SOFT BIGOTRY IN OUR SCHOOLS?
SOFT BIGOTRY IN OUR SCHOOLS?
by bildanielson@OntheBorderline
Ayn Rand, philosopher and novelist, was precisely correct writing: "When the State assumes financial control of education, it is logically appropriate that the State should progressively assume control of the content of education - since the State has the responsibility of judging whether or not its funds are being used "satisfactorily." Ms Rand's conclusion was that when a government presumes to prescribe intellectual content, that is the death of a free society. Ms Rand would know, she grew up under (and escaped from) the reign of the soviet's tyrannical dictatorship. I point this out because one need go no further than the Hudson (WI) School District to see an example of her prescient social commentary, as well as an illustration of a form of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" so often commented on by President George W. Bush.
The Hudson Director of Curriculum admitted in an editorial published in the Star Observer (April 8, 2004) that the graduation requirements at Hudson High do not qualify students to enter the University of Wisconsin. The Director rationalized this troublesome fact writing: "by having to pass Algebra II and Chemistry or Physics would probably push many of these students over the edge and result in them dropping out." One wonders what statistics such pragmatic administrators have to show then that Fishing, Sports Marketing, or Transition Class better prepare students for life than does Algebra II and Physics or Chemistry. Heaven forbid we should have children running around adept at mathematics to the level of Algebra II (or the Dutch!) The results when compared to kids in most other industrialized countries shows the fundamental flaw of such relativism. We are doing poorly, and not getting better. This administrator further indicated that 75-80 percent of students do take "3 years of math and science", but then indicated that it would "penalize" the remaining 25% to require them to do it. Penalize? So, in the mind of this brilliant man getting a C or a D in a course that provides objective benefit is a penalty while skating through some meaningless and worthless class is a virtue. No wonder the Dutch blow us away in mathematics. The degree of doublespeak that eminates from such government Pedagogue's is incredible.
Public School Administrators (and, apparently, all too willing school board members) want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they claim to offer a "quality education" (defined, as implied by Board President Cook in November of 2002, as whatever menu of courses is currently politically correct and within government prescription) while on the other display the soft bigotry of low expectations that stem from educational myth, perception and an adherence to the overt socialism embodied in Outcome Based Education (OBE). This is not, by any objective standard I am aware of, quality. Rather, this is government thought and behavior control and citizens should be deeply concerned. School administrators and board members should let go of this adherence to such mysticism, myth and perception about who can learn, and who cannot, so that all children are challenged to reach high individual academic standards and sumarily reject OBE on its face.
Clearly, the only rational solution to this requires choice through market forces to enter into the field of education - something this current school board is on record opposing without any intellectual debate. Indeed, we are desperately in need of an educational renaissance in this country with an adherence to core curriculums and methodology that does not violate the hierarchy of knowledge. Sadly, as illustrated by the written comments of the Hudson Director of Curriculum, such a renaissance will not come from the purveyors of taxpayer subsidized, outcome based public education in the Hudson District - at least not under current district leadership (including the board and administration). The clear problem with the current model for education here in Hudson, and around the state, is that it is a one size fits all, socialist premised, system based upon the redistribution of the property of citizens who have no say or control over virtually any of its machinations - those who pay have no say!
Since there is no real competition, and as benefits and salaries rise in the public education sector, more and more people are attracted to it for the security of a paycheck and benefits (just witness the amazing number of applications for every job opening and the whining going on currently by Governor Doyle about eliminating the QEO). As a result, those who are beholdin to it and dependent upon it must purportrate the statist philosophy that allows this house of cards to stand. Consequently, you have seen the number of students per teacher trend down, salaries and benefits grow, taxes rise dramatically and the quality of the output drop relative to the rest of the industrialized world (or remain stagnant, at best). The combination shows quite clearly how inefficient and comparatively ineffective such a paradigm is, and it is a window into the future as well. In the words of Andrew Coulson: "As Americans learn more about school-choice programs and their record of success, and as they learn that the dire predictions of the critics are mistaken, they will not fear freedom in education. What they will fear is the status quo (Viewpoint, November 1, 2004 Mackinac Center For Public Policy)."
