Has The Socialist Agenda Taken Over Our Schools?

John Dewey
John Dewey | Source

Now that I've begun slipping down the other side of “The Hill”, having turned 51 in February, my friends and I often find ourselves caught up in conversations about the state of the world, our country, and of course, the obligatory discussion of how easy the “kids” have it these days, compared to when we were kids. Yeah, you know it; we all walked to school in 2 feet of snow with no shoes, a mere jacket for warmth, and the long trek to and from the institution of higher learning was always up hill...both ways.

A favorite topic of mine is the shambles representative of our education system. This topic is strictly prohibited by my friends and acquaintances who are school teachers, which would include my ex-in-laws. Their family members have been educators since before the Civil War, with one member having the honor of being one of the very first Senators in the newly formed state of West Virginia, established when the population of that area chose not to secede with their old state of Virginia.

To add to this grief, I come from a family where there has always been very much involvement with educational issues from the parental side of the issue. Members of my family have held officer positions in local PTA's, and when the PTA was done away with in my neck of the woods, I became a voice in the fledgling Parent-Teacher Organization or PTO, serving as Vice President, until I moved away.

During the early Reagan years, I took up the cause to fight how Reagan's block grants were to be applied to education in my home state of Pennsylvania. It was a travesty. Special Education monies were being lumped in with library, arts, and extra-curricular sports funds. Being from Central PA, we all understood what that would mean for the children with special needs, in addition to the music and art curriculum. There had already been a wave of pink slips with more to come. A huge percentage of the block grant was being ear-marked for sports teams rather than education. We spent many hours lobbying our state representatives and senators. We spent day after day, attending meetings of special interest groups such as the Association for the Blind, PA Association of Retarded Citizens, Cerebral Palsy Association, etc, as well as attending meetings with the Secretary of Education and his henchmen.

I had a two year old and a newborn at the time. Neither of them had any special needs, but besides the fact that one never knows how life may turn out down the road, it was simply the right thing to do. I became very familiar with how the game was played. At the age of 21, I became aware of the fact that no matter the issue at hand, politics will be involved, and when politics are involved, it's always about money.

Common sense would dictate that, well, of course it's about money. What I discovered at such a young age was the money issue wasn't really about the spending of money, even though that was exactly the manner in which it was presented. No, when money is mentioned, it's never really about cost, so much as it's about who stands to make the most money off of the end result. Our politician's will bemoan and belabor the cost of an issue in an attempt to scare people about the possible need for increased taxes, when truly, they are merely manipulating the taxpayers to vote in a manner consistent with earning a big pay off for the victor. We aren't privy to the private dealings and the sideline, under wraps agreements that go on in the shady world of politics.

My thoughts were going a mile a minute after a comment was made by a friend, who claimed that American education was spiraling ever downward, and it didn't seem to be possible to halt it. No one really seems to understand what is happening in our country when it comes to our education system. Everyone has their own personal opinion about who's to blame. In one corner, we've got the teachers crying about the terrible parenting that's causing their students to fail to make the grades. In another corner, we've got parents pointing fingers at teachers they believe are breaking the bank with little results to show for any supposed efforts made to teach. In yet another corner, we've got politicians blaming the lack of money required to provide a good education.

Everyone of those arguments are garbage, and while there is always some truth to all of them, these arguments only serve to cloud what has been going on for over a century, and is continuing unabated because we have all been duped into playing the blame game. To get a better understanding of what's been going on, let's take a walk into the past to the early years of the 1900's, and meet a man named William Heard Kilpatrick, the czar of progressive education. He, along with John Dewey, is most responsible for ending the traditional education our great-grandparents received.

William Heard Kilpatrick
William Heard Kilpatrick | Source

John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer who contended that education and learning are social and interactive processes, therefore, a school is a social institution. As a social institution, he believed social reform could and should take place. He also believed that children will have a higher capacity for learning when they are placed in an environment where they are permitted to experience and interact with the curriculum.

Throughout his writings on education, Dewey discussed his ideas of democracy and social reform, presenting a strong case on the importance of educational institutions being more than a place to learn content knowledge, as it was also a place to learn how to live. He believed the realization of one's full potential was the true purpose of education, rather than simply learning a predetermined skills set.

