The Evolution of Curriculum, Part Five

Equity and Multiculturalism

Many of John Dewey's ideas were adopted and expanded upon after the Second World War. While education and curriculum development was a non factor during the tumultuous 1930s and 1940s, after the war with the "baby boom" public education got a much needed shot in the arm. Reinvigorated, elementary and high schools sprang up across the country, especially as the phenomenon of suburbia took hold. From 1950 to today, three primary considerations have dominated education and curriculum development--the move toward equity, the demand to compete with the rest of the world, and the rise of multiculturalism.

The issue of equity affected all aspects of education. The Supreme Court's important Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas decision began the process of integration. Segregation was no longer the law of the land, but it was a fighter and it took decades to fully integrate schools. This impacted curriculum in that all schools had to develop methods and materials to educate a population, many of whom had little to no schooling. In many ways the whole curricular concept of remediation begins in the 1960s. In addition, more progressive schools began to modify curriculum to begin emphasizing the contributions of African Americans to science, the arts, politics, etc. Some districts began to adopt texts that had been reviewed to ensure no offending racial language was found within them.

In 1957 the Soviet Union sent a basketball sized hunk of metal with a transmitter and antennae into outer space. It was named Sputnik. This changed education in America. Panic set in. The fear that we were falling behind the Soviets was blamed on schools and what they taught. The federal government took the unprecedented step of involving itself in the funding of public education. Money was appropriated to improve math, science, and foreign language programs in America's public schools. This was obviously a boon to those subject areas. Unfortunately, it also began the trend of pitting one subject area against another for funding. While this infusion of funds improved the targeted areas and the United States continued to dominate technologically, it opened the door for future federal involvement in what had historically been a local and state matter.

Multiculturalism is a hot topic. The right sees it as the root of much evil, while the left embraces the concept, even though it has evolved into something very different from what it meant in the 1970s and 1980s. Multiculturalism has gone through two phases. In the first phase, beginning in the early Seventies and lasting about twenty years, multiculturalism meant an exposure to other cultures and religions. The original goal was to develop a level of understanding of the variety of ethnicities that populated the United States to bring us closer together as Americans. The curricular focus tended to be on basic things like holidays, cultural practices, religious beliefs, etc. The curriculum was designed to make integration easier to accomplish.

Beginning in the 1990s multiculturalism began to morph itself into something very different. While the earlier form was acceptable to almost anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, the second phase of multiculturalism was more radical and heavily influenced by postmodernist, deconstructionist, and relativist ideas. This form of multiculturalism taught that cultures and religions were equal and that students should not make any ethical judgements since it was all relative anyway. Christianity and Western Civilization in particular was the target of multiculturalists who pointed toward tragedies, massacres, inequity, etc. within the western world to prove their points. This view found its way into the public school curriculum in subtle ways.

The social sciences were transformed the most by modern multiculturalism. For example, every history teacher would agree that to not teach about Japanese American Internment would be professionally irresponsible. On the other an over emphasis on that event has been promoted by multiculturalists and things like the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and even pivotal battles like Midway are neglected. The goal is to demonize the west and avoid criticizing the east ("the other" in postmodernist lingo). Multiculturalists influence is more subtle in other areas like math and science, but changes in teaching approach, style and materials have been made to accommodate the needs of females and minorities. Now you may ask what's wrong with that? The answer is that there is no evidence and research that shows any real improvement; and many districts have found reverting back to the "old" ways was better for all involved. Even Physical Education has been affected in terms of limiting the "competition" factor.

Again, these changes have generally been embraced by the federal government as a way to increase their control and influence in public education. Please do not get me wrong, the original intent of multiculturalism was a valid and admirable endeavor, but as practiced today it demeans the foundations of our nation by marginalizing the importance of our Greco-Roman roots, Judeo-Christian influences, and embrace of western ideas.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness!

Gang of Eight Immigration Bill

"All government, indeed every human benefit

and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act,

is founded on compromise."

- Edmund Burke

It is not perfect (what is?), and many at the polar ends of the political spectrum will find things to hate about it. But it's time for something to be done. I believe the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill is a prudent piece of legislation that follows Burke's spirit of compromise philosophy. I support it as long as punishments are enforced and the border secured.

 

What I like about it. Everyone pays a price. Immigrants will get amnesty (sorry Michelle Malkin and the other pundits) but at a cost. Immigrants on temporary status would not qualify for welfare benefits, any with a felony or three misdemeanors would not qualify, and employers would have to electronically verify the status of workers (e-verify). I have read all of the opposition to the law, and my feeling is if it happens then the law should be amended. If e-verify is prone to give false information then hire Bill Gates to fix it. If Napolitano and the DHS can't secure the border then give the mission to the military. Find ways to make it work.

 

The truth that Republicans ignore is that there is a huge demand for the labor provided by illegal immigrants. While I realize that many would vote Democrat in local elections, by the time they are citizens that could very well change. Republicans have much in common with hard-working immigrants (hispanic or otherwise) because most just want opportunity and not government handouts. Republicans have to go back to economic basics: no supply if there is no demand. Businesses must be punished harshly for employing illegals.

 

The truth that Democrats ignore is that far too many crossing the border are criminal in nature. Regardless of what numbers or studies you want to look at, the percentage of illegals in our prisons far out distances the percentage of illegals in the country. There should no longer be "rape trees" standing on the Arizona border. People living in border areas of Arizona and Texas should not fear for their lives and property. Those coming in illegally should not be given handouts and living off the system (there are far too many citizens already doing that). Most importantly, it is not unjustified for a nation to secure its border and establish entrance criteria.

 

If the federal government can not live up to its responsibility to develop and enforce sound border and immigration policy, then federalism should kick in and states should have the power to develop their own policies (within the confines of the Constitution). No law is perfect. Unlike nationalized healthcare (not mentioned in the Constitution), this IS an issue that is constitutional. Any immigration law will be tweaked and modified to suit the evolution of the country. But it's a start. Right now it is the prudent thing to do.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Friday!

Some history cartoons for your enjoyment. Have a great weekend!

 

 

 

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursdays

Interesting Facts About The Great Adventure

So what do I mean about the Great Adventure? Well, I am referring to the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Most people know it was commissioned by President Jefferson to explore the vast Louisiana Purchase. Many know that a variety of new plants and animals were discovered and that contact with new Native American tribes made. Folks also tend to know the story about the resolute Sacajawea acting as guide for the expedition even after giving birth. But there are many other fascinating elements to this story.

Captain William Clark was a gifted surveyor and had real combat experience. He produced the detailed maps that came from the expedition, and they were so accurate that modern satellite/GPS mapping programs have shown he was only about 15 miles off in his estimates. Considering he determined distance by simple line of sight estimates, this was a truly amazing accomplishment.

A number of new inventions were taken by the Corps of Discovery on their journey. One of the more interesting was a collapsable boat.

 

Designed by Meriwether Lewis, the boat had an iron frame and was covered with animal skins coated in tar to make it waterproof. It proved to be cumbersome to carry and when in the water could only be used where horses could pull it against a river's current. When pine trees began to become scarce the boat had to be abandoned as there was no way to waterproof it.

Another interesting piece of equipment was a Girandoni air rifle purchased by Lewis. The weapon looked like a standard musket but was an air rifle that fired a .46 caliber round and could kill a deer at 150 yards. One big drawback was that it took 1500 pumps to completely fill the air reservoir (which was good for 30 shots). It was never used for hunting but proved to be effective as a way to impress Native tribes, who were amazed that a rifle could be so quiet.

 

Jefferson had hand picked Lewis for the expedition. Meriwether Lewis was intelligent and had a background in biology. He was also a competent writer, so we have a fairly accurate record of the expedition from his journals. Clark also kept a journal but it was simplistic and not exactly publishable material. Strangely, the are serious lapses in Lewis' journal. There are weeks missing at various times during the two year journey. The best explanation is that Lewis suffered from anxiety issues and may have been a manic-depressive.

This depression afflicted him often after his return home. He served as governor of the western territories and never got around to publishing his journal, which was in high demand and would have been very profitable. Ten years after the expedition Lewis had finally finished transcribing the journal into a publishable form and was headed to Boston to meet with his publisher. While on the trail in Tennessee he stayed the night at an inn and was found dead the next morning from gunshot wounds. Most historians believe he committed suicide after one particularly bad anxiety attack. Some, though, believe he was murdered by someone who knew he had the finished journal on him. In fact, descendants of Lewis are now requesting the body be exhumed to try and but an end to the mystery.

The Lewis and Clark expedition will forever go down in US History as an amazing adventure story in which a small group exhibited great bravery and fortitude.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Words Have Meaning; Ideas Are Important

One of the challenges in calling yourself a conservative or liberal (I prefer the term progressive) is that others will assume that you are then a lock-step follower of either the Republican or Democratic Party. And while I believe this holds true more for progressives than conservatives, it is a false assumption. Political Parties are simply organizations bound together by a common view of policy that often times ebbs and sways with the political wind, polls, or the course of history. Being a true conservative or progressive (or libertarian or communist) is following a common core of beliefs about government and society. For example, conservatives see more negatives than positives when government is expanded; when its role in our everyday lives increases. Progressives see that as the very purpose of government, so government expansion to address issues is supported by them.

This brings me to, for lack of a better term, my bitching point. I get sick and tired of critics, both official media types and unofficial Facebook types, who simply go with the political flow and do not commit to a real political philosophy of ideas. Many of these folks simply try to bait you, or squeeze you into some box for their own amusement. The sad part is that they have no real belief system. Some may say they are conservative but spend their time baiting in other conservatives by pointing to the less than conservative ideas proposed at times by the Republican Party. A good example would be George W. Bush's expansion of Medicare with the drug program. Since words have meaning and ideas are important, this was definitely not a conservative policy, and many true conservatives opposed it and criticized the President immediately for it. However, many valueless, unofficial pundits on Facebook and elsewhere simply lumped us all together as Republicans.

Many of these critics like to play loose with words. They buy into some postmodernist, literary criticism, relativist interpretation that avoids the literal meaning of practically anything. WRONG! Words have meaning. If you say "always" it means just that. It does not mean sometimes, more often than not, or rarely. Such flamboyant and over the top prose is one tactic they use to goad you in, so be careful. Secondly, ideas are important. A great little book that focuses on this is Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. Ideas are not superfluous, conditional, or lacking in meaning. Many of these closet critics like to demean and tear down the thinkers as being useless because they do not always focus on policy. They are not influenced by what polling says.

Character and respect are built upon the notions of FairPlay, civility, and commitment to principles. Regardless of what your political ideas, beliefs, philosophy is, stay true to it and express your ideas succinctly in words that have meaning and represent what you mean. Being a conservative, I have more respect for a progressive who sticks by their guns and can debate issues in a civil manner than I do for someone claiming to be conservative but seeks to drag me or the opposition down through cheap shots and vague words or ideas.

Posted with Blogsy

The Evolution of Curriculum, Part Four

John Dewey and Education Reform

Changes in education in the first half of the 20th Century focused on three main areas. One, the explosion in the field of social science (sociology, psychology, etc.) impacted education theory and practice. Two, issues of equity, race, and gender became increasingly important. Three, one man, John Dewey, transformed all areas of education, especially curriculum, instruction, and teacher preparation.

The rise of the social sciences at the college and university level impacted American public schools in two primary ways (aside from the impact of Dewey). First, it can be seen in the Gary Model for schools. Second, it influenced new testing that focused on intelligence with the Stanford-Binet Test being the most popular.

Devised by the Superintendent of Schools William Wirt in Gary, Indiana, this model sometimes is known as the "platoon" system. While adopting new designs in school layout and teacher preparation, the core of the Gary Model was curricular in nature. The primary grades followed a work-study-play program. "Work" in this system actually meant job related skills; "study" was the traditional academic subjects; and, "play" embraced the growing emphasis on activity for physical and mental health. This approach became even more structured in the secondary grades where students were "tracked" into one of two paths: academics or shop. Students that were deemed college bound followed the academic track and the others took courses in a variety of vocational areas to gain an employable skill for after graduation. The Gary Model was criticized by some for pidgin holing students as one thing or another, but it proved to be very popular and cost effective, so over two hundred cities and thousands of schools used it.

