of the state over an individual's desires, wants, interests. Loyalty was to be to the school, not the boy's family.



Prussian education used some of Sparta's agoge philosophies in that Prussian education was to train a military state which placed honor of State and King above self and family.

However Prussia educated all its citizens and had a special school for the elite and the education modeled after Sparta was for the approximately 94% of Prussians (I have yet to find the social stratification percentages for Sparta), the non elite inferiors that needed to be "managed"... this is reminiscent of the management of Sparta's Helots. Both promoted compulsory education and total state obedience.


How did Prussian Education become, well, American? And how are Spartan and Prussian ideals still evident in our educational systems today? Well, that is for another post.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Nanny State -Test Them Toddlers!

As I often do, a response to a Huff Po article....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/final-race-to-the-top-guidelines_n_934493.html


To win money from the federal government's early childhood Race to the Top contest, states are encouraged to implement "kindergarten entry assessments," according to new guidelines released Tuesday by the Education Department and Health and Human Services. But U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan emphasized that the stakes won't be as high as they are for older students.

"We will never ask 3-year-olds to take bubble tests," Duncan said on a call Tuesday with reporters. "That would just be ludicrous."


Yeah? Well 2nd graders in my state used to (perhaps it is still the same...) just circle the right answer and the teachers transcribe it to a bubble test so it doesn't look like a bubble test but it is.

Assessments are one component of the $500 million Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge. States have until Oct. 19 to submit applications, which are then scored by outside reviewers -- though Duncan noted he has the authority to override the reviewers' decisions if he deems it necessary. States will vie for grants ranging from $50 to $100 million.

Who are the outside viewers? Educators? pshaw. Likely corporate bullies from textbook and testing conglomerates. Hey Arne, yeah let's accept GA's application, they mentioned the state test, other standardized assessments by the Testing company, and exclusive use of the Textbook companies texts. Yeah, they get the RTTT money. TN? No- they mentioned reading of novels, and rubric based portfolios in addition to THE text and THE test.

The $500 million competition is part of a larger $700 million package announced by the Obama administration to continue RTTT, which began as part of the stimulus package. States that lost previous rounds of RTTT, which focused on implementing Duncan's favored K-12 reforms, will be able to compete for the remaining $200 million.

"The overarching goal of the challenge is to make sure many, many more children enter kindergarten ready to succeed," Duncan said.

The Education Department worked with Health and Human Services to develop the guidelines. "We can't outcompete the rest of the world unless we can out educate the rest of the world ... unless our children get a healthy start in life," HHS chief Kathleen Sebelius said.

I'm all for smart little kiddos entering kindergarten. I worked in a school where kids had never heard the ABCs or counted or even held a crayon or pencil. They didn't know their own name, just "baby" or "mija/o" or whatever. I'm not kidding. BUT....when does it become an encouragement for the downtrodden to prepare their kids for school (a good thing) into government intrusion into our lives with progressive-style "do good" control and manipulation (a bad thing)? With the nanny state telling us how to raise our toddlers and fining us or what have you if we don't raise them how the state, the "experts" tell us to? As who knows what hair-brained ideas they will manufacture.

The assessment component of earlier draft guidelines drew criticism from early childhood experts. "Assessment is the third rail of early childhood because children develop at very different rates, young children especially," said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of National Head Start Association, an early childhood advocacy group, according to Education Week. "You have to be very careful as to what that would look like and for what purposes. It should not be for the purposes of classifying the children. It has to be observational."

Well every assessment I've encountered, and throughout history, has been for informational/observational purposes, sure, but more specifically for categorizing kids. The 100% proficient by 2014 NCLB mandate. IQ tests and vocational training/educational pathways of the past (and still kind of present). And yes toddlers all progress differently. I think of myself, I was a year or two ahead of myself by age 2 in language skills, but I could not walk. (It was found to be because of one eye being legally blind, no depth perception). But if some governme-educational guru observed me right before my diagnosis, I'd be categorized as a freak and marginalized in the system.

Duncan and his colleagues responded to that scrutiny by stressing that they are not calling for multiple choice standardized exams. "We're talking about assessment in the broad context," said Jacqueline Jones, Duncan's early learning adviser. "We want to make a distinction between specific tests and an assessment process, which is an ongoing process of collecting information about children's behavior."

Behavior? Holy moly. This goes back to my research from Ravitch to Gatto and beyond about education becoming overrun and controlled by psychologists who through Prussian, eugenic, and Progressive models, found a way to control and shape society at their will. They were there to "fix" societies ills like retardation, ADHD/"school is boring", poverty, race......

So in collecting info about children's' behavior, will we find any child that claims school is boring, or hits Billy when he stole the toy, or who challenges the teacher's knowledge etc etc....and "fix" them? What kind of behavioral information are we collecting and why? Can't we just let kids be kids and let, gasp, parents, well, parent? I know, I know, then the nanny state would lose its ever tightening grasp on us dummies, throwing their totalitarian collectivist utopia askew. I mean geez, what if a parent teaches their child about creationism or evolution (whatever the school is against), or about the Founding Fathers, or how to read without sight words, or...... helter skelter pandemonium, I tell ya...a mass of independent minded, intellectual free thinkers. Progressive Armageddon folks.

States can earn the most points -- 75 out of a possible total of 300 -- for developing systems that publicly rate early learning programs. The ratings system as well as assessments are listed as the competition's two "competitive priorities."

States need to show which early childhood plans they will implement and how they will do it, with the proposals counting for more points than states' track records. States can earn points for things like "past commitment" to early learning; spelling out a comprehensive reform plan; aligning existing services; developing and promoting a ratings system; tying education to health initiatives and enhancing personnel.

Wait, now I have to explore this....tying education to health initiatives? More big brother in our life perhaps? I'm all for health but I think we all know fresh fruit is better for you than a fried donut but darnit, if we want to eat ourselves into a diabetic coma, as wrong as that is, let us. We know better, yes.

The final criteria were posted after the agencies read over 300 comments on a draft version. Most of the changes, Jones said, involved reducing states' burdens. "We have choice built in now," she said. "Many said it was too much to do."

Officials released the early childhood criteria just as winners of the earlier RTTT competition are implementing their plans. Since receiving their money, all of the winning states have filed amendments to their education plans, seeking to delay deadlines for implementation.

