Sayonara

This will be my last post on this blog. It has been an interesting venture, but I need to invest my time in better things. I will continue writing about education, but on a different site, to which I will NOT provide a link from this site.

I have had a few months to reflect on why I should make this change. Educators consider this a worthwhile practice, reflecting on and crystallizing what we have learned from a given experience. I can summarize what I learned and why I will not continue to blog here in three topics: Those I hoped to speak to; Those who responded; My essential message.

Those I had hoped to speak to

1. Parents who were not certain they were doing the best thing for their chidlren by sending down the street to look for a yellow bus every day, but needed someone with credentials to provoke them to stop and think hard about this.
2. Teachers who still have a glimmer of hope that there is an option for educating children without the bureaucracy, political correctness, and sense of inefficacy which accompany public school teaching.
3. People who have already seen these problems intuitively, but needed someone to help them articulate why they have ambivalent feelings toward public schools in America.

Those who responded

1. The "Choir" (those who already know and agree with the things I am saying).
2. People who have had a bad experience with private education, and have an ax to grind.
3. Folks in need of the eighth grade Formal Logic class I used to teach (with which most eighth graders have no problem).

Since one must assume there are readers who did not post responses, I have no idea whether I reached any of the folks in the three target groups. But I have learned enough over the past year to have a pretty good idea how I can locate them more effectively.

And now, in parting, here is my essential message about education in the United States:

1. Parents are the first and best educators. They should continually be educating themselves so that they may educate their children. If they decide to entrust their children to an outside educational choice, they should investigate it carefully and hold it accountable.

2. The United States Constitution is silent about education, as it should be, since free adults can make these decisions without government control or expense.

3. There are courageous Americans who are providing quality education in their own homes and in schools of choice. These are national treasures.

4. An education is only as valid as the truth assumptions on which it is built. Most public educators are woefully unprepared (through little fault of their own) to confront truth claims and make responsible decisions. No one holds them accountable for faulty thinking, unless they are so unwise as to make politically unacceptable remarks.

5. Educating chldren should not be "rocket science," but every day in this country there are more follies committed in the name of education than one blog can record. What generally results when these follies are exposed is a lot of finger-pointing, and very little personal involvement in helping a child learn - without "dumbing it down."

Picture a wide-eyed child on the threshhold of a world teeming with adventure and excitement. Erase, from that world, all the busses, buildings, and bureaucracy dedicated to "education." Take the child's hand and walk into the world. Welcome the adventure that Aslan has prepared.

"Higher" Education, Part One

Today I'm passing on to you a thoughtful column by a favorite writer on the current state of "higher" education in the U.S. More to come in future days...


Costly Lessons and a Problem that is Getting Worse, not Better

By David L Bahnsen on October 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Vedder is one of the finest economists in America. More specifically, he is an economic historian, a respected academic, and an important contributor to the dialogue on higher education in our country. In the most recent issue of National Review he wrote a crucially important article on the utter disaster that is our under-graduate education system (unfortunately, it is only available online to subscribers of the magazine). A few points need to be made …

Dr. Vedder begins by pointing out that the only other area in American society that have seen the kind of price inflation that college tuition has seen over the last generation is, well, health care. It is no coincidence to this economist that the only two areas that successfully separate the person paying the bill from the person receiving the good or service are the two areas with the highest price inflation. Neither the consumer nor the producer pays the bills, leaving resources to be allocated ever so inefficiently. College universities are “non-profit institutions”, begging them to add to this inefficiency. They have no profit motive to cut costs, and no profit motive to increase revenues. Shockingly, the only criteria available for how well they are doing comes from the U.S. News and World Report, which bases its analysis on how many “customers” they turn away (the alleged selectivity of who gets into various university programs).

Administratively, Vedder frets about the ambiguity as to who it is who runs our universities. Is it the trustees? Administrators? Faculty? Students? Alumni? Donors? (all candidates Vedder wonders out loud about). It would seem to be a problem to a rational person that the average GPA has risen from a 2.5 to a 3.2 in the last generation (do college graduates seem that much smarter to you?). Vedder laments, as any person with any sensory skills whatsoever would, the culture that actually defines today’s academic life: a life completely focused on partying, booze, and sex. This epidemic is not limited to a few hot cities like Tucson, AZ and San Diego, CA, but permeates every major college from Harvard down to Humboldt State. The Presidents are toothless to do anything about it.

