Pay No Attention to That Man behind the Curtain: The Educational Establishment’s Expectation That the Public Should Willingly and Unquestioningly Submit to Experiments in Social Engineering

In the divisive and divided American society of the early twenty-first century, one of the few clear and unifying phenomena is the inadequacy, on average, of public education. The only thing worse than a K-12 education in an American government school is a preK-12 education in that same system.

As with all generalizations, exceptions are significant: there are good public schools, and they are very rare.

A serious critic of the system will “not belittle practical usefulness as a criterion in devising a curriculum, but a school program which teaches little beyond how to fix a fuse, drive a car, set the dinner table, and enhance your personal appearance, isn’t useful enough if your aim is the development of maturity and intelligent citizenship,” as Mortimer Smith writes.

A more current version of Smith’s summary might omit the fuse, the car, and the dinner table, but include “social emotional learning” and “anxiety, depression, and panic attacks.” Indeed, emotional fragility seems to be simultaneously a goal, a virtue, and an essential part of the curriculum in contemporary government-run schools.

The passion for social engineering has even crept into private schools.

The standard response by the educational establishment, when its flaws are noted, is a non-reponse. It is rather an ad hominem attack on those who would point out the uncomfortable facts about the system. Those offering commentary on the flaws of modern public schooling are painted with the usual mix of adjectives: reactionary, narrow-minded, insensitive, and so on.

Those who analyze the American educational establishment and find it wanting aren’t simpletons who “believe our schools are hotbeds of communism,” and they are not “out of touch with the cultural realities of the times.” Those seeking something better than the current public education “don’t begrudge the amount of taxes spent on schools” and “do not believe parents can run schools.”

Attacks on public education are intellectually rigorous. Defenses of that system, when they aren’t simply deflections, amount to slogans rather than thoughts.

Behind the ever-declining amount of curriculum and content offered to students, “there is an influential group of educators, the so-called reconstructionists, who advocate the use of the schools for indoctrination in behalf of a new political, economic, and social order (their own, of course).” Mortimer Smith notes that “we often get short-changed by inadequately, or foolishly, prepared teachers, and that too often a disproportionately large amount of our investment in schools goes for non- or extra-educational purposes.”

It’s worth noting that Smith absolves the teachers. They are victims as much as the parents and students are. A new teacher, the product of four years spent in the so-called “schools of education” in the country’s universities, has been surrounded exclusively by the establishment’s groupthink, and has been isolated from meaningful commentary on the educational system — or has been taught to ignore and ridicule such commentary. It would be unjust to heap anger or blame on such teachers.

He goes on to indicate that

Citizens ought to resist current claims of professional untouchability and the implication that all educational matters are not on a mechanical plane, like buildings and bond issues.

The managers of the educational establishment preside over processes which are, they claim, “too esoteric for lay comprehension.”

The insiders who operate government-run educational systems see themselves in a role similar to the role of the rare literate person in a society filled with people who can’t read. They are the keepers of wisdom, knowledge, and insight, and the general population is supposed to revere and respect them.

The assumption of those who direct governmental education is that they have understanding which the rest of society does not, and cannot, have. The role of those outside the inner circle of educational specialists is politely to submit and never to question.

Some segments of the educational establishment justify their privilege by analogy to the natural sciences and to healthcare professionals, as Mortimer Smith notes:

Currently educators seem to have an urge for playing the role of the exact scientist which causes them to give diagnostic tests and organize educational clinics and workshop laboratories. The constant use of terms borrowed from the medical profession makes one suspect that the educator harbors a secret picture of himself clothed in white uniform, applying his stethoscope with unerring accuracy to the educational heart-beats of American youth.

Other segments of the establishment head in a different, almost opposite direction, and fancy themselves to arbiters of ethics. The moral and quasi-spiritual language includes references to “justice” and “counseling,” in the process of “healing” a student’s mental being — a process in which educators are “heroes” who demonstrate “courage” and “love.” Students are encouraged to explore “mindfulness” and “meditation.”

The words within quotation marks in the preceding paragraph are pulled from standard-issue publications for educators. Dozens of similarly devotional words are used.

