Education: 'It's a hideous mess, but it's OUR mess'

We have spent the last two weeks surmising that the lever that pushed America from the land of the free to the “land of the free lunch” in a short five decades was progressive education.

The “novel method” of teaching invented by John Dewey before 1900  aimed to educate children by letting their own interests, rather than society’s interests, dictate their course of study. This was roughly the equivalent of the 1912 musical education method perfected by Professor Harold Hill as “The Think System” (“You don’t have to bother with the notes!”) and was just as much of a con job, although John Dewey had a real pedigree so he had a much easier time staying ahead of the authorities than did “The Music Man.”

You would think that America would be dismayed and disgusted with Dewey as education and civic understanding declined throughout the century, but rest assured that was not the case. Indeed, America has been mostly as happy with Dewey’s “new education” as the fictional parents in River City, Iowa, were when they first heard the caterwauling of their precious children showing off their new musical prowess. It was a hideous mess, but it was OUR hideous mess.

By 1930, progressive education was already an established force in society. An article in the Altoona Mirror from that year, declared, “This new education, which is revolutionizing both private and public school methods, is not a passing fad.”

Indeed, it was not. And it WAS revolutionary, although most people did not notice or care that education had switched from being a method of reinforcing social conventions and standards to uprooting them.

As Miss Hilda Orr told a meeting of Altoona English teachers back in 1930, “Progressive educators seek to develop in children the social and cooperative spirit  rather than aggressive, competitive and exploiting qualities.... The leaders seek to abolish the evils of the competitive marking system which is so apt to produce in brilliant children self-consciousness, conceit and selfishness and in the slow-minded child a sense of failure, inferiority and injustice.”

Of course, what the breathless Miss Orr failed to notice as she rushed giddily into her brave new world was that the new system she touted would teach smart students that there was no value in excellence, and encourage slow students to conclude that bad was good enough.

Thus, progressive education had two primary faults that together ensured the decline of culture — first, it put the curriculum in the hands of the student, resulting in children learning what was convenient rather than what was necessary; second it removed any incentive to achievement, replacing rugged individualism with tepid collectivism.

It is no wonder, then, that as the American education system increasingly incorporated the ideas of Dewey into the classrooms in the first 50 years of the 20th century, something had to give. The sheer force of that huge lever on our society had to cause a giant shift in our values and our knowledge base. Yet despite the growing influence of progressive education from 1900 to 1950, it can also be argued that America’s power and influence grew exponentially throughout those decades.

That is certainly true, but at some juncture a tipping point was reached. Perhaps it was when the first generation taught with the principles of progressive education started taking their place on school boards across the country, or perhaps it was when those same people started to occupy Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidency. Putting people in the seats of power who had already been molded by “progressive education” meant that it would become increasingly difficult to halt the revolution.

Moreoever, the most important people in the country who had an interest in education — the parents — were also largely ready to turn their children’s future (and thus their country’s future) over to the educators who not only preached “the evils of competitive marking,” but also the evils of competitive marketing — namely the free enterprise system that resulted in equal opportunity for everyone, but unequal results depending on one’s abilities. How unfair!

Yep, progressive education was a necessary predecessor for America’s plunge into willing acquiescence to progressive economics — also known as socialism. Thus, we are close to a solution to our initial question: “How did we get here?” We have exposed the lever of progressive education as the mechanism by which Americans were primed to surrender the blessings of liberty in exchange for the bonds of socialism.

It remains only to find a fulcrum large enough to allow the dangerous lever to do its work. If it exists, no doubt it shall be found somewhere in the prosperous 1950s, after which American tumbled into a downward spiral that has not ended to this day. No doubt, also, like progressive education, it shall be hidden in plain sight. They who have eyes to see, let them see.