The growth of psychology as a field of study impacted public schools in terms of brain research. The most direct impact was the creation of various testing methods to determine intelligence. The most popular test used by public schools was the Stanford-Binet Test. Originally designed by a French psychologist, Alfred Binet, the test was modified by a another psychologist at Stanford University. Originally designed to measure mental retardation, the test was revised and used to determine "mental age" of students which eventually evolved into the IQ measure we are all familiar with. While a useful tool in measuring intelligence, it was just one of many factors that impact student success and achievement.

Begun during the Americanization movement, issues of gender and race were still being addressed. During the first half of the 20th Century the number of schools for African Americans exploded. Legal segregation that resulted from the Plessy v. Ferguson case set the stage for this. Equally important though was the improved economic situation of many African Americans that moved north during the Great Migration of the WWI and 1920s era. While still receiving lower wages than whites, many African American families could afford for their children to not work and thus attend school. Facilities and textbooks were subpar, but it was a school none the less. Schools began to accommodate and adjust to the massive amount of immigration of the era by developing English as a second language courses. Equity had far to go but education tended to lead the nation in these efforts.

John Dewey is probably the single most influential person in terms of public education of the 20th Century. Many of the curricular and instructional trends of the past fifty years owe much to Dewey's ideas. Dewey was part philosopher, part psychologist, and part educator. All three combined to form the Dewey method. He wrote five significant books on education, focusing on how children learn, curriculum, school structure and administration, teacher preparation, and how schools fit into a broader society.

One consistent theme in his works is that school is a social animal, meaning that they are a platform for social change whether it be a focus on equity or a emphasis on science over faith. Along those lines, Dewey said that the student should have a say in their education. Classrooms should not be a place where the curriculum is delivered but a place where students can "interact" with it. Dewey dedicated one book to the theme of Democracy and Education. He stressed that schools should not just be a place to obtain content knowledge but also an environment where students learn to live. As a result, the inclusion of life skills in the curriculum was, in Dewey's view, as important as the traditional academic subjects. Dewey believed schools were a place where broader societal change could occur, because young minds could be moulded and influenced (yes, I know, scary thought).

Another Dewey influences is the notion that students must interact with the curriculum and connect it with their own prior knowledge in order to better internalize it, although Dewey did recognize that there is a fine line between curricular freedom and classroom chaos. Dewey believed there was a place for traditional, direct instruction complemented with "hands on" project based learning (sometimes referred to as experiential learning). Within this curricular delivery system the teacher became more of a coach than an instructor. Their job was to facilitate and guide, not to lecture and direct.

All change is greeted with opposition and those changes and reforms discussed here had their opponents, but that does not detract from the fact that practically every education reform and quick fix after Dewey's death is based on his ideas. The sole exception may be the "high stakes" testing and curricular standards movement of the past twenty years.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness!

The Boston City Bombing

I am no expert, although I did a fair amount of research on terrorism while pursuing my B.A. in History at UC Davis. Terrorism is really a recent phenomenon. The idea of using fear as a weapon by a small group to achieve a political goal from a larger group has sporadically popped up in history but never as systematically as it has been used since decolonization began in the 1960s. So the Boston Marathon bombing is just one event in a long chain of terrorist action since the Munich attacks in 1972. But Boston should also be an event that reminds us of the changing nature of terror against the United States. I feel there are three important lessons to remember.

One, they still hate us. I know that is a shocking statement to many that are intoxicated with our relativistic, multicultural attitude today. But please, before I am indicted let me offer a justification. By "they" I mean militant Islamist. Those that not only want a strict interpretation of Islam with Sharia law but want to attack any entity that is detrimental to that effort. I mean those dedicated to jihad as a literal holy war against all non-Muslims and not an internal, personal war to be a good Muslim. I mean those that see the United States as the key to political change, even if that change is to occur in Iraq or Russian controlled parts of Chechnya. This is a deep hatred that motivates them to kill innocents and even to commit suicide to do so. They are fanatics. You can not negotiate with fanatics. Yasser Arafat was a Muslim but not a fanatic. The PLO used terror but it was specific and controlled and they were in the end willing to negotiate.

Two, they will hit "soft targets." The 9/11 attacks were not necessarily soft because the complexity of the operation made it involved and difficult. There were a multitude of things that could have gone wrong. Two pressure cookers packed with explosives and ball bearings set on the ground at a popular sporting event was simple in comparison. Islamic militants will hit the US using simple weapons on little to unprotected targets. I know what you are thinking, "Were they really Muslim?" It is not yet proven but the evidence sure leads that way. In the end an examination of computers, social media, travel, etc. will show that Islam was the motivating factor and they were Muslim from a Muslim country.

Three, we have to be vigilant. Because soft targets will be preferred, the average American has to note what is out f the ordinary and report it. This is not easy. We want to trust those around us, and overall we should; but abnormalities are important. Whether it is strange violent behavior in a sixteen year old who talks about killing people or a strange package left on a table at the church luncheon, we have to be vigilant. However, we can not give up our liberties and freedoms. It's a slippery slope, a judgment call in which we have to balance respect for others and the need for security. Local law enforcement has to be trained in terror identification and counterterrorist strategies and tactics. That way the local cop at friday night's football game has some idea what to look for.

We can never stop it, and should never give into it. But we can reduce the chances of a successful terrorist attack. My fellow Americans amaze me because they can at times be so complacent but then respond with such vigor and caring.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Friday!

 

 

 

Teacher: What is a forum?

Pupil: Two-um plus two-um!

Wish I had been born 1000 years ago.

Why is that?

Just think of all the history that I wouldn't have to learn!

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking History Thursday

Life, Liberty and Property: What Do Those "Natural Rights" Mean?

One of the best known but least understood phrases in American History is Jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Most people know it comes from the Declaration of Independence and many know that the phrase is also known as natural rights, but few really understand its significance.

