Soviet-Style Education in the U.S.

Did the Soviets win the Cold War?

Considering the rampant support these days for Collectivist doctrine and policy here in the U.S., it's almost as if they did. And the Collectivists have an even more dangerous attempt at thought control in the works.

It's called the Common Core Standards. 

"Common Core proponents advocate a single set of standards--and inevitably a single curriculum--implemented throughout the nation and controlled by experts in Washington," says Jane Robbins of the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

Just what you want for your children, no? A single curriculum imposed by government bureaucrats, under the guise of "higher standards." Yes, the Soviets had that too, and look what it did for them.

"Common Core Standards" might sound like a return to real, classic education, but the Deweyian Progressives behind the program have made sure that any classics are studied only in bits.

No complete literary works are read. Rather than real knowledge, the focus is on "critical thinking," a Deweyian concept meant to replace reasoning skills.

The Feds have incentivized states to adopt the Common Core system and 45 states have already signed on to this frighteningly dangerous program.  

Why? The Feds are offering waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements (what my teacher friends call No Child Left Standing).  NCLB demands constant testing, which has turned schools into testing mills as adminstrations try to maintain their Federal funding. The opportunities for real learning are minimal. Any wonder so many students are arriving at college utterly unprepared?

Remember: who pays the Piper, calls the tune. Do we want to hear the Internationale or the Star Spangled Banner?

How can you fight against collectivist brain-washing?

If you ever wonder why the U.S. is in the fight for its life against Collectivism, wonder no further: collectivist control of education is the key.

How has the Progressive Left influenced our youth from grade school to graduate school? Read Jane Robbins article, referenced above, for the concise details.

You are key in this fight against Collectivism. How? Send a student to The Great Connections Seminar, where we study classic works of world-changing import crucial to defending and advancing liberty, and students learn how to reason well. You can see complete details, including a link to the week's schedule, here.

If you don't know a worthy student to send, there's still a way you can help. Right now, students are applying from around the nation and world (including Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala, and Ethiopia). You can enable them to attend our transformational program by contributing to our scholarship fund at this link, by calling us at 773-677-6418, or by sending a check to the RIF Institute, 9400 S. Damen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60643.

Thank you.

Tenure and Academic Freedom

In the Wall Street Journal, June 23rd, Naomi Schaefer Riley reported that Denver District judge Norman D. Haglund overturned a state district court ruling, allowing the trustees of Metro College to lay off tenured faculty.

He said "the public interest is advanced more by tenure systems that favor academic freedom over tenure systems that favor flexibility in hiring or firing."

Hah - I guess he hasn't been to a college campus lately.

And wouldn't you know that Progressive John Dewey was behind the 1915 push for tenure? He said "if education is the cornerstone of the structure of society and progress in scientific knowledge is essential to civilization, few things can be more important than to enhance the dignity of the scholar's profession."

Double hah! Now we find out why we need tenure - to enhance the "dignity," i.e. self-image, of the scholar.

Riley comments: "The truth is that tenure has served as an instrument of conformity since tenure votes are often glorified popularity contests. The fact that university professors donated to President Obama's campaign over John McCain's by a margin of eight to one is only the tip of the iceberg. Those professors who want tenure and disagree with the prevailing trends in their field - or the political fashions outside of it - know that they must keep their mouths shut for at least the first seven years of their careers."

Today, Harvard Law Prof. Mark Ramseyer's letter in response to her article said:

"A friend told him that "Tenure wasn't about protecting our faculty jobs, he said. Instead it was about forcing us to take at least one hard look at our recent hires. In other words, if we didn't have tenure, it's not that underperforming faculty would be pruned from time to time. If we didn't have tenure, every faculty member ever hired would have a job for life. What tenure does is to force senior colleagues to look hard at the junior appointments they've made - at least once in each professor's life.""

Ramseyer continues: "...we faculty are easygoing, go-along, get-along folks."

I'd love to hear from other faculty members as to whether this fits their experience.