What I Learned in Public School

Although you may have been taught to believe differently, public schools tend to have very negative impacts on the development of a child’s creativity, sense of ethics and autonomy. From the first day in kindergarten until the last day of senior year, ‘kids’ are told to “treat others as [they] want to be treated.” Actions speak louder than words. Unfortunately, the staff members at public education facilities treat students as if they have “authority” over them, ingraining the message that it is acceptable to treat other people like property – though I doubt they wish to be treated that way. A ‘child’ can learn all of the skills that one may deem ‘critical’ without being subjected to the hypocrisy and demand for blind obedience in the public school system.

I believe that it is more important to teach children the difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ than to teach them to follow rules that someone with purported authority sets for them. Government schools teach children that they need to comply with the demands of teachers, principals, police officers, and other individuals who are portrayed to have a higher level of authority. Giving a child the impression that they are required to obey orders without question diminishes their ability to make decisions based on logical reasoning and conscience. I would prefer to teach my children to live in ways that do not aggress upon others, use critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusions as opposed to blindly following orders and accepting what they are told without question.

In addition to conditioning students to be compliant with authority, public schools prevent students from reaching their maximum potential academically, socially, and intellectually. All students are expected to learn a general assortment of knowledge and skills instead of thriving in a specific area. Naturally, different people excel in different areas and are interested in different topics of study. I’d prefer to see each of the (approx.) 1,750 students that attend Keene High School spend their time studying and improving skills in areas they are actually interested in rather than the generalized, ‘government approved’ curriculum provided (I bet they would, too). Public schools are very bad at catering to the needs of individual students’ learning speeds, abilities and interests, regardless of the subject. Although a teacher will “teach” more slowly in order to meet the needs of students with difficulty keeping pace with the ‘average’ student, someone with accelerated learning abilities will not be accommodated so that they can reach their maximum potential. I’m not even going to begin to discuss the government-worshipping, ‘government-approved’, (obviously) biased curriculum.

Public schools teach children to be dependent on ‘authority’ figures instead of giving them the skills they need to solve problems creatively and independently. Teaching children to depend on others from an early age is not beneficial to them. People learn that when they have an issue or a dispute with someone, they should tell somebody with higher “authority” so that they can deal with the problem for them (i.e. principals, law enforcement). There is nothing wrong with asking people for help sometimes. The problem arises when people become accustomed to having other people solve their problems for them. A desirable alternative, in my opinion, is to help children improve their communication and problem-solving skills so they are capable of finding acceptable solutions to their problems independently.

The most important thing I’ve learned throughout my twelve years of public schooling is that if I ever have children, there are alternatives that would be much more educational, beneficial, and preferable than public school.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


240 comments
DB
DB

Has anyone considered opening a Sudbury (democratic) type school in or around Keene? Would there be demand for that sort of school in Keene?

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

Bob Chambers is the ex-Marlow, NH cop, who has - so far - gotten away with the murder of Russell Bean. He and his wife, Deb, run the 100Nights homeless shelter...

FreeTroll.(theKINGof
FreeTroll.(theKINGof

For the first time, coordinated, multi-university scientific research brings us closer to answering that question. Learning, Arts, and the Brain advances our understanding o.F ....--->.........college-level bullshit like this "study"...."Gee, do smart people like the arts **-OR-** do the arts make people smarter?"...OH**MY**GOD**, **WHAT**IF**IT'S** *BOTH**!?!?!?..........BOTH!?...WTF?...WE better get some UNIVERSITIES right on it!!!..............

A Critic
A Critic

"You clearly did not read the source I posted, I see."

Ah yes, I forgot about that - the one link to a newsarticle summarizing a study, but no link to the study.

I did read the linked source. 8 big claims were made if I recall correctly, 8 big claims that each would rightly be subject to many years of intensive study before the same conclusions would be rightly reached.

A Critic
A Critic

"But don’t feel bad about that, Critic. No conversation with her really does."

Yep. I wasn't sure because I usually only read posts here every few months...but holy_canole is a troll, albeit apparently one that doesn't realize she's a troll.

A Critic
A Critic

"I never said that at all."

You claimed that the Waldorf education includes the classical education - yet you also admitted that you only know the Greek alphabet. The Waldorf education does not include the classical education - yet you insisted that it does because it contains a very dumbed down superficial exposure to the same subjects. That's how the public schools work.

"I am pursuing my own education–and by no means is my goal to make ‘very good money’–it just so happens that I believe I can attain my own education by taking advantage of all the opportunities afforded to me, not the least of which is attending school and learning from people who have experience in the field I wish to go into."

And pray tell, what field is that?

holy_canole
holy_canole

You should be happy I decide to spend time posting here still, Brad...I don't see much else activity going on, now that Ian's MIA.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"But don’t feel bad about that, Critic. No conversation with her really does."

Yeah, especially when I ask you to explain something and you just decide to flat out ignore it, because you know it would result in proving you wrong.

Still waiting to hear how telling someone they should do something, isn't actually a form of advocating that they do so...

holy_canole
holy_canole

"You haven’t addressed any of the sources I listed on this site nor have you read any of the sources I linked to."

Yes, I have, and yes, I have.

"You have no sources other than your own opinion!"

You clearly did not read the source I posted, I see.

" You have no facts or basis in reality for believing that knowing the Greek alphabet is the same thing as knowing the Greek language and being familiar with all of the classic Greek texts in the original tongue!!!"

I never said that at all.

"But for the grace of God there go I – I could have taken the path you have, I could have attended the most prestigious prep schools and universities and be making “very good money” as of now – but I am so glad I didn’t because I am free to pursue my own education!"

I am pursuing my own education--and by no means is my goal to make 'very good money'--it just so happens that I believe I can attain my own education by taking advantage of all the opportunities afforded to me, not the least of which is attending school and learning from people who have experience in the field I wish to go into.

"It will be very easy – homeschooling is the only option. If they want to learn something other than the core subjects I will assist them in any way I can, whether that is time, money, materials, etc. However, they won’t be weaving baskets when it’s time to study ancient Greek."