The concept of natural rights was touched on by many Enlightenment thinkers and can even trace its roots to the Ancient Greeks; however, John Locke an Englishman is credited with formalizing and simplifying the idea in the phrase, "life, liberty and property." I know what you're thinking, "What happened to pursuit of happiness?" Simply put, Jefferson changed it.

Life and liberty seem obvious. People have a right to be secure in themselves and bodily safe. Laws must protect citizens from physical abuse by government and other citizens. This component exists because in most countries in the 18th Century the King or Emperor had extraordinary powers to jail, imprison, and execute and the accused had little recourse. Liberty goes a step farther by guaranteeing (with certain constraints) freedoms like speech, press, religion, etc.

So why did Jefferson change "property." One common explanation is that if all people are born with natural rights then how do you explain slavery? Jefferson may have tweaked it for that reason. A few historians have argued that Jefferson used the phrase as a sly insult to the British. In an interesting piece by Dr. Carol Hamilton (HNN article) the thesis is put forward that "pursuit of happiness" was another way Locke himself expressed the idea of natural rights. It expands on the idea of property to include those that may not desire property, those involved in non-propertied businesses, and others suffering from impairments that prevent them from such activity. Of course, this broad interpretation opens up a multitude of opportunities for abuse. What if animal sacrifice makes me happy? You get the point.

Regardless, the property component, although not in Jefferson's words, is a vital element to natural rights that we often forget. The average person three hundred years ago was legally prevented from owning property or a business in most countries. Only the nobility generally had such privileges. Locke saw the right to property ownership as the key to the development of a republic. This is why protection of property rights and equality of opportunity has always been important to America's development. Capitalism, which many Founders believed ensured economic freedom, was a natural compliment to the right to property and the other freedoms. Locke and the Founders also viewed property as an important piece to American Democracy.

Natural rights is almost like a mission statement. It lacks specificity, but is important in laying out a vision of what America should be. Of course this is not as simple as it seems. Such a general phrase is broadly interpreted and one of the purposes of our Constitution was to offer some explanation and structure to natural rights. While life and liberty are alive and strong, property is under attack today. It would do the country good to reexamine the critical role "property" plays in a republic.

Posted with Blogsy

Hump Day!

Lessons From The Israelis

I'm no terrorism expert, but I have researched, read about, and followed the evolution of it for thirty years. It is a form of violence difficult to define. Almost every national level law enforcement agency and military organization has its own "official" definition of terrorism. The challenge is that the nature of terror changes over time and region. The nature of terrorism in the 1970s is different from today just as the terror practiced by the Bader-Meinhoff Gang and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the Seventies exhibited unique characteristics. This doesn't mean that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; there are some commonalities that cross time and region.

All terrorist groups seek to do what the label suggests--create terror and instill fear within a target population. The methods to do this vary, but the common element is shock caused by assassinations, mass shootings, bombings, hijackings, etc. Many people ask "Why?" after a terrorist attack. The answer has many nuances, but simply put, the primary objective is political. Almost every single terrorist attack. particularly international terror as opposed to the home-grown version, is conducted to get some type of political response. For the PLO and its affiliate groups the political goal was the destruction of Israel. For the Irish Republican Army (IRA) it was forcing Great Britain to leave Northern Ireland. For the Bader-Meinhoff Gang it was the establishment of a socialist/communist state in Germany and other Western European countries.

Recent terror, as best illustrated by al-Qaeda, also is an attack on culture. While the political factor is there (force the USA from supporting Israel, initiate a jihad to overthrow western democracies, etc.) modern Islamic extremism also is an attack on western culture and values. It is an attack on natural rights and freedom. It is an attack on secular law and trial by jury. It is an attack on representative government. It is an attack on basic equality between men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, the very notion of equality of opportunity. Samuel Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations, explains that after the end of the Cold War future conventional conflict would be based on cultural differences. This thesis holds true for terrorism. The purely political objectives of terror in the 70s and 80s have become entwined in the cultural differences of the world we live in. On the other hand any attack on culture is also a political attack.

So what can the United States do to combat this terror and particularly Islamic fanaticism. No country has been a target of this militant form of jihad more often than Israel? What can Israel teach us? It boils down to two things: vigilance and swift, violent response. Whether it be the PLO actions of the 1970s or the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah today, Israel has developed a security and intelligence apparatus that detects and tracks threats and a special operations capacity to strike swiftly and effectively at potential threats or as retribution for terrorist activity.

One example stems from the 1972 Munich Massacre in which eleven Israeli athletes were taken hostage and killed by a violent wing of the PLO called Black September. The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, immediately gathered information and began to track down the surviving members of Black September (a half dozen were killed at Munich). While vigilance in this case did not prevent an attack (when plots are foiled it rarely makes the news) the intelligence community had the resources at hand to quickly track down the perpetrators. A special team was assembled to track down and execute the five surviving individuals that were involved in the attack. The story of their efforts is courageous, suspenseful, sad, and sometimes disturbing. The end result, though, of this swift, violent retaliation was a clear message that those practicing terror will be dealt with.

Another example was the Raid on Entebbe. An Israeli airliner was hijacked and had flown to Entebbe, Uganda. Idi Amin's Uganda was a haven for terrorists and the hijackers felt safe since it was over two thousand miles from Israel. Following their policy of not negotiating the Israeli government instead approved a special operation in which Israeli commandos flew secretly to Entebbe, secured the airport, rescued the hostages and returned home--all before Ugandan troops showed up. Again, Israel proved that it was willing to take extraordinary measures to protect its citizens.

So what can the United States learn from this? First, intelligence is key. Agents in the field, aerial intelligence, support from allies, and coordination between the many components of the antiterrorism apparatus is vital in any effort to stop terror. Rivalry between agencies plagues all governments but when it comes to preventing terrorism it can be fatal. Second, there must be a swift, violent response at some point. This response does not have to be public or publicized like the Entebbe raid was, but can be covert and secretive like the Munich case (the world knew little about the Israeli efforts until the 80s). The key element is to show the enemy that their actions will lead to their destruction.