Enter William Heard Kilpatrick. He was very taken with Dewey's ideas. After meeting him, first in 1898, and then again in 1907, Kilpatrick chose to make the philosophy of education his field of expertise. Leaving his career as a high school math teacher, he enrolled in every course Dewey offered. A relationship was built which lasted until Dewey's death in 1952. By the time Kilpatrick died in 1965, he was both heralded and criticized as the chief interpreter of John Dewey's educational theories.

Without going into the background of a lengthy career at Teacher's College, suffice it to say that William Kilpatrick gained a huge audience to his views on the best method for educating children. He believed children should be taught subjects based on their practical value to the individual student, or only if a student wanted to learn the subject. He proposed that the study of algebra and geometry be stopped “except as an intellectual luxury” because he believed that learning math was more harmful than helpful to those who would graduate to lead an ordinary life. Common people, blue collar workers, and the unskilled laborers didn't need to know mathematics, according to Kilpatrick.

Kilpatrick's opinion was that the teaching of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry should be highly restricted. Others followed his lead and according to another highly regarded professor, it was believed that those areas of study held no value for 90% of the male student population and 99% of the female. As chairman of a committee formed to study the problem of teaching math in high schools, Kilpatrick found a stage for giving voice to his beliefs, maintaining that nothing in mathematics should be taught unless its value could be shown. He recommended that only a select few should be taught mathematics in high school.

In the decades that followed, changing philosophies on the methods of educating students, waxed and waned. However, each decade caused even more damage than the one before it. By the 1940's when the US entered WWII, Army officials lamented over the fact that basic math skills had to be taught to recruits to give them the education they should have gained as students in high school. Even with such evidence that our children were not being sufficiently or properly educated, the Life Adjustment program was permitted to take root.

It was a program designed to pigeon hole students into specific future roles in society. Many esteemed educational leaders presumed that more than 60% of all public school students were lacking in the intellectual capacities required to go on to college or even for skilled occupations. The result was a curriculum of nothing more than teaching about consumer buying, insurance, home budgeting and taxation. Those placed in these courses of study would become unskilled laborers and their wives.

When Sputnik was launched by the USSR, a new interest in teaching academic subjects was the result. Advances in technology served to underscore the importance of mathematics and science. By 1960 the New Math movement was in full swing. It, too, failed, though there were minor successes during the period. The problem was that most parents, who hadn't received the benefit of more than the most rudimentary lessons of mathematics, were confused and unable to help their children. Additionally, many teachers weren't equipped to handle the demanding content. The movement died by 1970.

The call to a return to basics was challenged by the ever present progressivist view of educational purpose. A book called Summerhill, about an ultra progressive school in England, gave rise to renewed interest in the progressive ideology, now called Open Education. Modeled after Summerhill, “free schools” sprung up nationwide, where the students chose the subjects they would learn and when they would be learned.

The effects were not good, especially for children coming from homes with limited resources. Unless a child had access to supplemental education on the home front, or received basic skills tutoring outside of school, they were very limited in the amount of academic education they actually received. Those of less advantaged backgrounds completed high school with a minimum of knowledge gained.

The ensuing educational wars of the last 30 years has been a hotly debated topic. There seems to be little understanding of how we got to this point. The two areas afforded so much attention has been about exactly what content should be taught, and then, how it should be taught. These two issues simply can't be addressed before going back to the beginning and rethinking the actual role of the educational institution.

John Dewey maintained that schools were social institutions where social reform should be taking place. His cohort, William Kilpatrick, fully believed that students should only be taught those subjects in keeping with what was viewed as their natural capacity for learning. In other words, schools were not necessarily viewed as places for children to discover and open new doors, so much as to reduce time “wasted” on attempting to teach those students that educators deemed lacking in the abilities to learn beyond a certain station in life.

To give Dewey his “due”, he recognized that some children may not have been reaching their full potential if only permitted to learn the rigid content presented by an authoritative person such as the teacher, standing in the front and giving dry lectures. Actively engaging the child in the learning process would certainly pique their interest and allow for some personal discovery and bonding with the knowledge being gained.

However, both Dewey and Kilpatrick were self-proclaimed democratic socialists. With this knowledge at hand, one has to wonder at their ability to gain such wide-spread acclaim to their ideas and beliefs. Socialism of any kind, advocates for an economic system where the means of production (factories, tools,offices, schools, etc.) are publicly owned and controlled cooperatively. The use of the “term” democratic is used for the purpose of defining intentions to mean proponents advocate public control of capital in a market economy as opposed to an authoritarian approach where one elected official retains the control.

