Public Re-education

[Pliny]

I thought this a very important article to post regarding, not just Native residential schooling but public education as a whole. It is written by Mike Reid, a Canadian Anthropology professor teaching in Winnipeg.

The Reason for State education

[Melanie_]

We can probably all agree that the residential school system is a shameful part of Canada’s history. I liked how the article called attention to the differences in the way children were raised, and the priority placed on self-reliance that was part of many aboriginal cultures. But the author says in the end that there should therefore be no government involvement of any sort in education – I wonder what his alternative is? Should we home school all our children? Or have independent private schools creating their own unregulated curriculums? It seems like the article is only half written, as it doesn’t explain what the next steps should be.

[bleeding heart]

We can probably all agree that the residential school system is a shameful part of Canada’s history. I liked how the article called attention to the differences in the way children were raised, and the priority placed on self-reliance that was part of many aboriginal cultures. But the author says in the end that there should therefore be no government involvement of any sort in education – I wonder what his alternative is? Should we home school all our children? Or have independent private schools creating their own unregulated curriculums? It seems like the article is only half written, as it doesn’t explain what the next steps should be.

I think so too...very abrupt, without A leading satisfactorily to B.

(Also, a strange kind of "What would the Master think" stuff about Mises, not unlike the way some scholars reflexively genuflect to Father Marx.

[dre]

I think so too...very abrupt, without A leading satisfactorily to B.

(Also, a strange kind of "What would the Master think" stuff about Mises, not unlike the way some scholars reflexively genuflect to Father Marx.

Thats the problem with libertarianism in general. No much need for new ideas when you believe that the invisible hand of the free market will just sort everything else out for you. Not to mention the tendency to think in a vacuum, and pretend that current universe, humans, and human nature, and human history dont exist.

I dont mean to bash... I find a lot of aspects of it pretty appealing actually, but when someone makes absolutist statements like the Mises quote in that article its pretty easy to see right away they are basically religious in nature.

[Pliny]

We can probably all agree that the residential school system is a shameful part of Canada’s history. I liked how the article called attention to the differences in the way children were raised, and the priority placed on self-reliance that was part of many aboriginal cultures. But the author says in the end that there should therefore be no government involvement of any sort in education – I wonder what his alternative is? Should we home school all our children? Or have independent private schools creating their own unregulated curriculums? It seems like the article is only half written, as it doesn’t explain what the next steps should be.

As the article states people are assumed to be reasonable. The author only indicates the inadequacies and failings of public education. The discussion should follow among yourself and others what actions might avoid the disaster that public education was and is. It isn't his place to provide you with what he thinks education should be structurally or functionally.

Obviously, not all parents can provide home-schooling. Private schools would have to evolve into efficient instruments of education as demonstrated by the success of their students in achieving the goals they set in their lives.

As an example, I don't see anything wrong with education being public at the elementary level as long as the State does not attempt to replace the parent and instill what it considers should be the values of society. Society, comprised of reasonable people, can well determine the values it holds dear.

[Pliny]

Thats the problem with libertarianism in general. No much need for new ideas when you believe that the invisible hand of the free market will just sort everything else out for you. Not to mention the tendency to think in a vacuum, and pretend that current universe, humans, and human nature, and human history dont exist.

I dont mean to bash... I find a lot of aspects of it pretty appealing actually, but when someone makes absolutist statements like the Mises quote in that article its pretty easy to see right away they are basically religious in nature.

As mentioned, people are assumed to be reasonable. People will act to improve themselves and their lot. There is no better supply of new ideas but from the voluntary and co-operative interaction of people to improve their standard of living. Since the State feels the parent is inadequate in his duties to his offspring, and thus not able to reason, it has a tendency to consider itself of greater importance in the lives of children and makes the parent feel or appear, at the best, irresponsible and ineffective, and at the worst, criminal for his parenting. There are many examples of bad parenting today but could it be that the vast majority of those examples are due to the fact parents have been more or less relieved of the duty to discipline or instill any set of values in their children. In fact, are they not told that it is the duty of the education system to do so?