So how does this relate to the Boston Bombing? If the perpetrators were domestic then our rule of law determines the reaction. If it was a case of foreign spawned terrorism, then the US must task the intelligence community with idling the target and then striking with our special forces. Nation building is an uncertain endeavor and should not be a factor in our response to terror. If a base is located that is training terrorists, then it should be eliminated. Leaders, bomb makers, and foot soldiers should be targeted and strike teams sent out to capture or kill them. We have to remember that the world of terror do not operate by the rule of law like a civilized society.

Posted with Blogsy

The Evolution of Curriculum, Part Three

Americanization Movement

From the Civil War to the early Twentieth Century the Common School movement was tweaked and transformed based on the needs of a growing country. While the United States had always been a country of immigrants, the numbers entering the country from 1880 to 1917 dwarfed any previous increase. This influx along with the changing nature of society and technology changed public education.

The term "Americanization" is used by historians and social scientists to describe the process by which new immigrants from different cultures, various religions, and a multitude of languages become Americans. Public education played a key role in that process. The results for schools was supplementing traditional instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic with lessons in US History, government, and the free enterprise system. Such a "patriotic" curriculum might cause serious debate even outrage today, but both Republicans and Democrats, along with traditionalists and progressives approved of this approach back then. The only opposition came from nativist groups that opposed all immigration and any program allowing for their assimilation, and from religious (Protestant primarily) extremists who were fearful of the impact the rise in Catholic and Jewish immigration would have on society.

Support for Americanization was wide spread because it meshed with the social concept that we now call the Melting Pot Theory. To maintain a national identity from the inclusion of so many cultures, government and cultural forces pushed for the immediate assimilation of immigrants. To survive new immigrants had to learn English and to gain citizenship they had to demonstrate a basic understanding of the history, government, and economy of their adopted country. So the Americanization movement in education resulted from the Melting Pot Theory.

Accompanying the Americanization movement was the rise of a true K-12 curriculum in public schools. Prior to the Civil War any student desiring education beyond grammar school had few options. Some had private tutors and others went to "prep" schools. At that time any post-grammar schooling was designed to prepare young people for college. The new curricular requirements led to more years in public schools, including a dramatic increase in high schools. A curricular foundation was built in the earlier grades and then developed in high school with more "specialized" courses that included the subjects listed earlier and even instruction in Latin, logic, biology, advanced math, and physical education. One influencing factor tin the growth of K-12 was the increase in job opportunities, many technical but not requiring a college degree.

The Americanization movement was influenced by changes at the collegiate level and in the teaching profession. Academic organizations composed primarily of college and university faculty began to promote curricular changes at the public school level. For example both the American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians published recommended courses of study for grade schools. Also, the National Education Association began to take a more active role in curricular mapping (determining a sequence of courses) and curricular development.

While the Americanization idea has never disappeared and can still be seen in public schools, it has faded as "new" educational theories gained popularity, like those of John Dewey, the topic of the next part of this series.

Posted with Blogsy

FUNNY FRIDAYS

Who shot the gerbil?

The craziest thing happened last night. It was around midnight. I was asleep dreaming of a classroom full of curious, well mannered, decently dressed, and generally bright students, when all of a sudden---BANG! A shot rang out. I quickly checked my drawers to make sure I hadn't...well you know. Anyway, I pulled the blanket way over my head in terror. And waited. And waited. And waited. BANG! A second shot echoed from down the hall. Not knowing what to do I got up and ran.

I turned into the study and stopped dead in my tracks. Tears welled up in my eyes. On the floor was Wally, cold and dead. Blood oozing out of a bullet hole in his tiny little gerbil tummy. I covered him with a hanky and crept out the door scared and sad. Thinking someone was in the house, I continued to crawl down the hall, slowly and silently. I turned the corner and peered into the kitchen. OH SHIT! THE GUNS!

Floating in mid-air were my Ruger 10-22 and my Remington 1100 12ga. They bounced like they were talking and laughing. I could not understand their language but it didn't sound good. I backed away and went back down the hall and then made a right into a spare bedroom. Oh God! The closet door was open. And inside my gun safe was open. My first thought was someone had broken in and stolen my guns, but then I saw my Ruger P90 pistol bouncing around like it was doing a dance. An invisible hand must be operating it, and reloading it! I saw a magazine float out of the safe and slip into the grip, the slide moved back and forward. The distinct sound of a cartridge loading into the barrel caused the hair on my arms to stand tall.

I couldn't take it anymore. I ran! And ran! And ran! I was outside with my .45 following me. It fired but i ducked around the garage. I picked up a shovel and when the weapon came around the corner I smacked it good. It lay broken on the ground. But then rifle fire hit the side of the garage. I looked up and my trusty .30-06 was on the roof shooting--AT ME!

I ran into the garage and was about to jump into my F-250 when it too came to life. The engine roared and the tires spun. It was after me! I ran outside. By now the pruning shears and an old fish filet knife were seeking my flesh too. I ran down the road, hoping to find help.

Suddenly lights appeared. God no! Not another killer car! But the horn was kind of cute and perky. I ran to the vehicle. I looked inside. Al Gore sat in the driver's seat, his tummy rubbing against the steering wheel. In the back seat was Joe Biden on all fours with his butt held high. "What happened Uncle Joe," I asked. "My damn double barrel shot me in the ass," he said.

"Get in. We gotta get outta here," said Gore. "But Al, the cars?" I asked. "Don't worry, It's a leaf. Electric," he replied with a big cheesy grin.

The moral to the story kids is that we have to regulate the bad, evil, metal, gas, smoke spewing things man has created because they might come to life some day and kill us all. All of us innocent, decent, law abiding, never do anything wrong with inanimate objects people are not to blame for the evils around us...it's the stuff's fault.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursdays

James Otis

Today I want to focus on a lesser known Founding Father--James Otis. Otis was born in Massachusetts in 1725, where he grew up and lived most of his life. He attended Harvard and became a prominent Boston lawyer. He married the daughter of a rich merchant and they had three children. Although a loving couple, they were split politically. Ruth, his wife, was a loyalist (supporter of Great Britain) in mind but belonged to James in heart. One of their children was a true loyalist, marrying a British officer and moving to England for the rest of her days.

