The litany of the forces arrayed against quality state education systems is long. We believe these forces make state education’s decline inevitable. Without a thoroughgoing reformation of the fundaments of Western society itself, resistance is futile. The Borg is here.
We know that in New Zealand roughly one third of all graduates from state schools are functionally illiterate and innumerate. They cannot read supermarket shelf labels. Nor can they compare prices. We also know that on any given school day one tenth of pupils will be absent, without a conscientious reason. Truancy is systemic.
Recently we sought to interview potential candidates for a teaching position in our Christian school. These candidates were committed Christians; they were currently studying at a teacher training institution; they were zealous for their prospective careers–but they were unable to write a paragraph that was grammatically or syntactically correct. Apparently they had never learned through thirteen years of state schooling what a full-stop was, or how one was to begin a sentence. Yet, they had all graduated with “flying colours” from NCEA levels 11 through 13 in English! Sadly they were unemployable in our school.
These folk were part of another cohort of graduates from our state schools that are neither functionally illiterate nor innumerate–but they are incompetent in even the rudiments of language and maths. This, of course, means that their ability to think, reason, encapsulate, describe, argue, and comprehend is severely curtailed. We guess that this cohort would represent another third of graduates from state schools.
Those who think that starting a new state funded programme (for example, Early Childhood Education), or shrinking classroom sizes, or raising teacher salaries, or introducing national testing will turn the tide are naive. They have not reckoned with the barrage of the secular forces arrayed against state schools.
Let’s name two of these secular forces. The first is statism–which arguably is the established religion of our day. By this we mean that for many the state or the government is the ultimate reality and force. Name any social, political, material, economic or cultural problem and within a nano-second the conversation will have become political–by which we mean that “the government needs to do something, or this, or that” will have been introduced into the conversation. Functionally our society looks to government as its god.
The spin-off effect upon state education is direct. The state’s “long term” solution to any problem is to attempt to use its schools to change human nature and action to solve society’s perceived problems. Government as redeemer translates into schools as agents of socialisation and state propaganda, not education. This is a weight which schools simply cannot bear. They both stop educating and fail miserably in socialisation.
The second secular force also has religious roots. When the West turned away from the Living God, philosophical scepticism was the inevitable long term outcome. Knowledge lost its point of integration and so fractured into thousands of pieces. Three hundred years of post-Enlightenment maturation has allowed scepticism to reap a prodigious harvest. Unbelief now understands that it can no longer talk about culture, but only multi-cultural reality. It can no longer speak of truth, but only of perspectives. Rather than knowledge, it is reduced to telling stories about the world. It can no longer speak intelligibly about mankind; rather, more “accurately” only an emerging life-form. Correspondence between what we think we know and the actual world is declared impossible. Truth is prejudice. Knowledge is opinion. Any claims for either beyond these is nothing more than adding ignorance and stubbornness and arrogance to the mix.
The end result of scepticism is pluralism. You can have as many truths as there are people or opinions. This drive to pluriformity is relentless. We have now been gravely informed by Stephen Hawking that we must no longer speak of a universe, but multiverses.
Scepticism means that education is impossible in the sense of a teacher imparting actual truth and knowledge to students. This is why state school systems are failing–and will continue to do so. In a philosophically sceptical world to attempt to teach someone can never rise beyond being an act of arrogant, presumptuous intellectual imperialism.
The only course–and this is now the current paradigm in education–is constructivism. This refers to education being made subservient to pedagogy, and a particular kind of pedagogy at that. It is a way of “teaching” where the “teacher” becomes merely a facilitator, enabling the pupil to construct their own meaning, truth, and perspectives. In this sceptical world-view–which now dominates the West–to impart knowledge is to impose and enslave; it is to do serious damage to the pupil. It impedes true enlightenment which is self-discovery and individual perspectival sovereignty. The only recourse of state education systems is to affirm everything, which is to deny nothing.
Above all, the child must be affirmed, rather than taught.
Making children feel good about themselves has been on of the main objectives of US schools during the past three decades. By the time they are seven or eight years of age, American children have internalised the prevailing psychobabble and can proclaim the importance of avoiding negative emotions and of high self-esteem. Yet this has had not perceptible impact on their school performance. Robert Whelan, ed, The Corruption of the Curriculum, (London: Civitas, 2007) p. 9
Maybe not, but the child will be well on the way to constructing their own private curriculum–and that is the whole point in a culture which is both democratic and Unbelieving. Scepticism can only mean self-discovery–whatever that might mean–not conformity to an authoritative Truth.
