We are all on the same side
By
If you aren’t with us, you’re against us.
Why does the educational establishment slip into this devisive posture?
Educational excellence is a goal on which almost everyone agrees. Opponents of any particular policy or administrative decision are not against teachers or against schools. We should all be able to discuss issues without rancor, name-calling and personal attacks.
In 1858 Mobius wrote about a two-dimensional surface with only one side. The mobius strip appears to have two sides, but if one tries to paint each side a different color it isn’t possible. The two apparent sides are in fact one continuous surface.
Support for education is a mobius strip. Referendum elections may give the illusion that there are two sides to a community, but in reality we are all united in desiring well educated children.
I refuse to be painted with an anti-education brush. Join me.
No related posts.
[...] On the BorderLine The St. Croix County Daily News
We are all on the same side | Home
12/19/2004
Ramblings
Filed under: General Educ [...]
There are many on this blog who are passionate about ‘education.’ I would count myself among them. I agree that there are virtually none who do not desire educational ‘excellence.’ But that has a host of definitional baggage. Just as when a school board member talks about educational ‘quality.’ Or a ‘neighborhood school’. What metric are you going to use? A central authority’s opinion, or the power of millions of individual consumers making optimal personal choices? Those with the power, define and defend the definition. These are just symptoms of the underlying issue, one of competition and monopoly power.
Many on this blog have engaged in this debate not because of the notion that education is unimportant, or that it pales in regard to increased taxation. Rather, we engaged in the debate because we believe education is profoundly and critically important. I suspect that you and everyone who wanders into this blog believe in the notion of a free society (as opposed to tyranny or dictatorship). Ought it not be the case then that education of all things reflect such a goal, ideal or standard? That the rights of the individual are pre-eminent over any supposed soveriegn? Our Founders certainly felt that way. The first and most important step is to remove the government monopoly in education as we have today. That is the crux of the issue and the source of the rancor. That one bold stroke would improve the state of education in ways none of us can even imagine. This then would be the key step towards educational excellence and a profoundly American method..
Regarding the attacks – I believe they are a legitimate response to an unresponsive government monopoly (or its apologists) that will not consider the obvious alternative. They hold all the cards, those in opposition are the underdogs.
When a proud collectivist is labelled a “socialist” does it help his opponents gain converts? Pointing out that an overweight woman is “fat” doesn’t help win the hearts and minds of other heavy women.
Breaking the government monopoly on education cannot be the first step in reforming the education bureaucracy. It may be the crux of the issue for a few idealists. If you try to defeat “bricks and mortar” school referenda by tilting at that windmill you will lose. And you will marginalize yourself in the process. It will take a generation or more to break that monopoly.
Welcome to the blog Mobius!
I’m glad you’ve joined into the debate that SpiritofPublicus has so eloquently asked for.
I think you’ve made some interesting comments. One of which has me very intrigued. You said, “When a proud collectivist is labeled a socialist does it help his opponents gain converts?”
Well, I truly hope so!! If something can’t be faced for what it is, who’s fooling who?
The online definition of a collectivist is:
adj : subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively
n : a person who belongs to the political left
Collectivism is the principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
The definition of the words you’ve used in your comment here are alone cause for alarm, especially considering its proximity and control over the young minds we are trying to educate. What kind of possible future can this present establishment bring other than an output of socialism?
And Socialism is defined as:
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
What I believe we are witnessing here locally is the early stages of a much needed massive correction like those seen in the marketplace. Its time to clean house!
But if someone or a group doesn’t step forward to challenge this slide that I believe we are in, there can be no other final result than communism.
Now is the time to face the facts and fight the fight.
If not now, then “when”?
If not here, then “where”?
If not us, then “who”?
It’ll be our children who will be handed this mess along with being in debt up over their eyeballs. They will be the ones who were led to believe that government will always save them and the collectivist is the one that paved the way.
Mobius, I do appreciate your commentary but I will respectfully disagree with some of it. I am hoping we can keep our discussion here civil.