Most shockingly, Vedder indicts the “research” capabilities of today’s academic instituions, wondering why 22,000 new articles of Shakespeare have been submitted since 1980 alone. “Are there that many new and insightful thoughts to be had about the Bard?” Economic growth is suffering as a result of our subsidization of this half-ass research; it is not being stimulated.

Vedder’s proposals and solutions include common sense ideas that will absolutely have to be considered, and soon. We need to reduce the federal student loan programs, and allow a market system to work. Develop vocational competence programs – like the CPA exam – and allow students who want to learn a specific niche field to do just that (without the burden of a Sociology 101 class). More than any time in academic history, the benefits of a higher education right now are being shown to be utterly worthless. Allow the private market to change this, and quit cultivating a system that is doing far more harm than good.

I could not agree more with Vedder on every point he makes. If we want to advance a massive system that perfects the art of shooting tequila and participating in abundant one-night-stands, we have that down; the status quo should continue. And if we want to continue disillusioning young people by telling them that the liberal arts education we are pillaging them or the taxpayers or their parents for (in terms of cost) will actually prepare them for a professional career, we seem to have that down pretty well too. If, however, the goal is to study the masters, prepare young people for life in the real world, and to see a generation of balanced young people tap into the resources and tools they need to truly excel, we have a lot of work to do.

Let’s stop by getting the federal government out of this mess. I know this will not solve it all. But it is never, ever a bad place to start.

Outcomes of State Coercion

It doesn’t take a very discerning reader to have figured out by now that one of my principal gripes about schooling in America is that we assume it must be controlled by government. This has irked me even more since the hysteria has arisen over the concern that national health care might lead this nation “into” socialism, a place where we have already been, in terms of kindergarten through twelfth grade education, for over a hundred years.

One doesn’t have to be very discerning to realize that I write from the perspective of an unashamed, Biblical Christian. A recent column by Joel McDurmon for American Vision addresses the question of whether socialism is justified in the historical practices of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament or by some of the teachings of Jesus Himself. If this kind of Biblical analysis interests you, you can read the whole article here.

I like this paragraph from near the end of McDurmon’s article:

“God kept the State out of the charity business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to distribute bread, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of distribution to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s bread would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring provisions would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving food at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State socialism would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.”

With apologies to McDurmon, consider the same paragraph, with just a few alterations:

God kept the State out of the education business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to form minds, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of information to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s thinking would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring knowledge would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving education at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State schooling would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.

I can’t imagine why this doesn’t concern more people.

Learning by example

A friend called yesterday wondering why I had not weighed in on the current controversy about President Obama addressing school children next Tuesday. I guess some things seem too absurd to even point out. But here goes.

I'm sure those of you who have pegged me as a conservative are expecting me to prop up the protesters who don't want their children exposed to political propaganda on school time. Actually, I am more conservative than any conservative I know. I love liberty.

Propaganda in the government schools? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen the political agenda of the National Education Association? Do you imagine that the President can say anything more liberal in a single address than the day-to-day diet being delivered by Miss Peach? Can anyone possibly imagine that government schools are politically neutral? I dropped my membership in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development years ago because I dared to "read the fine print," thereby finding out all the politically liberal causes my dues had been supporting.

And just what political cause are these protesters afraid the President will support in his talk to the children? Socialism? Does socialism refer to a government monopoly over an enterprise that could be conducted better and cheaper, with more consumer input, in the private sector? Then to those parents, I say, don't worry. Children always learn more by example than they can grasp in a short speech. And you have already demonstrated your commitment to socialism by sending your children to government schools.

Where are the menus?