And neither will my children. They will be weaving baskets when it is time for them to expand their artistic abilities, agility, and cognitive skills, and they will be studying ancient Greek when it is time to study ancient Greek--as per the Waldorf curriculum.

A Critic
A Critic

"You have a victim mentality when it comes to discussion it seems, seeing as you think I am ‘refusing to consider and accept’ your arguments, when in reality I have considered them, but simply don’t agree with them–which is a completely acceptable conclusion to come to in a subjective discussion such as this…"

You haven't addressed any of the sources I listed on this site nor have you read any of the sources I linked to.

Willful ignorance on your part is not the victim mentality on my part.

"However, I see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who will not consider my opinions valid (doesn’t mean you have to agree with them) because they believe I have been ‘indoctrinated.’"

You have no sources other than your own opinion! You have no facts or basis in reality for believing that knowing the Greek alphabet is the same thing as knowing the Greek language and being familiar with all of the classic Greek texts in the original tongue!!! That's about as an absurd and downright stupid claim as I've ever seen anyone make on any forum. You've been "dumbed down" - all that remains now is for you to become an expert on that by obtaining a degree from a "very well respected University"!

But for the grace of God there go I - I could have taken the path you have, I could have attended the most prestigious prep schools and universities and be making "very good money" as of now - but I am so glad I didn't because I am free to pursue my own education!

"I hope you have luck in finding a school to send your children"

It will be very easy - homeschooling is the only option. If they want to learn something other than the core subjects I will assist them in any way I can, whether that is time, money, materials, etc. However, they won't be weaving baskets when it's time to study ancient Greek.

holy_canole
holy_canole

Critic,

This conversation is obviously going nowhere. You have a victim mentality when it comes to discussion it seems, seeing as you think I am 'refusing to consider and accept' your arguments, when in reality I have considered them, but simply don't agree with them--which is a completely acceptable conclusion to come to in a subjective discussion such as this...you have come to a similar one regarding my facts and opinions as well, it would seem, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

However, I see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who will not consider my opinions valid (doesn't mean you have to agree with them) because they believe I have been 'indoctrinated.'

I hope you have luck in finding a school to send your children where they will only be educated in science, math, and ancient history--since apparently, to you, that is all one needs to survive and succeed in the modern world--and manage to keep the horrors that are english, art, music, movement, etc. out of their education.

Brad
Brad

Critic,

This conversation is obviously going nowhere.

But don't feel bad about that, Critic. No conversation with her really does.

A Critic
A Critic

And why don't you address the above evidence that "Social Studies" is an indoctrination program? Instead you ignore it and dismiss the phrase that describes this indoctrination program as "just a term".

I suppose the Holocaust is "just a term" too, eh? Nothing important there, and just because there is a word doesn't mean there was an actual conspiracy to commit mass murder, eh? Must just mean different things to different people and the Holocaust means different things for different teachers in different classes?

A Critic
A Critic

"Again, what claims, and what facts?"

The standard claims of what a Waldorf education does and why it does it. I'm not interesting in doing any more research for you. You are obviously just trolling.

"No, I value the opportunities education affords me."

Again, that's not an education. It's training.

"It’s better than most because my Waldorf education combined your classical education with other elements as well–creating a well-rounded, comprehensive curriculum."

If it combined a classical education then you would be fluent in ancient Greek and Latin and you would be very familiar with the history of those nations based on your reading the original texts in those languages. You can keep lying, and you may continue to believe it, but I for one don't think knowing the Greek alphabet is the same thing as knowing the language and having studied all of the important works in that tongue.

What you have is a superficial dumbed down version of the real deal - and you can't and won't admit it.

"English is necessary, and you DO learn it (not completely) in English class. Art is hardly just entertainment, as I told you before, you learn a lot more than just how to slop paint onto a canvas. And I still maintain that social studies is important, provided you have the right teacher and class. And regardless, I STILL don’t understand what you would have against an education which provides everything you want from your ‘classical education’ with some added bonuses."

If people learn English in English class - why is it then that the overwhelming majority of the American public is unable to read, write, or speak the language beyond a pathetically low level? Your inability to comprehend my points illustrates the failure of your "education" to educate you.

"Yes, I did…and yes, you are still experiencing confirmation bias (and it would appear that some other people are too.) Social studies is just a term–the teachers and schools decide how they want to present it to the students (provided it is a private school, which is what we are currently discussing.)"

Right, it's "just a term". Nice way of ignoring the meaning of the phrase! While you have been only discussing Waldorf schools, I have continuously been lumping it, and all private schools, in with the public schools. I don't think it is your intellect that is preventing you from observing and comprehending that - I think it's your indoctrination.

"Because, as I said, I am familiar with the works, and I have better things to do with my time than read three books about things I have already researched and disagree with."

Ah, right. You got someone else's opinions on these sources and refuse to actually consider them for yourself having been programmed on how to view them.

"Again, not refusing to examine the evidence. I have examined it, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it."

Um, not reading the evidence ain't the same thing as examining it.

"Now I’m sure you’ll come up with some reason to disagree with that, as I have done with your sources, but that doesn’t mean you are ‘refusing to accept the evidence’ it means this is a subjective argument."

Sure looks like an academic producing a study to "prove" their pre-existing opinions - there's an awful lot of very big claims there and not even a mention of the sample size. If you have a link to the actual study I'd be happy to READ IT!

"No, mine weren’t–seeing as private schools are free from having to follow a ‘national curriculum’ and the Waldorf school took advantage of that."

We live in a centrally planned society - the Waldorf schools are not exempt from the tremendous paradigm shift that infiltrates every aspect of our country.

"Again, you seem to have shifted the subject from private schools, like Waldorf, to public ones."

Again, I consider them to be part of the same system. The only difference is that public schools are about ten times worse.

"Why should I tell you if all you are going to do is tell me how indoctrinated I am for matriculating there?"

I am no expert, but I do know enough that I can either recall or research the role of most major universities in the history of the dumbing down of this country and in various other open conspiracies.

Congratulations on going to your university though - continuing with your Waldorf education you are well on your way to becoming one of the elites who will rule the masses.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"The claims made by you, Matt, and various Waldorf sites and advocates online."