A couple of thoughts cross my mind, one is that ideas must stand on their own. When a ‘proud collectivist’ (pc) is referred to as a socialist it is a reference to his philosophy. He can denounce it if it is not true, and explain why the labeler was incorrect. Or, he can proudly espouse his socialist belief system and tell us all why it will work this time around; why it is that he as the practitioner will be able to make the flawed theory work. But for him to denounce the label, and then go on espousing that very philosophy is to attempt to purportrate a lie. The label is an objective assessment of his position on social matters – information we need to have front and center in order to properly evaluate his position and its implications.
If being what he is embarrasses the pc it is not the fault of the person placing the truth in plain view, rather it is a glimpse into the pc’s guilt mechanisms. We need more of this, not less, in this country. The flawed ideologies of the past must be exposed and refuted at every turn if for no more obvious a reason than the fact that we now have such a socialist paradigm in education – why would anyone think it to be an optimal approach? What rational arguments are being made to support the philosophy that it is built upon? Compared to what and at what cost to a free and moral society?
It is only those who are sympathetic to the pc’s cause who feel the pain. Potential converts, if in fact they are truly objective, will want to know this information. The mere fact someone is being labeled what they are will only affect the thinking process of those who have decided not to think! You see, by disquising the pc would be withholding relevant information about his positions and would deny the use of man’s history in dealing with his premise. It is not the person, per se, it is the philosophy and ideology the person promotes that is the issue. Once he adopts it, the label sticks until he renounces it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
An aversion to labels is simply a tactic of the left. “Life is too complex” they say, therefore “nothing can be certain.” “We live in a relativistic, pragmatic universe.” “There can be no objective reality.” “We cannot judge today based upon the past, after all reality changes.” “A is not A, a thing is not itself,” and on and on they go. Therefore, someone, some central authority, must be in control- someone who know what is best for all people.
Hiding behind the drapery of an institution makes it is easy to remain viable when espousing such nonsense, however it is cloaked, but when forced to stand alone in the world of profit and matter to defend your philosophy, one has a far more difficult task.
Mobius, you imply that instituting real economic educational choice is ‘idealistic.’ In response, I will reiterate the words of Isabel Paterson as noted in a previous blog (http://www.ontheborderline.net/index.php?p=479), as they appear as relevant today as when they were written: “The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as ?reactionary,î at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation, is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you to pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?î (P296, The God Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson 1943)
In closing out my contribution to this thread, I would simply say that the monopoly is the bureaucracy, you cannot deal with the latter without first undoing the former. If not now, when? If not here, where? How long would you have us remain silent when over half of parents, when asked, indicate that if they could they would send their child to a non-government school. Unhooking the monopoly is not that difficult nor would it appear all too radical to any reasonable person on the street. Such an approach does not imply the destruction of public schools. It simply means giving parents an economic choice.
I believe you have to deal directly with the heart of the matter, not with the symptoms. In this case, the solution is profoundly easy and straightforward but I am going to withhold that discussion for another day because it is the subject of a publication that is currently in the works.
There is no doubt that both sides view education as being important. The difference arises in who is the primary benefactor of education and the predictability of outcome. Those of us,such as donttreadonme and myself, believe the pursuit of education is the choice of the parent or individual in order to open the doors of opportunity to better oneself in society. After high school we all have the choice to continue on to college or immediately enter the workforce. Why do many choose college. Simply stated, to open doors to opportunities that would not be possible without a college education. We pursue education out of self-interest and the outcome of such pursuit is unknown. However as Adam Smith noted that the outcome,though not predictable,of each of us pursuing self-interst within the rules of society will benefit society as a whole.
The apologists for public education see the primary benefactor of education as the state and therfore outcome must be predictable. In order to improve society, then education must pursue arbitrary goals as set forth by the state or local school board. The only way to get a specific result, is to lock as many children as possible into government schools. The concept of freedom of choice and individualism simply cannot be tolerated. But this viewpoint leads as it always does to hypocrisy and paradox. For example ,last spring the school board voted to join a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for monopolistic practices and that the school district was harmed by lack of competition. Why is it monopoly is bad in the case of Microsoft[though Microsoft is not a monopoly] and a government monopoly in education is not?
This debate over public education has many twists and angles. Needless to say there will be a series of thoughts forthcoming.