This wonderfully written book provides a stunning exposé of why our education system is so troubled, and how and why this has been done deliberately.
This book is certainly controversial, and has been labeled by its opponents as "conspiracy theory".
I have a few problems with that: First off, a theory is something that has to be proven. This has been.
The proof is in the pudding. The book provides documents and direct quotations from all of its main villains. If you don't like what is discussed below, the authors and I aren't the people to go after.
And second: I believe that people in power (and seeking power) will go whatever lengths they have to in order to accomplish their goals. Political systems by their very nature, seem to attract sociopath personalities.
I would highly recommend Murray Rothbard's essay "Anatomy of the State" to everyone, in which he brilliantly lays out how very government in the history of mankind has in common.
If you read enough American history, you realize that what presidential candidates said when the ran and actually did in office, run completely at odds. In some cases, it's even night and day.
About the authors:
 |
| Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld |
I am sad to have just discovered that he has passed away, four days prior to beginning this blog. (He died June 1, a day after his 89th birthday.) He will be missed.
 |
| Alex Newman |
Alex Newman is a journalist that has traveled worldwide, writing about various topics such as education, gun rights, and free speech. He currently works out of Europe.
What I will be discussing:
This blog will be primarily a summary of the authors' findings, in a paragraph by paragraph format. I will comment periodically. As far as the solutions go, I agree with them almost entirely, but not 100%.
I will cite the evidence behind their claims occasionally, but not so much that reading this will be an all day affair. The purpose of writing this blog is to wake people to some of these issues, and encourage independent research on one's own time. For anyone that has the time, I would recommend reading the book in its entirety, as well as some of the works of the authors that they cite.
John Dewey:
 |
| John Dewey |
Unfortunately, this is dead on.
Dewey was a socialist who believed that in order for his vision to be realized, people needed to think more "collectively" and less individually. This of course, was sharply at odds with the America of our Founders, which prided itself on individual rights. He knew that this vision couldn't be imposed violently (as it had in places like Russia) so there had to be a way to gradually transition towards it.
Dewey was inspired by the fantasy book "Looking Backward" (written in 1888) which portrayed a communist United States in the year 2000. All property rights would be public, everyone would be equal. This would be the kind of society that Dewey and company were looking to create.
In 1894, Dewey was appointed Head of the Departments of Philosophy, Education, and Psychology at The University of Chicago. It should be pointed out here, that this university was a gift from the oil tycoon, John D Rockefeller. Rockefeller around that time famously said:
"I want a nation of workers, not a nation of thinkers."
Let that sink in for a minute.
Dewey discovered in his research that emphasis on reading and language at a young age promoted individualism.
To me this, makes perfect sense... If people can learn how to read easily, they enjoy it. If they enjoy reading, they do more of it. And reading tends to vary a lot between individuals, since everyone has completely different preferences. These differences become more distinct over time, as an individual acquires new information, and is shaped by it.
Dewey believed that creating a population of good socialists meant emphasizing group think over individualism, and socialized behavior over independent learning.
Dewey wrote:
"When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing in the individual, the ties which bind the mental life to one of his fellows are ignored and denied."
"The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair, that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of merely learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat."
It amazes me that such an intelligent man believed that one couldn't learn and think independently, and still care about others. Sadly, many took what he said as gospel.
Dewey attracted others to his cause as well. Many of his followers were readers of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto". Communism was just a emerging as new political ideology, and it appealed to many because it was "new", "progressive", and "egalitarian".
We know now that communism can't work, however this was before it was even tried. I say this because I get the impression that some of Dewey's followers did indeed mean well, and just weren't sure what they were getting into. That can't be said of socialists now though; we have the 20th century as proof of how destructive it is.
Dewey wrote this in "Liberalism and Social Action" in 1935 after visiting the Soviet Union:
"The last stand of oligarchical and anti-social seclusion is the perpetuation of this purely individualistic notion of intelligence."