From today's Miami Herald:

Ten years ago Florida enacted the most sweeping school reform measures taken to date by any state. In essence, it rewards schools whose achievement test scores are excelling and punishes schools whose scores are poor and/or not improving. For those who believe government schooling can be reformed, it has been hailed as a huge success. One of the best features is that it has narrowed the achievement gap between minority and majority students. And a signifcant number of really bad schools have been closed down. But not everyone is happy. One complaint is that graduation rates have not improved (maybe that's because you have KNOW SOMETHING in order to graduate now). But a more thoughtful complaint is that teaching to the tests tends to produce a very sterile, unimaginative curriculum which does not engage and stimulate students who easily grasp the basics.

From today's Baltimore Sun:

In the late 1980's and early 90's, one of the panaceas advanced by the reform movement was involving teenagers in community service as a means of getting them outside the sterile walls of the classroom to gain a vision of life beyond their mandatory thirteen years of incarceration in public schools. I'ts not a bad idea, and many good schools in many states have adopted some form of this concept. A few years back, Maryland became the first state to make community service credits mandatory for high school graduation. Now it has come under fire because, in an effort to help students complete the requirement and graduate on time, many schools are creating activities during the school day that fulfill the community service requirement. But complaining parents feel that this takes away academic learning time, and that all community service should be done after regular school hours.

Both of these stories illustrate the foolishness of one-size-fits-all government-controlled school policies. It's like going to a restaurant and being told the legislature is voting on what you will eat for dinner, and as soon as the poll is finished you will be served what they have chosen for you. One can envision a massive complaint department would have to be installed at such an establishment. But complaints are what the public schools have done the best job of generating.

What's wrong with back-to-basics schools that teach to the tests, alongside enrichment schools that teach that which is aesthetically and intellectually stimulating? What's wrong with schools with a high component of built-in community service, alongside schools where all the time is spent on academic learning (and perhaps meet for fewer hours per day)? Or all of those choices, in various combinations, within the same school?

Mandated schooling and legislated curricula have made parents into chronic whiners instead of thoughtful educational consumers. Where are the menus?

Bumper Sticker Truth

It's always fun when folks say more than they meant to. Such is often the case with bumper stickers. The two pictured at the right are stickers I have seen first hand here in Tucson within the last couple of months.

In both cases, they are meant to be left-wing, pro-socialist, government-school-mandating, and pro-teacher-union. I know this is true, because these images were found on web sites with products all in line with those advocacies.

So let's have some fun contrasting the designers' intended meaning, with what I would call a "more rational" perspective.

Bumper sticker #1:

I would love to add, "but over-schooled." One of the tricks of the left-wing socialist teacher unions is to couch everything they control as "education," as though no education exists in life outside of their control. Hence, they label certain (conservative) politicians as being "anti-education," just because they won't support throwing more money down the Black Holes these people control. The intent of the bumper sticker is to evoke sympathy toward more spending on government schooling. The irony is that it is true BECAUSE of too much spending on government schooling. If there were free competition in educatin, and all schools competed for students equally on the basis of the effectiveness of their educational efforts, failing schools would go out of business. But they are protected from competition now by a socialist hegemony which funnels more and more funds to useless efforts. Under-educated, indeed, but over-schooled!

Bumper Sticker #2:

It is meant to be an ironic contrast to the "war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on poverty" federal initiatives, which the same liberals who support mandatory government schooling would declare to be failed wastes of resources, both financial and human. The intended meaning is that in funding these other initiatives, we have under-funded government education, and thus have, in effect, waged a war on education (government schooling) by not yielding to all of its whiny demands for more cash. A conservative take on the sticker would be that the continued perpetuation of AND increases in government funding for these schools (which can be documented) have only strengthened the grip of mandatory schooling, thus denying TRUE education to a signifcant portion of the American population. If you're keeping score, the percentage of American children NOT in government schools (who are homeschooled or in private schools) has not changed significatly in the last fifty years: it hovers between eleven to thirteen percent of the school-age population. So the proponents of forced government schooling have not lost much, while the nation is losing more and more minds to poor education (schooling) every year. The war on (valid) education is going well, indeed.

Who should be expelled?