[Pliny]

I think so too...very abrupt, without A leading satisfactorily to B.

(Also, a strange kind of "What would the Master think" stuff about Mises, not unlike the way some scholars reflexively genuflect to Father Marx.

You, an active member of society and overall reasonable person, are supposed to devise B. If he stated what he thought education should be you would probably disagree. The point is to recognize the problems of a State education before something can be done about them. Not many people see with any clarity why the ever-increasing costs of education are not returning ever-increasing quality in the so-called educated.

And please, rather than have the masses act collectively and coercively, as Marx would have them, Von Mises calls for voluntary and co-operative activity among individuals to form society. Thinking there is some similarity between Marx's communism and Von Mises free market demonstrates the necessity for something more than a public education.

Perhaps try and clarify the difference between respect for a man and his ideas and unrelenting idolatry.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Pliny

[bleeding heart]

You, an active member of society and overall reasonable person, are supposed to devise B. If he stated what he thought education should be you would probably disagree.

I'm not asking for an answer, whether I would agree with it or not; I'm asking for a more structurally coherent piece of argumentative writing.

And please, rather than have the masses act collectively and coercively, as Marx would have them, Von Mises calls for voluntary and co-operative activity among individuals to form society.

I wasn't comparing Marx to Von Mises. I was comparing the behaviour of acolytes.

Edited September 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Melanie_]

As the article states people are assumed to be reasonable. The author only indicates the inadequacies and failings of public education. The discussion should follow among yourself and others what actions might avoid the disaster that public education was and is. It isn't his place to provide you with what he thinks education should be structurally or functionally.

Obviously, not all parents can provide home-schooling. Private schools would have to evolve into efficient instruments of education as demonstrated by the success of their students in achieving the goals they set in their lives.

As an example, I don't see anything wrong with education being public at the elementary level as long as the State does not attempt to replace the parent and instill what it considers should be the values of society. Society, comprised of reasonable people, can well determine the values it holds dear.

The article indicates the inadequacies of one of the worst examples of public education we can refer to. If he wants to reform the education system he needs to make a case that the current system is just as bad. I'm not saying that the public school system is perfect, but his argument strays too far to logically support his end point.

[bleeding heart]

The article indicates the inadequacies of one of the worst examples of public education we can refer to. If he wants to reform the education system he needs to make a case that the current system is just as bad. I'm not saying that the public school system is perfect, but his argument strays too far to logically support his end point.

Really good point.

I could argue that Conservatives need to re-evaluate their stance and methods...using the mid-century Fascists as my example.

Not quite fair to take the most extreme case imaginable as the template.

[Pliny]

The article indicates the inadequacies of one of the worst examples of public education we can refer to. If he wants to reform the education system he needs to make a case that the current system is just as bad. I'm not saying that the public school system is perfect, but his argument strays too far to logically support his end point.

As I mentioned, most people see nothing wrong with the public system other than some imperfections. The real problem is that the State is progressively replacing the parent which is not a simple imperfection in education but a usurpation of parental responsibility.

I see parents being blamed by teachers and others in the educational system for poor parenting and I see teachers blamed for poor results in educating kids by parents. Teachers increasingly believe parenting is inadequate, and that the teachers are the "professionals" in child development. Parents in the meantime blame teachers for inadequate academic accomplishment and a failure in their claimed professionalism. The question is who is responsible for education and who is responsible for child development? Behaviorists of course find support in the State sponsored educational system and teachers are well-briefed by them but not all parents will agree upon what a proper program for child development should be. In my view there is nothing more natural than people interacting with each other and learning through experience rather than being taught how they should or need to behave, a la the State.

Of course if you see the "argument as too far to logically support his view" then you see only minor imperfections in education and his point is not worth discussing, is it?

[Pliny]

I'm not asking for an answer, whether I would agree with it or not; I'm asking for a more structurally coherent piece of argumentative writing.

He has pointed out very coherently several problems with State provided education, that have blatantly occurred in the past and are showing signs of appearing in modern education.

I wasn't comparing Marx to Von Mises. I was comparing the behaviour of acolytes.

