1. Jefferson believed that three years of literacy instruction in elementary school would be valuable in safeguarding the liberties of the population. Today this seems to be far too little schooling for so important a task. To what degree do the dimensions of political-economic life during Jefferson's time make his belief in the power of basic literacy plausible?
The strongly agrarian nature of the society immediately comes to mind; as the text states, "About 94 percent of the population was classified as rural. Over 90 percent of the working population were engaged in agriculture..." What this means is that extensive compulsory education would have completely disrupted American life as it was around the turn of the 19th century. Whether the farming was for private subsistence or the public market, it was very labor-intensive and required the participation of able-bodied young people.
Therefore, big-R Republican considerations aside, more mandatory schooling would have certainly proven economically untenable. In Jefferson's strongly meritocratic system, this primary education was merely the first layer of the process, providing society access to the raw mass of up-and-coming democratic potential, undeveloped and uncategorized.
2. Jefferson's Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge tried to establish state funding for schooling in Virginia, but it sought to protect local control of schools. To what degree is such a combination - state funding and local control of schools - consistent with various dimensions of the classical liberal conception of freedom?
Government funding inescapably establishes accountability, almost to the extent of making funding synonymous with control. This is amply demonstrated by the many Federally-funded social programs of our day. Local control is a worthy goal of classical liberalism, but it must be pursued in a consistent manner. Federal funding should be removed from the equation and the tax structure revised so as to put the equivalent resources directly into the hands of local education boards.
Responsibility is freedom's requisite. You cannot have the cake without the calories.
3. In asserting that "the Christian cannot fail of being a Republican," did Benjamin Rush appear to be making a claim consistent with the several dimensions classical liberal thought described in this chapter? Explain.
This is not so much a philosophical, societal question as it is a religious and theological one. The context for debating the issue is all wrong. (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)
That said, I return to the original question and say "no". The absolute conclusion is unwarranted and does not carry the generosity that is so important in true democratic discussion. Plainly, this is Rush's opinion, and should be represented as such.
4. Was Rush's aspiration to "convert men to Republican machines" contradictory to classical liberal ideals of intellectual freedom? Further, was Rush's aim any different from Jefferson's in this regard? Explain your positions on both questions.
The use of the word "machines" is unfortunate; perhaps it carried fewer negative connotations in Rush's day - I don't know. In any event, this ideal sounds alarmingly absolutist and socialistic. It is only natural in a progressive environment to develop utopian aspirations; the problems arise when one begins to take shortcuts. Many men have at times become convinced that the ultimate truth has been revealed and the only thing standing in the way of utopia is their fellow men. Unfortunately, at this juncture, it often proves easier to kill than to convince.
Christianity is quite possibly the only ideological system in the world that insists on keeping its means consistent with its ends.
Jefferson's approach seems to be on the whole more generous, and I very much prefer Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" to Rush's similar but infinitely more dangerous endorsement of religious indoctrination of any sort: "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." The implication is that any religion will do, but it is a necessary ingredient for a productive republic. On purely empirical grounds, a glance at the Arab world dispels this notion handily.
5. Jefferson claimed that the Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge would help locate the "natural aristocracy" of society: those with the virtue and talent to lead in a republican form of government. To what degree do you think his plan, if passed, would have adequately rewarded virtue and talent? What were the limitations of the plan in terms of social class, race, and gender?
Virtue and talent likely require less assistance toward being appropriately rewarded than is commonly believed. Many brilliant scientists have labored in apathetic, ungrateful, and even hostile environments with stunning results. There are universal laws that govern the recognition of genius. (Prov. 22:29) Of course, a free and forward society ought to do all it can to encourage this process, and Jefferson's attempt, while not exactly exhaustive, is admirable.
Jefferson's complimentarian perspective on the gender question, (which, in fairness, was hardly a "question" in his day,) is of course radically unpopular in modern society but actually aligns rather well with the Biblical view.
The provision in the Bill for the annual selection of "the boy of best genius in the school, of those whose parents are too poor to give them further education, and to send him forward to one of the grammar schools [at public expense]" is at least a first blow to the arbitrary privileges of position.
The racial implications of Jefferson's plan had less to do with his personal views; they relied more on the overall opinion and structure of society.
6. In your experience, are today's schools successful in locating those students with the most "virtue and talent"? Do they successfully locate a natural aristocracy in today's society, or do "wealth, birth, or other accidental condition or circumstance," as Jefferson said, play a significant role? Explain.
Again, lacking firsthand knowledge, I must turn to other sources for hard evidence. A cursory glance at a few of our recent Presidents reveals a wide array of circumstances; from George W. Bush, whose father was a president, to Ronald Reagan, whose father was "a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed." This leads me to conclude that the present system is still nurturing a natural aristocracy from a variety of backgrounds. Of course, there will always be random obstructions and tailwinds along the way; that is just the nature of the game.
