Wednesday, December 1, 2010

It's the Culture, Stupid

The American educational crisis is caused by the predominant American philosophy of education. That is, the problems we have with our education system in this country are generally cultural, not financial or structural, because our philosophy is embodied in our culture. That’s why we will never solve these problems by throwing more money at schools, trying new teaching fads, giving inner-city schools a makeover, or rearranging our educational bureaucracy.

Endless research studying the difference between American academic performance in K-12 and that of other countries clearly shows that America has a pathetic school system. This is a fact beyond debate. We’re being left in the dust. Despite paying more per student than most other countries, our students’ academic performance is lower than even less-developed countries on nearly every measure. Obviously, this makes progressives’ call for “more school funding” seem to be only a palliative to their consciences, not a solution of the actual problem, because the money we spend does NOT improve academic performance. Because the problem is cultural, not financial, we can’t spend our way out of it.

A new coat of paint, a fancy new computer lab, a shiny new gymnasium, a bunch of new football team uniforms…these are the worthless improvements that American progressives think will change our schools for the better, but they won’t. Hire new teachers, create merit-based pay systems, try out a few dozen new edu-fads…these won’t work either. Tell students how wonderful they are, improve their self-esteem without merit, sing “Kumbaya” (I did this in public school camp), and talk about feelings, beliefs, attitudes, ethics, equality—do everything but focus on basic education, and you get the academic and social disaster we have now, but it makes progressive teachers feel so good about themselves, which, I suspect, is the real but subconscious cause of this appalling social experiment.

We’ve eliminated discipline in the classroom. We’ve eliminated student accountability. We’ve lowered standards so every student can seem like a success. We’ve institutionalized political correctness so we can’t even tell the truth anymore: that some students are stupid, that stupid parents usually have stupid children, that America is filled with broken families that don’t value education, that some students are not fit for college, and that you can’t have winners without losers. This is what we got when the progressive, indulgent, and permissive “mommy” teachers and administrators displaced conservative and traditional “daddy” teachers and administrators in our school system. How do you show students you care about them? By rigorously training them to be self-sufficient and successful ("daddy teaching"), or by giving them everything they want ("mommy teaching")? You get the idea.

The teacher-student relationship is warped and dysfunctional. Instead of training students for success, we get praise without merit, misbehavior without discipline, self-indulgent sloth without consequences, unconditional respect of students who should be viewed as inferiors, and the most immature students on the globe. When you let your students run your schools, you get the same consequences as when you let your kids run your household: Disaster.

We used to be taught in one-room schoolhouses on the prairie, and in brick inner-city schools, and the education American students got was vastly superior to the one they get now. What changed is our culture, and the educational philosophies that stem from it. The catalyst was the Vietnam War and the 1960s, which transformed the goal of American education from teaching the basics to teaching progressive social values. For example, in my sixth-grade class, we were required to do a module on American slavery, in which half of the students had to wear black paper slave yokes around their necks for most of the day, and the other half got to be “slave owners” and tell the “slaves” what to do. Did this teach us math, science, or English? Hardly. This is what they call “affective education,” and it’s an outcome of the 1960s social revolution.

Teachers and administrators from Kindergarten to graduate school are generally social progressives. We all know this. To claim that they don’t bring their worldview and personal politics into the workplace is absurd. And what have we gotten for this switcheroo of traditional educational values with worthless progressive social engineering in the classroom? We all know the answer to that question, and the results of this educational revolution are disturbing enough to fuel the creation of a website like this one.

27 comments:

  1. And the flaming starts in 3, 2, 1, ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Listen, Cookies, I usually enjoy your comments on CM, and this rant is beautiful. But it's fraught with an astonishing ignorance of the world's educational systems.

    For reasons known only yourself, you have named "progressives" to be your American Taliban. Yet "progressive politics" are closest to those used in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Norway -- the countries with the best educational track records.

    Your comments about the Prairie come out of left field. You think people educated in a single large room grew up to be scientists or critical thinkers? They were usually raised to farm.

    Everyone here agrees that singing about how much we love ourselves is not going to help the American children. Your underlying message is a good one. But why would you cast teaching styles in terms of 1950s gender roles? Why blame "progressives" randomly over "helicopter parents" or "evangelic crazies" or anyone else? Your misdirected rage replaced a carefully crafted, researched post.