When we look back at the scores of unskilled and under educated individuals populating the country as of 1980, we have to ask, was there an ulterior agenda for the destruction of an education system that actually taught its students the more advanced mathematics courses such as algebra, geometry and trigonometry? Was Dewey's assertion that educational institutions were social institutions meant for achieving social reform an attempt to utilize teachers as the tools for reshaping American society into a socialist nation?

I find myself questioning the inconsistencies between what Dewey presented as a method for helping students to achieve full potential, and the manner in which Kilpatrick interpreted Dewey's methods. It would seem to even the most dimwitted person, that decreasing and even removing subjects like math and science from the curriculum would only serve to limit how far an individual might advance in their understanding of the world in which they find themselves living. If a student isn't introduced to such subjects, given ample time to learn and understand the mechanics of the knowledge, how will they possibly ever choose on their own to learn about them?

Kilpatrick maintained that most students are not suited to learning about advanced mathematics and science. Reading between the lines, it would seem that he was being quite prejudiced in his assumptions. Parents who worked jobs as unskilled laborers saw education as the ticket to a better livelihood for their children. Kilpatrick's methods would prohibit such children from gaining the knowledge necessary to advance to a higher class of society. It would seem he might have been more interested in keeping the classes of American society in tact as they were at that time, than working to realize a democratic socialist America.

Irregardless of whether there were hidden motives or not, the results remain. It's been almost 100 years since John Dewey and William Kilpatrick introduced their ideas toward such radical changes in the education system. Why has it taken so long for us to realize a return to the basics as taught and practiced prior to these two men, is what is necessary to start repairing the damages done? The key is not to believe we can circumnavigate the time necessary to repair a century of damage, but to realize consistently and methodically moving toward reinstatement of old tried and true methods will bring back some level of competency in our graduating students.

If you found this information helpful, please pass it on by clicking the Tweet, Like, or +1 button provided at the top of the page.

More by this Author

  • The Roots of Agent Orange
    0

    This is the second in a series of articles detailing the discovery, the military use, the legal battles faced by victims, and the massive ongoing cover-up of the deadly chemical manufactured by Monsanto, Agent Orange. ...

  • Sharia Law In America
    15

    Our insistence on being politically correct has led us down the merry path extreme Islamists have always intended, that of becoming a country divided on how we should be treating Muslims and their religion. There can be...

  • Commercial Ice Cream Ingredients Will Make YOU Scream!
    22

    If you love ice cream, you may be shocked to learn what goes into the commercially made product. Chemicals used as paint solvents, in printing inks and antifreeze, as well as soaps and detergents. Here's a list of...


Comments 13 comments

Learn Things Web profile image

Learn Things Web 5 years ago from California

The problem is that we are caught in a vicious cycle that is very hard to break out of. After education is dumbed down it is very hard to improve it again. Many teachers have been victims of a dumbed down education themselves, so they are often unable to teach a more challenging curriculum. It becomes very hard to break the cycle and it is so easy to give up and go back to the easy way of doing things.


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

You are correct regarding the teachers' own dumbed down educations. Currently, 41% of the curriculum taught to would be teachers, consists of courses of methodology, rather than the actual content that needs to be taught. Most of the teachers coming out of the universities now, don't have a very firm grasp, themselves, of the content they are to teach. There is still this pervasive belief that teachers are supposed to be reforming society through their positions, rather than teaching the students to read, write, and compute. What's even more bizarre, to me, is their failure to see that they are supporting an agenda which can only lead to the elimination of their jobs. What will we need teachers for if we stop teaching anything advanced, and we keep relying on computer programs to do most of the work?


Learn Things Web profile image

Learn Things Web 5 years ago from California

I have read suggestions that education will move more toward self-paced computer learning over teacher-led learning. The problem is that the kind of knowledgeless education that we have now doesn't really require a teacher. A teacher's value comes in being able to make content understandable and relevant to the students. If many teachers can't do that or aren't being asked to, then a computer can easily take over their job.