"The only form of enduring social organization that is now possible, is one in which the forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled and used in the interest of effective liberty and cultural development of the individuals that constitute society. Such a social order cannot be established by an unplanned and external convergence of the actions of separate individuals, each of whom is bent on personal private advantage. Organized social planning... is now the sole method of social action which liberalism can achieve its professed aims."
Pretty telling, right? You can look up these works if you want to read them in their entirety.
This makes me think of that line from "Beauty and the Beast" when Gaston says to Belle:
"It's not right for a woman to read. Soon she starts getting *ideas*, and *thinking*.."
Well, for utopians like Dewey, that was pretty much what they thought of people in general.
Dewey loved the Soviet education system, in that it got people to "act cooperatively and collectively as readily as now in capitalistic countries they act individually."
What?! We are all individuals. And last time I checked, you can still be an independent thinker and care about others.
Dewey died on June 1, 1952.
Dewey's plan put into motion: "The Look-Say method"
One of Dewey's biggest followers was the psychologist Edmund Burke Huey.
Huey had studied psychology at Clarke University, and had written his dissertation on reading. In his book The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, Huey wrote:
"The amount of time given to the purely formal use of printed and written English has been a prime source of irritation. It seems a great waste to devote, as at present, the main part of a number of school years to the mere mechanics of reading and spelling."
This book became the basis for whole word instruction. (More on this below) Upon reading this... is it any surprise that we have a country full of people that can't read beyond the 7th grade level?
Fifty years ago or so, presidential speeches were spoken at what would be considered at 12th grade reading level today. Now they're closer to 7th grade.
The problem here is that English is (and originated) as a phonetic language. That means that the sounds came first, and were put into writing. Objects were named through speech, and the written language was the means for preserving and transmitting knowledge.
English originally comes from German (Old English looks almost exactly like German), which is a strictly phonetic language. In other words, every letter you see in a German word is pronounced.
Now, since English has mixed roots, the pronunciation varies far more and it's important that a learner knows how to pronounce the sounds of the word. Machine and wine look similar, but have different pronunciations. "Their", "there", and "they're" throw off a lot of people that learn English as a second language.
This is the opposite of Egyptian Hieroglyphics or the Chinese languages, where the symbols developed first to represent objects. The pronunciations of those symbols came after the fact.
Huey and Dewey wanted English to be taught as though it were Mandarin or Hieroglyphics.
Dr. Blumenfeld has said that one of the major causes of poor reading schools today is that too many children are taught to read by looking at words and just rote memorization of how they're pronounced. They still do teach phonics so a certain extent, but nowhere near enough. When he was a boy, there was far more emphasis on it.
The problem with this he has said, is that it uses the right side of the brain to perform a left brain function.
For those that don't know, the left brain is supposed to be the logical side that deals with language and math. The right side has to do with spatial recognition and creativity.
The "look-say" method fails because it forces people to just look at each word individually, and memorized how it's pronounced. This is very hard to do with English, unless you have an exceptional memory. The 'proper' way to read English is to think through the phonetic structure of the word. Once the phonetics are mastered, virtually any word can be spoken and understood.
Dr Blumenfeld says that this teaching method is why so many kids are struggling to read, many adults are uninterested in reading, and more and more people have such a limited vocabulary. Reading is meant to be an enjoyable exercise, and this teaching method prevents it from being that.
Dr. Blumenfeld wrote several books on phonics, which he used to teach children to read. According to him, a 4 year old can be taught how to read very easily using phonics, in only a matter of weeks.
Think about it: You learn your first words from listening to your parents. A child can learn multiple languages at a young age, if the parents speak more than one.
Sadly, what Dewey and Huey wanted was implemented, and here we are today.
Some facts about education and literacy in America today
It should be emphasized here, that the amount of money spent per capita on grade level education (The amount averaged per pupil, with inflation factored in) has roughly doubled since the 70's. The cost of college has gone up about 1000% since that time.
In spite of this:
- 81% of high school seniors are unprepared for college level coursework.