    I expect more from you. Loving the rage though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm withholding my flame until someone tells me this isn't another ironic joke post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This post begins with a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree, and it's a statement with which I wish No Cookies had stuck: "It's the culture, stupid."

    No Cookies is right that what's killing our educational system, more than anything else, is the culture that has emerged in American society. That much is probably clear to anyone on this site who has bitched about students coming and demanding "A"s for having shown up. It's what annoys us all, and it's what we call College Misery.

    But somewhere during this post, No Cookies replaces "culture" with "progressive teachers" and tries to continue the same argument. I don't buy it.

    There is a culture of laziness, yes, and of rewarding non-achievements. And of setting the bar low and of entitled kids who text in class and of teachers who don't hold them accountable. But what, exactly, in "progressive" philosophy instructs teachers to do this? As No Cookies pointed out, most proffies--including those on this site--are probably liberals. I'm one. But we complain about the same asshattery among students that No Cookies complains about.

    "The culture" is made of so many things. Yes, it's partially it's the instructors with laissez-faire and frou-frou standards (who may or may not be progressives) who are to blame. So are the teachers who show movies all semester, and the teachers who pass out worksheets, and the teachers who let their students do fun projects rather than real work. (As a product of the American public school system, I've seen all of this. I took elective Astronomy in high school, and I learned nothing about Astronomy. We filled out worksheets and made bottle rockets. Hell, 10% of our midterm grade was drawing a pretty picture. This was twelfth grade, I shit you not.)

    But "the culture" also means the students who don't pick their asses up and get to work. The students who don't value education and see school as an obligation or a means to an end and not as something valuable in itself. Sometimes they're right; sometimes they're wrong.

    And "the culture" means the parents who don't instill love of learning in their kids. Parents who scoff at intellectualism (I'll stop short of calling them conservatives), parents who watch TV with their kids but don't ask them what they're learning in school, parents who have no contact with their kids at all.

    "The culture" means American indulgence and hedonism and weakness and all of the things No Cookies described so well in his first few paragraphs before he narrowed his focus to "progressive teachers."

    It is indeed the culture, stupid. The *whole* culture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You think people educated in a single large room grew up to be scientists or critical thinkers? They were usually raised to farm.

    You think people raised in <insert social system here> grew up to be scientists or critical thinkers? They usually end up as the equivalent of ditchdiggers or plumbers or other vocationally-oriented folk, like most people throughout history.

    If you think (a) that no people educated in one-room schools grew up to be critical thinkers or (b) that everyone taught in whatever system you think best is going to be an active thinker, no matter what that system is... if you think either of those things, you're living in Dreamland.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's the complete lack of any historical perspective on the American educational system that makes this post so stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Meh. Cookies long ago outed himself as the hard-ass, put-your-hat-on straight-son, conservative here. That's cool. Everyone's entitled to their opinions.

    And that's the problem with this rant. It is just opinion. I could point to a dozen conservative features of "the culture" that may or may not be contributing to the dismal state of American education. The fact that the majority of Americans don't "believe" in evolution is certainly not a result of the fact that most teachers are socially progressive types, for example. And the American tendency towards anti-intellectualism knows few political boundaries, but is probably far more entrenched amongst the contemporary right than what pathetically passes for the left here.

    So while I agree with the very first paragraph that a lot of the woes in the American educational system are related to certain exceptional features of American culture, the rest is just posturing.

    It isn't only that many of the school systems we envy are found in Scandinavian socialist countries, as Ruby pointed out. It's that we live in what is almost certainly the least progressive industrial democracy on the planet, yet we get our ass handed to us at the K-12 level by every single one of our peers. Every single one.

    So, gosh no, I don't believe that there is any correlation at all between progressive politics--whatever the fuck that means--and educational success. Nor do I think if we all moved to the prairie and put our kids in one-room schoolhouses all would be right again with the world. But I do think there are many features of American culture that probably contribute to the shitty, shitty state of learning here.

