Part 1 Education’s Clashing Foundations
Chapter 1 Society’s Changes
Cultural Considerations
1940 ’s Culture
1980’s Culture
Society’s Change
A Nation at Risk
Part 1 Education’s Clashing Foundations
In this chapter, we’ll frame the clashing foundations of Humanism and Christianity in the US public education system. In the early part of the 20th century, the public school’s foundation was “Judeo-Christian Values.” These values undergirded all subjects. Teaching in most subjects like history, social studies, and science was based on Biblical principles. Education was not specifically Christian, but teaching was from a Biblical worldview. For example, when human moral behavior was analyzed, the Ten Commandments were the first foundation cited and were oft posted in schools and classrooms. Education’s base values began to change in the 1920s with the adoption of John Dewey’s principles of education. By the 1950s Humanist principles dominated. In 1964 prayer was banned from public school classrooms. By 1970 the humanist philosophy was firmly entrenched, and Christian beliefs were being driven out. By the 1980s all residue of Biblical teaching was not only removed from the schools but was banned under the banner of separation of church and state. We’ll look at four aspects of this foundation change. 1) Society Changes, 2) Humanism, 3) Christianity and 4) How this shift in values changed the nature of education. In summary, between the period preceding World War 2 (1940) and the early 1980s, US public schools’ foundations changed from values based on absolute standards from the Bible to a relativistic morality system based on Humanism and the Humanist Manifestos.
Chapter 1 Society’s Changes
To understand why the foundations of education changed in the early part of the 20th century we must study society’s changes. First, we’ll deal with society’s structural changes as the 20th century progressed. Second, we’ll review a federal study commissioned by President Reagan in 1983 that highlights the impact of changes in education’s foundations and methods. Although this study, “A Nation at Risk” is more than 30 years old most of the results and observations are still valid. By 1983 the transformation from a Biblical education foundation to a Humanist one was completed.
Cultural Considerations
Two models of social structure help us understand the dramatic 20th-century changes in society that affected education. Sociologists use the formal terms of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft for these two different models. Gemeinschaft is the culture in the early part of the 20th century. I call this “Small Town America” so I’ll use STA as its name. Gesellschaft describes the US culture after 1980. I’ll call this model “Urban America,” abbreviated as UA in the rest of this analysis.
Here’s a summary of these two models from reference.com. Note: Tönnies is one of the most prominent writers in this area of sociology.
An example of Gemeinschaft is the Amish, while an example of Gesellschaft is a nation-state. The sociological categories were first proposed by Ferdinand Tönnies and describe the differences in social relations in a “society” (Gesellschaft) versus a “community” (Gemeinschaft).
According to Tönnies’ original conceptual formulation, people in Gemeinschaften (“small town” communities) feel a sense of obligation or loyalty to the common group, more so than to themselves. Their activities are regulated by an inherent sense of the common good. Tönnies’ ideal expression of Gemeinschaft was the family.
Gesellschaften (“urban America” societies) contrast with Gemeinschaften because the larger association never takes precedence over the individual’s self-interest. Rather, Gesellschaften are maintained through individuals acting in their own self-interest. A modern business is an example of Gesellschaften. German corporations are often called “Gesellschaft”. https://www.reference.com/world-view/examples-gesellschaft-gemeinschaft-f0d2021d2d2ce07a#
1940’s Culture.
The characteristics of the United States Society of STA (Small Town America – Gemeinschaft) are;
1) Societies were isolated or remote from other nearby groups. This is sometimes called the small-town syndrome.
2) Each person living in an area is known and knows most others in the group. All know the town “drunk,” “harlot,” etc.
3) Human relationships were highly valued and intensely personal.
4) Everyone in this community is a friend or acquaintance. In daily encounters, everyone gets a nod of recognition.
5) Home is the center of work, play, learning, and worship.
6) There is mutual trust between people, and a handshake completes most business deals. Business contracts are rare and not considered necessary.
7) Moral Code: There is one accepted code of right and wrong, and everyone knows and understands it. Not everyone observes this set of values, but they accept it as the proper measure of behavior. In the US in the 1940s, this was Judeo-Christian values.
1980’s Culture.
The society of UA (Urban America – Gesellschaft) is radically different from Gemeinschaft as witnessed by the following.
1) There is a continuum of varied ethnic groups (e.g. large urban cities) that are not isolated. Modern travel methods make even the most remote places near to anyone.
2) Each person has difficulty being known, and personal identity is hard to attain. The book “The Lonely Crowd” explored this aspect of social change, published in the ’60s!
3) Relationships are impersonal. Most people don’t even know their neighbors.
4) Most individuals have few friends but many associates.
5) Home is a pit stop for outside activities, putting a maximum strain on family relationships.
6) There is distrust in business; specific, detailed legal contracts are considered essential in all business deals.
7) Moral Code: There is no clear-cut standard for right and wrong. All codes are respected, and as a result, there is “no code.” All morals are relative and based on circumstances. In education, this morality is commonly called “situation ethics” or “relative morality”. This “no code” system, turns out to be not a moral system but anarchy, which imposes my wants and feelings on all others if I am able and strong enough to force it. These standards reject absolute moral principles and is the religion of Humanism as defined in Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III, This system directly conflicts with both Jewish and Christian teaching.
Society’s Changes
All modern societies tend to move in the direction of the UA, Urban model. Although each model is extreme, both are real and exist in the US today, STA in the Amish communities of Pennsylvania on one extreme and UA in all major US cities on the other.
A common misconception propagated in the UA model is that “you can’t legislate morality.” All social structures are moral, and the morality of a society depends on its view of life and its meaning. The climate in Germany in the 30’s was morally decadent, but still ruled by principles, which the leaders held out as “moral.” The question of legislating morality is one of WHOSE principles are accepted rather than whether to have principles or not. A society, which has no morals, would be anarchy since it would be based entirely on Darwin’s evolutionary principle the “survival of the fittest.” History demonstrates, again and again, that nations that begin with God-honoring high moral principles decline morally as they prosper materially. This cycle is illustrated in the Bible in the book of Judges and many of the Prophets. This moral decline leads to their deterioration and eventual fall. Rather than conquest from the outside these cultures become corrupt within, and that causes the nation’s fall. Societal collapse from moral decay happened in Greece, Rome, and the Third Reich and will eventually be true in the US. The decay of morality in the US today has reached at least the same level as Germany in the 1930s and possibly greater because of our flagrant use of abortion.
Another excellent barometer is the value a society puts on human life. In Germany in the ’30s, the Jews were declared non-persons and according to the law could be legally murdered. In the US today, the same applies to the child in the womb. The child in the womb was declared a non-person by the US Supreme Court, and as a result, their murder is legal. It is puzzling to me that Jewish leaders have not taken issue with this horrible legal precedent. Since it closely parallels the “Nuremberg Laws,” which deprived Jews of legal citizenship in Germany in 1935. In practice, in the US, abortion is an extension of racism. See Appendix – Chapter 12 – Racism’s Evolution Connection in ANSWERS For: “The Hope That Is in You!” – Answers to 106 Questions. Two to three times as many African-Americans babies are aborted even though they are less than 30% of the population. The racist nature of abortion is explained in that Appendix.
Another indicator of the moral foundation shift is increasing violence in public schools. The essence of this problem was summed up by Karen Davis in 1981, “In 1940, before the Humanist influence was so strong in our public-school system, the dominant offenses in the schools were: running in the halls, chewing gum, wearing improper clothing, making noise, not putting paper in wastebaskets and cutting ahead in the line. In 1980, after years of Humanist infiltration, the top offenses were: rape, robbery, assault, personal theft, burglary, drug abuse, arson, bombings, alcohol abuse, carrying of weapons, absenteeism, vandalism, murder, extortion,and gang warfare.”
The United States in the early part of the 20th century the educational objective was to impart knowledge, facts, and skills. In the urban society following 1980, the educational objective is to impart Humanist values. Knowledge, facts, and skills are no longer a priority. In summary, the changes in education have changed from:
1) A content-oriented curriculum based on absolute moral standards from the Bible.
TO
2) A values-oriented curriculum based on relativistic morality taken from the Humanist Manifestos.
This difference is NOT trivial and is the basis of all of today’s education problems.
By 1940 leaders of teacher’s colleges, led by John Dewey and other Humanists, were planning the departure from the Judeo/Christian foundation in the US classroom to the “NEW” objectives of the Humanist value system. Although Dewey has been accused of being a socialist, or communist sympathizer it is only clear that he was solid Humanist. He did not believe mankind was sinful from birth, but newborn babies were “innocent.” The Judeo-Christian influence of teachers and leaders in the US schools in the 50s and 60s somewhat slowed the penetration of this new Humanist education philosophy. However, as the graduates of education colleges who were committed to this value system came into the schools, the movement to abandon Biblical values and content accelerated. In some parts of the United States, the Judeo-Christian community was awakened to the issues and began to fight a battle to reinstate the Judeo-Christian moral structure and the teaching of content in education. Their efforts were not successful in turning the tide back to Biblical principles.
This “new” Humanist value system substitutes man’s authority for God’s authority. That opens the door for all kinds of selfish, self-centered decisions and actions which creates a myriad of teen problems including teen pregnancy, the spread of venereal disease, drug abuse, teen alcoholism, and an extensive laundry list of other immoral and uncivil behaviors which grow out of this “no code” environment. For example, emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity until marriage favorably affects both teen pregnancy and the pandemic spread of venereal disease yet “abstinence education” is not allowed in today’s classroom because of the Humanist value system. The decline of morality and content in education is also a principal reason for the growth in Christian school enrollment. Several teachers, I’ve spoken to who desired to maintain content over values left public schools stating that; “fighting the system,” principally the NEA (National Education Association), was very frustrating and not worth their effort. The NEA, the largest teacher’s union in the United States and largest lobby in Washington, is the principal promoter of the Humanist values education philosophy.
A Nation at Risk
After dealing with the culture, we now turn to assess this education crisis contained in the 1983 report of President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education, “A Nation at Risk” which expressed the Imperative for Education Reform. Although “A Nation at Risk” is 35 years old its findings are still relevant, and in most cases, the problems highlighted have gotten worse. The advent of “Common Core” under President Bush did nothing to change these findings and conclusions. Common Core has had the impact of accelerating the decline in US educational achievement when measured against the rest of the world. Analyzed here are the aspects of the “Nation at Risk” study that relate directly to education quality, which will make clear the magnitude and severity of the problem
“Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell, created the National Commission on Excellence in Education on August 26, 1981, directing it to examine the quality of education in the United States and to make a report to the nation and him within 18 months of its first meeting.
The Commission was created as a result of the Secretary’s concern about ‘the widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system. Soliciting the ‘support of all who care about our future.’ He noted that he was establishing the Commission based on his ‘responsibility to provide leadership, constructive criticism and active assistance to schools and universities.”
The Commission was made up of experts in education representing all political views. Its charter contained (six) specific charges:
1) Assess the quality of teaching and learning in our Nation’s public and private schools, colleges and universities,
2) Compare American schools and colleges with those of other advanced countries,
3) Study the relationship between college admissions requirements and student achievement in high school,
4) Identify educational programs which result in notable student success in college,
5) Assess the degree, to which significant social and pedagogical changes in the last quarter century have affected student achievement,
6) Define problems that must be faced and overcome if we are successful in pursuing the course of excellence in education.
The Commission used five sources of information;
1) Papers commissioned from experts,
2) Testimony from; administrators, teachers, students, representatives of professional and public groups, parents, business leaders, government officials, and scholars,
3) Existing analyses of problems in education,
4) Correspondence from concerned citizens, teachers, and administrators who volunteered extensive comments on problems and possibilities in American education and
5) Descriptions of notable programs and promising approaches in education.
Two statements in the study best summarize the Commission’s findings on the quality of United States education:
1) “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
Authors Comment: The “unthinking” aspect of this statement is not supported by the author because of the intentional introduction of the “Values Clarification or Values Objectives” as a NEW topical area in education. The decline in quality is a planned and well-executed attempt to destroy our traditional education system and impose on America a new set of Humanist values alien to our heritage.
2) Until recently, “Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation WILL NOT SURPASS, WILL NOT EVEN EQUAL, WILL NOT EVEN APPROACH (author’s emphasis), those of their parents.”
The 13 indicators of poor educational quality, as listed in the study, are:
1) International comparisons of student achievement completed a decade ago (1970), reveal that on 19 academic tests, American students were never first or second compared to other industrialized nations and were last seven times.
2) Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
3) About 13% of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Minority youth may be as high as 40%.
4) Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
5) Over half the population of gifted students does not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
6) The College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs) demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980.
7) Average verbal scores fell over 50 points, and mathematics dropped nearly 40 points.
8) College Board achievement tests also reveal consistent declines in recent years in such subjects as Physics and English.
9) Both the number and proportion of students demonstrating superior achievement (650+) on the SATs have also dramatically declined.
10) Many 17-year-olds do not possess the “higher order” intellectual skills we should expect of them. There was a steady decline in science achievement scores of United States’ 17-year-olds as measured by national assessments in 1969, 1973, and 1977.
11) Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72% and now constitute one-quarter of all math taught there.
12) Average tested achievement of students graduating from college is also lower.
13) Business and military leaders complain that they are required to spend millions on costly remedial education and training programs in such basic skills as reading, writing, spelling, and computation.
In addition, the study stated “These deficiencies come at a time when the demand for highly skilled workers in new fields is accelerating rapidly. Computers and computer-controlled equipment are penetrating every aspect of our lives homes, factories, and offices. One estimate indicates that by the turn of the century, millions of *jobs will involve lasers and robotics. Technology is radically transforming a host of other occupations.” Before describing how the value education objective came about, two other statements of the problem are. The first is from the “New York Times”(August 1976). “As American children return to school, many conscientious parents are genuinely uncertain whether they may be delivering their children into enemy territory… Much of America’s popular culture adds up to a conspiracy to destroy the innocence of youth and to force the children to premature knowledge and ways of acting that they can understand intellectually, but cannot cope with emotionally… The new sophistication was more than a passing phenomenon… its evil effects can be seen today in the grim statistics on suicide…and the soaring venereal disease rates… The unique theme of this new sophistication is the absence of restraint, but good families frame their children’s lives with love and… restrictions. These restraints are not idle do’s and don’ts. They represent the accumulated folk wisdom aimed at the child’s self-preservation, at protecting him against dangers he cannot recognize or foresee.”
Another relevant quotation is from a speech by Senator Orin Hatch. He authored the Hatch Amendment to protect children from psychological manipulation in the classroom (e.g. values clarification, etc.). “This whole problem came about when the schools started becoming more concerned with children’s attitudes, beliefs, and emotions rather than providing them with primary education. What we have today is a situation where dramatically fewer young people can read, write or count, but who have become worldly-wise in stories about sex, drugs, and violence. This does not speak well for the long-term emotional stability of the child. Such implicit value changes, which tend to teach the very young about drugs and sex challenge their faith in their parents and constitute the vilest threat to the American family unit. The techniques (values clarification, etc.) used to change young children’s attitudes, and values are an invasion of privacy in the first degree.”
Now that we’ve seen the results of Humanist influence in US schools we’ll look at how this decline happened. As you’ll see, these changes were brought about by the intentional actions of dedicated Humanists.