Western state schools cannot do aught, but fail.
Alex Standish, who has taught both in the UK and the US, has provided a case study using geography as a subject to illustrate how scepticism has not only destroyed the subject, but has reduced it to incoherence. In his essay, “Geography Used to Be About Maps”, he shows how the modern UK curriculum now specifies that geography is about teaching students self-awareness.
[The curriculum’s] emphasis upon the personal ethics of pupils is apparent in its specifications of content document: “Candidates should be encouraged to examine their own values as they analyse the values of others and to become aware of the power relations implicit in any situation and the conflicts and inequalities which may arise.” Whelan, ed., op cit., p. 34. Emphasis, ours.
Yes, geography used to be about maps. Now it is about self-examination. Scepticism’s fruit.
Standish goes on:
In post-structuralism, truth is replaced by truths and knowledge by knowledges. Thus, much of our present inherited knowledge is dismissed as only one perspective: that of a Western, white, male, middle-class elite. If knowledge can no longer be abstracted from the particular social context in which it arose, it cannot be separated from the prejudices or values of the individual who constructed it. Ibid., p.42
Scepticism has silenced the teacher. He dare not speak or teach, lest he impose his prejudices and values upon students. Rather, he must facilitate a student’s self-discovery of his own values and the values of his peers.
Every subject is being inundated by the sceptical tide. Even science. A UK recent report entitled, “Science Education in State Schools” produced, in part, to understand why science as a subject has declined in “popularity” in state schools called for a radical re-write of the science curriculum. The subject must be made explicitly to engage with the “enthusiasms and concerns” of students. Here is the clanger: “science education can only succeed when students believe that the science they are being taught is of personal worth to themselves.” (Whelan, op cit., p.120) Personalised curricula, self-discovery, values education, constructivism . . . scepticism.
“State education” is now an irrecoverable oxymoron.
Cross posted at: Contra Celsum
Tags: Alex Standish · Education · NCEA · Robert Whelan · State Education · State Schools · Stephen Hawking29 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
I really like this site but now that it is written about the failed god of state education (read: instruction and propaganda) I find it 1000x better. Great article.
There is a “fallacy” I have heard libertarians (in the US) use called the ‘broken leg fallacy’ and it goes like this: The government breaks your leg then gives you a crutch so you can walk and then says, “there, see! Without us you wouldn’t even be able to walk!” This is what state education is like. For millennia people were fine without state education (and in the US literacy was higher before state ed) but now that we have it people are like, “well what would we do without it? people wouldn’t be able to get educated if the state didn’t do it”
Rather damning…yet we live in an information age now, where knowing how to access and locate knowledge is more important than necessarily remembering such knowldedge. And happily fails to mention the positive spin-offs of high self-esteem – like the ability to learn.
It also ignores the underlying social issues (institutional racism and cultural blindness are highly prevalent in many NZ high schools) that contribute to students disengaging. I notice you don’t differentiate between Maori and Pakeha statistics in you wee rant above. Is that because these issues don’t support your particular argument?
And a minor observation – schools, not churches, are at the center of our local communities. Is that because churches are filled with people who are so caught up in ‘being right’ that they have lost touch with the very people their God has called them to serve?
Just a few thoughts to get started…
Apparently Quadrant magazine (http://www.quadrant.org.au/) will be coming out with an article with similar arguments. It appears to be a subject that is gaining momentum, but needs to get closer to a political agenda.
No doubt any principal in the public education system could come up with a bunch of opinions on why Christian schools are crap, too. File under “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
When the West turned away from the Living God, philosophical scepticism was the inevitable long term outcome. Knowledge lost its point of integration and so fractured into thousands of pieces.
Or, in other words, once people couldn’t trump rational argument any more by referring to a Higher Authority they imagined must exist, knowledge became a matter of what there is evidence for – which is a much trickier business than “God says…”
The end result of scepticism is pluralism. You can have as many truths as there are people or opinions.
Actually, this is the straw man you would like to be the end result of scepticism. The actual end result, as above, is that truth is accurately regarded as being a bit harder to get a grip on than religious people would like to think, and that what we know of it is what we have evidence for.
Or, in other words, once people couldn’t trump rational argument any more by referring to a Higher Authority they imagined must exist, knowledge became a matter of what there is evidence for – which is a much trickier business than “God says…”
Psyco, these comments are seriously misinformed about the history of western thought. I suggest you do some serious study of say medieval theology and the role logic and argument played in it, relative to say post medieval periods.
[…] Read the remainder at MandM here. […]
If you aim at nothing, you will hit it…
[…] » ThoughtsThe End of State Education: Resistance is Futile 15 March 2011 No CommentFrom Matt and Madeleine…The litany of the forces arrayed against quality state education systems is long. We believe […]
A bit of a rant. I would like to know what john considers the answer to the problems he has lined up. Anyone can complain, even eloquently.
I managed to avoid the state system and was home schooled. I have my mother to thank for my education in science because of her background in it. The Christian curriculum we followed had mostly to be unlearned once I got into the real world.
Out of interest, what curriculum was it John?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but you have not commented on the single biggest influence in a child’s education – their parents. It matters far less which type of school a child attends than does the type of parent they have. A pair of Christian parents who read, pray with and for their child, while doing all they can to foster an enquiring mind, questioning intellect and an active education are a far stronger influence than most teachers and school systems.
As usual, education is targeted with lots of broad, sweeping statements that plainly don’t stack up when compared to the facts.
The reality of the matter does not support the argument, as the latest OECD PISA survey showed when it was released on the 15th of December last year.
The survey used data from a half million students tested in more than 70 economies.
Korea & Finland top the test, with the next strongest performances coming from Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
To view all the data use this link:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
Mind you, having been a teacher for some twenty years, both here in NZ and the UK, I’m not surprised, as education has, is and will continue to be an easy target for such people!
Cartography is about maps, geography is a little bit broader
“Every subject is being inundated by the sceptical tide. Even science. A UK recent report entitled, “Science Education in State Schools” produced, in part, to understand why science as a subject has declined in “popularity” in state schools called for a radical re-write of the science curriculum. The subject must be made explicitly to engage with the “enthusiasms and concerns” of students. Here is the clanger: “science education can only succeed when students believe that the science they are being taught is of personal worth to themselves.” (Whelan, op cit., p.120) Personalised curricula, self-discovery, values education, constructivism . . . scepticism.”
So lets have “Science Instruction” on the curriculum.
I was being taught scepticism in Science classes back in the early 70’s. Personalised curricula is another word for streaming, and streaming within a stream.
There’s nothing new in Johns OP. This debate has been going on for the last 60 years and the introduction of the new academies is simply the latest stage.
In term of relevance, it’s employers who are complaining the most. They want workers who can do the job that they employ them to do, not leave school knowing alot of useless facts and figures.
@r – it was ACE or accelerated Christian education. There wasn’t much choice for Christian curriculum back in the eighties I understand and as such my mother who was also a high-school science teacher supplement ed it substantially.
@Kay – any parents dedicated to their children’s education are going to make a difference. I’m not seeing how praying adds to that.
I plan to send my children to school myself but will put in alot of my own time along side that.
In my profession (civil engineer) I’ve had plenty of graduates pass through and while the quality of writing and maths is variable, the quality of their thinking is far and above that of some overseas students I’ve worked with.
Anyone who thinks science is purely facts and figures should really go back to school.
@John
I paid for the ACE curriculum but didn’t use it. I couldn’t believe the thought habits they were encouraging. It was awful.
If you you got a good education it was probably from your mother’s input.
Honest question, Why do people in conflate skepticism with science. These are not the same thing,
philosophically skepticism undercuts science and scientific realism, and pretty much everything else as skeptics like David Hume ( and even to some extent Berkley, and Kant) noted with things like causation and induction.
Because skepticism has multiple meanings.
Skepticism in the everyday sense means not jumping to conclusions or taking something for granted untill you’ve looked at some data. That’s very obviously important for scientists and people that think taking a scientific approach to life is a good idea.
The OP seems to conflate the different meanings of the word when it jumps on pieces like this
“Here is the clanger: “science education can only succeed when students believe that the science they are being taught is of personal worth to themselves.” (Whelan, op cit., p.120) Personalised curricula, self-discovery, values education, constructivism . . . scepticism.”
BTW, I totally agree with that “clanger”. The vast majority of people that lean science at school will never be a scientist, but they’ll all need to assess scientific sounding claims in their lives. Teaching people the importance of science in their own lives and how to be skeptical of apparent scientific claims should be the main goal of scientific education.
David, I get what your saying. However, in a precise sense, one can actually learn nothing at all unless one takes some things for granted, moreover one cannot learn anything if one refuses to accept what others tell you until one has proven it oneself from the data. In fact scientific progress would grind to a halt if scientists did not accept the discoveries of previous generations and build on them so I am inclined to think things are a tad more complex than simply promoting skepticism.
There are times to be sceptical but there are also times when trust is needed and even risk is needed.
“… one can actually learn nothing at all unless one takes some things for granted, moreover one cannot learn anything if one refuses to accept what others tell you until one has proven it oneself from the data. ,…”
Come on Matt! This is a ridiculous parody of the real situation. I don’t know of any school subject where the teachers would have this mentality… why not deal with the real world rather than some sort of ideological construct that does not exist?
In fact scientific progress would grind to a halt if scientists did not accept the discoveries of previous generations and build on them so I am inclined to think things are a tad more complex than simply promoting skepticism.
There are times to be sceptical but there are also times when trust is needed and even risk is needed.
I think the state’s pushing of “self-esteem” has had a negative consequence for people like me that have often struggled with their self-esteem. People like me become “bad” or “losers”, not matter how hard working, caring, and loving we may be. I had a beautiful girlfriend that came from a foreign country and wanted to marry me. She said all her white friends told her not to go out with me because I had a low self-esteem. Luckily, she had not grown up in our brainwashed system. I always told her she was beautiful, never hit her, and was a good boyfriend. Most of her friends ended up with boyfriends that cheated or were physically and verbally abusive. Most were arrogant pompous jerks, but they were somehow considered superior to me because they rarely struggled with their “self-esteem”. This “self-esteem” crap has just become another measuring rod to rank people socially, because ranking people according to income has fallen out of fashion. Never underestimate the ability of fallen human beings to pervert agendas that started out seemingly noble.
I did science classes at school and in hindsight would consider them to have been a waste of time. It would have been much more useful, for me at least, to have learned history and philosophy of science. It appears that even real scientists have get little or no training in this area and often makes fools of themselves as a result.
Perhaps ironically (@John) my homeschool kids are learning history of science and how to be skeptical but not with ACE.
@reed yes most entirely due to my parents. The ace materials were rather shocking – even my parents used to chuckle with us at them. Having said that, we came across many who were quite willing to swallow the whole thing.
@r good to hear you’ve kept away from ace. Also good to hear that you’re putting in the time with your kids.
As for me, given what I’ve seen, I don’t see homeschooling giving kids the best education they can get.
Once I get the chance I will give mine a combination of both. I’ll send them to the best school I can afford but teach at home or provide tutoring to fill any gaps.
I seriously question that one can provide the full depth of education and resources a high-school student requires
For example, laboratories.
My mother loves and thrives on mathematics but couldn’t get through to me. Once I went to university I found a professor that could and got As.
Clubs and social events are something homeschoolers miss out on unless you count the very filtered group of friends made through those circles.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think homeschooling is the sole answer to providing an education. Who are we to think that our own knowledge and teaching skills are solely sufficient or even appropriate for our children. I would rather they have as broad an education as possible.
Sorry this came across strong but as you can tell I have strong feelings on this one.
Another great post JT.
Despite trends, fortunately there are a lot of good teachers who manage to teach well and leave the rubbish out of it.
Matt,
Of course, but, then, giving up on God doesn’t mean you have to be skeptical in that sense! Wasn’t the the point of the OP (I have to say, I find it very hard to find the point of JT in general…).
In the end it’s a matter of where you place emphasis, hopefully science education teaches people that, in the end, it’s the data that matters (even if sometimes we have to trust that people more qualified than us are dealing with the data).
R,
Scientists often don’t really get history or philosophy of science, but philosophy of science is as important to scientists as ornithology is to birds, so it’s great matter!
@ Matt:
“In fact scientific progress would grind to a halt if scientists did not accept the discoveries of previous generations and build on them so I am inclined to think things are a tad more complex than simply promoting skepticism. ”
The best way to get a reputation in any science field is to disprove or to try to disprove, a previously held theory – it’s not easy. 🙂
One of the foundations of any scientific discovery (afaik) is that it can be repeated.
Once scientists simply start accepting each others word we’ll end up with another discovery like Piltdown Man.
Matt,
When you get a chance, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the importance of educating students to use proper grammar. I hear so many children and teenagers today complain that grammar isn’t of any practical use because “everyone knows” what they meant. I’ve struggled to find anyone who has posed a good argument for proper grammar, but your description of the handicap of illiteracy makes me think you’d be a good person to put it all into words, if you will. Thanks!