    That would be a discussion worth having, but that isn't what this post was after, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No cookies is right about one thing: our k-12 system sucks. But it's not the "progressives" that polluted everything. It's education departments, and the total mediocrity and uselessness of their "pedagogies". They're lame brains and they're turning out lame brains. Lame brains are drawn to "education" and I'm not quite sure how we're going to stop that. There are some notable exceptions, obviously. I've seen them amongst my own students. But the lame brains rule. That's really the only reason to explain that the colleges in the US, collectively, are the best in the world, and our k-12 system is pretty much the worst.

    The way they pile all the students of differing intellectual abilities together in school these days doesn't help either. It's good for those that hover around the bottom and towards the middle, but it is absolutely not good for the students that excel, who need to be pushed harder and with students of their own abilities. My daughter's "academically talented" program is a fucking joke. She's removed from her classroom twice a week to do things like spray paint paper hats. When I was growing up, if you were academically talented they shoved you into a classroom with other kids of your ability and you basically started doing class work a year ahead of yourself. Not painting fucking hats.

    We're doomed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'd just like to say that back in 1940 (when there was accountability, the strap, and no mulligans in education) the average American had a seventh-grade education. Maybe those grade levels were superior to those we have today, but I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think we should run this posting through the KlugScheisser with the setting on "conjure feminist Afro-centrism" and see if the problem doesn't turn out to be something completely unexpected, like our culture's reluctance to reject its inheritance of mid 20th century, urban, white masculinties.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sports. I'm pretty sure it all, somehow, comes down to the American obsession with sports. Or maybe that's just another symptom of a culture which seems determined to boil everything down to black/white, right/wrong, win/lose, us/them categories. Which is pretty much what this post is doing past about paragraph 4. It starts out pretty well, but does not, in the end, demonstrate college-level critical thinking, I'm afraid.

    Contingent Cassandra *a self-identified female progressive who doesn't think much of self-esteem without achievement, and is quite willing to flunk anyone who hasn't earned a passing grade without regard to race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin* out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm guessing there will be no cookies for any of us once these comments get read...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can't help but thing about socioeconomic segregation.

    I grew up in a small rural town. The school system deals with a good amount of poverty and doesn't have money for all the science equipment it should have. Yet, the district is pretty good overall.

    One reason I think my hometown's school district is successful is this: I went to school with the same kids from K-12. There is no good private school in my hometown. The only alternative to the public school is homeschooling.

    In big cities, your neighborhood determines which school you attend and how much funding went in to that school. Where I grew up you've got kids living of food stamps going to the same school as the children of the grocery store owners. You're in the same school whether you live on a boat, trailer, or 4000 square foot home.

    That, my friends, makes a difference. Diversity matters. Children of high-school dropouts get to interact with professionals. Privileged students don't get that upper-crust mentality because they make friends with classmates who are struggling with domestic-violence induced homelessness or with a parent in jail.

    You want to fix education? Creating diverse schools will go a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I meant to say schools in my comment above, not school. The town does have several schools, generally with one per type (grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12 regular h.s. on semester schedule + a small alternative h.s. on quarter schedule). But the way I wrote my above comment makes it sound like there's just a 1-room schoolhouse, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I grew up in a much smaller town than narfugen: we had K-12 in the same building, rather like the school my own kids attend.

    There was plenty of segregation: jocks, stoners, nerds (though sometimes I felt like the last category was just me). But the groups drew from all socioeconomic classes. And we had teachers just as good (and bad) as you get anywhere, with plenty of course options.

    The primary value of a small town, though, is that kids from toxic environments get to see that that sort of home life isn't inevitable, because at least some of their friends come from happy, clean homes. They can see that toxicity's not normal, and that there's something better to reach for.

    On the other hand, good old American anti-intellectualism was and is just as rampant as it is anywhere -- though if you believe Alan Page or John McWhorter, it's a lot worse in Black communities of all socioeconomic levels.

    Anti-intellectualism is a prime source of the rot being lamented here. Intellectuals don't get no respect: there's no prestige, and sure as hell no decent compensation, and so what kid is going to want to emulate us unless she's already a hopeless nerd?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The idea that the problems in higher education (and education in general) are cultural is on the right track. No Cookies just got derailed mid-rant.

    If I may take up the argument- yes, it is cultural. Until book learnin’ is valued this battle will be fought. There are outliers that “get” learning despite outside influences. There are outliers who won’t “get” learning despite (to spite?) outside influences.