Again, what claims, and what facts?

"And how many do now?"

How is that relevant to your assertion that most of us 'grow up' listening to Brittany [sic] Spears and watching American Idol?

"You value indoctrination!"

No, I value the opportunities education affords me. For example, I am going to Uganda in September to study abroad. I am going with a wonderful program which I would not be able to attend, were I not currently enrolled in college.

"That’s better than most. English is necessary, but you don’t learn it in English class. Art is nice but it’s only entertainment. Social studies, as I said and provided evidence for, is propaganda and indoctrination, so anything including art is better than that."

It's better than most because my Waldorf education combined your classical education with other elements as well--creating a well-rounded, comprehensive curriculum.

English is necessary, and you DO learn it (not completely) in English class. Art is hardly just entertainment, as I told you before, you learn a lot more than just how to slop paint onto a canvas. And I still maintain that social studies is important, provided you have the right teacher and class.

And regardless, I STILL don't understand what you would have against an education which provides everything you want from your 'classical education' with some added bonuses.

"I am more than familiar with confirmation bias. Did you read the multiple quotes from “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” which further verify my argument? I knew I had read about “social studies” somewhere."

Yes, I did...and yes, you are still experiencing confirmation bias (and it would appear that some other people are too.) Social studies is just a term--the teachers and schools decide how they want to present it to the students (provided it is a private school, which is what we are currently discussing.)

"Then why don’t you read the sources I listed? They are full of fascinating and important information."

Because, as I said, I am familiar with the works, and I have better things to do with my time than read three books about things I have already researched and disagree with.

"This isn’t a matter of subjective opinion. Entertainment, recreation, and indoctrination do not belong in an education."

It absolutely is a matter of subjective opinion. There is PLENTY of research out there which refutes your claim that an arts education is useless (or even harmful). Since you are so hell-bent on providing evidence, here's something you might enjoy (note: it's from a SCIENTIFIC site):

"According to research led by Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga of the University of California at Santa Barbara, children motivated in the arts develop attention skills and strategies for memory retrieval that also apply to other subject areas."

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/does_arts_...

Now I'm sure you'll come up with some reason to disagree with that, as I have done with your sources, but that doesn't mean you are 'refusing to accept the evidence' it means this is a subjective argument.

"The historical record verifies my statement. Your denial demonstrates that you were successfully indoctrinated."

I thought you said you were familiar with confirmation bias....?

"When you refuse to examine the evidence then you are refusing to consider the assertions."

Again, not refusing to examine the evidence. I have examined it, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

"My personal experiences were representative of the official national curriculum. Apparently yours were too. The difference is that the indoctrination worked on you."

No, mine weren't--seeing as private schools are free from having to follow a 'national curriculum' and the Waldorf school took advantage of that.

"Oh yeah – INDOCTRINATION! It’s wrong when the Nazis kill the Jews (and oh yeah everyone else they murdered) but …. let’s not even talk about the Guatemalans lying in unmarked graves. That there is your “social studies”."

Again, you seem to have shifted the subject from private schools, like Waldorf, to public ones. I have said many times that I believe the public schools need reworking. That being said, your assumptions about what I learned at the Waldorf school, and at the private university I attend, are once again false. For example, just this year I took a course where we had entire units dedicated to the Guatemalan genocide, as well as the ones in Bali, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda. Those are hardly genocides which would benefit any 'national curriculum' by being presented to students. And that is just the first example I could think of concerning your false assumption.

"And again, if you don’t mind answering, what university are you attending? It surely won’t reveal your identity to tell us, and since I’m asking you won’t be bragging."

Why should I tell you if all you are going to do is tell me how indoctrinated I am for matriculating there?

A Critic
A Critic

"What claims and what results? Where are your facts on this?"

The claims made by you, Matt, and various Waldorf sites and advocates online.

"Again, what statistics are you basing this on? The majority of people in my class didn’t even own a television."

And how many do now?

"No, it means I value education, and have seen the benefits it has in the real world. "

You value indoctrination!

"I know the Greek alphabet, I can decipher most Latin words, and yes, I know calculus. That being said, how do those things have any more value in the modern world than an understanding of english, art, or social studies?"

That's better than most. English is necessary, but you don't learn it in English class. Art is nice but it's only entertainment. Social studies, as I said and provided evidence for, is propaganda and indoctrination, so anything including art is better than that.

"What you are currently experiencing, Critic, is a phenomenon called confirmation bias. In other words, you are conflating two facts (the fact that social studies was founded in the 20?s, and the fact that government influence has increased since then) to confirm your theory–while really, the only evidence you have of this is the coincidental timing."

I am more than familiar with confirmation bias. Did you read the multiple quotes from "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" which further verify my argument? I knew I had read about "social studies" somewhere.

"I’m not refusing to read anything, as I said, I’ve read plenty on the matter, and certainly taken it into consideration-that doesn’t mean I have to accept it as right.

There’s no reason for me to cite any sources for my argument since, as I said before, this is a subjective matter (which type of education is best) and I am merely stating my opinions, and asking why you disagree."

Then why don't you read the sources I listed? They are full of fascinating and important information.

This isn't a matter of subjective opinion. Entertainment, recreation, and indoctrination do not belong in an education.

"This is perhaps one of the most paranoid statements I have read from anyone on Free Keene–and I have read a lot of paranoid statements."

The historical record verifies my statement. Your denial demonstrates that you were successfully indoctrinated.

"Once again, I did not ‘refuse to consider’ your assertions, I have considered them, and I disagree with them."

When you refuse to examine the evidence then you are refusing to consider the assertions.

"Your personal experiences in these subjects may have been unfortunate, so I could see why you would advocate for a better system in that regard, but to advocate to eliminate these elements *completely* is ludicrous."

My personal experiences were representative of the official national curriculum. Apparently yours were too. The difference is that the indoctrination worked on you.

i.e. studying the "Holocaust" - aside from the fact that this is a blatant and pathetic attempt of pro-Israel manipulation, it is also an epic act of hypocrisy. Why study the Holocaust and not East Timor, or Cambodia, or Vietnam, or Iraq, or all of the South American and Central Americans where our nation has killed more people than were killed in the Holocaust?