As I mentioned then , you should note a difference between respect for a man and his ideas and idolatry.

We have never seen socialism work. We have seen societies thrive. Is success or failure determined by the reasonable voluntary co-operation of people or is it due to government enforcement of co-operation? Our problems with aboriginal residential schools tells us force has not been successful. Coupled with arrogant superiority it is a disaster. Is the current educational system displaying any arrogance towards parents? If your answer is no then you must provide a structurally coherent piece of argumentative writing to support your view that all is well but perhaps for minor imperfections apparent to all.

[bleeding heart]

As I mentioned then , you should note a difference between respect for a man and his ideas and idolatry.

I have, for better or worse, been subject to an awful lot of essays, articles, and academic papers which build on the philosophies and ideas of earlier thinkers.

It is rare for the adulation to be so evident.

Because, while the humanities (certainly the "dismal science") by no stretch employ the same rigorous methodologies as the hard sciences, there is nonetheless, thankfully, a philosophical culture that makes an iamportant nod towards attempts at objectivity.

The "great man" theory does not help in this endeavour.

We have never seen socialism work.

We have never seen any "ism" work. Hence the near-univerally agreed upon compromises of mixed economies.

Is success or failure determined by the reasonable voluntary co-operation of people or is it due to government enforcement of co-operation? Our problems with aboriginal residential schools tells us force has not been successful.

But again, it seems a bit promiscuous to too literally compare the Residential School fiasco (no doubt supported by the "voluntary co-operation" of the public at large...it's not as if European-heritage Canadians were screaming at the Government to Please Stop) to the contemporary public school system.

[Peter F]

But again, it seems a bit promiscuous to too literally compare the Residential School fiasco (no doubt supported by the "voluntary co-operation" of the public at large...it's not as if European-heritage Canadians were screaming at the Government to Please Stop) to the contemporary public school system.

Ding. Very good point. Pliny advocates for less government and more voluntary co-operation. Who doesnt? Even Marxists did and do. But he seems oblivious to the idea that the volountary co-operation actually resulted in the Residential school system. Hell, the Rwandan killings were volountary co-operation at its worst. There is nothing inherently holy about people doing crappy things to others because they volounteered.

[Melanie_]

As I mentioned, most people see nothing wrong with the public system other than some imperfections. The real problem is that the State is progressively replacing the parent which is not a simple imperfection in education but a usurpation of parental responsibility.

I see parents being blamed by teachers and others in the educational system for poor parenting and I see teachers blamed for poor results in educating kids by parents. Teachers increasingly believe parenting is inadequate, and that the teachers are the "professionals" in child development. Parents in the meantime blame teachers for inadequate academic accomplishment and a failure in their claimed professionalism. The question is who is responsible for education and who is responsible for child development? Behaviorists of course find support in the State sponsored educational system and teachers are well-briefed by them but not all parents will agree upon what a proper program for child development should be. In my view there is nothing more natural than people interacting with each other and learning through experience rather than being taught how they should or need to behave, a la the State.

Of course if you see the "argument as too far to logically support his view" then you see only minor imperfections in education and his point is not worth discussing, is it?

I certainly see issues with the education system... one issue is highlighted earlier in your post, when you talk about child development. Typically, you do not need to take any child development courses to get a Bachelor of Education degree, or any courses about family dynamics or family systems. This is a glaring gap in the preservice training of teachers. (I will at this point confess my own bias, as a post secondary instructor in child development.)

But... the article doesn't really make a good case for doing away with the system as it currently stands, based on the historical evidence. Perhaps a stronger case could be made using current examples, in today's context. Instead, by citing a system that no longer exists, the author has weakened his position.

[Pliny]

I have, for better or worse, been subject to an awful lot of essays, articles, and academic papers which build on the philosophies and ideas of earlier thinkers.

It is rare for the adulation to be so evident.

Because, while the humanities (certainly the "dismal science") by no stretch employ the same rigorous methodologies as the hard sciences, there is nonetheless, thankfully, a philosophical culture that makes an iamportant nod towards attempts at objectivity.