Last night I revisited the Ben Stein documentary, Expelled. I had seen a pre-release back when it first came out so I could write a review for it on another blog: http://www.wittenberghall.com/holytrinityclassical/

For those unfamiliar with the film, the basic premise is that American academics who question doctrinaire Darwinism in any form are being systematically shoved out of the academic world. Institutions which have expelled scientists who point out that the emperor of natural section is embarrassingly naked (devoid of evidence) include George Mason University, Baylor University, Iowa State University, and the Smithsonian Institute. When confronted by Ben Stein as to their attack on academic freedom, they consistently denied (in the face of facts), trivialized, dissimulated, or dodged the issue. In other words, they all lied. An effective way that this was illustrated in the film was that after each interviewee denied anyone was expelled from their institution for not believing in Darwinism, Stein flashed on the screen the actual documenting letter received by each of the expelled scientists confirming that it was their failure to support evolution (as taught by current popular standards) which had been the cause of their dismissal.

This lack of integrity on the part of the administrations of these institutions would be alarming enough, but what I am really intrigued by was the interview with a scientist in Poland near the end of the film. Stein asked if he had ever been required to teach Darwinian evolution in the university in Poland, and he quickly replied, “NO!” He went on the comment that this is a uniquely American problem, because American academics have to be “politically correct” (his actual words).

I want you to pause a moment to let this sink in. A man who taught for dozens of years during an oppressive communist dictatorship was more academically free to explore both sides of an issue than a scientist in America, because we are more censorial and heavy-handed in demanding everyone think exactly the same way, than their communist society. Is this the America you have always been told you live in? Yet we have socialized (government subsidized, and therefore government-controlled) education in the “land of the free,” and only 13 per cent of the school age population have escaped from it (through homeschooling or private schools).

I say it’s time to expel…the students! Set them free! (Have I made anybody mad yet? I’m sure trying hard…).

You are what you were taught (and paid attention to)

I am not a fan of Carrie Prejean, and never expected to comment on this controversy, but I must make a small point about education here. And this is for all those who say that education is neutral, and it doesn’t matter which school your child attends.

One of the favorite tactics of opponents of Christian education is to disqualify it on the basis of the failings of some of its products. There’s a logical inconsistency there (the graduates of non-Christian schools are consistently better?) that I would hope more people would see. But it is the lack of logic in public discourse that is one of the very things I want to rant about here.

Never in a million years when we decided to send two of our sons to San Diego Christian College (small, obscure, conservative, evangelical) did we think that some day one of its students would not only be Miss California, but would also be splashed all over the internet in semi-nude photos. But this current scandal neither negates nor validates the educational experience my sons had there. That is a subject for another time.

The point is that I have a pretty good idea what is taught there, as well as what are the prerequisite teachings any student who matriculates there would probably have been exposed to. In the very public case of Carrie Prejean, she was “present” for these lessons:

the Biblical nature of marriage
exposition of Matthew 10:32-34*

But she must have been physically or mentally “absent” for these lessons:

Biblical modesty for women
exposition of I Thessalonians 4:2-6**

And this tells us nothing about education that we don’t already know. Students will “attend to” and internalize some of the lessons they are taught. They will miss the point or fail to integrate other lessons. Naturally, we hope for the most retention possible. And the obligation is on those of us who plan the curriculum to make sure that the right lessons are being taught in the most effective way possible.

In contrast, I wonder what kind of education Miss California USA Co-executive Director Keith Lewis may have had, based on his statement, "We try to make these women capable of being free thinkers…but when you wear the title that says 'I represent everyone,' you can't then polarize the people you represent."

Aside from the absurdity of the first half of that quote (as though the limited exposure of the pageant organizers in the lives of these girls could “make [them] capable [of anything!]”), let’s think about what it means to ”represent everyone.”

Just betting that Mr. Lewis went to public school somewhere along the way, here are the lessons he was “present” for:

Diversity is good
Political correctness is better

But based on the fact that 52% of the California electorate voted in favor of a traditional view of marriage just last November, he must have been absent for a couple of math lessons:

Greater than and less than
Set theory (an item that is a member of a set can be said to be a representative of that set)

So neither San Diego Christian College nor the California public schools are having 100 per cent success with their students. But please don’t tell me they are teaching the same thing!

*Matthew 10:
32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

**I Thessalonians 4:
2For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.