- More than 25% of high school graduates take more than 4 years to finish.
- 43% of Americans read at the lowest literacy levels.
- 30% of high school graduates can't pass the US Military entrance exam, which is based on basic math and reading.
- A document from the late Senator Ted Kennedy's desk stated that before compulsory schooling in America, approximately 98% of the population, (This figure doesn't include slaves, who were prohibited from education. That's a separate issue, however.) was literate. Since compulsory schooling was imposed, we have had a maximum of 90% literacy.
The statistics I have cited above come from both direct government sources, and independent research. I can direct anyone to those sources if they would like.
These statistics should outrage everyone. I think it's clear the increased spending hasn't benefited the students, but rather the extensive bureaucracy and unions.
I heard a good analogy on Tom Woods' (a historian) Youtube show, recently, that sums this problem up:
" Picture what would happen if poor people were being forced to buy food from only one grocery store. Now, if the quality of the food kept going down, and prices kept going up, there would be a revolution! However, that's exactly what has happened with our education system over the last four decades or so."
John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Iserbyt
 |
| John Taylor Gatto |
 |
| Charlotte Iserbyt |
The authors have cited for much of their sourcing, the educator John Taylor Gatto, and the Department of Education whistle blower Charlotte Iserbyt. They wrote "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling", and "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".
Let me point out here: these two are not fringe lunatics... not even close.
Gatto taught for over thirty years, and was named "New York City Teacher of the Year" in both 1990 and 1991. Since quitting teaching, he has had a public speaking and writing career. He has continued to write books in addition the one mentioned above.
In "Dumbing us Down" he asserted these main points in regards to the education system:
- It confuses the students. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials that programming is similar to the television, it fills almost all the "free" time of children. One sees and hears something, only to forget it again. It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.
- It makes them indifferent to teachers, and to each other.
- It makes them emotionally dependent on the system.
- It makes them intellectually dependent.
- It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).
- It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.
Charlotte Iserbyt was involved in her local school board of education, and eventually landed a position as Senior Policy Adviser in the Reagan administration's Department of Education. She was fired for revealing documents, which were the basis for her book that I mentioned.
What were they trying to hide, I wonder?
Reagan originally said that he would shut down the Department of Education, but ended up increasing more funding for it. She even wrote President Reagan a letter, pleading with him to end the DOE because of what it was doing. He never responded to her. Iserbyt has said that she never got over that.
Such is the way of politics, I guess.
Dyslexia, ADD, and medication:
The book talks for a few chapters about all of these sudden "learning disability outbreaks", that have occurred in recent times.
I want to be clear about one thing here: I'm not in any way, trying to denigrate people that actually do have learning disabilities. I have an autistic brother, so I have grown up around it.
The question that I (and numerous others) are asking more and more as of late is:
"Why are so many children being diagnosed with learning disabilities, and needing to be medicated?"
In some schools, 1 in 4 boys take some form of medication. A friend of mine ( He's 39 years old) recently told me that his children are some of the only ones that aren't on some kind of medication.
Nobody can convince me that this is normal.
Dr. Blumenfeld has an answer for this:
The rampant dyslexia that is the result of faulty teaching, i.e. the "look-say" method of teaching vocabulary. As stated above, this method forces the right side of the brain to form what is a left brain function. Children that scramble the order of letters in a word do this, because they are attempting to memorize the spelling and pronunciation based entirely on the image of the whole word. For example: Saying "bisghetti" instead of "spaghetti".
Dr. Blumenfeld has retrained several children diagnosed with dyslexia to read with phonics rather than sight. He said that over the course of a few weeks of phonics learning, their reading is vastly better, and they feel far more confident while picking up a book.
Perhaps most notable, is his experience with a man named Edward Miller. Miller had asked to see Dr. Blumenfeld after hearing him speak on dyslexia, since Miller himself had been diagnosed with it at an early age. At the time of their meeting, Miller's grandson had been diagnosed with it shortly after beginning school.
Miller had read the book "Johnny can't read" from the 50's which differentiated between learning to read phonetically, and the sight method. Miller and Blumenfeld realized that the reason his grandson was diagnosed with dyslexia, was that he was trying to memorize the pronunciation of all sorts of long and complex words. He relearned using phonics, and things came naturally after that. This experience convinced Blumenfeld, that we didn't have a national epidemic, but rather bad education.
ADD and ADHD have emerged for similar reasons. The fact is that the "tests" for these are often very vague, so far as just asking the teacher if the student is acting up in some cases.
Where have these "new problems" come from? Granted, we do understand medicine better than the past, but nobody can convince me that most of the country is learning disabled and "needs" medication.
Blumenfeld attributes much of this alleged "hyperactivity" and tendency be easily distracted to:
-A child's natural frustration with the environment.
-The teaching methods (like the look say method)
- A child's naturally energetic state. It goes against a child's nature to sit still in one place for very long.
- Feeling like being there is a punishment, rather than a worthwhile experience.
The child tends to act out under such circumstances, and is prescribed medication in order to make the teacher's life easier. What I find highly immoral too, is when the court orders that the child be medicated if they're to stay in public school, against the parents' wishes.
Many of these drugs tend to be very powerful, and some are almost crystal meth in pill form. Adderall even says "Amphetamine salts" on the label.
Children need this to learn? Come on now.
The authors of this book haven't talked about it, (although Gatto has a bit, I'm learning) but I also think much of the problem comes from the fact that children learn different things, in different ways, and at a different pace. For example, I struggled in math, and was probably pushed on before I should have been. By contrast, history always came to me naturally, and I even read it on my own out of curiosity. That's why I would get bored during history classes, despite loving the subject.
While, I'm on the subject of medication, people should take note on many of the anti depressants (like Prozac) that have come in out in recent times.
Do you know what their main ingredient is?
Fluoxetine, which is a form of fluoride.
Harvard has put out some studies talking about how ingesting fluoride can cause calcium build up in the brain, diminished cognitive ability, and even a lower IQ. Just think: You don't swallow sun screen to avoid burning in the sun.
The Nazis put fluoride in the water of concentration camp prisoners to make them docile... Pretty chilling, right?
Look at the warning label on your toothpaste tube.
Increased teenage suicide and gun violence
This is certainly a dismal topic, but one that can't be ignored. Recent decades have seen a dramatic spike in the incidents listed above.
What's scary too, is that some of these incidents haven't been children that don't fit in, or come from poor backgrounds. In some cases, the people are even popular and well off.
What I find odd about the increase in gun violence is that some people have blamed it on violent video games and on "guns not being locked up." While I do think that guns should be locked away from children, this doesn't answer the question entirely.
Gun ownership has been a staple of American culture since the founding, and you don't see lots of stories from the past of mass shootings. There were occasional tragedies, but not normally.
I've been playing violent video games my entire life, and I have never been in so much as a fight. I also have the maturity to recognize that I'm playing a game, not living in reality. This holds true of many other people that I know too.
The authors and I think that the problem has more to do with the system, and the fact that drugs are administered to help cope with its difficulties.
I read an article a few months ago pointing out that many of these shooters were on some form of anti depressant, like Prozac. And being that I have pointed out that fluoride is one of the main ingredients in them, this should really make you think twice.
Decline in morality and Judeo Christian values
This is where I depart ways with the authors, at least partially.
While I do believe that it is important to have a strong moral compass, I don't think that Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) should be mandatory in school, unless it's specifically a parochial school. If lots of private religious schools emerge and parents choose to send their children there, I'm fine with that. I'm a firm believer of separation between Church and State.
Here's where again, I look to Charles Murray. I agree strongly with him that perhaps students should be taught some kind of course in ethics, whether they be Confucian or Aristotelian.
I think that a dialectic (a discussion with everyone involved) based course that discusses morality in general would be a good idea.
Let me give a corrolary of this principle:
When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, Jefferson originally wanted to write "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable." Benjamin Franklin was opposed to this, saying that the underlying philosophy should be rooted in reason, not in religion. Hence, he suggested that Jefferson changed the words to "self evident".
I think that's a beautiful philosophy, and could be implemented in schools. No beliefs would be shoved down anyone's throats, but a strong moral fiber could still be built amongst the students.
The perpetuation of the African American underclass
I think that this perhaps the group that has been hurt more by the public education system than anyone else.
Let me point a statistic here that most people are unaware of:
Black adult illiteracy by year on average:
1890: 51.7%
1900: 44.5%
1910: 30.4%
1920: 22.9%
1930: 16%
Today, it's around 50%.
See what I mean? Obviously, this group has faced (and continues to face) discrimination and poverty, but I rarely hear anyone talk about the statistic above that I just cited. This occurred before decades of increased education spending and bureaucracy.
The film "The Great Debaters" focuses on this... the intellectual development that occurred in Black America during the 30's. This era produced a great generation of black artists, writers, and musicians.
What the film doesn't bother to explain why this trend stopped, and then reversed from 1950 onward.
I don't mean to sidetrack, but you will notice that this has occurred with other statistics too, such as illegitimacy, crime, drug use, and the rise out of poverty. I don't want to get into a long discussion about these issues here, just to get people to think about them.
Notice that these improvements occurred before the major civil rights legislation was signed. That is not to say that those didn't do good... They did for sure. However, we also have to examine the other factors at work here.
One major factor is the "look-say" method, as discussed above. The phonetics aren't emphasized enough, and this is killing the reading ability of underprivileged youth. Children that are frustrated with being unable to read correctly are far more likely to drop out, and end up peddling drugs on the street.
In the event that they do get through school, 4 years of college isn't going to make up for 12 or more years of bad elementary education.
I was happy to learn about Marva Collins, a teacher that quit the failing public school system in the 70's and went on to create her own private school. Her story was made into the Hallmark movie "The Marva Collins story". I plan to watch it very soon.
 |
| Marva Collins, circa 1982 |
Collins taught black children reading and writing with lots of emphasis on phonics, and was very devoted to her students. Her students all went on to achieve academic success at a higher level. Her example serves as a model for future generations.
Common Core
Here is the crux of socialized education: A curriculum imposed by the State, written by the State, with very little of the public's say or knowledge.
This was pushed through by two "progressive" lobbyist groups, and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has thrown over $2 billion at the Common Core Initiative.
I find this scary, that a billionaire is allowed to dictate how our education standards are. I think that this is important to emphasize, because I know for a fact if the "evil Koch brothers" and conservative or libertarian groups were pushing to control education standards, my leftist friends would be up in arms over it...as they should be. I don't believe that there should be some central planner that decides education standards, regardless of their belief system.
Shortly after the economy tanked in 2008, Obama made a deal with the state governments: "The race to the top". If they accepted "stimulus" money (from taxpayers nationwide) they would have to implement Common Core.
I'm also worried about the standards themselves.
English in 4th-7th grades requires reading EPA pamphlets, arguments in favor of single payer healthcare, and Obama executive orders. You mean to tell me that this was crafted with "the public's best interest" in mind?
The science standards seem to be based on political correctness, saying things like "gender is a just a social construct, not a scientific metric." This runs completely contrary to biology, and common sense for that matter.
(If the two genders are the same, (our outward appearances aside) how do you explain different hormones that influence and carry out different biological functions? Why does the male body produce testosterone in vastly greater qualities than the female body? And vice versa with estrogen?)
The math standards are equally wacky. Children are supposed to "do math cooperatively". This reeks of John Dewey. Math is supposed to be straightforward, obvious, and natural. As with learning reading through phonics, the basic fundamentals should be mastered before more advanced math can be handled. Teaching that math should be "philosophical" is ridiculous, since it's at its nature an objective, hard science. Why are they teaching math that only the State knows how to teach?
And whose computers do you think are being used for this system? I think that's self evident.
As someone who is passionate about politics, I have no problem with children being taught about the political system. This however, is obviously very one sided. It's my firm belief that teachers should be neutral, unless they are there to talk about a specific belief system.
I also find it very telling how Obama and Gates both send their children to private schools, where neither one implements Common Core... This is very similar to our Congress exempting itself from Obamacare, despite touting it as being a great program.
Nobody has voted on this curriculum, it was developed behind closed doors. This should scare people.
You can call this "conspiracy theory" all you want...I really don't care. Do you really think that people in power stay up late at night worrying about how the average person benefits from their decisions? Especially if they have lived in luxury all of their lives?
And do you think that the State wants independent, critical thinkers that question its decision making?
The government shouldn't be involved in education at the Federal level, and ideally, not at even the State and Local levels.
Government institutions are always are corrupted by the politicians and the corporate masters that fund them. I can't think of a single exception.
As Milton Friedman said: "A political institution that isn't influenced by politics is about as likely as a barking cat."
Opposition to Common Core
One thing that I'm very happy about is that many groups across the political spectrum are opposing this.
I would expect conservative and libertarian groups to oppose it, (which they have) but now even some of the more "progressive" groups are.
The National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, The Chicago Teachers' Union and New York Teachers' Union have all voted against it. They are pushing to have it rescinded.
They are finding it impossible to teach, and kids are failing because of it. They are even cases of kids breaking down crying and throwing up, because they can't handle it. I don't care what your views are on education, this should set off some alarms in your head.
Where do we go from here?
I think it is clear that Common Core needs to be repealed. I have some more ideas too though.
- Repeal No Child Left Behind.
- I would love to see the Department of Education shut down entirely, and control of schools be restored to state and local authorities, for starters.
The standard opposition to this is: "We won't have education if that happens!!!!"...... People, there was plenty of education in this country, long before The Department of Education was even conceived in the 1970's. The Republicans control both houses of Congress, and could push for this if they really wanted to... Sadly, none seem to have the guts.
- Encourage the development of private schools, which should be exempt from government control. If Common Core isn't good enough for Bill Gates' and Obama's children, it's not for the everyone else.
Schools should be subject to market competition like food, clothing, electronics, cars, etc... Hence, why all of these have improved in quality and price over time. The same can't be said of the school system.
I think that this is ironic too, how in school they tell us that "monopolies are evil, because they have the power to charge whatever they want, and produce a lower quality product."
The pot calling the kettle black.
- Homeschooling is a great idea, if the parents are capable. The economist David Friedman (I've mentioned him in a few of my previous blogs) homeschooled his children, and they turned out very well. When his daughter went to college, her professors told him that she was a pleasure because she would think critically, and challenge them.
He was sure to involve them in extracurricular activities such as Boy Scouts and 4H to help them develop social skills, but they did the learning at home. Now, Friedman and his wife are both very well educated (both have PhD's) and intelligent themselves, but I think what they do could be modeled in some way by others.
I think that this is far easier in the present day with the Internet, and the amount of information available. Tom Woods has even designed "The Ron Paul Home School Curriculum" which can be accessed for a fee.
I listen to his show every day, and find it very interesting and informative. I have also read several of his books.
And Woods has a BA from Harvard and PhD from Columbia if people are skeptical of his qualifications.
 |
| Dr. Thomas E. Woods |
I realize that what I wrote above may frighten some people if they take it in... and it should. We need to make a stand, and reclaim our education for ourselves.
Again, I speak strictly as a layperson... I just want people to be aware of what's going on their country.
I'm disgusted by the lack of critical thinking, the prolonging of adolescence, and general ignorance that I encounter daily. The fact that the Kardashians are so admired (for basically doing nothing) is proof of all of this. I am just doing what I can to change that.
I want to be clear too, that my criticism is directed at the system, not my teachers. I had several good ones, that tried very hard. It's unfortunate that they have to work in such circumstances.
Thank you all for reading! Any feedback is appreciated!
-STK