7. This chapter raises the possibility that Jefferson's inadequate regard for women, Native Americans, and African-Americans in his educational thinking was rooted not just in his own personal prejudices, but in the liberal ideology of his time. Which dimensions of classical liberalism seem to have justified, to classical liberals, the subordination of women, African-Americans, and Native Americans? Explain.
It must be recognized that it was a quantum leap to move from a selective, genetic aristocracy to an openly egalitarian one. Reform is incremental, and in this respect I have little criticism for Jeffersonian ideology.
We now see much more than Jefferson and his classical liberal colleagues did, but largely because we are standing on their shoulders.
The classical liberals seemed to justify their prejudices on empirical observation, which is rational enough. Their emphasis on Reason and Natural Law caused them to regard these societal categories as inferior. Of course, this perspective resulted in untold injustice, but other factors, such as the raw greed of the southern middle and upper classes, must share the collective blame.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 1 Study Questions
1. In the example of feudal schooling, the hierarchy of feudal society was said to be reflected in the limiting of schooling to a privileged few. Some forms of higher education in U.S. society are also limited to a small portion of the population. To what degree does this reflect, and to what degree does it not reflect, a hierarchical social system in the United States? Explain.
The term "hierarchical" has really been splattered by the Democratic world. Some of this has doubtless been progressive, as in dismantling archaic notions such as the divine right of kings (as opposed to the divine appointment of kings.)
It must be remembered that talent and effort are rewarded in ways that mediocrity and apathy are not. This holds true in both Biblical and practical contexts. Therefore, it is impossible to avoid a system that is at least to some degree "hierarchical". The goal, as Milton Friedman so well put it, is not to make sure that everyone ends at the finish line at the same time, but rather that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time.
It makes precious little sense to spend money on under-performing students in the interest of "equality." Every student should have access to the same assistance and the same incentives: nothing less, nothing more. (Subsidizing outstanding achievement with scholarships and grants is another matter.)
The United States seems to have walked this line about as well as it has been walked, by providing a common, impartial framework and yet recognizing and rewarding performance. Pursuing this balance is foundational in a free and forward society.
2. Aristotle believed that in a democratic society all citizens ought to have the same basic education: one that would equip them to serve as legislators and to obey legislation intelligently. In a nondemocratic society, the basic education would differ among the population, for some would be equipped to rule, others to follow. Judging from your own experience in schools, which of Aristotle's models more resembles American schooling? Explain.
An answer to this question must discuss ideas of schooling, education, and ideology as defined in this chapter.
In the area of schooling, the American system seems almost unilaterally democratic. Aside from the unavoidably arbitrary nature of circumstances, most young people have access to an equal education, especially at the elementary level. Moving on into higher grades, the dynamics mentioned under Question 1 begin to come into play, as individual skills and aptitudes begin to rise to the surface.
Having hardly set foot in a public classroom, it is rather difficult to feel the democratic pulse of education. I will venture that democracy and civil responsibility are intangibles that must be communicated to students and woven into curriculum in such a way that they encourage creative, critical thinking on social issues.
The real issue is ideology, and whether the society sees their government as dynamic and accessible, or static and secluded. Debilitating social trends, (such as rampant lawsuits, the deification of entertainment, or an eroding work ethic,) deteriorate a society's ability to relate to one another intelligently and with purpose.
So I would feel that American schooling used to be more democratic than it currently is, and that society as a whole, and not the education system specifically, is responsible for the lost ground.
3. Given that the Athenian citizen was expected to participate directly (not just through representatives) in forming the laws of the city-state, but that this citizenship excluded women, slaves, and metics, was the Athenian view of democracy less restricted, or more restricted, than our contemporary view? Explain.
For the woman, metic, or slave, it was more restricted, for sure. And it seems political participation should be optional for the citizenry. But on the whole, while restrictive, the system was perhaps more reasonable.
The modern world's democratic experimentation has not been entirely conclusive, especially in large, complex, multi-faceted nations such as The United States. The Bible's unapologetically patriarchal perspective, found in verses such as Isaiah 3:12, seems to indicate that God has designed men, not women, to oversee civil affairs. This pattern continues in the New Testament throughout Paul's teaching on Church matters.
The lottery system used the Athenian democracy is one element that is much less restrictive than American's electoral system, which requires candidates to have or raise huge sums of money for their campaign.
4. Aristotle argued that the primary purpose of education should be to develop human rationality. In your view, how does this compare with the primary purpose(s) of education in U.S. schools today? Defend your view.
It seems that the U.S. considers the primary purpose of education to be employment; and the rest of the world has basically followed suit. Employment is pursued as an end in itself, rather than an incidental benefit of having developed diligence, an ability to learn, and a keen sense for the finer points of communication.