Neither extreme — the educator as empirical scientist or the educator as ethical guru — offers much help to the process of learning content and curriculum. Neither moral socialization nor pseudo-scientific social engineering assist a student’s acquisition of skill — knowing how — or acquisition of information — knowing that.

Indeed, in parsing knowledge into “knowing how” and “knowing that,” it becomes even more apparent that the contemporary public school is generally good for neither.

The Educational Establishment Defends Itself with Passion and Ad Hominem Attacks, Rather than with Rational Argumentation: Defaming Those Who Criticize Public Education

Observers point out that contemporary public schooling in the United States is deficient because it ignores content and curriculum in favor of so-called ‘social emotional learning’ and ‘objectives in the affective domain.’ Such observers receive no direct response to their comments, but rather are labeled by the guardians of the educational establishment as extremists. The establishment implies that the public is morally obliged to accept the judgments of the establishment and to forgo the desire for an analysis of the critique.

The establishment thereby shames the public into blindly accepting the verdict that anyone who criticizes the governmental educational system is a crackpot.

To be sure, there are quite a few intelligent people of goodwill who work as teachers and administrators in the system. But the system itself is bent. Some knowingly foster this warped establishment. Others innocently but unwittingly empower it.

Yet it remains clear that knowledge — both the sense of “knowing that” and in the sense of “knowing how” — both information and skills — is increasingly rare in ordinary public schools.

Instead of defending itself, the bureaucracy attacks anyone who questions contemporary public schooling as those who “believe the little red schoolhouse represents the peak of educational achievement,” in the words of Mortimer Smith, who catalogs the labels thrown at those who voice skepticism about the educational establishment.

He notes that, in order to promote the current system, the previous versions of American education must be attacked. Today’s social engineers can defend the indefensible only by offering a distorted, or entirely fabricated, narrative about the past. If the current product is bad, then they simply baselessly allege that the previous product was worse.

Slandering the school of the past, activist educational bureaucrats describe “a prison presided over by steely-eyed matrons equipped with birch rods.” This is, according to Smith, “the picture educators present of American schools before the current enlightenment.”

The critics of twenty-first century public schools do not “feel that they way” they were “taught in the fourth grade involved pedagogical technique in its perfection.” There is no naive nostalgia for older forms of education, but rather a forward looking realism about the consequences of current education.

Those pointing out the flaws in today’s schools “do not habitually sneer at the mention of progressive education,” even if they “feel that its philosophical foundations are built on quicksand.” Those who desire the introduction of more rigor, and less social analysis, into public education do not deny that progressive education “has made undoubted contributions in method to all education.” The knee-jerk reactions are on the side of those defending contemporary educational trends, not on the side of those questioning them.

Mortimer Smith notes that merely because one identifies the flaws in today’s schools does not mean that one wishes “to revive the classical trivium for American high schools,” but rather is quite willing “to admit that physics and four years of Latin may not be the ideal curriculum for” all young people.

The pattern of events reveals that those who promote certain contemporary trends within established public educational institutions, when questioned or criticized, respond only by creating irrational caricatures of those who express any skepticism about the institutions. Meaningful defenses and rational argumentation are not forthcoming from the establishment.

In sum, the system responds to criticism by bullying those who criticize and sneering at their criticisms.

Passionate Ad Hominem Attacks, but No Rational Argumentation: Educational Institutions Exude Hate Rather than Counterarguments

When he began “to examine the philosophical foundations on which the structure of contemporary American public school education has been” constructed and to make “some passing references to a few of the practical consequences which have naturally flowed from widespread, if not always conscious, acceptance of the pragmatic-instrumentalist-experimentalist position,” author Mortimer Smith touched upon several significant points.

First, that the deficiencies of twentieth and twenty-first century public schooling are organic, growing systematically from premises instilled by colleges and universities, and especially by the schools of education located within them.

Second, that the damage done and being done is sometimes done deliberately and consciously, and sometimes done unawares.

Whatever Smith might have meant by “pragmatic-instrumentalist-experimentalist” principles of education, it is clear that they fail to recognize the centrality of content and curriculum, and they privilege non-cognitive activities, such as “social-emotional learning” and the “affective domain.” The reader will note the quotation marks in the preceding sentence: ever-changing and ever more convoluted jargon is one of the primary products of educational administration.

In specific instances, such jargon is ambiguous, when it serves, not the needs of students, but rather the purposes of administrators and social engineers.

Well-intentioned university students, who become teachers and educational administrators, are the victims of institutions which feed them only carefully selected ideological presentations. Thus many employees of public schools are the unwitting instruments of subversive intentions:

Learning, in the traditional sense of disciplined knowledge, is rapidly declining in our public schools, not through fortuitous circumstances but by deliberate, and almost invariably well-intentioned, design of those responsible for setting the direction of public education.

The educational complex is good at defending itself. Part of this defense is an ad hominem deflection of attention to those who would point out the deficiencies and malignancies of governmental educational institutions. A series of straw men is put forth, designed to cause the public to dismiss any criticisms as the products of unfit minds:

Mortimer Smith continues:

The hierarchy which has set up the controlling doctrines of public education in this country has a tendency, as its monopoly is threatened, to lump all critics of schools together indiscriminately as reactionaries, penny-pinchers, members of pressure groups, possibly fascists, certainly cranks.

To point out that the average public school in the United States wastes money and time, and that it by design directs students away from content and curriculum, is an intellectual exercise which can be judged on the basis of evidence. Instead, the educational establishment choses to attack the characters of those making the analyses, rather than to examine the analyses themselves.

Intense personal invective is directed at those who reveal how public education has failed both cultural life and the national economy. The intensity of these belittling aspersions results from the fact that those defending the current educational trends lack rational argumentation for their views.

School: Contribution or Competition?

Education takes place within the larger context of society. It is therefore subject to larger societal trends. One ubiquitous societal dynamic is the interplay between contribution and competition. Each individual finds herself or himself sometimes in the situation of asking, “What can I contribute to my community?” and sometimes in the situation of asking, “How can I compete to outperform my peers?”

Any and every society will have both.

On an intuitive level, competition is perhaps associated with excellence, while contribution is associated with healthy communities. Just as both are necessary in any society, so both are essential in education.

In a classroom setting, the concept of contribution fuels productive classroom discussions, and enables students to collaborate on larger and more complex assignments and projects.

Among educational administrators, and among those who hold professorships in “schools of education” at universities, there is, however, a tendency to ascribe little or no value to competition in an educational setting. In fact, they often ascribe harmful effects to competition.

The benefits of competition in education have been underestimated.

Many students find that they can achieve higher levels of motivation through competition. When a learning activity is framed as a game, the competitive instinct is awakened, and some students will devote more focus and energy to the task.

Competition also helps institutions deal with the reality of limited resources: not every undergraduate can enter a graduate program. Some manner of selection process is necessary. Competition is as good as any. Ironically, many admissions processes which hope to select students for matriculation on a non-competitive basis turn out to be simply competitions in disguise. In the most extreme of such cases, the admissions processes, in their efforts to be non-competitive, provide bizarre and perverse incentives as students compete in their efforts to present themselves as incapable of competition.

Finally, it should be noted that there is serious competition between the nations of the world in their abilities to educate their young people. The wellbeing of the nation can, and often does, depend on the younger generation’s good education.

It is both inevitable and desirable that education contain elements of competition: between students in a classroom; between students in a national standardized exam; between students applying for advanced post-secondary admission; and between nations.

It cannot be otherwise.

If a society, a school, or an educational system attempts to deny the inherent competition in the educational process, then such an attempt will be frustrated, because competition is inescapable, and such an attempt will hinder education, because competition is salutary. The attempt to eliminate competition from the classroom, the college, the university, the nation, and the world is futile and oftentimes damaging.

To be sure, it is possible to overemphasize competition. A contributive and collaborative aspect is also necessary. But in the current society, the danger of overemphasizing competition is not part of the general education system, although it can be found in some specialized niches of academia. Moderation in all things!