Duncan said he is not changing the rules to the new competition based on states' attempts to delay using their winning funds. "This is work we're trying to get folks to do in different ways than they have for the last few decades," Duncan said. "We're much more interested in getting this right than in rushing through something that perpetuates the status quo. We're hoping that the impact on the early childhood states is as transformative as it was in the K-12 work."

Umm....how is it NOT perpetuating the status quo when it has to be "okay-ed" by the status quo?

Beverly Falk, who directs CUNY's graduate programs in early childhood education, said she's not sure $500 million is enough to make a big change. "It's not sufficient, but a very positive beginning step of reversing the underinvestment in young children and families that has been characteristic of this country for many years."

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Educational Leaders Unmasked: James Russell, Admittance ot the Dumbing Down of Education

James Earl Russell (who studied and obtained his Phd in where else but Prussia)studied under Wundt (of which I hope to delve in to at some point...) and visited many schools in Prussia and other parts of Europe. He very muchly favored the training of teachers in Prussia, as well as the way the Prussians prepared their students for their role in society. He was a professor and dean of Teachers College around the turn of the century (1800s to 1900s). He taught there for about 30 years; his ideas had to have some influence on future educators. The Teachers College as you recall featured John Dewey and Edward Thorndike (another I will delve in to at some point..) to name a few. The Teachers College was likened as the"Intellectual crossroads of the Progressive Movement". Under Russell, enrollment surged from just under 200 students to over 5,000 in twenty years.

Russell has a quote which I found quite shocking; it to me signaled the admittance of a system that created and promoted (and still promotes) the "achievement gap". I won't even give my usual commentary to the quote as it speaks volumes itself, and I have so much to say about it that I''m just going to keep mum and let the quote speak to you. Here goes,
" How can a nation endure that deliberately seeks to rouse ambitions and aspirations in the oncoming generations which in the nature of events cannot possibly be fulfilled? If the chief object of the government be to promote civic order and social stability, how can we justify our practice in schooling the masses in precisely the same manner as do those who are to be our leaders?" (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/earl-russell has some info on Russell. The quote is from Left Back by Diane Ravitch but the quote is Russell's, from a piece he wrote in 1929.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Educational Leaders Unmasked: Dewey Part II

Dewey once wrote, "The individualistic man is a victim of an unnamed form of insanity and only the collectivist man is sane."
And how might this notion affect education? I think back to my favorite influences (sarcasm here) of Prussian education and social efficiency; social efficiency educators [were] made up of an acceptance of a collective
society and a belief that an individual should be devoted to a specialized task
in society.” (see my Social Efficiency part III post) This notion is very Dewey-esque and is arguably still a practice in education.
Wikipedia states, “Dewey goes on to acknowledge that education and schooling are instrumental in creating social change and reform. He notes that “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction” (1897) )”
I take this to mean that teachers are regulators, who must “adjust” students to fit their societal mold, as the key part in “social consciousness” (that sounds so hunky-dory and reminds me of my liberal arts education in college…social consciousness was nearly de rigueur in conversation and coursework). Does this sound like the role of a teacher to you? Perhaps it does but it is not my idea of a great teacher or desirable education. I think of teachers as “facilitators” who help mold students, yes, but not to their cog and wheel place in society but rather as a mentor, encouraging the student’s passions and interests, not societies pre-set passions assigned to them.
Learning by doing- Here’s where I favor Dewey. He was against a rigidly structured curriculum and felt that children learn best by doing, that is by experimenting, theorizing, playing with their learning. Too often we see classes heavy on lecture and/or scripted curriculum which study after study shows is not the most effective method. Think back to a lesson a teacher taught you, way back in elementary. Was it scripted curriculum, or learning by doing? I recall my favorite lesson was in 6th grade World History. After studying ancient civilizations, we worked in groups to create our own civilization, our own artifacts and Rosetta Stone which we sprinkled in dirt outside the school grounds. The next week each group went and did an “archeological dig” and pieced together the other group’s civilization. I think Dewey would support such a lesson.
The school must be made into a social center capable of participating in the daily life of the community . . . and make up in part to the child for the decay of dogmatic and fixed methods of social discipline and for the loss of reverence and the influence of authority.”


