Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Government Schooling in Graduation Speech

[MuslimAgorist]

Erica Goldson delivered a hard hitting Valedictorian speech to her Coxsackie-Athens High School graduating class that drew wild applause from students, and scorn from teachers and staff.

Read It

Erica’s speech really speaks for itself. But Muslims who are excited by these ideas, especially those with children, are encouraged to purchase the book, Educating Your Child in Modern Times : Raising an Intelligent, Sovereign, & Ethical Human Being or the audio lecture by the same name, which is a collaboration by John Taylor Gatto and Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.

 

[titus]

Interesting speech.

It seems ironic, though, that she wrote a speech about being an independent thinker yet from what I can see she is basically parroting things she read in a couple of books.

One part of the speech that really caught my eye was this one:

The majority of students are put through the same brainwashing techniques in order to create a complacent labor force working in the interests of large corporations and secretive government, and worst of all, they are completely unaware of it.

My teachers (in public school) did not teach me any ideologies. They taught me Algebra and Trig. They taught me Grammar and Vocabulary. They taught me History and told me to be critical when reading it.

They taught me the same things that were being taught 200 years ago in this country before there were large corporations.

And she also says:

Our motivational force ought to be passion, but this is lost from the moment we step into a system that trains us, rather than inspires us.

All I can say is that she must have had some horrible teachers, because I had many inspiring teachers, and I don't remember any that tried to stop us from achieving our dreams, whatever they may have been.

Inspiration is great, but training is essential. Picasso was a great painter. He changed the art world. He was inspired, but he could not have done so without the training that he had.

So after reading her speech I can't help but see her as still being a naive high school student who is still maturing and who still has much to learn. I wonder what her reaction will be when she gets to college and realizes that, if she has typical professors, that here teachers are even more anti-establishment than she is. ;D

 

[MuslimAgorist]

My teachers (in public school) did not teach me any ideologies.

WOW! Where did you go to school? I find that incredibly hard to believe. It's not so much that there is explicit training in an ideology, it's that the ideology being so pervasive that it's invisible. Like a fish who joins a school but can't see the water.

They taught me the same things that were being taught 200 years ago in this country before there were large corporations.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The public education system is not 200 years old, and it was specifically started by the industrialists for the purpose of training a labor class. It's in their own founding documents.

All I can say is that she must have had some horrible teachers, because I had many inspiring teachers.

I had maybe two inspiring teachers. But I think this is more an indictment of the system itself, not the teachers involved. Do you personally know any teachers? I know a handful and they all tell a similar story of entering public education with lofty dreams and then being ground into an obedient cog by the bureaucracy.

Inspiration is great, but training is essential. Picasso was a great painter. He changed the art world. He was inspired, but he could not have done so without the training that he had.

The difference is that Picasso showed a passion for art at a very early age and was trained by his father, an art professor, to pursue a field that interested him. Training is being used here pejoratively because it is involuntary, and largely in required fields that students may have no passion for. The likeness of this system with Picasso's would be if he was instead forced to study trigonometry and grammar and subjects which he had little use for, and only allowed to train in art in his 20s. Picasso spent very little time in formal instruction, and when he was sent to an art school at 16, he dropped out.

So after reading her speech I can't help but see her as still being a naive high school student who is still maturing and who still has much to learn.

Who isn't?

I wonder what her reaction will be when she gets to college and realizes that, if she has typical professors, that here teachers are even more anti-establishment than she is. ;D

Again, I think the grievance is with the system not the teachers, but I didn't find that very many of my college professors were anti-establishment the way John Taylor Gatto is. In my experience, there is an anti-establishment establishment in universities. It may challenge the conventional wisdom, but it doesn't respond well to being challenged itself.

 

[titus]

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The public education system is not 200 years old, and it was specifically started by the industrialists for the purpose of training a labor class. It's in their own founding documents.

Your sources are flawed. The public school system was not started by industrialists to train the labor class. Where did you read that? It sounds like something from some Marxist pamphlet.

You are right, though, in that the current system is less than 200 years old. I exaggerated a little. It really started in this country around the 1830's and 40's.

Do you personally know any teachers? I know a handful and they all tell a similar story of entering public education with lofty dreams and then being ground into an obedient cog by the bureaucracy.

Yes, many in fact. In fact I almost completed my teacher certification for Texas before I decided to not become a teacher.

The biggest complaints I hear from them are 1) having to teach to tests and 2) having students whose parents don't care about their education.

A friend of mine started working in Baltimore this year for Teach For America and he came home a couple of weeks ago and was telling me about his experiences there in the poverty ridden community where he teaches. He had many complaints, but being forced by the system to indoctrinate the kids was not one of them.

The difference is that Picasso showed a passion for art at a very early age and was trained by his father, an art professor, to pursue a field that interested him. Training is being used here pejoratively because it is involuntary, and largely in required fields that students may have no passion for

I have no problem teaching kids stuff they don't want to learn. My kid is going to learn to read, write and do math, as well as learn history and science whether he wants to or not.

Adults need to have a good foundation of knowledge to be useful to society. You never know what skills may be needed later in life so it is in the best interest of the child to have them learn as much as possible. If they decide to not use that knowledge then so be it.

Again, I think the grievance is with the system not the teachers

Then what do you believe is the solution?

 

[MuslimAgorist]

Your sources are flawed. The public school system was not started by industrialists to train the labor class. Where did you read that? It sounds like something from some Marxist pamphlet.

Marxist? ok... My understanding is that in the early 1900s industrialists like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie dumped incredible amounts of money into legislation that established universal compulsory schooling.

Consider this quote from John D. Rockefeller's in first mission statement of the General Board of Education, “In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands… We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way". In other words, and obedient labor class.

He had many complaints, but being forced by the system to indoctrinate the kids was not one of them.

I'm suggesting that indoctrination is practically invisible at this point. It's systemic. It's built into the bells, and the sports, and the tests, and the discipline... and more so than when we were in school, the security. Tell me, did your teacher friend require fully volitional beings to raise their hands and ask permission to use the restroom?

I have no problem teaching kids stuff they don't want to learn. My kid is going to learn to read, write and do math, as well as learn history and science whether he wants to or not.

That's your call. But I would never attempt to force you to teach your kids things you didn't want them to learn, or thought they wouldn't need later. Basic reading and math skills I think are taught before a child is a fully volitional being. But trigonometry... not so much. I also don't think it's urgent for society to make sure that high school kids learn all these general subjects at the expense of what they have passion for. I seriously doubt Picasso would have gone as far in such a system. He was already making a name for himself at 16.

Then what do you believe is the solution?

Frankly I don't know. The question contains the premise that there is only one solution, which I don't accept. What I'd like to see is a greater variety of education strategies so that success could be observable and pursued by parents making decisions for their family. I think our current system is suffering from all the negative characteristics of a monopoly (increased cost, decreased quality and no incentive for customer service) and would benefit greatly from more competition.

 

[titus]

Consider this quote from John D. Rockefeller's in first mission statement of the General Board of Education

The General Board of Education was not a government agency. It was a private one, and hasn't even existed for almost 50 years. Also, public education had been around for decades before this organization ever came into being.

I'm suggesting that indoctrination is practically invisible at this point. It's systemic. It's built into the bells, and the sports, and the tests, and the discipline... and more so than when we were in school, the security. Tell me, did your teacher friend require fully volitional beings to raise their hands and ask permission to use the restroom?

Raising hands to use the bathroom? I think people are confusing discipline with indoctrination.

And what kind of indoctrination does sports give?

That's your call. But I would never attempt to force you to teach your kids things you didn't want them to learn, or thought they wouldn't need later. Basic reading and math skills I think are taught before a child is a fully volitional being. But trigonometry... not so much. I also don't think it's urgent for society to make sure that high school kids learn all these general subjects at the expense of what they have passion for. I seriously doubt Picasso would have gone as far in such a system. He was already making a name for himself at 16.

The danger comes in only trying to teach kids things they have a passion for. It is also essential that these kids become well rounded adults, not ones with an extremely narrow education that ends up limiting their futures.

Just because a kid doesn't like math and wants to become a musician does not mean we should allow them to sacrifice their math education. What happens when that musician finds he needs to get a job involving math and can't because he was never taught it? Or say he becomes successful and falls victim to fraud because he had to rely on someone else to do his accounting because his math background is lacking?

Trust me, if we only taught kids what they had a passion for then we would have a generation of people who spent high school making movies, playing songs and talking on their phones.

I think our current system is suffering from all the negative characteristics of a monopoly (increased cost, decreased quality and no incentive for customer service) and would benefit greatly from more competition.

Yes, I think competition would be good.

 

[MuslimAgorist]

The General Board of Education was not a government agency. It was a private one

WOW! That is a huge mistake on my part. I'm going to have to completely reexamine that claim.

Raising hands to use the bathroom? I think people are confusing discipline with indoctrination.

You know... I'm a reasonably disciplined person and I don't ask anyone for permission to use the restroom. In fact, I'd find that kind of humiliating. I'm pretty sure an authority figure claiming control of one's bladder sends a message about obedience to children. Let's look at some definitions.

discipline
1) a branch of knowledge; "in what discipline is his doctorate?"
I don't think high school kids need potty training. I think you probably mean this one:
4) Develop children's behavior by instruction and practice; especially to teach self-control; "Parents must discipline their children"; "Is this dog trained?"
But it's not really self-control that's being taught is it? Fitting that this example is equated with dog training.
6) punish in order to gain control or enforce obedience; "The teacher disciplined the pupils rather frequently"
That's the one... and there's that word obedience again.

I think we're more or less talking about the same thing. We just disagree about whether or not it's beneficial.

indoctrination
teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

So, here's the issue. We've both been told that raising our hands to ask permission to use the restroom was about learning discipline. The question is are we expected to accept that doctrine uncritically? How much time did you spend examining that claim and comparing it against reality? What do you think happens to kids who are critical of that rule?

And what kind of indoctrination does sports give?

Food for thought

The danger comes in only trying to teach kids things they have a passion for. It is also essential that these kids become well rounded adults, not ones with an extremely narrow education that ends up limiting their futures.

I never said "only" I said "a greater variety of education strategies." The question is, who decides how much general education is appropriate or what a well rounded adult is? Just as a child with a narrow education runs the risk of failure, a child with an extremely broad education runs the risk of never being particularly good at anything.

What happens when that musician finds he needs to get a job involving math and can't because he was never taught it?

Have you never had to learn something as an adult?

Yes, I think competition would be good.

This is the key I think. I think education is really important, and raising future generations of independent, healthy, intelligent self-actualized children is about the only thing that's going to save the world from itself. But I also understand that people have different ideas how to accomplish that. If you think that stuff is good for your kids you should absolutely be free to teach it to them, and to enroll them in a system the inculcates that kind of discipline. I personally don't want that for my children, and don't want to fund it for other children. Do you think I should be free to take my business elsewhere?

 

[titus]

So, here's the issue. We've both been told that raising our hands to ask permission to use the restroom was about learning discipline. The question is are we expected to accept that doctrine uncritically? How much time did you spend examining that claim and comparing it against reality? What do you think happens to kids who are critical of that rule?

The rule is not about indoctrination. It is about being pragmatic and creating an atmosphere in which children can learn.

If children are told they can leave the room any time they want to then there would be constant distractions (I can guarantee you that certain children would abuse this rule), which would in turn make it more difficult for the other children to learn.

Food for thought

I listened. I found his reasoning, to say the least, flawed on very many levels. That is the subject for another thread though I believe.

What happens when that musician finds he needs to get a job involving math and can't because he was never taught it?

Have you never had to learn something as an adult?

Children can learn complex ideas much faster than adults. Their brains are sponges, and that ability to learn greatly decreases once a person hits puberty.

For example language. If someone learns a second (or third or forth etc.) language as a child they can learn to speak it like a native with little or no accent. If someone learns a new language after puberty they are practically guaranteed to have an accent no matter how many years they spend speaking the language. It is because of the nature of the brain and age. If someone waits until they are an adult to learn how to read or write, or learn mathematics, or learn music, then they are at a huge disadvantage and for many it would be too late. Education is something that needs to happen early and often while the brain is in a learning mode.

Do you think I should be free to take my business elsewhere?

You bet. I am a capitalist at heart and I think education can only be improved by competition. I think people should be allowed to home school if they want, or send their child to any kind of private school they want.

Like in any competition, though, there will be winners and losers. I have seen some home schooled children that grew up to be brilliant, well rounded adults. I have also seen some that grew up to the be socially inept adults.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Some relevant videos

General talk on Education system (American perspective) a little old but interesting nevertheless

on the role of sports in propaganda-based authority

Like in any competition, though, there will be winners and losers.

What a depressing way to regard the purpose of the education system :hmm:

Really hope that the idea of 'competition' within the education system doesn't come wholesale to the UK.

 

[titus]

What a depressing way to regard the purpose of the education system

Really hope that the idea of 'competition' within the education system doesn't come wholesale to the UK.

I did not say that competition was the purpose of education, only that competition can help to improve education.

If you want options such as home schooling or private schools then you are talking about competition.

Would you prefer just one choice of places to send your children to school? How about just two? How about a handful?

I can tell you from my time living in the UK that it already has winners and losers when it comes to education, and one of the ways I know of to increase the number winners and lower the number of losers is to allow parents more options. They will, more often than not, choose the option that is best for their child.

General talk on Education system (American perspective) a little old but interesting nevertheless

I watched it. I am not a Noam Chomsky fan and this video only reinforces my opinion.