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

I know what you mean. I pulled my son out of public school many years ago and home-schooled him. I had a computer program that he used for study and testing, while I simply supervised and gave the added touches to round out his education. Within 3 months he had completed the requirements for a whole year of public school! He's currently in college and doing very well. I was in a position to be able to supervise closely and to provide outside experiences for my son. My concern is whether students who are totally schooled through computers, will have the necessary opportunities to experience things like museums and other educationally related events. With the economy in such a poor state, how will parents who must spend 50-60 hours working and commuting, find the time and money to get their children out from behind the computers in order to give them a well rounded education?


Jeff 5 years ago

Irregardless is not a word


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hmmmm...if that's all you got out of the article, I have failed you. But take a look at this link. The word in question has been debated many times. It keeps coming up a draw. I prefer to use it. I like it. :)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregard...


Texasbeta 5 years ago

I find in this hub some remarkable writing, a clear and concise organization of thoughts, background information, to a resolute conclusion. However, you appear to believe that there are those arguing 60-70 year old questions. Why in the world would we be debating either of these guy's philosophies of the method and purpose of education? Neither belief system is applicable in the present day by any measure. In their days, a computer was comprised of two story rooms with vacuum tubes, and they were 20 years away from sending a guy to the moon with the computing power my son has in his new Nike shoes. Algebra is taught in elementary schools now. It is fundamental to even a simple life in modern society. Calculus wasn't a consideration in 1948, while now kids are getting it as sophmores in high school. In 1948, they still taught that Columbus discovered America and women were lucky to be secretaries. This is a different world.

School is a means for social change. That is without question. Making the leap that it is being used as a socialist plot is somewhat of a stretch, don't you think? Take a look at how schools have changed. Sure, you can't beat down a kid much anymore. However, you can hardly talk in the lunchroom without being given detention. Have you paid attention to how strict they are with these kids these days? Their homework has quadrupled. In 3rd grade, I maybe had an hour of homework. Today, these kids have upwards of 3-5 hours a night in the 3rd grade. Back to the social arena talk however, I would venture to say that the social change being pushed in schools is dramatically more conservative than liberal, much less propagating outright socialism.

I think the bigger debate is HOW we teach, how we structure our schools. We are STILL in these two guy's worlds, when their worlds and opinions are done, over, useless. Today, we base our entire structure off a single test, which leads to school funding...we allow our children to be taught with the single incentive of it district's funding. It is ridiculous to me.

Great hub though...very good.


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Texasbeta: There's so much in your comment, I had to write an entire hub to address it all. Thanks for taking so much of your time to write it. I'll be posting a link for the new hub in a few moments.

Terri


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author


Neil Sperling profile image

Neil Sperling 5 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

informative, thought provoking fantastic writing... thanks


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Thank you Neil. I guess you can tell how important education is in my little private world! I believe that our system as it now stands, is the absolute opposite of what we claim it was meant to be. We are systematically eliminating classes which teach our children critical thinking skills. Our education system has taken it upon itself to be the watchdogs of our society. Those employed there have decided they know what's best for our children. They tell them WHAT to think, rather than teaching them how to integrate all the information coming into their minds, and arriving at a conclusion that demonstrates the experiences they've had in any given situation. So when these kids grow up and are faced with a new situation, they have no clue how to deal, how to find a solution. They look around at everyone else and wait for someone else to show them what to do. Inevitably, they look to the government to fix their problems. That is why our government can and does become more and more entrenched in our personal lives with each passing year. We've lost our ability to think for ourselves and we invite them into our very bedrooms. I fear for the state of affairs in another ten years.


Neil Sperling profile image

Neil Sperling 5 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

yes so true -- i take a deeper look at this in my hub "middle class to zero"

In that hub I said

"We need to stop making such a huge deal about manufacturing "things" and we have to start making a big deal about building character. Build a new man from the inside out. No longer running from who we are inside."


Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Neil: My main concern is that we have focused on everything but the actual teaching of facts. The idea that schools are for transforming society is a really frightening idea to embrace. By whose standards is social reform to take place? Who sets the standards that all our children should live by? Look at what's happening in our schools. We've become so careful about removing all adversity and making them feel good, that it has reached far into the physical aspects of the school day. Child obesity is a serious concern, but then we remove all play equipment from the playgrounds (it's dangerous) and we make rules to stop them from running (they might fall down), etc.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working