"that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents,
education should be active rather than passive
; that to prepare the child for a democratic
society, the school should be social rather than individualist'
“Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper
social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the
prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.”
(just a creepy quote there...)
"the plea for the predominance of learning to read in early
school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to be a perversion." This echoes the Prussian idea of having education to educate the public just so much that they feel satiated. The people become more educated than they would be without completion of their compulsory schooling, and they are likely more desirable as a work force. However, they learn just enough but not enough to start to question the status quo. Reading well enough to function in life was what the Prussians encouraged; they feared a learned man that was a proficient reader because they were a threat to the “system”. Let the top 2-10% elitists, from their private education, rule and make decisions because they’re the experts and the common man is not and should be happy with his status. If this idea exists today in our schools (the supposed dumbing down of our schools would support such a theory) then it is time to put a stop to it. Man deserves to “be all that he can be” and deserves an elite education. Knowledge is power and frees us from the shackles of dependency, feudalism, and oppression. Reading is a great vehicle for change; many studies show that ones “level” of vocabulary is a great determinant in their success in life, and reading is a great exposure to, as I call them in the classroom, 50 cent words. If we don’t teach the importance of great literature to our children, our future generations, if we only teach them certain sight words that are in a blanched condenses and altered version of literary classics, then we are supporting “the man keeping us down”. Social stratification will continue to rear its ugly head.
founded the Progressive Education Association which promoted the seven principles to improve elementary education (of which I can only find five); 1) Child centered; education should be active rather than passive. (I must agree).2) Children should learn the contents of the activities of the children formed their own direct experience. (I somewhat agree…such an idea can go to far as is outlined in Diane Ravitch’s Language Police.) 3) "the process of teaching the course is to develop habits of mind". (Yes, we need critical thinking but do we as teachers encourage habits of the mind, or decide what those habits should be?) 4) . Dilute the authority of the conscious view of teacher. (I do like teachers as facilitators especially in the later years i.e. high school when students have a foundational knowledge. However, it seems teachers have lost authority but it has not gone to the students but rather the bureaucrats. 5) The concept of school spirit. Progressive educators believe that students should be encouraged to cooperate with the school. (I believe students should have pride in their school; however, should they blindly cooperate and idolize the school?)
Socialism- many argue that Dewey promoted socialism; you decide in his quote here; "I do not see how any honest educational reformer in western countries can deny that the greatest practical obstacle in the way of introducing into schools that connection with social life which he regards as desirable is the great part played by personal competition and desire for private profit in our economic life. This fact almost makes it necessary that in important respects school activities should be protected from social contacts and connections, instead of being organized to create them. The Russian educational situation is enough to convert one to the idea that only in a society based upon the cooperative principle can the ideals of educational reformers be adequately carried into operation."
From http://www.asis.com/stag//starchiv/transcriptions/NWO/NWO2_Education.html (and it is a valid source; I’ve seen it backed up by research but the author says it more succinctly than I);
“Under the pretext of improving teaching methods, they changed what was taught to the American children. What did Dewey believe? In his writing and teaching, Dewey rejected fixed moral laws and eternal truths and principles. He adopted pragmatic, relativistic concepts as his guiding philosophy. Denying God, he held to the Marxist concept, that man is without a soul or free will. Man is a biological organism completely molded by his environment. Dewey believed that because man’s environment is constantly changing, man also changes constantly. Therefore, Dewey concluded, teaching children any of the absolutes of morals, government or ethics was a waste of time. On this moral philosophy, amoral philosophy, he developed his teaching formula, commonly labeled Progressive Education. Dewey published a thing called My Pedagogic Creed in 1897, and in it he saw the destruction – listen to this – the destruction of the child’s individualistic traits as the primary goal of education.” The idea of ethics verses morals, and that morals are fixed but outdated or wrong, is replaced with ethics which can change by the situation at hand. This in my opinion deteriorates one’s own moral fortitude. If morals must be taught in school (I argue against it; this is the role of the family) then shouldn’t we teach moral fortitude and not arbitrary, situational ethics? Of course Dewey stated morals and ethics should both not be taught in schools and I do agree; however some ethics and morals must be part of schools or else you’d have chaos- for example, we as teachers must reiterate what we hope is taught at home; i.e. share with others, get along with others, respect your elders, respect yourself and others…
Phrenology- Dewey believed in phrenology (as did Horace Mann) which was a pseudo-science of psychology that measured the skull. More precisely, the dimensions of one’s head and the bumps on the skull were measured and often used to promote racial superiority.
A good source that summed things up much better than I did and is well worth a visit if you want to read something that reflects my perspective: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Deweys_Pragmatism_and_the_Decline_of_Education.shtml

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Social Efficiency Part II


For simplicities sake, instead of a complex multi-source literature review or article on social efficiency, I will just tackle a book/article or two per post. At some point in life I will combine all the ideas into a coherent single unit of writing but for now...some article/book reviews, my editorial opinion on them.

Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools. by Callahan, Raymond ...

"These two developments, and the vulnerability of the school administrator, contributed to the conditions in American society which explain the tremendous impact of Frederick Taylor and his system of scientific management, and the continuing influence of the business-industrial ideology upon American society and education after 1911. "

This kind of "proves" my connection of the efficiency movement to social efficiency in schools as mentioned briefly in my post on Social Efficiency Part 1.

"It was inevitable that these business values would greatly influence the public schools at the turn of the century, but the extent of this influence was furthered by certain aspects of the great reform crusade. This movement was primarily an attempt to cope with the problems which were a product of rapid industrialization: the consolidation of industry and the concentration of wealth; the ruthless exploitation of the country’s natural resources; the corruption and inefficiency in government; the tremendous growth of cities; the flood of immigrants who added to the complexity of the social and political problems in the urban areas; and finally, the fear among the middle class that America would react to these problems in an extreme or radical way (this reaction had of course been predicted by Karl Marx and had been realized, to an extent, in the growth of various forms of socialism in America)."

This again is social efficiency- with a new world of industry and corruption and many social ills the Progressive Era sought to fix, social efficiency was part of "the fix". The irony here is, the evil industrialists (according to some progressives) were the problem, and yet it seems they were also the solution, along with government control (but not supposedly inefficiency...if these progressives have any influence today, I don't see it in government since it is quite inefficient but that's another story...). The flood of immigrants was seen as a problem especially by the eugenicists (who were often proponents of Progressivism and Efficiency) who saw that they would cause racial impurity and social ills because they were inferior peoples intellectually, socially, etc and needed control. Some even proposed not just immigration sanctions but segregation and sterilization. Social efficiency would "fix" the immigrants by putting them in their place...whatever that might mean. Then quoting Marxism, the elite feared a middle class uprising. I then think, of you mold education just so, similar to the Prussian model, you can tweak the system just so, and the middle classes will be dumbed down into subservience.

"The business influence was exerted upon education in several ways: through newspapers, journals, and hooks; through speeches at educational meetings; and, more directly, through actions of school boards. It was exerted by laymen, by professional journalists, by businessmen or industrialists either individually or in groups (e.g., the National Association of Manufacturers), and finally by educators themselves. Whatever its source, the influence was exerted in the form of suggestions or demands that the schools be organized and operated in a more businesslike way and that more emphasis be placed upon a practical and immediately useful education. "

I am not exactly arguing against the influence of business in education. The deep down and dirty truth is, when people leave the safety net of schools, they go into the "real world" and end up working for businesses. Therefore businesses know what they want and we should as educators provide that. (However, I argue we provide more than just laborers, but thinkers, innovators, etc...) When does cause me hesitation as to the influence of business in education is the removal of local control, teacher freedom, bottom-up management that comes about through the implementation of business influences such as textbook and testing companies that now run our schools as if they know better. And when the author said "a practical and immediately useful education" he meant something more than that, as that sounds all fine and dandy. He and others of his movement wanted to train people just for an exact career and nothing outside of that. I argue this robs our people of free thought, will-power, freedom to do and think what they want. Knowledge is power!

"Year by year after 1900, the pressure for a more utilitarian education continued. By 1907, school superintendents were being praised by the President of the Commercial National Bank in Chicago for their contribution to America’s great material progress. As a guest speaker at their annual convention, he told them this progress was “a result of getting away, to an extent, from the mere scholastic education, and developing the practical side, making the school the place to learn how to manufacture."