On the whole, raw rationality seems a loftier ideal than job market monomania. In the Biblical view, however, the pursuit of God is paramount, and while education is not incompatible with this end, it should remain subsidiary to it.
5. Choose any single feature of schooling as you have experienced it - its organization, its rules, its processes, its curriculum content - and explain how that feature reflects elements of the ideology and political economy of the larger society.
My education began early, learning to read. The array of subjects broadened quickly, revealing society's conviction that we live in a broad world and that a broad foundation is required to 1) familiarize yourself at least on a basic level with the different branches of knowledge, and 2) determine your specific interests and aptitudes.
The term "hierarchical" has really been splattered by the Democratic world. Some of this has doubtless been progressive, as in dismantling archaic notions such as the divine right of kings (as opposed to the divine appointment of kings.)
It must be remembered that talent and effort are rewarded in ways that mediocrity and apathy are not. This holds true in both Biblical and practical contexts. Therefore, it is impossible to avoid a system that is at least to some degree "hierarchical". The goal, as Milton Friedman so well put it, is not to make sure that everyone ends at the finish line at the same time, but rather that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time.
It makes precious little sense to spend money on under-performing students in the interest of "equality." Every student should have access to the same assistance and the same incentives: nothing less, nothing more. (Subsidizing outstanding achievement with scholarships and grants is another matter.)
The United States seems to have walked this line about as well as it has been walked, by providing a common, impartial framework and yet recognizing and rewarding performance. Pursuing this balance is foundational in a free and forward society.
2. Aristotle believed that in a democratic society all citizens ought to have the same basic education: one that would equip them to serve as legislators and to obey legislation intelligently. In a nondemocratic society, the basic education would differ among the population, for some would be equipped to rule, others to follow. Judging from your own experience in schools, which of Aristotle's models more resembles American schooling? Explain.
An answer to this question must discuss ideas of schooling, education, and ideology as defined in this chapter.
In the area of schooling, the American system seems almost unilaterally democratic. Aside from the unavoidably arbitrary nature of circumstances, most young people have access to an equal education, especially at the elementary level. Moving on into higher grades, the dynamics mentioned under Question 1 begin to come into play, as individual skills and aptitudes begin to rise to the surface.
Having hardly set foot in a public classroom, it is rather difficult to feel the democratic pulse of education. I will venture that democracy and civil responsibility are intangibles that must be communicated to students and woven into curriculum in such a way that they encourage creative, critical thinking on social issues.
The real issue is ideology, and whether the society sees their government as dynamic and accessible, or static and secluded. Debilitating social trends, (such as rampant lawsuits, the deification of entertainment, or an eroding work ethic,) deteriorate a society's ability to relate to one another intelligently and with purpose.
So I would feel that American schooling used to be more democratic than it currently is, and that society as a whole, and not the education system specifically, is responsible for the lost ground.
3. Given that the Athenian citizen was expected to participate directly (not just through representatives) in forming the laws of the city-state, but that this citizenship excluded women, slaves, and metics, was the Athenian view of democracy less restricted, or more restricted, than our contemporary view? Explain.
For the woman, metic, or slave, it was more restricted, for sure. And it seems political participation should be optional for the citizenry. But on the whole, while restrictive, the system was perhaps more reasonable.
The modern world's democratic experimentation has not been entirely conclusive, especially in large, complex, multi-faceted nations such as The United States. The Bible's unapologetically patriarchal perspective, found in verses such as Isaiah 3:12, seems to indicate that God has designed men, not women, to oversee civil affairs. This pattern continues in the New Testament throughout Paul's teaching on Church matters.
The lottery system used the Athenian democracy is one element that is much less restrictive than American's electoral system, which requires candidates to have or raise huge sums of money for their campaign.
4. Aristotle argued that the primary purpose of education should be to develop human rationality. In your view, how does this compare with the primary purpose(s) of education in U.S. schools today? Defend your view.
It seems that the U.S. considers the primary purpose of education to be employment; and the rest of the world has basically followed suit. Employment is pursued as an end in itself, rather than an incidental benefit of having developed diligence, an ability to learn, and a keen sense for the finer points of communication.
On the whole, raw rationality seems a loftier ideal than job market monomania. In the Biblical view, however, the pursuit of God is paramount, and while education is not incompatible with this end, it should remain subsidiary to it.
5. Choose any single feature of schooling as you have experienced it - its organization, its rules, its processes, its curriculum content - and explain how that feature reflects elements of the ideology and political economy of the larger society.
My education began early, learning to read. The array of subjects broadened quickly, revealing society's conviction that we live in a broad world and that a broad foundation is required to 1) familiarize yourself at least on a basic level with the different branches of knowledge, and 2) determine your specific interests and aptitudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
