Skip to comments.The aim of progressive education is explicitly to indoctrinate
Posted on 02/24/2012 11:57:50 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
John Dewey, widely considered the father of modern American progressive education, wrote the following in his 1916 book "Democracy and Education" : (Page 82, middle paragraph) (Gutenberg text)
It is the aim of progressive education to take part in correcting unfair privilege and unfair deprivation, not to perpetuate them. Wherever social control means subordination of individual activities to class authority, there is danger that industrial education will be dominated by acceptance of the status quo.
Now this doesn't sound too bad, I suppose. Extreme inequalities? Who wants that? Well, Dewey also further explains this on page 63:
4. The "Individualistic" Ideal of the Eighteenth Century. In the eighteenth-century philosophy we find ourselves in a very different circle of ideas. "Nature" still means something antithetical to existing social organization; Plato exercised a great influence upon Rousseau. But the voice of nature now speaks for the diversity of individual talent and for the need of free development of individuality in all its variety. Education in accord with nature furnishes the goal and the method of instruction and discipline. Moreover, the native or original endowment was conceived, in extreme cases, as nonsocial or even as antisocial. Social arrangements were thought of as mere external expedients by which these nonsocial individuals might secure a greater amount of private happiness for themselves. Nevertheless, these statements convey only an inadequate idea of the true significance of the movement. In reality its chief interest was in progress and in social progress. The seeming antisocial philosophy was a somewhat transparent mask for an impetus toward a wider and freer societytoward cosmopolitanism. The positive ideal was humanity. In membership in humanity, as distinct from a state, man's capacities would be liberated; while in existing political organizations his powers were hampered and distorted to meet the requirements and selfish interests of the rulers of the state. The doctrine of extreme individualism was but the counterpart, the obverse, of ideals of the indefinite perfectibility of man and of a social organization having a scope as wide as humanity. The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.
Now, I don't think I'm reading this wrong, but as usual I give the sources so that people can make up their own minds.
Here's how I read what's written: In the 18th century ideals are different than the ideals that existed in the modern 20th century progressive America, where back then "Nature" still meant something antithetical to a centralized state. When he says "social", he does not mean two people sitting at a restaurant having tea and crumpets. But here in the modern 20th century progressive America, "Nature" has new and more diverse meanings, instead of that tired, dusty, and old doctrine of extreme individualism. And where to progressive educators in? They make emancipated individuals (from the doctrines of EXTREME individualism of course) into agents of government, because they've been taught to oppose perceived inequalities and social control through their "industrial education".
This from Dewey, who labeled Horace Mann a "patron saint of progressive education". Let us never forget what Mann said, that "your children are hostages to our cause".
In both instances: Mann with his hostages, and Dewey with his emancipated individuals who are organs and agents of a progressive society - this is aggressive rhetoric. Dark, devious, and aggressive.
Finally, take note of what he wrote on page 66:
Neither phase of the problem can be worked out by merely negative means. It is not enough to see to it that education is not actively used as an instrument to make easier the exploitation of one class by another. School facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their future careers.
Wards? That's more aggressive language. And we know what progressives mean by 'efficiency', more centralization and power for the dear leaders.
Adoption of ALL his principles—philosophy as well as methods with the possible exception of the decimal system in libraries—ruined the state of education in the United States. Social ends never end; so subject mastery suffers.
Last evening over dinner my seventh grader tells me that his social studies teacher told him in class yesterday that the only valid reason for students to take social studies is to improve their writing skills for English. My son challenged him and quoted Santayana: “Isn’t it true that if we do not know our history we are condemned to repeat it. Shouldn’t we understand our past so we can better prepare for our future?”
The teacher blew him off. I told him that the NEA does not want students to understand how America got where she is through DEMOCRACY and FREE MARKET ECONOMIES. It’s much easier to manipulate ignorant minds into accepting creeping socialism if they are not aware of freedom, democracy and free markets.
I just posted an email I received today.
“his social studies teacher told him in class yesterday that the only valid reason for students to take social studies is to improve their writing skills for English.”
How did this clown turn out to be a teacher? Never mind. It’s like asking how a muslim Kenyan who hates America became president..
Another excellent article. I will ping the M.A. later when I have time.
No liberal wants equality. That would be a threat, a threat to be punched in the nose by an equal. This is all horsepuke hypocrisy.
It is evil to teach children ( under compulsion) to think and reason godlessly. Simply by attending children must just to cooperate in the classroom.
It is evil to force citizens to pay for such a perverse and religiously non-neutral program.
And....All government owned and run K-12 schools in this nation are socialist entitlements. Simply by attending children risk learning to be comfortable with socialist and to look to government to be their Savior. Gee! If the government can give them tuition-free school, why not use that government to get **lots** of “free” stuff?
So?....How did this guy every get to be a government teacher. Was he someone’s nephew?
Its much easier to manipulate ignorant minds ..... If they are taught to think and reason godlessly.
All government owned and run K-12 schools in this nation are godless in their worldview. Just to cooperate in the classroom the child must think and reason godlessly.
Can some parents counter this? Some do, but I think keeping them out of these godless schools would be the best first choice.
I don't know. I might agree with the Social Studies teacher who may actually realize that what was once called "History" or "Civics" is now just dumbed-down, Dewey-inspired "Social" Studies pap. One of the first victories in the ruining of our public schools was the substitution of Social Studies for History.
“It is the aim of progressive education to take part in correcting unfair privilege and unfair deprivation, not to perpetuate them.”
“From each according to his abilities to each according to his need”
EVERY Progressivik/lib theory is based on the redistribution of wealth in some way.
Another placemark, for tomorrow.
MM - ARTHS List?
What does that mean?
Oh, sorry! That was a note to metmom, who runs the “Another Reason To Homeschool” ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.