    The middle of the curve is where cultural influences matter. Until the culture promotes the positivity of education the soft middle will remain soft on education and no amount of proselytizing will overrule the home culture. How many students don’t have the home support to continue their education (and won’t admit it?) Or if they admit it, here’s the kicker, aren’t strong enough to go against it? It kills me for a student to drop out because they see the allure of manual-labor dollars. There’s a commercial running on the radio that promises an hourly wage that is almost (within a few thousand) what I make with a graduate degree. And that’s just starting pay- after a year or so it moves up right into my tax bracket. But how long will that job be around? (It’s in a “distribution center”). Not to mention the highly volatile, market-driven field work that exists where I am. (I’m going to leave that open to interpretation- details would divulge my location.) They become “stop-outs” that bob in out for years, but that category doesn’t exist when it comes to “Retention!”

    I was talking to a colleague earlier this week about the gloriously nebulous concept “Retention!” The best indicator of retention is graduation. A particular religious university paid a consulting firm to tell them this. When they “discovered” that their highest-retained (read: graduated) students looked like the dairy section of the supermarket, the spin they put on it was, “Now we know who needs more help.” But they can’t help them. They get them in the door and set up all these “early intervention” programs but still can’t hold them. Not to be too callous, but why throw good money after bad? It boils down to “fit.” A student either “fits” with a school or they don’t.

    To make a long story longer- I had a friend whose sister had her heart set on a particular R1. Her whole life she wanted to go there. Got there; hated it. Went in search of a better “fit.” The best “fit” was the R1’s arch rival and sworn enemy. There was NO WAY she would EVER go there. She kept looking and found a school three states away that was almost exactly like the rival. Went there, loved it, and graduated. But she perservered and finished. Too many just quit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cookies needs to come up with a better name for his "permissive" teachers. I'm a mommy to two children and they don't get everything that they want. Right now they're bitching about not being allowed to play video games because their homework isn't done.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My opinion:

    Of course some of it is the teachers, but who can blame them? They are educated in Colleges of Education, where the philosophy (I have this first hand) is that pedagogy renders content knowledge unnecessary, and a good teacher can make any student pass anything.

    @ several of you: On a related point, what percentage of the famous (say Nobel-prize-winning) US citizens were educated elsewhere?

    @ Contingent Cassandra: The emphasis on sports is also part of it. How many parents accept that their child is not good enough to play for the team, but will not accept that they're not good enough to be in Honors courses?

    @ narfenugen: I went to school in England, where each district had several schools (grade 6-12), total 700 students or so. The schools were ranked, and students chosen by merit alone. We had rich and poor (like my family) together, all in the same uniform. What I learned by age 16 (the time 80% left school) was more than most of our college sophomores learn. The astronomy course I took at age 16 had us learning to calculate ascension times and the like.

    @ Sawyer in Student Services: I have worked on remediation in mathematics for 32 years, and have become convinced that it just doesn't work (except in a very small percentage) at age 18. Thus, we have to create degree programs so that they can pass, without actually learning.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I suggest you learn to work with the people you call "social progressives," because they're among the few people who bother to become teachers anymore, partly precisely because of their ideals. You certainly can't count on Republicans to become teachers: they're far too busy looting what's left of the country for their own short-term profit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I didn't want to point this out but much of No Cookies' arguement sounds like David Horowitz's "tenured radicals" theory of college, while the zings at the School of Ed. resemble Charles Sykes' 1988 book "ProfScam."* I don't think he deliberately stole from these authors; the "schools are incompetent/higher ed is a Leftist fraud" meme permeates American conservative thought and has been around since before the 1917-21 American Red Scare.