Schools were not praised or encouraged to teach complex thought- the "scholastic education" as that was left to the elite private schools. Just like Prussia, our schools were to teach "how to manufacture", that is, how to do simple tasks for simple people, the common man's labors and nothing more.

"Along with these demands to make the academic program practical went an intensive campaign to introduce and extend vocational education in the public schools. Although the adoption of the German system with its early differentiation between academic students and vocational students was avoided, the drive for vocational education was quite successful."

See...here's Prussia rearing her evil head. The author claims yes, we adopted the vocational education of Prussia but not her tracking system; however, I disagree as we had and still have GATE, special ed, etc. and encourage our children to take just what they need to graduate, or, extra course work for college prep.

"Some fourteen million immigrants had come to America between 1865 and 1900. After 1900, they came at a rate of about one million a year. The majority of these people remained in the eastern cities, where their children were entered — with increasing frequency because of the improvements in child labor laws and compulsory school attendance legislation — in the public schools. Coming predominantly from the poorest socioeconomic groups in southern and eastern Europe, these uprooted, non–English-speaking children from semiliterate families with diverse cultural backgrounds constituted an educational problem unparalleled in human history...Into this difficult and potentially explosive situation an American educator — not a businessman or muckraking journalist — threw an incendiary bomb in the form of an allegedly scientific study of retardation and elimination, published in 1909, Laggards in Our Schools. The author, Leonard Ayres, said, that “for every child who is making more than normally rapid progress there are from eight to ten children making abnormally slow progress.”he held the schools responsible, charging that their programs were “fitted not to the slow child or to the average child but to the unusually bright one.”

This is the immigration issue again, that these immigrants were "retarding" our schools and social efficiency would cure this, especially since these children had to attend school because of the compulsory school law. Ayres here says something surprising, that the schools were too advanced for these students of retarded status; this makes sense upon reflection because it promotes a common school for the common man, dumbing down education.



Friday, March 18, 2011

Psst.. remember, don't teach too well, or else....

From Thomas Alexander's 1919 book "The Prussian Elementary Schools"
"Frederick
the great as many of his successors adopted the policy that it was unwise to educate the lower classes too well for he felt that it tended to make them dissatisfied with existing conditions. The king wished for the youth to be regulated according to the needs of their later occupation and position in life. By limiting their education, it was practically certain that the boys and girls of the lower classes would be compelled to follow the same occupations which their parents followed. Prussian kings had always desired that all their subjects belonging to the lower classes be educated to a certain extent and in “such a way” that they be content with their appointed lot"

And what system did we model most of our education after? Ding ding ding, correct, Prussia! And that whole achievement gap thing....this system promotes it. A free education for all, but (on purpose) not a very good one. One that brainwashes them into servitude, under the guide of a world-class education, and the idea that our friendly government is giving us an education, something many countries go without. Be careful what you wish for. And I have a feeling most educators are well-intentioned and don't even realize they're perpetuating the institutionalization of such a classist, racist, eugenic-friendly, maintain the status-quo model.... as discussed in some of my previous and forthcoming posts.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Education Leaders Unmasked: Elwood Cubberley part 2

Changing Conceptions of Education in America

By Ellwood Cubberley 1909

(Any typos are those of the transcriber not myself. Ignore formatting/font issues, but my words are always in Times New Roman 12 font, not italicized, as seen here.)


"the home altogether too often is unintelli- gent or neglectful in the handling of children, and not infrequently it has abdicated entirely and has turned over to the public school the whole matter of the training and education of the young.”

As you will see later in this post, Cubberley is promoting state takeover of children, not complaining that children are the burden of schools or what have you. Remember that Cubberley is a “pioneer” for administration, ( and who runs the school? The administration) and was Dean at Stanford, a very influential school and position. Keep this in mind as you read on… Cubberley is still referenced in teaching colleges today.

Factory life has also made it undesirable that children should labor. The result is that a boy or girl in our modern life has so little real home life, so much unprofitable leisure, and ac-quires so much through the eyes and the ears anc learns so little by actual doing, that the problem of providing a proper environment and of utiliz- ing this excess leisure time in profitable training has become one of the most serious as well as one of the most difficult problems now before us. The school, begun at first as a means of impart- ing to children the common rudiments of learn- ing, has gradually been transformed into one of the most important institutions of democracy and has been called upon to offer some practi- cable solution of the situation created. This has caused us to look at education in a new and a larger light.

I often reference John Taylor Gatto in my writings and recall reading in his book The Underground History of American Education, something along the lines of the fact that American compulsory education was a way to control people, to remove them from their own intellectual pursuits or musings or evne non-intellectual leisures and to guide young minds in a certain direction. I found this far-fetched but with Cubberley’s quote here, I begin to confirm such indications. Cubberley sees school as the end-all do-all of society, the shaper of democracy and our future, more than as a place of intellectual stimulation. Schools are to replace our failing home lives, and to replace our leisure time with profitable training.

The idea that free education was a right, and that universal education was a necessity, began to be urged and to find acceptance. The landgrants of Congress to the new states for the benefit of common schools greatly stimulated the movement. The published reports of those who

had visited Pestalozzi's school in Switzerland, and had examined the new state school system in Prussia, were extensively read. The moral and economic advantages of schools were set forth 'at length in resolutions, speeches, pamphlets," magazines, and books.

 

Free education did not come about easily. Americans were hesitant to pay taxes towards school, finding it to be one’s own decision to pursue and pay for (when it was not free). I often wonder if Americans had suspicions of the free compulsory school model, perhaps “nothing comes free” rang true in their minds, and for good reason. (Read my Prussian post http://3rseduc.blogspot.com/2011/03/to-prussia-with-love-or-prussians-are.html for more info). Here Cubberley admits our education is modeled after the Prussian state school system.

 

A new conception of free public education

as a birthright of the child on the one hand, and as an exercise of the state's inherent right to self-preservation and improvement on the other, had taken the place of the earlier conception of schools as merely a cooperative effort, based on economy, and for the instruction of youth merely in the rudiments of learning. The large immigra-

tion of illiterate Irish and clannish Germans which set in in the late forties gave particular emphasis to this point of view.

Here Cubberley is a little racist, showing his dark eugenic-friendly side of which you will read more of. He didn’t seek to educate the illiterate Irish or clannish Germans out of empathy but rather to try and either get them to conform to the racially superior Northern European societal norms of America, or to train them for menial labor.

