Originally, today's post was going to focus on the role of parents in our educational system, but for some reason I got to thinking about how education is used to socialize children. One thing led to another and this question emerged in my semi-fertile mind: Is the field of education being used as a method of social change using the Overton Window principle?
"What you talkin' 'bout Willis?" (Different Strokes fans will know what I mean.)
The Overton Window is a political theory developed by Joseph Overton in the mid-1990s. It focuses on the role of public opinion in shifting policy and political possibilities. In its most simplistic form the Overton Window resembles the diagram above which simplifies policy as either right or left wing (poor labels but workable). If the window is currently at R2 then that is the most popular policy choice at the moment for any given policy area. To shift the it requires moving the window in the desired direction. To do that requires a shift in public opinion. For a politician that shift has to come slowly or they will not be reelected. However, other means can be used to target desired policies outside the window that will not have immediate political affects for one party (or side) or the other. "Think tanks" are often used this way to float policy ideas in the media that are considered radical and may not immediately gain acceptance, but, according to the principle, can slowly move the window of public opinion in the desired direction.
So in the example above a progressive organization makes an L2 policy proposal. Liberal politicians are insulated from the proposal because comes from an outside group, even though they may agree with the prolicy. Over time the window shifts toward L2 to the point where the legislative process can legitimately kick in without there being political fallout. The Overton Window is NOT a politically selective strategy, meaning both major political parties use it.
In education the idea has been applied most often to the debate over local and federal control and the issue of public versus private/charter/home schooling. I submit that it is also present in the social activism and engineering efforts of the progressives. Before I get into some concrete examples I want to clearly state that these examples do not necessarily reflect the opinion of me, the author (so please refrain from the racist, fascist pig accusations). They are examples of how the progressive agenda is being implemented using public schools.
Teaching tolerance has become a key part of the public school curriculum for fifty years and rightly so in combating racism, sexism, and promoting equality. There is a whole curriculum, support structure and bi-yearly magazine that is part of a project supported by The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) entitled "Teaching Tolerance." Most recently the focus has been on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) tolerance. By progressives, schools are viewed as the front lines for social change. Most people, parents and otherwise, tend to ignore what is being taught and generally trust schools. Twenty years ago when mention of gay marriage might end a political career, progressive groups like SPLC began focusing on tolerance targeting the LGBT community as a means to shift the Overton Window to the left regarding sexual orientation issues. Today gay marriage is accepted policy. While societal attitudes have changed, no doubt part of the reason has been the efforts of public education.
Ironically, while tolerance is being taught, schools run on a "zero tolerance" principle. This is appropriate for serious infractions like drugs, weapons, and bullying or intimidation; however, it also reaches an extreme and too often is applied to lower grades where students have not developed the cognitive abilities to understand what they have done wrong. In our legal system, judge and juries have some leeway to determine infractions and punishment, but in our schools where "zero tolerance" reigns circumstances do not matter. The progressive agenda promotes government (ie. law enforcement) responses to problems and common sense or situational factors are thrown away.
A student could walk into the principals office and lodge a complaint, explain that they may be left with no alternative than to fight their agitator, end up defending themselves in a fight, but be treated no differently than the person who attacked them. (If an armed assailant enters your house don't shoot them. Leave.) In one case a 17 year old girl accidentally grabbed her father's lunch (they both brown bagged it). When she got to school she opened it up and a teacher saw a small paring knife her dad used to eat an apple. The girl was suspended the rest of the school year. In another case a kindergartener was suspended for bringing a plastic toy axe to school. He was dressed up as a firefighter for Halloween. In both cases the "zero tolerance" policy was implemented.
The most recent examples and maybe the best illustration of the progressive Overton Window strategy is gun control. At early ages children are being taught that guns are bad. While recent gun control proposals have failed in Congress (the window is currently on the side of the 2nd Amendment), schools are the arena of battle for future changes. January 3, 2013, a first grader is suspended for making a "finger gun" and allegedly saying, "pow." A few weeks later two more six year olds are suspended for playing cops and robbers using the infamous finger gun. March 2013 a seven year old boy is suspended for chewing his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and pretending it is one. May 2013 a 2nd grader is suspended for using his pencil as a gun. The examples go on and on.
So am I imagining a "boogie man" or is the progressive movement using the Overton Window to socialize children toward their way of thinking? Whether conscious or not, the progressives are trying to shift public opinion by capitalizing on the impressionability of our children. Even the older kids, some of whom might speak out against this socializing agenda, are too many times punished for exercising their free speech rights. Society changes and schools should change with it, but I would think even the progressives, who attack the thought police found in totalitarian regimes, would not want to be part of a paradigm in which social change occurs as a result of subtle brainwashing techniques. Shouldn't elementary schools be places to learn the basics and high schools be forums open for debate and opinions. If the progressives or conservatives can not win in the realm of open ideas, then manipulation should not be an alternative.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment