U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way Part 1

Christian Worldview Network ^ | 6/22/2006 | Brannon S. Howse

[El Gato]

When I see schools teach reading successfully at a rate equal to what we had before 1850

In 1850 most kids did not go to high school. Or in 1900 for that matter. My maternal grandfather graduated 8th grade, although my maternal grandfather graduated from high school. I wouldn't be surprised to find that neither of my paternal grandparents graduated from high school, but I don't know one way or the other. I'm the first in my family, either side, to get a college degree, and I think my 6 year younger brother is the second. We may still be the only ones from our generation to do so. My wife's grandfather had a 4 year college degree, around 1919. That made him a very unusual farmer, for those days.

I think my point is that in the past, schooling through 8th grade was thought sufficient to prepare one for citizenship. It probably still would be if we taught the stuff they did then. Of course in those days the kids came from two parent households, and lived with both of their natural parents. In some communities over half of the kids are what were termed "bastards" in those far away times. Even on the "right side of the tracks", many, maybe most, kids come from single parent households, or blended families, his, hers and theirs sort of thing. A lot harder raw material for the schools, public, or private, to work with.

[cinives]

In your dreams. Special ed today is a racket where most of the kids do not get what they need. Special ed now is mostly a place where kids are warehoused and mark time until they are 18. Most kids taking those places do not have a disability you would recognize. Most are victims of disteachia.

Yes, that's a blanket statement but I will tell you, based on many conversations with special ed teachers and parents of these kids, that there is no path out of special ed for most (non-hysically disabled) kids and it follows them on their permanent record forever. It's a way the schools get more money per kid.

There are a lot of academically-talented kids languishing in special ed who do not need "special job training attention" as you put it. What they need are capable teachers, a meaningful curriculum, an allowance for creativity, and a return to common sense.

[cinives]

Agreed. John Taylor Gatto has an interesting book on the subject.

[cinives]

(non-hysically disabled) = (non-physically disabled)

[thulldud]

And John Taylor Gatto has said that what needs to be done for education in this country is so much cheaper than what we are currently doing that it has zero chance of happening.

Suffer, little children. ( A book title by Max Rafferty. )

[MEGoody]

Students will be encouraged to select a career that will direct them either along a vocational track or a college-bound track.

Nothing new about this. I had to do this when I was in school more than 30 years ago.

[Dumb_Ox]

The real issue here is that the function of schools is not to train for a job but to educate for citizenship.

I like this sentiment, and I've voiced it myself before. But now I worry the schools are too blunt an instrument to "create good citizens." Yes, a skill like critical thinking is necessary for a free citizenry. But critical thinking has many mimics. If it were taught in schools it'd likely be the same kinds of non-thought taught in college education departments: learning how to label positions as racist, sexist, or religious, and then dismissing them with a fusillade of verbiage.

Likewise, how can a government school teach students to be critical of the government? About as likely as having students be critical of the teachers' union. Government schooling is itself too statist an endeavour to get a decent civics education.

[ReignOfError]

Those who don't want to do academics already have the option of vo-tech.

Do they? Vocational options were few when I was in high school -- basically, enroll in "trade school" after 12th grade or drop out and go to trade school now. I think a lot of the kids who dropped out would have stuck around if there had been more options to spend half the day in vocational classes or even working at paid or unpaid apprenticeships.

I'm all in favor of making more varied options available, but not before at least the 11th grade, by which time the basic three R's should be covered. Not everyone will go to college, and we aren't helping kids by trying to shoehorn them into a one-size-fits-all college prep curriculum. Furthermore, I'd like to see the "vocational" courses destigmatized; i know if I'd taken a plumbing or carpentry class in high school I'd have a head start on my weekend home projects.

I'm opposed to placing students on a "track" in the 9th grade and preventing or dissuading them from changing their minds, as not only happened in the old Soviet Bloc, but happens in European schools today. Forget about tracks -- if a student wants to take both AP physics and auto shop, more power to him. He can rebuild transmissions in the summer to pay his way through MIT.

I don't know which the Florida policy does, and I don't think the original post gives much in the way of an objective assessment.

[luckystarmom]

My kids' new school had lots of illegal alien children in it, and those kids got tons of support. My daughter (with an MRI that literally shows she has about 1/2 a brain) who has worked so hard to stay at grade level and starts to slip in 3rd grade could not get any support. She was just supposed to go on to fourth grade unprepared.

My other daughter was in the gifted program, and that was a total joke. They did absolutely nothing. Plus the school was so bad they didn't have science, music, PE, and art was only once a month and run by parent volunteers. My gifted daughter was bored to tears.

[El Gato]

, although my maternal grandfather grandmother graduated from high school.

Oops.

[nw_arizona_granny]

One more step for the communists.

[Calpernia]

(snip)

When Senator McCarthy, the Senator-elect, arrived in Washington December 1946, about two weeks before being sworn in, three days later he and his administrative assistant were invited to have lunch with James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy. The Senator often wondered why the busy Secretary of the Navy discovered that a freshman Senator had arrived in town and why he took so much time to discuss our nation's problems with him. I think we can see God's hand in this, and the Senator often told us he thanked God many times for Forrestal's time and advice.

Forrestal was fully knowledgeable about Communist penetration and influence in our government. He was able to bring Senator up to date on communist influence in our schools, in all our educational systems, in our news media, and definitely in our government. In the State Department, for instance, Communists had recommended Communists for jobs and then recommended each other for raises until some of them were in policy making positions where our foreign policy was definitely slanted towards Soviet objectives.

Before talking to Jim Forrestal, Senator McCarthy admits he thought we were losing to Communism because of incompetence or stupidity on the part of our national planners; he mentioned that to Forrestal. Senator McCarthy claimed he would never forget Forrestal's answer: "McCarthy," he said, "consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If our State Department boys were merely stupid, they would make a mistake in our favor once in awhile." Forrestal then told the Senator that the FBI had not been asleep; however, all during the thirties and forties they had continued investigations of subversion and had copious files on Communist infiltration into American government, but no way to bring it to the attention of the American people, and no authority to remove the traitors from the government.

More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935830/posts?page=58#58