On November 28, at a meeting of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice discussed the report of a task force they chaired and the report they produced for the Council on Foreign Relations.
The central claim of the report was that American public education is so dreadful that it constitutes “a very grave threat to national security.” I thought that the findings and the recommendations of the report were far-fetched and predetermined by the makeup of the task force. I agreed with the panel’s dissenters and reviewed the report here.
I am happy to see that the Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers has published a forum in which a group of scholars respond to the CFR report.
Several authors reacted with derision to the CFR’s warm embrace of the Common Core standards, especially to its recommendation That students need more “informational text” and less “narrative fiction.” The writers saw this as a direct challenge, if not an insult, to the humanities and to the development of creativity, imagination, moral judgment, and critical thinking.
Two of the essays note the similarity between the CFR report and the views of Mr. Gradgrind in Dickens’ “Hard Times.” Mr. Gradgrind memorably said,
“Now what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root everything else out.”
Most of the authors are disturbed by the narrow and cold utilitarianism of the report, the attitude that people are not individuals with their own purposes but “human capital” that must be shaped to serve the needs of industry, the military and global competition.
A sampling of the commentary:
Several of the authors, writes Rosanna Warren of the University of Chicago, share “a sinister political assumption floating in the CFR report but nowhere in it argued or defended, that the United States is from now on to be committed to the enterprise of global domination.” Not only does it implicitly raise questions about what kind of nation we should be but “One of the more repellent features of the CFR report is its persistent referring to human beings–students and teachers–as ‘human capital,’…terminology that may be fine for economic planners or those writing about corporate success, but as an educational vision it is chilling.” The writers of the CFR report, she says, “regard people as units of merely instrumental value in larger systems of corporate production and military defense.
Elizabeth D. Samet, who teaches at the U.S. Military Academy, defends the teaching of fiction. She writes, “Informational texts often invite a reader to answer a series of questions at the end of teach chapter; fiction demands that a reader figure out which questions to ask.” The security of our nation depends, she writes. “on citizens possessed of liberated cultural and political imaginations.”
Rachel Hadas of Rutgers asks, “What is an ‘informational text’—a textbook?…And what does “narrative fiction’ denote?” She finds, “Reflection and self-criticism, or indeed questioning of any sort, are not among the benefits the Report associates with education, or indeed with national security.” Without such questioning, there can be neither imagination nor creativity.
James Miller of the New School finds that the report is “preoccupied with staffing up the military-industrial complex” and thus disregards liberal education as a goal of education. Written in “wooden, barely literate prose,” the report is concerned only with immediate, utilitarian interests. “In the name of bolstering national security, they are offering an intellectual starvation diet for the vast majority of American students.”
Robert Alter, now emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, says that “the ruthless instrumentalization of the student population they [the CFR task force] envisage is quite likely to alienate young people rather than excite them about learning.” The Report’s neglect of language and literature, he writes, is “not merely dim but scandalous.” It neglects Greek or Latin “because you can’t cut a deal with a multinational in the language of Homer or Virgil. Literature itself is relegated in the Report to a distant and irrelevant memory because it has no utilitarian application.” It is important, of course, to read information text, but too much such text “is an excellent recipe for instilling a hatred of reading.”
David Bromwich of Yale University notes that since 2001, a “panic fear” about national security has grown. He asks, “Who should answer for the decline of American prestige in the world? This pamphlet renders a curious verdict. Not economists, not corporate heads, not generals or presidents or their advisers. No: public school teachers are to blame.” The Report, he writes, “takes the militarization of the motives for education to an unprecedented extreme.” Nowhere does it present “learning and wisdom” as good ends in themselves. He concludes, “…the intellectual bankruptcy of this enterprise suggests a corruption of mind more dangerous to a free society than any combination of military stalemates and diplomatic defeats.”
This short (67-page) pamphlet is a refreshing rejoinder to much of the cant and dogma that are in the air these days. There are several other excellent contributions by other authors, including John C. Briggs, James Engell, Virgil Nemoianu, Lee Oser, Michael B. Prince, Diana Senechal, and Helaine L. Smith. Every one of their short commentaries contain more wisdom than the CFR Report.
Only cowards (Joel and Condoleezza) would blame teachers for our crumbling society.
This excerpt called to my (by Helaine L. Smith, The Trouble With Testing):
And, since the Report finds its raison d’être in issues of national security, we should also look at the statistics upon which it relies for its conclusions. Those statistics are based on test results. Ranked very near the bottom of many of the charts in the Report, just above educationally-challenged Mexico, Chile and Turkey, is Israel. Israel produces, per capita,
more engineers, scientists, innovators, and Nobel Prize winners than any other country. More, per capita, than Finland, the country at the top of these same charts. The United States, Israel, and other countries that are, unlike Finland, melting pots, and that contain diverse populations and pockets of poverty, don’t chart as well as more socially and cultur- ally homogeneous nations.
The Task Force might have done something quite different. It might have jettisoned its own ties to the testing and textbook industries; it might have urged teachers to seek degrees in academic disciplines rather than in education; it might have advocated pre-kindergarten schools for children whose homes so disadvantage them that, by the time they enter kin- dergarten or first grade, they are already behind; it might have upbraided the media and the newspapers of record for the paucity of information and for the misinformation that those outlets provide about history and civics. The Task Force might even have taken to heart this best of all descriptions of teaching and learning:
You go to a great school, not for knowledge so much as for arts and habits; for the habit of attention, for the art of expression, for the art of assuming at a moment’s notice a new intellectual posture, for the art of entering quickly into another person’s thoughts, for the habit of submitting to censure and refutation, for the art of indicating assent or dissent in graduated terms, for the habit of regarding minute points of accuracy, for the habit of working out what is possible in a given time, for taste, for discrimination, for mental courage and mental soberness. Above all you go to a great school for self- knowledge. (Charles Goodford, Headmaster of Eton, 1861).
Had the Task Force done any of these things, teachers and students would be in its debt. But politicians seeking an easy object of blame and the vast educational industry itself might be less than pleased.
Linda,
Very well said! I get a knot in the pit of my stomach when I read such reports. It seems, and maybe I read too much science fiction and science non-fiction , that we have a move by reformers to create a tiered society. The rich elite will have their children educated at schools with arts, music, fiction, literature and all the wonderful subjects that money can buy. The rest of the nation will be left sending their children to schools focused on creating willing workers for the industrialist’s factories, soldiers who can protect the amassed wealth of the rich and a pool of technical/service workers to make sure the country hums along so the rich can relax and have full lives filled with art and culture without having to worry their world is threatened; from outside or inside.
*applause*
I concur heartily. This is exactly what is going on…
Only the first sentence is mine. I do not know Helaine, but she understands what is happening. We will probably never know the details of the backdoor secret conversations, but improving our education system is not their motivation. That is crystal clear. They can spin however they want to, but profit and power trumps all.
And in Bridgeport, Vallas is creating a Military Magnet School. How kind of him. Wonder if any of the local millionaires and billionaires down in Fairfield County will be sending any of their sons and daughters there?
*applause*
Jeb Bush’s Foundation is correct in its assertion that citizens in a democracy need to be able to read and analyze factual information. Too bad the Republican party leaders haven’t taken his advice. Rubio can’t fully embrace evolution; Romney thinks scientists haven’t agreed on global warming; and Ryan cannot present an “informational text” explaining the cuts needed to balance the budget. The majority of voters saw through these information gaps and voted for a party that MOSTLY believes in science based on facts and research. Unfortunately the one part of the administration that DOESN’T believe in research-based science is the Education Department, who still supports VAM.
If they manage to spin the narrative that the public education crisis is indeed a national security threat, this will silence the opposition even more. Not only will teachers have to worry about losing their jobs, they may now have to worry about being locked up in Guantonimo. This is one of the reasons I felt compelled to write a blogpost discussing the need for an Eduleaks website where teachers could anonymously post incriminating documents or stories of bogosity without fear of workplace reprisal. You can read about it here http://kafkateach.wordpress.com.
Rachel happens to be the daughter of the late great Moses Hadas at Columbia… she is also a poetess… Very brilliant. Happy to have known her long ago… 🙂
Best, Neal
Rachel Hadas of Rutgers asks, “What is an ‘informational text’—a textbook?…And what does “narrative fiction’ denote?” She finds, “Reflection and self-criticism, or indeed questioning of any sort, are not among the benefits the Report associates with education, or indeed with national security.” Without such questioning, there can be neither imagination nor creativity.
Neal H. Hurwitz NY, NY
Another excerpt by Michael B. Prince:
If our crisis in education transcends class, race, geographical region, and type of school, and has not improved despite increased funding, then what factor or factors could explain such system-wide failure? Here the Report fires a blank. It fails to pinpoint the causes of our educational decline.
This lack of attention to underlying causes does not keep the Task Force from propos- ing rather predictable solutions. In particular, the Report calls for renewed investment in educational technology:
It seems clear that technology has the power to help students learn in new ways, to assess more rigorously how much students are learning, and to help teachers tailor instruction to students’ individual learning needs. But technol- ogy is largely still being used to advance old-style teaching and learning with old-fashioned uses of human capital. . . .[C]omputers and digital technol- ogy have thus far not been used innovatively to change the way the United States educates its students, but instead simply to reinforce past practices . . . .The Task Force recommends that technology expectations be thoroughly integrated with math, literacy, science, and foreign language curricula so that students learn how they might effectively apply technological skills in diverse and constantly evolving settings. (32-33, 46)
On the face of it, this recommendation seems reasonable. Technology is so obviously a part of our students’ lives, that pedagogy today apparently needs to play catch-up to the new possibilities technology offers. However, the Report itself offers no evidence to support its conclusion. On the contrary, it maintains that recent educational innovations, in which technology has already played a role, have failed to achieve positive results.
My thoughts:
Maybe, just maybe this was a precursor and a build up to the Grand Opening and the unveiling of Joel and Rupert’s new adventure: AMPLIFY.
This appears to be a marketing strategy….we are doomed, buy our educrap and you will be saved.
Shame on you Joel! You and Rupert have much in common.
http://www.louisianaschools.net/compass/hcis.html
“The Human Capital Information System
The Human Capital Information System (HCIS) helps LEAs manage Compass evaluation data on their employees. To learn more about the HCIS, please visit the About the HCIS page located on the side menu. For resources on how to use the HCIS, please browse the links on the right side of this page.”
Once again Louisiana keeps up with all the most repulsive trends in education!
Unfortunately, the instrumentalization of students in the service of the “community” (state) could just as well be argued of the progressive vision of education as well. To critique this report as if the public school vision wanted to free each individual to live for him or herself and his or her own purposes is hypocrisy. Those who want students and adults to live for their own intrinsic purposes are aligned more with the vision of Ayn Rand and capitalism. Beware wolvish defenders of the public school system wearing the false fleece of capitalism which in other circumstances they decry.
You bloviate, but know nothing. You have absolutely no idea what teachers do each and every day and you do not care to learn new information. You spout the same drivel with every post. Your hatred for us is what keeps you coming back. Find a more useful hobby.
Now, now, Linda. I’m critiquing philosophy only. Let’s not make this personal.
Yeah. Sure. If that makes you feel better about yourself you should go with that theory. Delusions of grandeur for sure.
Expecting children to have an education that forms them as cultured, ethical and free thinking individuals does not equate with the cut-throat self-centred theories of Ayn Rand.
Serving the community is something that benefits all citizens, while serving industry only enriches a few, while exploiting the many.