The overwhelming success of the Prussian armies in the War of 1870 with France called new attention to the importance of public education. "The

Prussian schoolmaster has triumphed/' was as- serted on all sides.

Here again, in case one doubts my claims of our Prussian-modeled system, Cubberley cites the wonders of the Prussian education system.

In the early [eighteen]seventies, the kindergarten idea came to America from Germany, and was soon recog- nized as a valuable addition. In the eighties, the Herbartian conception of education, with its emphasis on proper psychological procedure and on character-building as the aim of education, began to reshape our educational theory.

 

One may think that this quote is benign but kindergarten is a Prussian concept. Recall the earlier quote about the home no longer being the rightful place for a child; the concept of “get them while they’re young and impressionable” prevails here. Also, I must ask, should education be a psychological function? If we are using psychological procedures in schools, that sounds to me like me are psychologically manipulating or shaping young minds instead of letting them shape themselves with some guidance. This sounds like a lighter shade of brainwashing to me. Character building has a similar function, to train children how to act because obviously the parents, church, community are not doing good enough of a job (or perhaps they are doing a job gone unchecked). I may be out on a limb here, but Mao Tse Tung re-educated the wealthy and had quite a character-building repertoire.

The new interest in school hygiene and the physical welfare of the child indicates a new and a commendable desire to care for the bodies as well as the heads of our children. The great educational lessons to be learned from a study of the educational, political, and industrial

progress of the German Empire during the past forty years are at last beginning to take root with us. Above all, the new and extensive interest in industrial and vocational training is especially significant of the changing conception of the function of the school and the classes in society which the school is in future expected to serve.

When I read John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground History of American Education, I came across Cubberley’s name and this quote which shocked me; from his 1905 Columbia dissertation, “[schools were to be factories] "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products... manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry." This quote and Cubberley’s quote above confirm to me what Gatto is trying to tell the reader: the founders of our educational system saw our children as products, not people, as slaves to the state and the corporations, to be trained to bend to the will of these powers, to indoctrinate.

 

school curriculum bids fair, too, to experi- ence many modifications during the next one or two decades, and chiefly along a line that will lead toward preparation for increased social efficiency.

Social efficiency related to eugenics movement and the Progressive movement’s Efficiency Movement which “played a central role in the Progressive Era in the United States, where it flourished 1890-1932.[4] Adherents argued that all aspects of the economy, society and government were riddled with waste and inefficiency. Everything would be better if experts identified the problems and fixed them” (wikipedia). Eugenics was a scientific approach to improving social efficiency, seeking to solve the ills of poverty, alcoholism, feeble-mindedness, etc often through not just education but sterilization. Therefore, when curriculum is designed for social efficiency, it makes one leery. Wikipedia states, in regards to curriculum theory- specifically the social efficiency theory of Franklin Bobbitt, Edward Ross, Cubberley and others, “these theorists believed that society could be controlled. Students would be scientifically evaluated (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their predicted role in society”. Yes, it has been stated: education according to Cubberly (among others) is to manage society. I further this idea below,

Our city schools will soon be forced to give up the exceedingly democratic idea that all are equal, and that our society is devoid of classes, as a few cities have already in large part done, and to be-

gin a specialization of educational effort along many new lines in an attempt better to adapt the school to the needs of these many classes in the city life. City, town, and country schools alike have, in the past, directed most of their training to satisfying the needs of the children of the well- to-do classes, and those headed for business life

or the professions. More recently, most of the larger cities have provided some form of work leading to preparation for the executive positions in technical pursuits.

If we remove the notion that we are all equal, we can more easily segregate the populous. Cubberley prescribes to the notion that our society should marginalize people and when you combine this notion with that of standardized achievement testing, you have the recipe for ability, class, or ethnicity based schooling, proving the eugenic “science” that “less thans” are exactly that, because we create a society where they can be nothing but “less thans”. Cubberley also admits here that certain schools of his time have already implemented a social efficiency curriculum, where children are pre-destined for greatness or not-so-greatness and the educational institutions ensure the progression of these pre-assigned roles. Cubberly bashes the notion of an academically challenging education for all as once existed, and promotes ability-based learning/role training. http://ezinearticles.com/?Social-Efficiency-versus-Democratic-Equality&id=175582 explores social efficiency further, and argues that schools often implement the social efficienct model for minority students- no wonder we have an achievement gap!

 

Instead of a study of school methods and management only, the work has

changed into a phase of political science, — that of a study of means of improving the state and of advancing the public welfare. Nearly all of our universities and colleges now have such chairs or

departments, and the state universities and our more democratic private institutions are now or- ganizing professional schools for the training of teachers and educational leaders for the state.

Cubberley is stating that teacher colleges ensure that their professors and department chairs practice the social efficiency model of education; if teacher colleges encourage these practices, that means the teachers they train further this model.


Each year the child is coming to belong more and more to the state,

and less and less to the parent. In all that relates to proper care, kindness, education, and advan- tages, the child belongs to the parent; but when neglect, abuse, and the deprivation of the child of any natural right takes place, the child belongs to the state. The right to reasonably good treatment, proper care, an education, pro- tection from vice, and protection from labor be- yond his strength and years, the state will soon guarantee. The plea in defense that " the child is my child " will not be accepted much longer by society. Our future welfare is too thoroughly in the keeping of the child to permit of such a policy.

This quote is demonstrating the will of Cubberly and like minds to control the child, to remove the power of parenting from the parents and replace it with that of the school. One must wonder if programs such as the school lunch program, school health screenings, and other school welfare programs exist purely to help those in need or if they exist as a way to have the school “keep the child” and promote state welfare under the social efficiency model- leaving parenting to the scientifically-trained experts (teacher-college trained teachers) and way from those who are not the experts (parents).

through all the complicated machinery of the school, some way must be found to awaken a social consciousness as opposed to class consciousness, to bring out the important social and civic les-

sons, to point out our social and civic needs, and to teach our young people how to live better and to make better use of their leisure time.Read- ing, Writing, Arithmetic, Grammar, Geography, and History, the staples of the elementary cur- riculum, are really of little value except as they are closely related with the needs and problems

of our social, civic, and industrial life.