The "great man" theory does not help in this endeavour.

I get it. Men are all the same.

We have never seen any "ism" work. Hence the near-univerally agreed upon compromises of mixed economies.

Historically, once a free market is surrendered to the concept of a mixed economy it is not far from collapse.

But again, it seems a bit promiscuous to too literally compare the Residential School fiasco (no doubt supported by the "voluntary co-operation" of the public at large...it's not as if European-heritage Canadians were screaming at the Government to Please Stop) to the contemporary public school system.

If you don't see any parallels you don't see any parallels. All is well, apparently. I see a too much behavior modification and far too little education.

Where was the voluntary co-operation of the public at large? Natives were not asked to "voluntarily co-operate". And, just as the government of the time did, you have denied the Native from inclusion in the term "public at large". It is only recently, over the last several decades, that anyone outside of those schools had an inkling of the abuses that occurred in them if you mean the white public at large.

You have informed me quite well of your view on this matter. Thank you. I don't believe we need continue the discussion of this topic further.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I certainly see issues with the education system... one issue is highlighted earlier in your post, when you talk about child development. Typically, you do not need to take any child development courses to get a Bachelor of Education degree, or any courses about family dynamics or family systems. This is a glaring gap in the preservice training of teachers. (I will at this point confess my own bias, as a post secondary instructor in child development.)

From your point of view, I can understand that would be viewed as a glaring gap for teachers. Unfortunately, I view it as interventionist and unnecessary. When it comes to social relations I feel experience is the greatest teacher not instructing individuals to be nice and blindly treat everyone equal and fair except never trust a stranger. In other words follow those rules and you won't ever have to make a judgement of character based upon your own keen observation - heck you won't have to observe even.

The success of behavior modification in school can be measured by teacher's concerns regarding behavior. Parents used to instill the values they held in their children but do so less today as the schools instruct children on social relationships.

So what are the concerns of teachers today when it comes to child behavior compared to say the fifties? The top concerns then were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, cutting in line, dress code violations and littering. Today teachers top concerns are drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery and assault.

Big improvement? I got those lists out of The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, by William J. Bennett. It is American so probably it is worse than Canada.

But... the article doesn't really make a good case for doing away with the system as it currently stands, based on the historical evidence. Perhaps a stronger case could be made using current examples, in today's context. Instead, by citing a system that no longer exists, the author has weakened his position.

It does make a good case to keep a wary eye on the State which still exists and some parallels in behavior modification are glaring.

As you rely on your livelihood within the structure of the established system I would think your focus would be on how to improve the structure and the system, its failures being defined mostly in terms of lack of resources as do most bureaucracies.

For the most part a less monopolistic, more competitive system would not tolerate or prop up programs that did not produce results. Usually, what is employed in a State run system is the latest fad from the same research facilities that have the same fundamental, industrialized concepts about behavior that never change and may contain flaws. I'm trying to be kind. There are obviously flaws or we wouldn't have moved from a top teacher concern of students talking out of turn to drug abuse.

[Melanie_]

From your point of view, I can understand that would be viewed as a glaring gap for teachers. Unfortunately, I view it as interventionist and unnecessary. When it comes to social relations I feel experience is the greatest teacher not instructing individuals to be nice and blindly treat everyone equal and fair except never trust a stranger. In other words follow those rules and you won't ever have to make a judgement of character based upon your own keen observation - heck you won't have to observe even.

So the status quo works for you – no need for reform.

The success of behavior modification in school can be measured by teacher's concerns regarding behavior. Parents used to instill the values they held in their children but do so less today as the schools instruct children on social relationships.

Parents and family are the greatest influence in children’s lives, despite the fact that children spend so much time in school. The residential school experience actually demonstrates this very well – even when children were separated from their families, punished for trying to contact them, and stripped of what they held in common with their families (language, customs, spirituality, etc.), there was almost universally a determination to reunite. The destruction of the aboriginal family unit is what has led to the dysfunction we still see in some communities today.