As if the public school teachers, administrators, and unions are not deriving income from the students they enroll! No one teaches without being paid (except Socrates). The only question is who controls the public taxation money stream. Even in business, the trick is to always have at least one government contract in one’s back pocket. We are not witnessing a contest between the virtuous and the evil, but a contest to get access to the government money stream, like farmers and others who want control of the Colorado river. Even churches continuously want money. The public schools do not have a monopoly on virtue. That the public school establishment is more disinterested than thou is a fiction.
“That the public school establishment is more disinterested than thou is a fiction.”
I can’t really disagree with that.
However, I am saying what the ideal, toward which we ought to be striving, is. When actual people get involved (rather than just theory) things always get complicated.
“The only question is who controls the public taxation money stream.”
And to what ends. I think we can agree on that much, if not on what the appropriate end is.
We should adopt the 4 Civic Virtues of the ancient Greeks democracies as our Common Core: Wisdom, Courage (both physical and moral), Justice and Temperance (or self-control), Today’s students, awash in a sea of information unprecedented in history, need standards by which they can separate the wheat from the chaff, but this will not be achieved by stressing non-fiction over fiction. That line of thought would be better served by having students read original texts where possible, rather than history texts written for the classroom. For example, how much more lively and compelling would it be to read, reflect on and discuss the 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior hand-copied by a teenaged George Washington than to read of his life in what is inevitably a dreary, lifeless textbook rendering?
As I have pointed out before we would be better served to translate “sophos” as Prudence rather than Wisdom. Wisdom is much more comprehensive than Prudence, and in a sense could encompass all of the four virtues you mention. Prudence is, however, one of the Four Cardinal Virtues, which taken together constitute what might be called ‘wisdom’ from a psychological perspective.
The report is criticized for neglecting Greek and Latin? Should we be aiming to replicate the classic British public school education?
Ideally, yes, but practically impossible, but Greek and Latin literature in translation will have to do for the moment. Victor Davis Hanson has a little book called “Killing Homer” that is instructive.
I believe the authors in question are criticizing the narrowly utilitarian view of education reflected in the CFR report–in this case, its statement that schools should emphasize “strategic” languages.
Moreover, one can offer ancient languages (and modern ones) without “replicating” any school system. The inclusion of Greek and Latin in a curriculum doesn’t turn anyone or anything into a copy; quite the contrary. It may help students start to think for themselves.
I think the close connection between Greek and Latin and an Oxbridge education is pretty obviously the reason those languages were chosen.
Why do you leap to conclusions about articles that you do not appear to have read?
Alter also mentions French, Italian, Russian, and major Asian languages. None of this sounds exclusively British or Oxbridge-like to me. Good lord.
I enjoyed Linda’s quote about the meaning of education. The source was Charles Goodford, Headmaster of Eton. It seems I am not alone in thinking about British public schools in this context.
Perhaps I was fooled by Dr. Ravitch’s editing.
I am surprised though that Mandarin is not a “strategic” language. Hindi might also be a good choice.
Mandarin is not taught in many K-12 schools. How many of our 100,000 public schools do you think should offer classes in Mandarin or Hindi? You are an economist. Can school districts pay for it when they are cutting teachers of the arts and other subjects?
I certainly agree that teaching language is expensive, but I thought the lack of teaching Mandarin (and Greek, Latin, French, Italian, and Russian) was a criticism of the CFR report. Do you think the critics of the report were incorrect in criticizing the report on this basis?
Heaven forbid the kids read the first chaper of Dickens’ Hard Times! (Then the jig will be up!) Ah, perhaps all this reformism will be consigned to the memory hole in a few years, after the damge is done. (Wait; “memory hole”? Is that from a useless work of FICTION?)
“I wander thro’ each charter’d school . . .” (with apologies to Blake . . . or somebody; who cares?)
Military magnet schools coming to a town near you, or wherever Paul Vallas comes to town.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-gets-a-First-Reponders-High-School-4102436.php