Otis proved to be an effective and successful lawyer, and at the young age of 35 he was appointed Advocate General of the Admiralty Court in Boston. This set into motion a series of events that cemented Otis to the revolutionary cause. His father, also a lawyer, was supposed to be appointed as Chief Justice of the Provincial Court, but instead a supporter of the Union Jack, Thomas Hutchinson got the job (and later became the Royally appointed Governor of Massachusetts). In protest, Otis resigned the post and began taking cases, some pro bono, against the British.

Otis is most famously known for taking on cases against the "writs of assistance" and developing the legal argument against them. These writs were Britain's way of forcing local, colonial authorities to enforce British will by giving them the power to search and seize any contraband in any home or business with no warrant or even suspicion of wrong doing. In various cases Otis showed how the writs violated colonial charters and even the English constitution and common law. As a budding lawyer, John Adams attended some of these cases in the early 1760s and was impressed with Otis' drive, intelligence, and tact in making his case against British excess.

Although James Otis never considered himself a revolutionary, his ideas had a significant impact on the ideas of the early movement, particularly during the Stamp Act crisis of 1763-1765. Otis began publishing various pamphlets on political and legal concepts, framed within the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, and other Enlightenment thinkers. While many are credited with popularizing the phrase "taxation without representation" it was Otis who first coined the phrase and offered a legal argument against it in one of his pamphlets. He also published pieces on constitutionalism and republicanism. Some historians tend to ignore his contributions because he was developing signs of schizophrenia and manic depression by the mid 1760s. But he was a champion of natural rights and even called for the end to slavery and the extension of natural rights to African Americans.

Otis fell from the scene as the revolution approached, largely because of his mental state, but it does not detract from the contributions he made to the idea of American republicanism and democracy. While pulled on one hand by his wife's more loyalist beliefs, Otis stayed true to his father's more revolutionary dreams of an independent America. He may not have been a member of the Continental Congress but his influence on John Adams and other Founders is pronounced. Otis died at age 58 while standing on the porch of a friend's house. He was struck by lightening.

 

Posted with Blogsy

What to do about North Korea?

I had an interesting teaching moment last week. Over a span of three days I had maybe a dozen or so students ask about what is going on in Korea. That may not seem like a lot since I have just over 200 students contacts a day, but in my business a dozen out of 200 is fantastic! So Monday was current events day and I led a lesson on why Korea is split, the history of the North and South, and current military capabilities. Students were interested and relieved that they were not going to get nuked. They laughed at the Dennis Rodman/Kim Jong Un cartoons, and in the process wrote a bit on what they thought America's policy should be regarding North Korea. The whole thing got me thinking about the current situation.

It's History, Man! You can not understand What is going on unless you understand why Korea is split. Although a distinct nation and people for thousands of years, after World War Two, Korea fell prey to Cold War rivalry. With Japan on the brink of surrender, the Soviet Union flooded troops into the Korean Peninsula. The US followed their lead, so when the shooting stopped Korea was being occupied by two different nations. Like Europe and Germany after the war, Korea became split between a communist North and republic South. Unwittingly, Korea had become a pawn in the Cold War chess match. After Mao's successful communist revolution in China (1949), North Korea began planning the invasion of South Korea. With containment's failure as a policy in the case of China, US leaders questioned whether communism could be contained in Asia. These subtle signals along with urging from the Soviet Union led to the 1950 invasion. Although unsuccessful in unifying the peninsula under a communist regime, Korea remained split and technically still in a state of war. The two sides had agreed to stop fighting but a treaty ending the Korean War was never signed, which has unfortunately left a void in the region that is yet to be filled.

Same Old Thing? North Korea has threatened invasion, bombing, shelling, and any other type of aggression since the fighting stopped in 1953. They have even fired across the border a few times, attacked South Korean ships, and sent commandos across the border. None of it has ever gone very far and the rhetoric is generally just that...words. North Korea is kind of like a chihuahua--lots of noise but very little in the way of bite. Is this time different though? The North does have nuclear weapons and some long ranged missiles. Whether their technology will work could be questioned but who would want to risk it. And then there is Kim Jong Un. Is he really in control? Is his aunt and uncle pulling his strings? Is he simply a nut (ie. hangin' with Dennis Rodman)? Is he just young and inexperienced? Does he has something to prove?

Policy? Recently the Obama administration has announced a policy of "proportionality" in regards to Kim Jong Un's recent threats and military movements. Nothing new about the policy as that's what policy has largely been for sixty years, but I am wondering if something new is needed now. Maybe proportionality x2. If North Korea shells a South Korean base then we (US and South Korea) destroy two of theirs. If North Korea sinks a ship, then we sink two. The way I see it, by turning up the heat, North Korea will have to back down or be wiped out and it might expose the chinks in the armor and encourage the people of North Korea (who suffer greatly under the Kim regime) to rebel. Otherwise it will be business as usual for maybe another sixty years. A wisely thought out policy now might payback big in terms of a more stable Korea.

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Evolution of Curriculum, Part Two

Common School Movement

The basic function and structure of schools changed little during the early 1800s. While access to education was widening, especially in the northern states, there was little change in curriculum. Local and state governments stressed public education as a means to strengthen the democracy. As Thomas Jefferson's said, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

However, an era of reform swept the nation beginning in the late 1830s. The new nation had successfully fought a second war with England, paid its debts, and was growing exponentially. A new educated elite--the product of a rapid increase in the number of olleges and universities--including women, began to investigate, write about, and lobby for reforms in prisons, treatment of the mentally ill, abuse of alcohol, women's rights, and public education. In the field of education one man is the colossus, Horace Mann. Mann, a lawyer by training, was appointed as Massachusetts' first Secretary of Education in 1837. He began what has come to be known as the Common School Movement. As Secretary he pushed for the professionalization of the education field. Mann was a strong advocate of tax supported schools, better pay for teachers, a broader curriculum, longer school year, and education for all regardless of gender or race.