So what are the concerns of teachers today when it comes to child behavior compared to say the fifties? The top concerns then were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, cutting in line, dress code violations and littering. Today teachers top concerns are drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery and assault.

Big improvement? I got those lists out of The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, by William J. Bennett. It is American so probably it is worse than Canada.

I don’t think you can reliably say that this is the fault of the school system. There are too many other cultural variables that also are at play.

It does make a good case to keep a wary eye on the State which still exists and some parallels in behavior modification are glaring.

Certainly be aware of the system, but do away with it completely? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As you rely on your livelihood within the structure of the established system I would think your focus would be on how to improve the structure and the system, its failures being defined mostly in terms of lack of resources as do most bureaucracies.

My livelihood has nothing to do with the public education system.

For the most part a less monopolistic, more competitive system would not tolerate or prop up programs that did not produce results. Usually, what is employed in a State run system is the latest fad from the same research facilities that have the same fundamental, industrialized concepts about behavior that never change and may contain flaws. I'm trying to be kind. There are obviously flaws or we wouldn't have moved from a top teacher concern of students talking out of turn to drug abuse.

I don’t know what research facilities and fundamental industrialized concepts you are familiar with, but you might need to expand your horizons.

[Pliny]

So the status quo works for you – no need for reform.

Sorry. No. It blunts one's ability to observe for one's self.

Parents and family are the greatest influence in children’s lives, despite the fact that children spend so much time in school. The residential school experience actually demonstrates this very well – even when children were separated from their families, punished for trying to contact them, and stripped of what they held in common with their families (language, customs, spirituality, etc.), there was almost universally a determination to reunite. The destruction of the aboriginal family unit is what has led to the dysfunction we still see in some communities today.

The destruction of the aboriginal family unit was a part of it but can you reliably say this was a fault of the school system?

I don’t think you can reliably say that this is the fault of the school system. There are too many other cultural variables that also are at play.

Of course, there were. The Indian Act. Religious persecution. The residential school system was about force, the force of law to modify behavior. See any parallels in today's schools?

Certainly be aware of the system, but do away with it completely? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do you think there is any possibility of that? There isn't. Similar to our government healthcare, society will have to collapse economically before any meaningful change can be adopted.

My livelihood has nothing to do with the public education system.

Retired?

I don’t know what research facilities and fundamental industrialized concepts you are familiar with, but you might need to expand your horizons.

Sorry should have said "institutionalized" rather than "industrialized". It was late.

Ever wonder why fascism is roundly scorned, and rightly so, yet communism which produces far more human devastation seems to go through a metamorphosis, rising out of its own ashes, every several decades and is never vilified to the same degree.

Governments, should be looked at as Americans looked at them at the birth of their country - essentially, a necessary evil.

[Pliny]

Ding. Very good point. Pliny advocates for less government and more voluntary co-operation. Who doesnt? Even Marxists did and do. But he seems oblivious to the idea that the volountary co-operation actually resulted in the Residential school system. Hell, the Rwandan killings were volountary co-operation at its worst. There is nothing inherently holy about people doing crappy things to others because they volounteered.

How did voluntary co-operation result in the Residential school system? It seems you think the Natives thought it perfect for their needs and lined up at the doors. And as for Rwanda, I suppose happily lining up in the streets for slaughter was the voluntary co-operation you were thinking of.

What is it you don't get about voluntary co-operation? Marxists want voluntary co-operation? Yeah, at the end of a gun barrel, around four million Ukrainians voluntarily sacrificed themselves to Stalin so he could have their farms - nice Ukrainian volunteers. 30 million Chinese gave up the ghost for Mao so he could institute communism, how nice of them.

Volunteering to use force against others is not voluntary co-operation. The volunteering you cite is participating in mob activities using violence and force against others. Or in the case of the residential schools it is government using violence and force to modify behavior and indoctrinate children. If the HooToos or the children in both instances were asked at all to co-operate it certainly wasn't done voluntarily.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Pliny

[Melanie_]

Sorry. No. It blunts one's ability to observe for one's self.