So, bildanielson, what's your idea? What plan have you put forth? You can see exactly where I believe we need to go here.
by bildanielson@OntheBorderline
Ayn Rand, philosopher and novelist, was precisely correct writing: "When the State assumes financial control of education, it is logically appropriate that the State should progressively assume control of the content of education - since the State has the responsibility of judging whether or not its funds are being used "satisfactorily." Ms Rand's conclusion was that when a government presumes to prescribe intellectual content, that is the death of a free society. Ms Rand would know, she grew up under (and escaped from) the reign of the soviet's tyrannical dictatorship. I point this out because one need go no further than the Hudson (WI) School District to see an example of her prescient social commentary, as well as an illustration of a form of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" so often commented on by President George W. Bush.
The Hudson Director of Curriculum admitted in an editorial published in the Star Observer (April 8, 2004) that the graduation requirements at Hudson High do not qualify students to enter the University of Wisconsin. The Director rationalized this troublesome fact writing: "by having to pass Algebra II and Chemistry or Physics would probably push many of these students over the edge and result in them dropping out." One wonders what statistics such pragmatic administrators have to show then that Fishing, Sports Marketing, or Transition Class better prepare students for life than does Algebra II and Physics or Chemistry. Heaven forbid we should have children running around adept at mathematics to the level of Algebra II (or the Dutch!) The results when compared to kids in most other industrialized countries shows the fundamental flaw of such relativism. We are doing poorly, and not getting better. This administrator further indicated that 75-80 percent of students do take "3 years of math and science", but then indicated that it would "penalize" the remaining 25% to require them to do it. Penalize? So, in the mind of this brilliant man getting a C or a D in a course that provides objective benefit is a penalty while skating through some meaningless and worthless class is a virtue. No wonder the Dutch blow us away in mathematics. The degree of doublespeak that eminates from such government Pedagogue's is incredible.
Public School Administrators (and, apparently, all too willing school board members) want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they claim to offer a "quality education" (defined, as implied by Board President Cook in November of 2002, as whatever menu of courses is currently politically correct and within government prescription) while on the other display the soft bigotry of low expectations that stem from educational myth, perception and an adherence to the overt socialism embodied in Outcome Based Education (OBE). This is not, by any objective standard I am aware of, quality. Rather, this is government thought and behavior control and citizens should be deeply concerned. School administrators and board members should let go of this adherence to such mysticism, myth and perception about who can learn, and who cannot, so that all children are challenged to reach high individual academic standards and sumarily reject OBE on its face.
Clearly, the only rational solution to this requires choice through market forces to enter into the field of education - something this current school board is on record opposing without any intellectual debate. Indeed, we are desperately in need of an educational renaissance in this country with an adherence to core curriculums and methodology that does not violate the hierarchy of knowledge. Sadly, as illustrated by the written comments of the Hudson Director of Curriculum, such a renaissance will not come from the purveyors of taxpayer subsidized, outcome based public education in the Hudson District - at least not under current district leadership (including the board and administration). The clear problem with the current model for education here in Hudson, and around the state, is that it is a one size fits all, socialist premised, system based upon the redistribution of the property of citizens who have no say or control over virtually any of its machinations - those who pay have no say!
Since there is no real competition, and as benefits and salaries rise in the public education sector, more and more people are attracted to it for the security of a paycheck and benefits (just witness the amazing number of applications for every job opening and the whining going on currently by Governor Doyle about eliminating the QEO). As a result, those who are beholdin to it and dependent upon it must purportrate the statist philosophy that allows this house of cards to stand. Consequently, you have seen the number of students per teacher trend down, salaries and benefits grow, taxes rise dramatically and the quality of the output drop relative to the rest of the industrialized world (or remain stagnant, at best). The combination shows quite clearly how inefficient and comparatively ineffective such a paradigm is, and it is a window into the future as well. In the words of Andrew Coulson: "As Americans learn more about school-choice programs and their record of success, and as they learn that the dire predictions of the critics are mistaken, they will not fear freedom in education. What they will fear is the status quo (Viewpoint, November 1, 2004 Mackinac Center For Public Policy)."
So, bildanielson, what's your idea? What plan have you put forth? You can see exactly where I believe we need to go here.
posted by Anonymous @ 9:37 AM
<< Home