Cubberly argues that school is to awaken a social consciousness, to be conscious of the greater good and welfare of the collective instead of one’s own needs or desires. Schools must teach children what to do with their lives and how to do it because only the experts know what’s good for you. Core curriculum is not important per se, but it must be framed around the idea of social responsibility and pre-determined societal roles as determined by the “experts”.

If our schools are to become more effective social institutions, our teachers must become more effective social workers.

Again, the notion that schools and the properly trained teacher are to encourage social welfare. When the term “social worker” is used, I think of the worker helping people that need “intervention” and that’s the point.

The overeducated man is scarcely possible if an education adapted to his needs and station in life is given him. The work of public education is with us, too, to a large de- gree, a piece of religious work. To engage in it is to enlist in the nation's service. Its call is for those who would dedicate themselves in a noble way. Those who would serve must be of the world, with red blood in their veins ; they must

know the world, its needs, and its problems ; they must have largeness of vision, and the courage to do and to dare ; and they must train the youth with whom they come in contact for useful and efficient action.

Mirroring the Prussian system, everyone gets a free compulsory education but only is trained and educated to a point, so not to be “too educated”. Too much education could challenge the status quo and educating someone of the lower class would be seen as a waste of time and effort because science proves they are less-than. Cubberley encourages a tracking system in education, where roles are determined and never challenged. He calls upon teachers with such emotionally charged buzz words as “blood in their veins”, “dare”, “vision”, “useful”, and “action”; the propagandized words seek to further the agenda under the utopian pretext of passion and a desire to solve the world’s problems.

Changing Conceptions of Education in America can be found at http://www.archive.org/stream/changingconcepti00cubbuoft/changingconcepti00cubbuoft_djvu.txt

Friday, March 11, 2011

Tracking Students

Giftedness and gifted education (GATE) is thought of as a positive educational model, differentiating instruction for our “advanced” students. I even once praised GATE programs, recalling my own experiences in school where I was bored by the “regular” education I was receiving, yearning for more “advancement”.

However, after doing some research, I came to a conclusion that begs to ask, “Why can’t all students receive a GATE-style education?”

Also, I began to find that GATE and other tracking programs further marginalize and label our children, and it is not by coincidence.

Tracking students is frowned upon in the current educational climate, yet we track all the time through “GATE” or “Special Ed”. We don’t call the groups the “smart kids” or “slow kids” as we once did, but the students know what track they are on and know if they’re “smart” or “slow”.

But who could argue that teaching “advanced” kids “advanced” lessons is a bad thing? Or of teaching a learning disabled child “at their level” being a bad thing? Differentiation is a key term in education today, and it can mean teaching each child to their interest but it can also mean teaching each child to their ability. But who decided their ability? And isn’t deciding their ability based on some arbitrary means such as a standardized test ludicrous? (But that is the point….) What if a “special ed” student wants more from their life than a “life skills track”? Labeling them for life puts them in a “dumbed down” educational program where yes, they will meet expectations- the slow kids will continue to be slow, and the GATE kids will continue to be advanced because that is what is expected of them, the system is built to support, almost force, that they stay confined to their label. Students internalize this and it creates contention among student groups, and if you wonder why the achievement gap exists, this is one of the reasons- we perpetuate it by tracking and labeling students and confining them to certain academic roles.

And this is all on purpose, with origins from Prussia, the IQ testing/standardized testing movement, and the eugenics movement.

One test to unite us all…one test to determine our future...and who to thank? One key person is Lewis Terman….

Monday, March 7, 2011

To Prussia With Love **or** The Prussians are Coming!


I was going to post this post but... I want to publish my own book and think this is my intro. But to entice you....

The right to vote means you can choose to vote or not. The right to bear arms means you can choose to bear arms or not. The right to practice religion doesn’t mean you have to practice religion, and you can choose the religion you wish to practice. The right to free education means you…are forced by law to attend school to at least 16 years of age. Where did the right to choose (schooling) go?

Compulsory Education and Prussia “took” that right....

(and another excerpt...)

Prussian education was a liberal reform movement set up to prepare students for their industrialized careers, and to instill loyalty to the national government, through schools called volkschulen .

The main tenets of Prussian education (volkschulen) were:

1) mandatory attendance

2) specific training for teachers

3) tax-funded education

4) national testing for all students

5) national curriculum

6) mandatory kindergarten

7) Prescribed reading instruction



more to come when I write my book!

Thursday, February 17, 2011

A paper I wrote about one of my education heros

Who is John Taylor Gatto?

A “controversial educator” would sum Gatto up in one brief sentence. He was a teacher for 30 years (working mostly with New York’s inner city youth) and New York teacher of the year in 1991, the very same year he resigned because, for one thing, he was tired of students being labeled and categorized, often placed into a role of failure. He is likely most known for his research on the history of education and his promotion of the “unschooling” movement; schooling is why he left the classroom in the first place.

Gatto has researched the history of American education and concluded, through serious research, that education and schooling are two different things. Education is knowledge and learning, but schooling is not. George Washington, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and Abe Lincoln were highly intelligent, educated men, but they were not schooled- they had not attended thirteen years of compulsory education and yet, they weren’t dumb. Gatto reflects the same perspective of schooling as many students and even some teachers do- boring- and he sought to find out why. Our current educational model is based off the Prussian education model that Gatto says, “is deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens- all in order to render the popular manageable” (Gatto, 2009). The Prussian system advocated that the “top” five percent of peoples go to private school to learn management and problem solving and the remaining ninety-five percent go to public schools to learn rudimentary literacy, obedience, and cooperation. This, to me, sounds similar to our ranking of students based on IQ (if you’re above the 95th percentile, you’re eligible for GATE) and test scores (proficient, advanced, etc) but I digress.

Therefore, his “unschooling” movement seeks to reverse the Prussian model of education which is often seen in the home-schooling movement. Unschooling focuses on the child, with learning centered on a child’s play, responsibilities, and experiences- a sort of self-directed education, very much like the education- not the schooling- of aforementioned “geniuses” such as Lincoln or Twain. Such a movement allows for differentiation, different learning styles and developmental differences. It is argued that the unschooled student learns to learn by doing, and learns great amounts through self-motivation.