The destruction of the aboriginal family unit was a part of it but can you reliably say this was a fault of the school system?

Of course, there were. The Indian Act. Religious persecution. The residential school system was about force, the force of law to modify behavior. See any parallels in today's schools?

Do you think there is any possibility of that? There isn't. Similar to our government healthcare, society will have to collapse economically before any meaningful change can be adopted.

Retired?

Sorry should have said "institutionalized" rather than "industrialized". It was late.

Ever wonder why fascism is roundly scorned, and rightly so, yet communism which produces far more human devastation seems to go through a metamorphosis, rising out of its own ashes, every several decades and is never vilified to the same degree.

Governments, should be looked at as Americans looked at them at the birth of their country - essentially, a necessary evil.

We've crossed our wires somewhere; I'm not sure we are talking about the same things.

I thought you were objecting to child development theory in public school classrooms; I pointed out that typical teachers don't study child development, so it really isn't an issue. In that context, I don't follow your statement, "Sorry. No. It blunts one's ability to observe for one's self."

Also, my statements about the impact of the residential school system actually support your initial argument, in that I agree that the State intervention inflicted on Aboriginals in Canada contributed to the dysfunction that we continue to see today.

I understand that you see the residential school system as symbolic of the power government has, in that it can decide to disempower entire groups if it so chooses. This could apply to any government institution, whether it be education, health care, the military, immigration, etc. You rightly have faith in individuals to make good choices - I believe that those individuals will choose to elect good government.

[bleeding heart]

I get it. Men are all the same.

OK, so you're not interested in an honest dicussion.

That's your prerogative, though it begs the question of why you respond to anyone at all.

[cybercoma]

OK, so you're not interested in an honest dicussion.

That's your prerogative, though it begs the question of why you respond to anyone at all.

Some posters are just better to have on ignore, so it's easier to scroll past their posts.

[Pliny]

We've crossed our wires somewhere; I'm not sure we are talking about the same things.

Perhaps.

I thought you were objecting to child development theory in public school classrooms; I pointed out that typical teachers don't study child development, so it really isn't an issue. In that context, I don't follow your statement, "Sorry. No. It blunts one's ability to observe for one's self."

Typical teachers study enough of child development theory to know what is held up to be "normal" development or slow development.

As an example, of blunting ability to observe, or for that matter just develop ability, telling a child not to talk to strangers means he should not approach but should avoid strangers and allows him no means to make any judgement regarding individuals based upon his own evaluations. He must conclude that all strangers are bad without making any personal observation thus not honing observation skills.

Also, my statements about the impact of the residential school system actually support your initial argument, in that I agree that the State intervention inflicted on Aboriginals in Canada contributed to the dysfunction that we continue to see today.

Here we have agreed.

I understand that you see the residential school system as symbolic of the power government has, in that it can decide to disempower entire groups if it so chooses. This could apply to any government institution, whether it be education, health care, the military, immigration, etc. You rightly have faith in individuals to make good choices - I believe that those individuals will choose to elect good government.

When democracy becomes a collection of special interests who have forgotten the purpose of a national government and they are simply advocating for privilege and favour from pandering political parties then we are at the edge of a vortex.

I do have faith in individuals and believe if they are given correct and complete information they will make correct decisions. Unfortunately, we are not always given correct and/or complete information from myopic politicians who can see only so far as the next election.

Isn't "good government" an oxymoron? I am not an anarchist but believe that a national government's role should be limited. Provincial and municipal governments could and should perhaps be more concerned with social issues being closer to the people and having a greater sense of their needs rather than a one size fits all national government.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

OK, so you're not interested in an honest dicussion.

You attempt to entirely dismiss an article based upon some concept you have of a "great man theory" wherein I presume all men should be considered equal and no man great and you deduce I am not interested in an honest discussion. You haven't argued a single point in the article but simply made some generalization about not comparing today's education system with the residential school system and only criticized the person who wrote it as a sycophant to what in your mind is some cultish figure.

That's your prerogative, though it begs the question of why you respond to anyone at all.

I do wish an honest discussion. You aren't giving me one.