Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Friday, October 7, 2011

Eugenics, Racism, and the Progressives

Sometimes I find tidbits of research I like sharing. Yep. Another cut-and-paste blog entry...sorry. And it relates to education since all are part of our educational model but ehhh.... I will at some nebulous point (aka "when I write my book") connect it to education and actually compose a well written bit without cut-and-paste mania.

from Eugenics and Economics in the
Progressive Era
Thomas C. Leonard ....

They justified racebased
immigration restriction as a remedy for “race suicide,” a Progressive Era term
for the process by which racially superior stock (“natives”) is outbred by a more
prolific, but racially inferior stock (immigrants). The term “race suicide” is often
attributed to Edward A. Ross

“The theory that races are virtually equal in
capacity leads to such monumental follies as lining the valleys of the South with the
bones of half a million picked whites in order to improve the conditions of four
million unpicked blacks.”

“every improvement . . . increases the amount of the deficiencies which
the laboring classes may possess without their being thereby overcome in the
struggle for subsistence that the survival of the ignorant brings upon society.”
In response, Patten ultimately argued for the state taking over the task of
selecting the fittest—eugenics. “Social progress is a higher law than equality,”
Patten (1899, pp. 302–303) volunteered, and the only way to progress was the
“eradication of the vicious and inefficient.”

Ross, Patten, Fetter and Farnam all saw higher living standards and Progressive
Era reforms less as a victory for social justice than as an impediment to Darwinian
weeding out. Their response was not to argue against reform, as might a social
Darwinist, but to advocate for eugenics, the substitution of state selection for
natural selection of the fittest.

Like Fisher, Ross, Patten, Fetter and Farnam, Walker endorsed eugenic policies.
“We must strain out of the blood of the race more of the taint inherited from
a bad and vicious past,” Walker (1899, p. 469) proposed, “before we can eliminate
poverty, much more pauperism, from our social life. The scientific treatment which
is applied to physical diseases must be extended to mental and moral disease, and
a wholesome surgery and cautery must be enforced by the whole power of the state
for the good of all.”

“Democracy and opportunity
[are] increasing the mediocre and reducing the excellent strains of stock . . . .
Progress is threatened unless social institutions can be so adjusted as to reverse this
process of multiplying the poorest, and of extinguishing the most capable families.”
Eugenic policies would introduce, Fetter argued, “an element of rational direction
into the process of perpetuating the race . . . .”

However, the progressive economists also
believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it
212 Journal of Economic Perspectives
performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.”
Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897 [1920], p. 785) put it plainly: “With regard to
certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not
a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.”

olumbia’s Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist who served
as president of the AEA in 1922, provides an example. Worthy wage-earners, Seager
(1913a, p. 12) argued, need protection from the “wearing competition of the casual
worker and the drifter” and from the other “unemployable” who unfairly drag
down the wages of more deserving workers (1913b, pp. 82–83). The minimum
wage protects deserving workers from the competition of the unfit by making it
illegal to work for less.

For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the
unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their
jobs.

“Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly
and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and
unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.” A. B. Wolfe (1917,
p. 278), an American progressive economist who would later become president of
the AEA in 1943, also argued for the eugenic virtues of removing from employment
those who “are a burden on society.”

Eugenics found advocates whose ideologies spanned the entire political spectrum.
The eugenics movement attracted some reactionaries and conservatives.
Leading eugenicists, such as Francis Galton and Charles Davenport, director of the
Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, can be described as
social conservatives. But others, such as Karl Pearson, were socialists. Eugenics won
many advocates on the left, such as birth control advocate Margaret Sanger, who
began intellectual life as a radical anarchist. Fabian socialists such as Sidney Webb,
George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells were eugenicists, as were Harold Laski and
John Maynard Keynes (Paul, 1984). The Marxist economist Scott Nearing (1912)
and the feminist economist Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1900) also embraced
eugenics.
Many biologists were drawn to eugenics. For example, David Starr Jordan,
president of Stanford, was a tireless advocate of the eugenic idea that “the blood of
nation determines its history,” as was Harvard geneticist and eugenicist E.M. East

Eugenic ideas were not new in the Progressive Era, but they acquired new
impetus with the Progressive Era advent of a more expansive government. In effect,
the expansion of state power meant that it became possible to have not only
eugenic thought, but also eugenic practice. As eugenics historian Diane Paul (1995,
p. 6) writes, eugenics legislation had to await “the rise of the welfare state.”

to the solution of the problem.”
Progressive opposition to laissez faire was motivated by a set of deep intellectual
commitments regarding the relationship between social science, social scientific
expertise and right governance. The progressives were committed to 1) the
explanatory power of scientific (especially statistical) social inquiry to get at the root
causes of social and economic problems; 2) the legitimacy of social control, which
derives from a holist conception of society as prior to and greater than the sum of
its constituent individuals; 3) the efficacy of social control via expert management
of public administration; where 4) expertise is both sufficient and necessary for the
task of wise public administration.

The legitimacy of social control meant, in practice, the legitimacy of state
control. For progressives, the legitimacy of state control derived from their conception
of the state as an entity prior to and greater than the sum of its constituent
individuals, a conception that opposed the traditional liberal emphasis on individual
freedom and the liberal view that the state’s legitimacy derives solely from the
consent of its individual creators. Lester Ward devised the term “sociocracy” to
describe the “scientific control of the social forces by the collective mind of society”

politics. As one widely read eugenics
text put it: “[G]overnment and social control are in the hands of expert politicians
who have power, instead of expert technologists who have wisdom. There should be
technologists in control of every field of human need and desire”

[O]nce we
admit that it is proper for the instructed classes to give tuition to the uninstructed,
we begin to see an almost boundless vista for possible human betterment.”

Popenoe and Johnson
argued for legislation that would abolish child labor and provide education for all
children, quintessentially progressive policies. But compulsory education and child
labor bans, for Popenoe and Johnson, were desirable because the unfit poor would
be unable to put their children to work and thus would have fewer children, a
eugenic goal.





Saturday, March 26, 2011

Testing Kills Learning...The SAT and ETS

As a teacher, I must say test-prep and the focus on standardized tests "kills" learning. The world is not in A,B,C,D format and such learning is not innovative, creative, "high level thinking".
The creator of the original SAT college entrance exam, Carl Bringham, was a eugenicist, arguing that immigration should be limited especially to non-Nordic Europeans because they were supposedly intellectually inferior. He proved this through tests given to prove intelligence in army men; his tests were biased and included many popular culture referenced question which recent immigrants would likely not know, and thus they were deemed inferior. In fact he had a key role in immigration quotas especially ones against the "Mediterraeans" including the Jews, during the1930s. He then had a change of heart, but it was too late; the quotas were in place for quite some time. Oh, and he was the first President of ETS.

While I don't agree with Brigham's racist ideas, he once said something I must agree with; perhaps he had a moment of lucidity as to what the future cold hold once it embraced his exams; "If the unhappy day ever comes when teachers point their students toward these newer examinations, and the present weak and restricted procedures get a grip on education, then we may look for the inevitable distortion of education in terms of tests. And that means that mathematics will continue to be completely departmentalized and broken into disintegrated bits, that the sciences will become highly verbalized and that computation, manipulation and thinking in terms other than verbal will be minimized, that languages will be taught for linguistic skills only without reference to literary values, that English will be taught for reading alone, and that practice and drill in the writing of English will disappear."

Presidential hopeful Ralph Nader attacked ETS in 1979 saying theo nly thing ETS hadn't tried was to "test for admission into heaven" and that the SAT predicted college performance about as well as a pair of dice.

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

Education Leaders Unmasked: Elwood Cubberley part 1

Ellwood Cubberley (1868-1941) was a superintendent, professor at Stanford and Columbia, an author, editor, educator, “pioneer” in the educational administration field, and a man who saw education as an instrument of social engineering. Wikipedia states, “Some academicians have used Cubberley's methodology as a cautionary tale and termed his approach anachronistic and evangelistic, and some of his administration stances have been attacked as sexist and autocratic.” And I’d have to agree.

Here’s why… in his book, Changing Conceptions of Education in America he wrote, "southern and eastern Europeans have served to dilute tremendously our national stock, and to corrupt our civil life.. . . Everywhere these people tend to settle in groups or settlements, and to set up here their national manners, customs, and observances. Our task is to break up these groups or settlements, to assimilate and amalgamate these people as a part of our American race and to implant in their children. . . the Anglo-Saxon conception of righteousness, law and order, and popular government. . ." Sounds a little racist/ethnocentric to me, as seemed to be the trend of educational “pioneers” of his time.

He saw that there was no “science” behind educational administration and a lack of training so he sought to bring both to the field of education. This seems to echo Prussian education and the progressive want to input “science” (often bogus statistics) into the practice of psychology and education.

As a student he enrolled in a course with professor David Starr Jordan, a prominent eugenicist. Cubberley was so in awe of Starr’s evolution course that he later made it a mandatory course for education students at Stanford.

In 1896, Cubberley was Superintendent of San Diego schools, where he implemented his belief that administration (that being Cubberley) should have autonomy over the school board, and that administration should not be decided by the boar but rather by administration (himself).

In 1899 he was appointed a professorship at Stanford as well as the position of the Head of the Education department. Starr gifted Cubberley a permanent position as long as he could make education respectable, or else it be abolished, of which he must have been successful because in 1917, after many years teaching, he was granted the position of the very first Dean of a new school within Stanford, the school of education.

Between 1899 and 1917, Cubberley took leave of Stanford to attend Teachers College, Columbia University to obtain an MA and PhD in school administration. While at Columbia, he found great interest in the educational tide of the time, that being the “science” behind education. In 1909 he wrote an essay, Changing Conceptions of Education in which it states many things which I will post in my next, quite lengthy, post, along with my editorial rebuttal.

Cubberley sought to shape schools in the “Teutonic” style, believing (as you will read in my next post) in racial superiority of Northern Europeans over other Europeans.

(A quick side note, Cubberley was editor of Houghton Mifflin's Riverside Textbooks in Education. (If you’ve read some of my posts I do have a bias against Houghton Mifflin, I admit to it. So having a racist man, who believed in social engineering, edit textbooks does not surprise me.) Riverside Publishing is all gugn-ho about common core standards, and the ARRA. Oh and Houghton Mifflin/Riverside was publisher of the first Stanford-Binet tests by who other than Lewis Terman, and has published any other standardized tests. Their president, Richard Swartz, was president of ETS, the company publishing most standardized exams. )
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/cubberley-ellwood-patterson#ixzz1Gbu9Dqqq

And read my next post about Changing Conceptions of Education in America