Oh yeah - INDOCTRINATION! It's wrong when the Nazis kill the Jews (and oh yeah everyone else they murdered) but .... let's not even talk about the Guatemalans lying in unmarked graves. That there is your "social studies".

And again, if you don't mind answering, what university are you attending? It surely won't reveal your identity to tell us, and since I'm asking you won't be bragging.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"I based it on 1) what Waldorf advocates claim and 2) the results."

What claims and what results? Where are your facts on this?

"Is that why the overwhelming majority of students exposed to arts in the schools grow up listening to Brittany Spears and watching American Idol (or their equivalent)?"

Again, what statistics are you basing this on? The majority of people in my class didn't even own a television.

"It doesn’t sound like bragging to me. Knowing and being able to cite ones abilities and accomplishments is not bragging in my opinion. However, going to a “very well respected University” means you are continuing your own indoctrination, and that your earlier indoctrination worked very well."

No, it means I value education, and have seen the benefits it has in the real world.

"It doesn’t offer the classical education. Your inability to comprehend that indicates that you are the successful graduate of an indoctrination program that interferes with your ability to comprehend such simple concepts. You really think you attained the same intellectual feats as Washington and Jefferson AND you learned all of the other busywork skills you listed? I suppose you also learned Greek, Latin, and calculus?"

I know the Greek alphabet, I can decipher most Latin words, and yes, I know calculus.

That being said, how do those things have any more value in the modern world than an understanding of english, art, or social studies?

"Since the post-WWI era was when there was a tremendous advance in government power, academic power, and corporate power, and the three made a good deal of progress in developing the education system to control the populace, it sure seems to me that “social studies” is a made up term for “propaganda” and “indoctrination”. Our education system isn’t about the truth when it comes to any of the “social studies” subjects."

What you are currently experiencing, Critic, is a phenomenon called confirmation bias. In other words, you are conflating two facts (the fact that social studies was founded in the 20's, and the fact that government influence has increased since then) to confirm your theory--while really, the only evidence you have of this is the coincidental timing.

I agree with you that many public schools have a pro-government bias in social studies, but we're not talking about public schools.

"Those books have references to hundreds of sources as well as many other facts you can easily confirm with a Google search. Your refusal to consider the evidence against your argument is not evidence that your argument is right. You haven’t cited any sources at all. You only refuse to read and consider the facts and opinions held in those books (and the “Deliberate Dumbing Down” only has opinions in the introduction if I recall correctly."

I'm not refusing to read anything, as I said, I've read plenty on the matter, and certainly taken it into consideration-that doesn't mean I have to accept it as right.

There's no reason for me to cite any sources for my argument since, as I said before, this is a subjective matter (which type of education is best) and I am merely stating my opinions, and asking why you disagree.

"As I said, and as you refused to consider, “social studies” is an anti-capitalist collectivist pro-communist plot to control the minds of the American public. Propaganda and indoctrination and dumbing down."

This is perhaps one of the most paranoid statements I have read from anyone on Free Keene--and I have read a lot of paranoid statements.

Once again, I did not 'refuse to consider' your assertions, I have considered them, and I disagree with them.

"I was taught about the Holocaust in freshmen high school English. Month long unit. They talked about homosexuals, retards, and other forgotten victims of the Holocaust for one line in one essay we had to read. The whole rest of that month was about the Jews and how they were victims. IN ENGLISH CLASS?!!! Pure propaganda.

Shakespeare is great, but he’s only great entertainment. It’s what people should read on their breaks.

The Civil Rights Movement of course is again more indoctrination and propaganda, about how blacks etc became equals. Of course, anyone who knows about the consequences of the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs and the public education system etc etc etc knows that minorities are anything but equal – and that even whites are not as free as prior generations."

Your personal experiences in these subjects may have been unfortunate, so I could see why you would advocate for a better system in that regard, but to advocate to eliminate these elements *completely* is ludicrous.

A Critic
A Critic

From "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America":

"CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES (CHAS. SCRIBNER’S SONS: New York, 1934) compiled by the American Historical Association was published. This book was

the result of a project funded to the tune of $340,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York called “Investigation of the Social Studies in the Schools,” and was carried out by the American Historical Association. Professor Harold Laski, a philosopher of British

socialism, said of this report: “At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a Socialist America.”4 Important excerpts from Conclusions follow:

[Preface] The Commission is under special obligation to its sponsor, the American Historical Association. Above all, it recognizes its indebtedness to the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation, whose financial aid made possible the whole five-year investigation

of social science instruction in the schools, eventuating in the following Conclusions and Recommendations."

The Commission could not limit itself to a survey of textbooks, curricula, methods of instruction, and schemes of examination, but was impelled to consider the condition and prospects of the American people as a part of Western Civilization merging into a world order. (p. 1)

Of utmost importance is the following admission of the planners’ goals to change our free enterprise/representative republic: The Commission was also driven to this broader conception of its task by the obvious

fact that American civilization, in common with Western civilization, is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism, and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning and control which call for large-scale cooperation on the part of the people.... (pp. 1–2)

Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States as in other countries, the age of laissez faire in economy and government is closing and a new age of collectivism is emerging.... (p.16)

The implications for education are clear and imperative: (a) the efficient functioning of the emerging economy and the full utilization of its potentialities require profound changes in the attitudes and outlook of the American people, especially the rising generation—a complete and frank recognition that the old order is passing, that the new order is emerging.... (pp. 34–35)

Organized public education in the United States, much more than ever before, is now compelled, if it is to fulfill its social obligations, to adjust its objectives, its curriculum, its methods of instruction, and its administrative procedures to the requirements of the emerging integrated order.

If the school is to justify its maintenance and assume its responsibilities, it must recognize the new order and proceed to equip the rising generation to cooperate effectively in the increasingly interdependent society and to live rationally and well within its

limitations and possibilities.... Signed: A.C. Krey, Chairman; Charles A. Beard; Isaiah Bowman (signed with reservations printed as Appendix C); Ada Comstock; George S. Counts; Avery O. Craven; Guy Stanton Ford; Carlton J.H. Hayes; Henry Johnson; A.C. Krey; Leon C.

Marshall; Jesse H. Newton; Jesse F. Steiner. (Frank A. Ballou, Edmund E. Day, Ernest Hom, and Charles E. Merriam declined to sign these Conclusions.) (p. 35)"

There you. The Carnegie Corporation spent the equivalent of millions of todays dollars in order to produce a project and book advocating "social studies" as part of the globalist drive to merge America and western civilization with the rest of the globe in a "world order" - and these "social studies" are to aid in the "new attitudes and outlook" of the American people so they will embrace collectivism and a powerful state and central planning as part of the "new order".

To summarize the lesson, or point, you ignored:

"Social studies" is an indoctrination program developed by the Carnegie Corporation in order to brainwash the American people into supporting collectivism and a strong state and central planning as part of the new world order.

If you examine the history of the signatories you will find most or maybe even all of the "very well respected Universities" represented in their training or employment. You will likely find your own. holy_canole - if you don't mind sharing, which "very well respected University" are you attending?

A Critic
A Critic

"I took a Social Movements class and we did a unit on education."

So you only read short excerpts or summations of authors? What books have you read on education?

A Critic
A Critic

". Your statement that they try to manufacture adults based on a preconceived notion of what adults should be is SO terribly off it’s hilarious."

I based it on 1) what Waldorf advocates claim and 2) the results.

"Learning about various forms of art teaches children many things, not just how to slop paint onto a canvas, but things which can be applied in other areas of life as well."

Is that why the overwhelming majority of students exposed to arts in the schools grow up listening to Brittany Spears and watching American Idol (or their equivalent)?

"now go to a very well respected University (I don’t like saying things like this, it sounds like bragging, but you asked…)"

It doesn't sound like bragging to me. Knowing and being able to cite ones abilities and accomplishments is not bragging in my opinion. However, going to a "very well respected University" means you are continuing your own indoctrination, and that your earlier indoctrination worked very well.

"So I still don’t see why you would dislike a system which offers your classical education and more."

It doesn't offer the classical education. Your inability to comprehend that indicates that you are the successful graduate of an indoctrination program that interferes with your ability to comprehend such simple concepts. You really think you attained the same intellectual feats as Washington and Jefferson AND you learned all of the other busywork skills you listed? I suppose you also learned Greek, Latin, and calculus?

"Oh please. Social Studies is just a term…you can’t say it’s indoctrination because every class is different, and every teacher is different."

I can say it is indoctrination because all teachers are union members (and th, graduates of the state-education system (even the private schools at all levels are heavily influenced by the federal government), and licensed by the state, and there is extensive documentation showing that almost all teachers indoctrinate their students with a pro-state ideology.

Also - "social studies" is indeed a "term", and has such has a "definition" and a "history" and a "meaning". I never liked it. Set off my doublespeak detector even as a child.

"The article you posted hardly proves anything…the abstract is in the form of a prompt, for all you know the article could even be refuting that prompt. Additionally, it is hardly a credible source for ‘proving’ anything in your objective, scientific manner, given that it is listed as an opinion paper. "

The date of the origin of "social studies" is what I was interested in.

Here's Websters:

Definition of SOCIAL STUDIES: a part of a school or college curriculum concerned with the study of social relationships and the functioning of society and usually made up of courses in history, government, economics, civics, sociology, geography, and anthropology

First Known Use of SOCIAL STUDIES 1926

Since the post-WWI era was when there was a tremendous advance in government power, academic power, and corporate power, and the three made a good deal of progress in developing the education system to control the populace, it sure seems to me that "social studies" is a made up term for "propaganda" and "indoctrination". Our education system isn't about the truth when it comes to any of the "social studies" subjects.

"lol. That’s hardly ‘critical thinking’ you’ve got there…this is a subjective argument, you can’t ‘win’ just by throwing some books around by people who agree with you."

Those books have references to hundreds of sources as well as many other facts you can easily confirm with a Google search. Your refusal to consider the evidence against your argument is not evidence that your argument is right. You haven't cited any sources at all. You only refuse to read and consider the facts and opinions held in those books (and the "Deliberate Dumbing Down" only has opinions in the introduction if I recall correctly.

Consider this little tidbit about "social studies", from the book you deem "some book" not worthy of consideration:

"PROFESSOR GEORGE COUNTS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS COLLEGE WROTE DARE the School Build a New Social Order? (John Day Company: New York, 1932). He and many other American educators traveling back and forth to Russia became completely convinced that the Soviet Communist system was the ultimate system. Counts was deeply involved in, and a member of, the Carnegie Foundation-financed Commission on the Social Studies which

produced the American Historical Association’s Conclusions and recommendations: Report of the Commission on the Social Studies in 1934. He was also the author of The American The Troubling Thirties : c. 1932 19, Road to Culture series (Quinn and Broden, Co., Inc.: Rahway, N.J., 1930–1934) and The Soviet Challenge to America (John Day Co.: New York, 1931). Excerpts from this entry’s major focus, Counts’s Dare the School Build a New Social Order?, follow:

If property rights are to be diffused in industrial society, natural resources and all important forms of capital will have to be collectively owned.... This clearly means that, if democracy is to survive in the United States, it must abandon its individualistic affiliations in the sphere of economics.... Within these limits, as I see it, our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern. The important point is that fundamental changes in the economic system are imperative. Whatever services historic capitalism may have rendered in the past, and they have been many, its days are numbered."

There you go. A creator of "social studies" talking about the need for the schools to create a collectivist anti-capitalist "new social order".

As I said, and as you refused to consider, "social studies" is an anti-capitalist collectivist pro-communist plot to control the minds of the American public. Propaganda and indoctrination and dumbing down.

"….so you’d rather we just have a bunch of kids running around who know the scientific method and the quadratic formula, but don’t know about the Holocaust, or Shakespeare, or the Civil Rights Movement?"