But on to more pressing issues and how Gatto has been a change agent for curriculum! Gatto won New York City teacher of the year all three years prior to winning State, and it was not because of his radical research or unschooling, but on his radical curriculum inside the classroom. After resigning, he has continued to influence curriculum through the Bartleby project which will be mentioned later, as well as the already mentioned unschooling movement that has him traveling the nation speaking in symposiums to home-schoolers, educators, university students, the media, and so on.

“Camino Del Santiago” Field and/or Guerilla Curriculum

The Camino Del Santiago is a Spanish pilgrimage where the journey is more important than the destination, where people estranged by the pressures of modern life walk the road of pilgrimage to find themselves, be self-reliant, and enjoy nature, culture, history. Such a pilgrimage inspired Gatto to implement a related method in his own middle-school classroom.

With parental permission, Gatto’s students (who lived in the infamous Harlem borough known for high drop out rates, crime, and poverty) journeyed in small groups around their neighborhoods of New York City, but it was more than just walking…they discovered, classified, compared, examined, analyzed what they saw- utilizing Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-level thinking skills. The students chose what they wanted to do (teacher approved) and went out on their own. “Their own? How dangerous!” you may exclaim, but as Gatto puts it, adolescence is more a coined term than anything real; his students were capable of great things if challenged. He wanted his students to explore the “real” world of working adults which exists outside the classroom. He provided some structure, taking on the role of facilitator, but the success or failure of the students’ ventures were in their very own hands, in their control. They could take some control and accountability in their education. This field curriculum, or guerrilla curriculum, ruled Gatto’s classroom for five years, earning him the four said teaching awards in the process.

His students explored their neighborhoods, the world, and their education and reported back to the class. Students chose to map business districts, construct neighborhood profiles based on architecture, speech, and commercialism, explore police headquarters, compare, review and map pizza parlors and their clientele, record the life experiences of the homeless… all this was discovered by research, interviews, and personal experiences. Students compiled their knowledge into guides, pamphlets, and speeches that were at a higher level than many would have expected of inner-city thirteen year olds. In fact, some of his students helped develop talking job dictionaries for the blind and others worked with Gatto to write musicals. These students that were a mix of all students but consisted primarily of low-SES, low-test scoring students, often looked down upon as failures, yet they had a natural proclivity to learning when it extended beyond the textbook and beyond perennial style- education. Gatto found what interested his students and “ran with it”; instead of denying past experiences, emotions, passions, and cultures, Gatto allowed these to drive his curriculum. The often heard student complains of “do we have to do work today?” “this is boring…this is hard” and “when is class over” disappeared as students found joy in hard work- yes, hard work, because they were motivated and engaged, and they felt safe to take academic risks and challenge themselves. In fact, these very 130-some students engaged in 30,000 hours of community service in just one year!

Of course, any “exact” prescription for Gatto’s curriculum (such as there is for Reading First, Prentice Hall, etc) cannot be reported upon, as one must attend one of his symposiums to learn more information. However, I argue that you don’t need much more information after reading a few of his books, articles, or speeches as it is common sense. He does, however, lay out a few key points to a good curriculum/education.

  1. Community service- not necessarily picking up trash (although it can be that if that is your interest, such as environmental stewardship) but job shadowing and apprenticeship, and for more than one hour or one day. Don’t just volunteer your time and forget about it- reflect upon it.
  2. Independent study- not necessarily home schooling, but more self-directed study. Gatto cites one of his students that wanted a role on “General Hospital” and it took him all year to reach his goal, but in the mean time he spent countless hours studying theater history, acting, lighting, advertising, and how theater related to psychology, sociology, and history.
  3. Field Curriculum- as mentioned, it is an educational pilgrimage. To cite more student examples, some studied how to economically furnish a small Manhattan apartment down to the toothpicks and toilet paper, by tallying costs including tax, conducting interviews, and designing symbolic blueprints of their finished project. Another project included analyzing the commercial community of a 50-block area and the part-time job offerings and requirements it featured.
  4. Parent partnerships- the family has a right to “write” some of their child’s own curriculum.
  5. Work study- Gatto’s students became innovators and entrepreneurs (and yours can, too) and school time can be replaced by work time if the goal is a self-initiated business more than a way to make money. One of Gatto’s students made $600 selling home-made, self-illustrated comic stationary, another worked with the elderly to pedal homemade crafts of the streets, profits benefiting the elderly craftspeople themselves.
  6. Solitude and self-reliance- Gatto feels school removes private time and space from children and that at-home media does the same. Learning to become introspective, a self-directed learner, and to make your own decisions is a great skill that we seem to be losing. To quote Gatto in his acceptance for the New York City teacher of the year, “Right now we are taking all the time from our children that they need to develop self-knowledge. That has to stop. We have to invent school experiences that give a lot of that time back; we need to trust children from a very early age with independent study, perhaps arranged in school but which takes place away from the institutional setting. We need to invent curriculum where each kid has a chance to develop private uniqueness and self-reliance”(Gatto, 1990).

All of Gatto’s key concepts culminate in some form of product- through a written, verbal, and visual record. This makes it meaningful, educational, and a shared experience.

While most public schools have yet to adopt Gatto’s “guerilla curriculum”, many home schools have, and home schooling is a valid form of education, especially as home schooling rates increase- there were an estimated 1.5 million home schooled students in America in 2007 alone, up 400,000 students just six years earlier, which was triple what it was ten years prior. Gatto proposes how to rid of the nonchalant attitude and disconnectedness of today’s students and the related problems with education; “First we need a ferocious national debate that doesn't quit, day after day, year after year. We need to scream and argue about this school thing until it is fixed or broken beyond repair, one or the other. If we can fix it, fine; if we cannot, then the success of home schooling shows a different road to take that has great promise” (Gatto 1990).