    Froderick brings up a good point: economics. The mass culture of any country is affected by the economics present in that place. Right now in America the culture still somewhat reflects the bubble economy and making a quick buck. Money rather than work is praised, and it seems in certain sectors that it doesn't matter how you got the money, just that you have it. The root of this really is in the neoliberal economic policies begun under the Reagan administration (though similar polices would have emerged under a victorious Carter White House**) which have created a top-heavy, almost Central American economy where the wealth pools at the top, the corporations act as open or understood cartels, and the independent media has been slashed to a small number because the corporations bought out all the major media outlets. For the average person this means that most of the jobs are low wage, non-unionized, or temporary positions, which is why savings dropped into the negative numbers in the last decade. Obviously this has sledgehammered public services including education because the neoliberal ideology wants to privatize everything but the military and the police. I almost forgot to add the costs of deindustrialization, which has turned many towns into blighted slums full of crackhouses, or the opposite, where the "exurbs" in the desert are now full of abandoned unfinshed homes because the real estate bubble crashed. In summation, by following these crummy policies while not rationalizing certain drags (the high cost of military weapons, for example), America is beginning to resemble Russia from 1992-2003. All the flakes, all the adjucts, all the job searches that go nowhere, the long hours, the low pay, the miserable housing near the campus, relying on mom and dad for things because the teaching doesn't hack it; they are all caused by the brainfarts of people who worship Mamon before humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Footnotes:

    * Sykes pretty much lays out that the Professors (and he does capitalize that) set out to rig the university into an unmanagable mess in the aftermath of the 1960s by deploying the sort of doubletalk the KlugSheisser [where's the frakking Eszett?] was designed for, running the TA/adjunct scam, etc. That tome is the "John Birch Society Bluebook" of academia; everything (and I mean EVERY-fuckin'-thing) is some sort of vast conspiracy to keep the proffies from their students.

    Yes there was a scare, pushed by the Hearst papers, in America against Bolshevik Russia from the moment they seized Petrograd. This is why Emma Goldman was forcibly sent to Murmansk, partially why we fought a bizarre and pointless war against the Red Army from 1918-1920, and helped fuel the second coming of the KKK.

    ** It was the stagflation. BTW, according to Noam Chomsky's 1991 book "Deterring Democracy", the policies the Reagan government enacted against Nicaragua would have been carried out under a Carter government, but possibly not as crudely.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ochen Harasho Strelnikov. Only one gripe. They would also like to privatize the military. American private military contractors were the second largest occupying army in Iraq after the official U.S. forces. Larger than any of the other members of the "coalition of the willing." And now that drawdown has started, they will probably be the largest any day, if they aren't already.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yep, anti-intellectualism is all the fault of those damn hippies.

    In a totally unrelated story, a new "Noah's Ark" theme-park is going to be built in Kentucky. According to the park's promoters, it may draw as many of 1.6 million people a year.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes I should have mentioned those point as well, that we have a closed "bubble economy" of military contractors.....what they wanted in the 1990s and early 2000s was a "Libertopia" where everything was privatized; what we got were places like Camden, New Jersey.*

    I would like to mention that I came up with none of this on my own; it comes from reading Dean Baker, Doug Henwood of the "Left Business Observer", "In These Times" magazine, "Harper's Monthly", "Dissent", "Bad Subjects", "Monthly Review", flipping through old copies of "The Baffler" and reading "What's Wrong with Kansas" by Thomas Frank ("Baffler" editor), the aforementioned Professor Chomsky, his associate Edward Herman; and the old standards of Thomas Paine, Karl Marx/Friedrich Engles, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, and numerious writers of the Anarchist tradition (Goldman, Bookchin, etc.) That said, I do read from the Right; "The National Review", "Commentary", "Reason", and the Bircher "New American." My problem here is that I don't read from the mainstream of American conservative thought because a lot of it is dissected by the Leftist magazines. But I have read from the European Far Right, people like Julius Evola, Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, and critiques of Naziism from German conservatives like Franz Neumann ("Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism.")

    _______________________________
    * Chris Hedges did a piece in "The Nation" called "City of Ruins" on the wreck that is Camden, but it could have been about certain parts of any Northeastern city, or any of the Rustbelt towns like Flint, Michigan.

    http;//www.thenation.com/article/155801/city-ruins

    ReplyDelete
  25. I didn't think the OP did so badly. It's a little heated, but I like that. Lots of criticism on an idea that surely a lot of us care about.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Middle-Aged & Morose -- I'm thrilled that you brought that up. I think it illustrates wonderfully the problems of American pop culture today. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Strelnikov:

    I don't know about 1940, but there's no doubt in my mind that the average college graduate today does not write as well as the average high school graduate in 1976. The scribblings in my high school yearbook document that quite well.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.