I was taught about the Holocaust in freshmen high school English. Month long unit. They talked about homosexuals, retards, and other forgotten victims of the Holocaust for one line in one essay we had to read. The whole rest of that month was about the Jews and how they were victims. IN ENGLISH CLASS?!!! Pure propaganda.

Shakespeare is great, but he's only great entertainment. It's what people should read on their breaks.

The Civil Rights Movement of course is again more indoctrination and propaganda, about how blacks etc became equals. Of course, anyone who knows about the consequences of the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs and the public education system etc etc etc knows that minorities are anything but equal - and that even whites are not as free as prior generations.

"I’ll take well-rounded any day."

A good education leaves a person full of points - points being "the most important essential in a discussion or matter " that rest upon the solid foundation of "The systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life".

A bad education grinds down any points the child learns on their own and smooths out any important lessons learned and thus prevents them from getting any more points.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"What makes it weak is that contrary to what you said about treating each child as an individual the Waldorf system attempts to manufacture adults based on a preconception of what a person should be. Many people don’t do anything with the arts as adults. Almost all of those who do don’t have anything to do with basket weaving or recorder music (two examples cited by Matt). Rather than learning essential skills and knowledge that serve one for a lifetime and prepare one to undertake any other form of learning one does a bunch of busywork."

I'm sorry, but you did not attend a Waldorf school. Seeing as I did, I think I have a better idea of how they treat children. Your statement that they try to manufacture adults based on a preconceived notion of what adults should be is SO terribly off it's hilarious. As for your concern that people don't do anything with the arts--just because you don't make a career solely out of the arts, doesn't mean they aren't beneficial to have in your life in general. Learning about various forms of art teaches children many things, not just how to slop paint onto a canvas, but things which can be applied in other areas of life as well.

"I went to Catholic elementary school. Same deal. Vastly superior to public school, yet vastly inferior to a classical education. “Exposure” doesn’t work."

I completely disagree, first of all, and second of all I would like to add that perhaps my wording was off--I feel that the education I received at the Waldorf school was far more than simply 'exposure.' What I originally meant by that was that you are exposed to many different subjects, but that doesn't mean you don't study them thoroughly.

"Where the heck did you see Nock? He was obscure when he was alive and is even less well known now."

I took a Social Movements class and we did a unit on education.

"Out of all of the things you learned in Waldorf school – how many do you retain mastery of?"

I guess you'd have to ask me to find out--personally, thinking back, I believe I have retained a vast majority of them, but I wouldn't know until someone asked me, right? I still know the alphabet in eurythmy, I know how to knit, crochet, cross stitch, paint and do woodwork, I can read music and play several instruments, I still remember the words to many of the songs we sang, and as for your love of 'classical education'--I took all honors and AP classes in high school and maintained an over 4.0 gpa, and now go to a very well respected University (I don't like saying things like this, it sounds like bragging, but you asked...) so I'd say I definitely retained quite a lot of that as well. Additionally, all of the people I graduated with have similar success stories, in all sorts of areas of life--one is a world class athlete, one is currently working on the set of the new Batman film, etc.

So I still don't see why you would dislike a system which offers your classical education and more.

"It fails to produce the ability to think critically – contrary to it’s goals."

So the ONLY way a person can learn to think critically is if they only EVER learn math and science in school?

"Again, English didn’t used to be taught in schools. I know English majors. They can’t read or write English any better than the average college graduate."

So? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught in schools now...

"Again, “social studies” is a made up subject. It’s indoctrination. It’s deliberately and scientifically designed to make you think what you are supposed to think."

Oh please. Social Studies is just a term...you can't say it's indoctrination because every class is different, and every teacher is different. If you think that learning about the world around you is indoctrination, though, I suggest you stay holed up behind your computer and play some math and science games for a while--I'd rather be out learning about the world, and having some background knowledge about how it works can't hurt.

The article you posted hardly proves anything...the abstract is in the form of a prompt, for all you know the article could even be refuting that prompt. Additionally, it is hardly a credible source for 'proving' anything in your objective, scientific manner, given that it is listed as an opinion paper.

"The fact that you can’t possibly agree with me no matter how much evidence I produce to validate my argument is yet more evidence that my argument is valid."

lol. That's hardly 'critical thinking' you've got there...this is a subjective argument, you can't 'win' just by throwing some books around by people who agree with you.

"You’ve been programmed and you are defending the program. That’s what is wrong with the Waldorf educational system – it’s just another way of programming kids to behave as a small group of people believe everyone should behave."

....so you'd rather we just have a bunch of kids running around who know the scientific method and the quadratic formula, but don't know about the Holocaust, or Shakespeare, or the Civil Rights Movement?

I'll take well-rounded any day.

A Critic
A Critic

On "social studies" I found this interesting reference: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detai...

Unfortunately the complete text is not available but the abstract contains the following interesting information:

"Discusses the conditions present during and after World War I which led to the creation of social studies as a discrete component in the U.S. school curriculum. Describes these conditions as a public awareness of impending crisis, perception of citizenship as a major social concern, alternatives to traditional citizenship education, and professional organizational activity. "

It was WWI and it's aftermath that led to the creation of this indoctrination program. Considering the extreme jingoism, nationalism, and crackdown on independent thought and action and government criticism of those times combined with the above information validates my earlier statements that the real purpose of "social studies" is to control the minds and actions of the masses.

A Critic
A Critic

"What exactly makes it weak? You have made plenty of accusations about the education, none of which are true, which leads me to believe you have no real idea what it is you are speaking about."

What makes it weak is that contrary to what you said about treating each child as an individual the Waldorf system attempts to manufacture adults based on a preconception of what a person should be. Many people don't do anything with the arts as adults. Almost all of those who do don't have anything to do with basket weaving or recorder music (two examples cited by Matt). Rather than learning essential skills and knowledge that serve one for a lifetime and prepare one to undertake any other form of learning one does a bunch of busywork.

I went to Catholic elementary school. Same deal. Vastly superior to public school, yet vastly inferior to a classical education. "Exposure" doesn't work.

"I have read excerpts from all of these books throughout my numerous years of schooling (Waldorf and otherwise) and I see no reason why you cannot make your argument without me having read them thoroughly; seeing as you have not received multiple years of Waldorf education, it seems as if we are on somewhat level playing fields."

Where the heck did you see Nock? He was obscure when he was alive and is even less well known now.

I made my argument. In order to understand it would help if you read the original sources.

Out of all of the things you learned in Waldorf school - how many do you retain mastery of?

"So tell me, what is it exactly which is so terrible about anthroposophy/Waldorf education that you would deem it less beneficial to a developing child than your ‘classical education’ consisting of only math and science? If you stick to your argument that children need not learn english and social studies then I simply cannot empathize with you, no matter how much literature you throw my way."

It fails to produce the ability to think critically - contrary to it's goals.

Again, English didn't used to be taught in schools. I know English majors. They can't read or write English any better than the average college graduate.

Again, "social studies" is a made up subject. It's indoctrination. It's deliberately and scientifically designed to make you think what you are supposed to think. Evidently it's worked very well. The fact that you can't possibly agree with me no matter how much evidence I produce to validate my argument is yet more evidence that my argument is valid.

You've been programmed and you are defending the program. That's what is wrong with the Waldorf educational system - it's just another way of programming kids to behave as a small group of people believe everyone should behave.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"English and history are both best learned through reading and writing."

...which are things which one cannot be exposed to/taught in school....?

"The arts are best learned outside of school by doing."

You do them in the Waldorf school, and are encouraged to pursue them outside of the school environment as well....

"But I do know about such things. The Waldorf school is just another intellectually weak attempt at a liberal arts education, except it substitutes training for education, and superficiality for depth."

What exactly makes it weak? You have made plenty of accusations about the education, none of which are true, which leads me to believe you have no real idea what it is you are speaking about.

"If the Waldorf education you received really provided you with a real education then it should be no problem for you to read and comprehend the three books I have linked to in this thread and then return so we may have a common basis for discussing education. I’d start with Gatto’s book, then “The Deliberate Dumbing Down”, and finish with Nock’s little gem."

I have read excerpts from all of these books throughout my numerous years of schooling (Waldorf and otherwise) and I see no reason why you cannot make your argument without me having read them thoroughly; seeing as you have not received multiple years of Waldorf education, it seems as if we are on somewhat level playing fields.

So tell me, what is it exactly which is so terrible about anthroposophy/Waldorf education that you would deem it less beneficial to a developing child than your 'classical education' consisting of only math and science? If you stick to your argument that children need not learn english and social studies then I simply cannot empathize with you, no matter how much literature you throw my way.

A Critic
A Critic

"I’m sorry, but you can’t possibly have an idea of what it means to have, and the benefits of, a comprehensive education if you advocate education such as this."

English and history are both best learned through reading and writing. The arts are best learned outside of school by doing.

"Well you really shouldn’t speak about things you don’t know then, Critic. You may have a ‘critical ear’ but that doesn’t mean you have any idea what it is you are talking about."

But I do know about such things. The Waldorf school is just another intellectually weak attempt at a liberal arts education, except it substitutes training for education, and superficiality for depth.

If the Waldorf education you received really provided you with a real education then it should be no problem for you to read and comprehend the three books I have linked to in this thread and then return so we may have a common basis for discussing education. I'd start with Gatto's book, then "The Deliberate Dumbing Down", and finish with Nock's little gem.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"The public education system of today would have him doing remedial math (basic arithmetical) in college at an older age and I doubt that the Waldorf school would fare all that much better."

Well you really shouldn't speak about things you don't know then, Critic. You may have a 'critical ear' but that doesn't mean you have any idea what it is you are talking about.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"No. Math yes, science yes, but English and “social studies” no."

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly have an idea of what it means to have, and the benefits of, a comprehensive education if you advocate education such as this.

A Critic
A Critic

"Thanks to “A Critic” for posting this original link, above"

If you liked that check out this link: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index....

That is an easier read than "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

I also highly recommend "The Theory of Education in the United States: The Page-Barbour Lectures for 1931 at the University of Virginia" by Albert Jay Nock, which is available here: http://mises.org/resources/3354 in PDF, Epub, and paper formats.

That is a most interesting read. Nock was one of the very last people to get a classical education in this country. In this book he answers holy_canole's question ….what is it that you believe is missing exactly?"

The short answer is "An education". As Nock explains in depth what passes for an education these days is training. It is not the same thing at all. I highly recommend reading this book and also all of Nock's other works.

A Critic
A Critic

"You obviously have no understanding of what it means to have a ‘comprehensive education.’"

Yes I do.

"And what do you mean exactly by a ‘classical education’? "

The sort that was taught in this country before compulsory education was mandated.

"One which focuses only on core subjects such as math, english, social studies, and science?"

No. Math yes, science yes, but English and "social studies" no.

It used to be that hick farm kids with an elementary school education who were never taught a lick of English possessed a superior command of the written and spoken English language than almost all English majors do today.

Former generations also had a superior command of history due to their study of Latin and Greek and the historical texts written in those languages. "Social studies" is the propagandists version of history which is an obstacle to deriving universal truths. That stands in a stark contrast to the lessons learned from studying the longest continuously documented period of human history, lessons such as the nature of power and states and the inevitability of the collapse of all states and the consequences of debasing the currency.

"How on earth could an education which exposes children to these subjects while ALSO exposing them to music, movement, art, religion, etc. be inferior?"

A true education doesn't "expose" one to a subject. It "educates" them. According to the OED an education is "The systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life; by extension, similar instruction or training obtained in adult age. Also, the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Often with limiting words denoting the nature or the predominant subject of the instruction or kind of life for which it prepares, as classical education, legal education, medical education, technical education, commercial education, art education."

The sheer number of topics you have listed is far too many to educate a person in depth in a few short years. A superficial introduction to a subject that doesn't require mastery of the subject is not truly an education. Many people today, including those who graduated from private schools, can not recall the knowledge and skills they learned when they were young. The recipients of a classical education retained that knowledge and skills until they died or lost their faculties.

That's why it is inferior.