Gatto’s writings have influenced how and what I teach, so he is not just a home schooling curriculum change agent but, minutely, public school. His research on education has given me a new perspective on how to teach, integrated with his guerilla curriculum. I would have never thought of reading “Freedom Writers Diary” with a class of 9th graders I had a few years past, and I would have just gone down the usual road of complaining to my co-workers in the staff lounge, that these students were un-motivated, more interested in “thuggery” than education. Instead, I saw many students light up inside and become interested in the book and relate it to their own lives. They each wrote a “diary” excerpt of their own; some chose to remain anonymous (to grade them, they’d show me they had written something, see, the page is typed but there’s no name, and bury it in my pile to edit after I’d checked off yes, they turned it in) and others proudly put their name on it. I had one student who had been from school to school, home to home, and carried a reputation and yet she told me her tragic life story and came into my office every day at lunch with a newly edited copy for me to review. When she found out I would not be her 10th grade English teacher, she was quite despondent. Another student who had left our school at the end of the year came back one day to visit and told her accompanying friend “this is the teacher that let us talk about stuff...about my homies dying and racist teachers and things”, as she handed me a drawing that said “I love you and miss you”. I cannot say that my teaching of Freedom Writers was exactly guerilla curriculum as it did not integrate many of the components, but it was my version of “getting my feet wet” in such a style of curriculum, one where I saw student interest (the complaint of them wanting to just listen to rap, ditch class, and graffiti their desks) and turning it positive. I saw them for who they were and where they’d been and used it to frame an intensive writing unit. That was the only assignment I had where one hundred percent of students turned something in- the usual turn in rate hovered around twenty percent.

Educational Justice and Cultural Proficiency

Gatto argues that elitist schools, mainly private schools, integrate field curriculum, self-reliance, and apprenticeship more often than public schools, but that all students can and should be taught this way. “What's sauce for the rich and powerful is surely sauce for the rest of us - what is more, the idea is absolutely free as are all other genuine reform ideas in education” (Gatto, 1990). Justice is a pillar of elitist schools as it should be for all schools. Gatto recalls that many of his students came back years later and thanked him for his guerilla curriculum, that that just one experience of helping others allowed them to re-think their lives, goals, and values. Best of all, Gatto’s program was free, and effective with his students which represented all incomes, races, and abilities. To find such programs in other schools before Gatto’s time, one would have to look primarily into expensive programs that generally were provided for in well-to-do areas. His idea of giving students choices and opportunities saw past any racial, class, or ability boundaries and saw all students as able to succeed.

I cannot find a direct, solid example of cultural proficiency in Gatto’s curriculum, except that it encourages students to explore and analyze their neighborhoods which certainly mean they encounter different cultures and learn to appreciate diversity. Also, his students exist in a safe environment where all can succeed, so no prejudices would be allowed. I do find that in Gatto’s research on the history of education, that he is vehemently against racism, classism, and ableism.

Without delving too deep into it as he has, I can say that Gatto has found that many “fathers” of education and psychology believed that human beings were to be molded and shaped into products, which relates to the need to control “inferior breeding stocks” through such methods such as eugenics- the breeding out, or control, of people that are “less than” – those with disabilities or those that were not Caucasian, as other races were thought of as intellectually inferior. Gatto argues that school sets to control “inferiors”, uniting eugenics and education. For example, G Stanley Hall (who invented educational psychology and coined the term and idea of adolescence) studied under educational guru John Dewey and was a proud follower of racial and gender-based eugenics.

More currently, I can’t help but think of the achievement gap and Gatto proposes the notion that eugenics, tracking and labeling of students, and test scores are promoting this gap. The achievement gap could be the direct result of our educational system. In 1940, national literacy rates were ninety six percent (all races combined), but by 2000 the NAEP reported a forty percent illiteracy rate among blacks (Gatto, 2009). In the well-known book The Bell Curve the author claimed such an achievement gap was based on the result of selective breeding, and that non-whites were less intelligent than whites.

To even go further, standardized testing, Gatto argues, perpetuates racism and classism even further, not just by labeling students and the humiliation thereof, but by the ideas behind the test in the first place. The first Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-1, which eventually became the SAT-9 which was the model for the CAT-6 in California) was authored by Lewis Terman, a member of the US Eugenics Society, author of other exams such as the Stanford IQ test, professor of educational psychology, and principal of a school in San Bernardino in the early 1900s. The “inventor” of IQ tests (which correlate well with SAT-9 tests) is quoted as having written, ““High-grade or border-line deficiency… is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come… Children of this group should be segregated into separate classes… They cannot master abstractions but they can often be made into efficient workers… from a eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific breeding” (The Measurement of Intelligence, 1916, p. 91-92) And yet we use versions of his tests today, all which in his day, “proved” inferiority. In fact, the first SAT had questions ranked by when they occurred in the exam (and thus ranking “intelligence), in one section number one asked, “is milk white?” and number 94, “the most expensive carpet is….” Gatto and myself included, see that this sets up automatic classism and racism. Few low-SES students or minorities of their time could answer the carpet question, rendering them “dumber” than their wealthy white classmates. Of course our SAT tests are not as blatant now, but questions still arise as to their bias. But Gatto has a solution to this, one that is still in conception.

The Bartleby Project

In Gatto’s book “Weapons of Mass Instruction” Gatto proposes a revolutionary idea that challenges, in fact, tears down practices of current curriculum today under NCLB. Formally announced to an audience of Harvard Education students in 2008, it proposes in one simple statement, “I prefer not to take your test” that test being any standardized or IQ exam. No riots, no violence, just a simple refusal. Gatto says, to one’s own fears, you will not be refused acceptance at college because college is a business and they want your money regardless. And besides, at least in California, parents can ask to exempt their child from the STAR/CST (once called SAT-9 and CAT-6), but educators are not allowed to tell them this. The Bartleby Project “invites” 600,000 American students to peacefully refuse to take these tests or participate in any preparation for them. While it has not reached 600,000 (as that would certainly be in the news), the Bartleby Project has youtube, facebook, and blog pages so it is reaching some of our youth and when and if it does reach the participant goal, I feel it will affect our curriculum. Even if little is done to stop standardized testing, it will perhaps make the public aware of how testing and many curriculums do not promote educational justice.

Conclusion

Gatto may not have been as well-known of a change agent as Erin Gruwell of Freedom Writers, or Howard Gardner, founder of the multiple intelligences theory. However, I feel his work is more underground because it is so avant-garde, and because it is based more in the home-schooling movement, which media and public education circles tend to ignore. I do feel everyone involved in curriculum should read some of his work as it gets you thinking about the status-quo of education, and how to reflect upon the curriculum you teach, to ask if you are serving all students equitably, and giving them the best chance at the best education possible.

.

Gatto, J.T. (2009). Weapons of Mass Instruction. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC.

Gatto, J.T. (2000). The Underground History of American Education. Oxford Village Press, New York

http://www.spinningloe.net/carnegiehall.htm

http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22425/22425-h/22425-h.htm