In terms of curriculum and instruction, Mann was the first person of significance to challenge the "traditional" ways of doing things. While he believed schools must promote "moral elevation," he argued that it should be solely secular. A new moral code fitting for a democracy of many peoples and religions was necessary. Mann rejected the literary foundation of education based on "great works" like those of Shakespeare, Hawthorne, or Grimm's Fairytales, and promoted more "practical" knowledge to be gained from works focusing on science, politics, and history. He believed that a practical education led to power and empowered the marginalized segments of society.

Today the educational theory known as "constructionism" is popular. It states that children construct knowledge and the notion of truth is mostly relative. Horace Mann first popularized this approach nearly 180 years ago with his view of learning. He wrote that rote learning "was neither effective or desirable, but that children had to be led to discover principles and relationships." He also alluded to the modern theory of Multiple Intelligences with his support for art, music, and physical education components to the public school curriculum.

Although Mann's impact was felt directly in Massachusetts, the Common School model he popularized spread around the country and largely is still intact today. This is why he is known as the "father of the American public education."

 

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness

Congrats John Hopkins-- Whether John Hopkins decided to keep Ben Carson as commencement speaker because it was the right thing to do or from public pressure, I'm glad they did it. Someone as accomplished as him in the medical field is a great choice. As I have stated before, the university should be an open realm of ideas, even if those ideas do not match yours.

Gun Control-- Most effort at the federal level is now focusing on background checks. Being from California such checks are nothing new to me. In fact, a vast majority of gun owners support checks, but the concern is a federal registry. A healthy skepticism of the government is good, and a federal registry is bad news for everyone. It is a precedent I don't think anyone wants. That being said, this is the perfect compromise issue. Most lawmakers could agree on a universal check that prohibits a registry but is more stringent on mental health issues.

It Was Maddening-- They may came up short but Wichita State played a hell of a game.

Not Manliness-- WARNING: Feminists stop reading! I ran across a great site Art of Manliness. I'm reading a great series of articles on the Greek virtue of thumos and Jack London.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Fridays, Part Two

DEAR GAY PEOPLE

 

(Recently a poem called "Dear Straight People" by Denice Frohman has been making the rounds on YouTube, Facebook, etc. Here's my response.)

Dear Gay People, I am straight and I do keep it in a closet. I see no need to run around advertising the fact or rubbing it in everyone's face.

 

Dear Gay People, I am not homophobic, know a few gay people, get along well enough with gays, so GET OVER IT!

 

Dear Gay People, I will fight for your right to equal pay, protection under the law, free exercise of your delineated rights; but quit yelling at me just because I believe in a traditional view of marriage.

 

Dear Gay People, just because I support a traditional view of marriage does not mean: one, I oppose civil unions; two, I am some Neanderthal bastard bent on your destruction; three, the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler.

 

Dear Gay People, if you want some respect, then end those x-rated "Gay Pride" parades or at least put up warning signs so I can hide my children.

 

Dear Gay People, if you want acceptance then quit fondling each other in public like two teenagers behind the school gym.

 

Dear Gay People, my last two comments would apply to heterosexuals too, so don't think you are being singled out or discriminated against.

 

Dear Gay People, if you are offended by my words--I don't care. I was offended by "Dear Straight People."

 

Dear Gay People, the reason I wrote this is simply to point out that no one wants to be labeled or generalized about. While I believe in what I wrote, I also know that a majority of the gay community isn't flaunting their sexuality and are hard working Americans.

 

Dear Gay People, please do not assume you know what every straight person thinks. I surely do not assume to know what all of you think.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Fridays

Which one of these is the conservative cartoon?

#1

#2

 

#3

 

#4

 

ANSWER: None of them. Even proclaimed progressive cartoonists are trashing BO.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking History Thursday

Thomas Jefferson

The eminent political historian Richard Hofstader, in his seminal work The American Political Tradition, titled the chapter on Thomas Jefferson "The Aristocrat as Democrat." A fitting label as Jefferson was a man of variety and extremes. Some would say he was at times hypocritical. He was a great speechwriter but had panic attacks when speaking in front of large groups. He called for the end to slavery but was one of Virginia's largest slave holders and unlike Washington he never freed his slaves. He was considered the champion of the common man but lived like a noble and nearly spent his way into severe debt. He advocated limited government but authorized the largest land purchase inUS History without Congressional approval.

Jefferson was born and raised in Virginia. His education was directed by a number of tutors and later on a grammar school run by a Presbyterian minister. He attended William and Mary college and studied avariety of subjects, including mathematics, metaphysics, and political philosophy. Jefferson, more than any other Founding Father (including Franklin) was a "Renaissance Man," meaning he was knowledgeable at and excelled in many areas--scientific, political, literary, and artistic. Jefferson's mother had died when he was young and his father died in 1757, leaving half of the land holdings and slaves to Jefferson (about 5000 acres and 30 slaves). Jefferson worked dillegently over the next ten years to build up and modernize the plantation.

Jefferson married his wife, Martha, in 1772 and inherited her fathers plantation (11,000 acres and over 135 slaves) in 1773. He became one of the largest plantation and slave owners in Virginia. Martha bore five children, of which two lived to see adulthood. Martha passed away in 1782. Jefferson was a member of the Second Continental Congress and wrote most of the Declaration of Independence. The small desk he wrote it on sits in the State Department museum today. Though not completely pleased with the final document, Jefferson's work profoundly influenced the colonial decision to separate from England.

During the Revolutionary War Jefferson was Governor of Virginia. As wartime governor he was nearly captured by the British, but local militia held off the redcoats long enough for Jefferson to escape. Jefferson also pushed for expanded educational opportunities and started writing the much acclaimed Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson was also pert of the negotiating team that eventually convinced France to join the cause and later negotiate the peace treaty with England. After Martha's death Jefferson went into a five year state of mourning.

Jefferson emerged back on the political scene in the late 1780s when he was named Minister to France. Like Adama in England, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, but had corresponded and discussed the need for a new government with James Madison. Jefferson supported the final document but was concerned with the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Although of little account, Jefferson served as Secretary of State during Washington's first term.