"Additionally, if you do some more research into anthroposophy, you will find that one of its main tenets is focusing on the development of the individual child, rather than treating each 3rd grader as being at the exact same academic/social/creative level simply by virtue of him/her being in 3rd grade."

I read that. It sounds great to an uncritical ear, but to my critical ear it sounds like mush. Judging from the results it doesn't work so well. The classical education method taught children even if they were not suited for being taught. The best example in my opinion is George Washington - a man whose contemporaries consistently considered not too bright. Yet he still mastered calculus by the age of 16. The public education system of today would have him doing remedial math (basic arithmetical) in college at an older age and I doubt that the Waldorf school would fare all that much better.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"The basic “readin’, ‘ritin’, & ‘rithmatic, PLUS a Waldorf, (or Montessori…) type-education is BEST…"

You get 'the basic 'readin', 'ritin', & 'rithmatic' at Waldorf schools too....what is it that you believe is missing exactly?

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

What makes *EITHER of you think that either extreme is good???...There is deliberate dumbing-down of America's school-children, and Waldorf doesn't do so hot on teaching things like logic. Look at "matt" & "holy_canole"...,////.....Thanks to "A Critic" for posting this original link, above....in case you missed it.......Hope it comes through live&active...--->. Read the book at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com. The documentation of that very conspiracy is impeccable.

The basic "readin', 'ritin', & 'rithmatic, PLUS a Waldorf, (or Montessori...) type-education is BEST...

holy_canole
holy_canole

And what do you mean exactly by a 'classical education'? One which focuses only on core subjects such as math, english, social studies, and science? How on earth could an education which exposes children to these subjects while ALSO exposing them to music, movement, art, religion, etc. be inferior? Additionally, if you do some more research into anthroposophy, you will find that one of its main tenets is focusing on the development of the individual child, rather than treating each 3rd grader as being at the exact same academic/social/creative level simply by virtue of him/her being in 3rd grade.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"I have read about the Waldorf educational system. It sounded great (something different!) until I started to learn about it. Music, art, movement and love, and religion, all are great things – but they make for a poor education. I would have to agree that it is doubtlessly superior to public education – but it is also doubtlessly vastly inferior to a classical education."

You obviously have no understanding of what it means to have a 'comprehensive education.'

A Critic
A Critic

"yet when faced with a different option he doesn’t know a thing about – he judges it and its curriculum as cultist and crackpot. Brilliant! How anyone could dislike anhtroposophy, music, art, movement and love, which is the foundation of waldorf education – is beyond me."

I have read about the Waldorf educational system. It sounded great (something different!) until I started to learn about it. Music, art, movement and love, and religion, all are great things - but they make for a poor education. I would have to agree that it is doubtlessly superior to public education - but it is also doubtlessly vastly inferior to a classical education.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"PS: YOU STILL HAVEN”T ANSWERED MY QUESTION."

What question is that, King? I admit, I tend not to pay attention to your posts because, not only do you hardly have anything topical to say, generally what you DO say is incredibly offensive and I don't like to converse with people who are so inconsiderate. However, if you feel that this question I have not answered is different, then please repost it and I will try to answer (assuming it is polite.)

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

holy_canole on Fri, 19th Aug 2011 2:44 pm

(ps….good job at once again deflecting the fact that you constantly claim I am something, but never back it up. Say what you will about my incessant questioning/unwillingness to accept your explanations of concepts/etc, but at least I back up my claims

.............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------------

Bullshit, bitchcunt, you haven't backed up a *SINGLE* claim here. You keep saying you do, but you don't. Then, you say we do, but don't. That's hypocracy, to boot. Your questioning is incessant, though. Too bad you don't have any answers...~tKoK.....

PS: YOU STILL HAVEN"T ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"UM, doesn’t that mean, “holy_canole”, that you learned *NOTHING* in Public School???….Waldorf ain’t “public”…"

I went to public high school.

theKINGofKEENE
theKINGofKEENE

UM, doesn't that mean, "holy_canole", that you learned *NOTHING* in Public School???....Waldorf ain't "public"...

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Oh, you’re definitely that… and a clever apologist for it too."

How so?

holy_canole
holy_canole

(ps....good job at once again deflecting the fact that you constantly claim I am something, but never back it up. Say what you will about my incessant questioning/unwillingness to accept your explanations of concepts/etc, but at least I back up my claims)

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Oh no, Canole. You don’t fit into that box.

You have a whole different box allllll to yourself. I’m not sure how to properly label it, though."

Ok, then don't label me a 'supporter of the violent system' if that's not what you think I am.

Brad
Brad

Ok, then don’t label me a ‘supporter of the violent system’ if that’s not what you think I am.

Oh, you're definitely that... and a clever apologist for it too.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"I’m not falling into your tangled web of distortions, calculated misquotes, and unwritten inferences any longer, canole."

Just as I thought...you have no evidence of what you accuse me of. If you did, you could simply produce it--it wouldn't matter if I then proceeded to distort, misquote, or infer anything, now would it? If you say I do something, you should be able prove so with the words I have already spoken.

You just like fitting me into your convenient 'violent statist' box because I don't sympathize with your own naive, unrealistic views of the world--not because that's what I actually am.

And as a side note--if you have no intention of 'falling into my tangled web' then don't address me in a comment. You initiated this current interaction, Brad, not I.

Brad
Brad

You just like fitting me into your convenient ‘violent statist’ box because I don’t sympathize with your own naive, unrealistic views of the world–not because that’s what I actually am.

Oh no, Canole. You don't fit into that box.

You have a whole different box allllll to yourself. I'm not sure how to properly label it, though.

holy_canole
holy_canole

I know I certainly don't support such blatant violence such as corporal punishment for children--which many people here came out in support of during the whole Thomas Ball incident--yet I'm still the one constantly being accused of 'supporting violence' for some reason.

Brad
Brad

I'm not falling into your tangled web of distortions, calculated misquotes, and unwritten inferences any longer, canole.

holy_canole
holy_canole

Brad,

How do I support violence, specifically? You keep accusing me of doing so, and I keep asking you to show me how, and you can never quite seem to pin it down...

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!