Jefferson increasingly pulled away from the Federalists and, along with James Madison, organized the first, organized opposition party, the Democratic Republicans. Although the Federalist, John Adams wins in 1796, Jefferson gains the presidency in 1800, sometimes called the Revolution of 1800. As president, Jefferson does little to demolish Hamilton's economic policies. Jefferson does impose a nearly disasterous embargo on England in 1805. The move nearly destroyed the US economy.

Jefferson is best known for the Louisiana Purchase and the expedition of Lewis and Clark. To understand Jefferson's motivation, you have to understand that Jefferson envisioned an agrarian republic of thousands of small family farms as the backbone of American democracy. Jefferson, like many Southerners, were suspicious of manufacturing and industrialists. The massive Louisiana territory would guarantee Jefferson's agrarian vision. Personally, Jefferson wanted to know what was out there, so the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery was created. A huge success and impressive adventure story, the specimens collected filled Jefferson's home.

Jefferson essentially retired from public life in 1809. He returned to his home in Virginia, Monticello. Scandal did disrupt Jefferson's life when newspapers started publishing stories about his affair with Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves. Today, there is little doubt that the rumors were true, but to maintain intellectual honesty, Jefferson was a widower and there is no evidence that the relationship was anything less than consensual. It must be added though that Jefferson never did publicly acknowledge the incident or the children that appear to have been the result.

As pointed out in a previous post, Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. The same day as John Adams, and 50 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Posted with Blogsy

The Evolution of Curriculum, Part 1

I have been dedicating Tuesdays to in depth analysis of single topics. Being a teacher, education is a near and dear topic. In two previous posts I looked at the history of America's public education system from colonial times to the present, focusing on the role of government. For the next few weeks I want to look specifically at curriculum or what is taught. These two historical threads will provide the background for a look into the myriad of problems, as I see it, in our modern public school system.

Colonial America

Education in Colonial America (1607-1790) was greatly influenced by region, religion, gender and culture. Unlike today there was no compelling belief that all young people were entitled to an education. The Puritans came closest to such an ideal, but even in New England schooling was not mandatory. By education, Colonial America primarily referred to the ability to read, have basic writing skills, and a rudimentary understanding of basic math, essentially the "three Rs"--reading, writing, and arithmetic, in that order of importance. For many communities emphasizing what we would call public education had the primary purpose of giving one the skills to read the Bible. There was no formal curriculum beyond the three Rs with the selection of materials and methods largely being left to the teacher's discretion. Most teachers were recent college graduates seeking to pay the bills until a more monetarily rewarding career came along. Most teachers were men.

Where people lived and their faith had a significant effect on what was taught in schools. While New England was strongly influenced by Puritans and later Unitarians, the middle and southern colonies differed. The strong Anglican influence in the South did not change the focus on the three Rs but materials in terms of vocabulary development and readings reflected the values of the Church of England (Anglican). The middle colonies (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania) were more diversified religiously and ethnically. This diversity is reflected in schools which tended to cater to the language needs of their communities--German, French Huguenots, a small Jewish group, Quaker, etc. In all cases though the communities' religion was the dominant force over curriculum.

Colonial America's definitive gender roles can be seen in education. In many cases, girls were not formally taught to read or write and were not welcome in schools. The proper education for girls was domestic, learning to sew, cook, behave like a lady, and in some cases (particularly New England) be taught to read. During the Revolutionary period from 1776 to 1790, this exclusionary practice slowly began to change, setting the stage for girls' inclusion in public schools during the 19th Century.

Finally, the many ethnicities and cultures which made up colonial society left their unique imprint on education. America developed a unique folklore that combined cultural elements and values of the English, Danes, Scot-Irish, Dutch, Germans, French, and others along with a sprinkling of marginalized groups like Native American and African Americans. This folklore became the fodder for much of the curricular material used in colonial times and into the early 1800s.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness

They did what?-- Apparently Comcast has decided that televised adds showing firearms will no longer be accepted, and that decision includes archery (ie. bows and arrows). I firmly believe a business has the right to establish any advertisement policy it chooses; however, I am concerned about three things. One, such ads tend to only be seen on channels that run hunting and shooting programs, which, if you have ever seen one, stress safety, sportsmanship, and proper respect for the sport and shooting. Two, Comcast has no problem running ads about tv shows and movies that are violent, gun intense and often exhibit improper handling and use of firearms. HYPOCRITES! Three, while Comcast has the right to do as it pleases, I can't help but believe it is simply a politically correct policy that really does not reflect a commitment to the gun control cause. If they were committed to such a cause then ALL programming with firearms would be banned.

Final Four--Being a fan of the underdog, I will be rooting for the Cinderella team. Go Wichita State!

Some thoughts on Religion-- Religion is a valuable component of society, of civilization. I do not make this statement lightly or blindly. As a student and teacher of history, I am well aware of the violence and conflicts caused by various faiths; however, all major religions teach a basic moral code that is good when not perverted or blasphemized by some radical fringe. The Founders in particular recognized that in a republic that guaranteed basic freedoms, those very same freedoms could become destructive unless tempered by a strong moral fire, by religion. Even Founders with deistic tendencies recognized the important role played by religion, especially Christianity, in our democracy (appologies to the purists who rebel at that label).

I want to make a few comments about Christianity, and by that I mean Catholic and the many Protestant faiths. I have been watching the History Channel series "The Bible." I am not a church goer but I am a believer. But aside from being a believer, I challenge anyone to find serious flaws in the moral code taught by Christianity. Even if you are not a believer and reject systems of faith, how could you, without being nitpicky or getting caught up in the homosexual debate, demonize Christianity? Now, can a secularist have a strong moral code? Sure they can. But everyone faces temptation and some more than others. How many prisoners never took religion serious? Why is a true embrace of religion the surest path to rehabilitation for convicts?

Every business, organization, nation, and religion needs inspirational leaders. i am not Catholic, but one of the most inspirational images i have seen in a long time was the Pope lying on a rug praying to God. it was authentic and humble. As individuals and societies, we need to get off our high horse, not allow money and power to corrupt us, and do one simple thing...do what's right.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy