Facing the Implications of Education that Rejects Reality and Truth as Political Impediments

As we continue to ponder the reality that education has embarked globally on an enormous social experiment designed to change what students believe, value, and care about, without regard to likely consequences or the world as it actually exists, two more publications came my way this week. Each really hammered hard that it is change in personal development and a hoped for transformation in political, social, and economic institutions that is the point of education reform.

Misportraying reality is just an acceptable means to political goals. This can be quite hard for us to read or even contemplate. I always feel like the English fighting what they saw as overreach by the Stuart kings or how the American colonists saw King George and Parliament’s actions. I am not asserting a desire to finally be free. Will future students and the adults they will become though ever have that same sense that “service before self” is not a good slogan to live life by? Will they grasp that schools and universities forcing acceptance of such a belief are dramatically changing what it will now mean to be educated?

The first paper came from the National Education Policy Center and it touted the ability of the Common Core framework to promote a “race-conscious and progressive agenda” focused on equity. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/seeing-past-the-colorblind-myth Yep, we can only wish I was exaggerating a smidgen, but no–“We see the Common Core as a powerful opportunity to build diversity into instruction and encourage powerful dialogue.” Not the least bit of interest in looking at the created dysfunction in urban schools from earlier piloting of Vygotsky’s sociocultural psychology in those classrooms or the deliberate destruction of Inner Cities by political machines. Those would not be politically useful facts on our way to forcing enactment of King’s Beloved Community vision to properly commemorate the man.

The 2nd paper dated November 2013 from the Asia Society and the Rand Corporation once again confirmed that the word Competencies is the global euphemism obscuring the actual developmental focus of these required shifts in education. Common Core is merely the means to get the US on board and to eliminate tests that focus on content and facts. In the 21st century content can be used to practice essential skills. The rest of its use though is to change what the student believes, how she behaves, when she feels compelled to act and how, and what she cares for and how she will show it. The paper “Measuring 21st Century Competencies: Guidance for Educators” gave examples of the kind of Assessments that would be used in the 21st Century. One, a Mission Skills Assessment, developed by ETS for use in private independent schools, gets incorporated into classwork to affirmatively shift student’s values and beliefs.

Another, the PISA Collaborative Problem Solving assessment intends to use a computer generated avatar to interact with the student in virtual reality simulations. In the give-and-take with the computer, it will be the actual student who will be changing as a result of the programmed interaction. The SimScientists are cited as another curriculum with embedded assessments that rely on a designed virtual reality to replace the old textbook focus on facts and proven theories. Most people though will believe what they have experienced even if the experiences were carefully created to instill influential false beliefs. In fact, by breaking the competencies into the categories of cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, that report replicated the very same explicitly proclaimed developmental focus that the Obama Administration http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/college-ready-as-a-goal-of-k-12-is-not-helpful-if-first-you-gut-the-historic-purpose-of-college/   wants to require from colleges and universities now. The one grounded in Robert Kegan’s work that the OECD is also stressing.

The report revealed that the Asia Society has joined with SCALE at Stanford to create a Graduation Performance System (GPS) Framework to look for whether a student has developed the desired values and beliefs, including empathy for others, to be deemed globally competent. Perhaps if I had not been simultaneously focusing on Vygotsky and what a developmental focus for the classroom would really mean I might not have read the report and recognized that all these assessments were designed to change the student’s values, attitudes, and beliefs and then monitor that they remained altered until adulthood. But I was and when I got to the Jaan Valsiner’s discussion of the Double Stimulation experimental method created by Vygotsky where [replace subject with student and think adaptive software on a computer while you read]:

“The experimenter sets up the situation of the task, together with other possible means that can result in a solution if the subject uses them… The structure of the task constitutes the subject’s experimental setting. The subject, put into such a situation, is expected to act constructively in devising a way to reach a solution to the problem… The original aspect of double stimulation is introduced when the emphasis of the observations becomes the child’s construction of new means that can help solve the problem and then restructure the whole task situation once invented.”

Remember how many times we have confronted the command that tasks or assessments be “untaught material” or “ambiguous situations with no fixed solution”? Valsineer went on to say expressly that this emphasis on the active role of the student who changes himself through his use of cultural tools and collaboration with others was grounded in the “dialectical philosophy (that was widely propagated in the Soviet Union in the 1920s.)” Well, at least they had a formal bloody revolution and a new flag and the Bolshevik creed to tip the average person that there was a political transformation going on at the level of the psychological characteristics of the individual. How about us?

I read that description of the experimental method and immediately recognized it fit with many of the computer scenarios I was reading about and gaming and the learning tasks funded by the Gates Foundation and especially what are being called formative assessments. A fairly simple search pulled up articles all over the world that had made that very same connection between Vygotsky’s experimental double stimulation method to change the person, and what is being planned for the classroom under the banner of the Common Core or Competencies or becoming a High Performing country on internationally benchmarked ‘tests.’

Valsineer tells us that “In cultural-historical thinking, historical implies the connection between past, present, and future.” By limiting access to what has been created by humans in the past, especially fluent use of symbol systems like reading and math that promote abstract thought, in today’s classrooms, CHAT seeks to change the nature of the future in predictable ways. It was created for a totalitarian regime. Transported to a free society like the US or Canada or Australia, this developmental focus is intended to change those cultures in collectivist directions. Remember the intentions of the creators travel with education and psychological theories even if they are left unstated in the present implementation. As we have discovered though the communitarian focus is actually stated in the real definition of career ready as well as in Character Education and Positive School Climate materials.

As I so often do when I am presented with an unpleasant but inescapable conclusion of what the actual education reforms are intended to do, I once again dug into some history. I went back to political scientist Kenneth Minogue’s 1963 book The Liberal Mind. He recognized the importance of subverting facts and the truth every time there is an aspiration to utopian thinking. Anytime we are looking at visions that “aim at nothing less than the transformation of human life,” we will find that “so ambitious a project necessarily takes a great interest in education, for like all movements, it is eager to recruit the young.” Amen to that. Minogue also foresaw that once change in the student is viewed as “a means to something else” that “outside manipulation is not far away.” Amen again and hiding as a Whole Child emphasis or in mindfulness practices tucked into definitions of physical fitness or Positive School Climate practices to supposedly combat bullying.

Truth is always such a target when transformation is the aim because “the moral character of truth-seeking is one which did not always play a prominent part in the world’s affairs, and could return to obscurity. Whenever men have, in recent history, attempted to snatch at political salvation, it is truth that has always been the first casualty, since, of all the causes of human turmoil, facts are the most obvious, and therefore the first to be suppressed. The more we dream of utopia, the less we can bear to face our imperfections.”

History also tells us that these utopian ends are never achieved and that horrible damage comes from this official instrumental focus on people as simply a means to desired  political ends. Especially when, as now, the desired ends are being duplicitously withheld as the true justification for the education reforms.

Or fraudulently sold as 21st century personalized learning that requires that tablets replace textbooks and group projects need to substitute for lectures.

Is the typical Principal or District Super these days to be an intentional social revolutionary or just an inadvertent one?



7 thoughts on “Facing the Implications of Education that Rejects Reality and Truth as Political Impediments

  1. In the science fiction book Ender’s Game (the movie as well, but with no context) there’s a teaching program much like you describe. It’s designed to work on the psyche of individual students and remove issues while re-enforcing desired behaviours. Yet another instance of science fiction becoming reality.

    Computer games are always about learning the algorithm used by the programmer. Once that’s understood, you can beat the game. If one were building a game for Climate Change (for example NASA: http://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/play/), you’d set the games up so that the kids win by using solar power, building windmills, or using kindness to get the Russians to leave Crimea. The child doesn’t have to really think about it, but they’ve now been trained just a little to build windmills or solar power to meet future energy needs and have been mistaught about global power struggles. Unless they’re coached that the game is designed not by reality, but by the programmer and the programmer’s beliefs, the kids won’t understand that the solution is not universally applicable.

    Did you catch Hillary’s recent comment regarding how “this generation understands much better than those who have gone before…?” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/hillary-clinton-hints-presidential-run-2016 This quote is good too, “We are going to make sure the millennial generation really is the participation generation.” Wonder how they’re going to do that?

    And Robin, in answer to your last question, they’re called useful idiots.

    • Macey-Florida just chose AIR to do its state assessments under CC instead of PARCC. The social and behavioral science focus of AIR troubled me as Fla has already been pushing Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge in its assessments for years.

      Now this out of the Urban Institute. It is all certainly coming together. At least we monitor and appreciate in real time.

      Thank you.

        • Both. But Florida and Texas were among the first states to push OBE more than 20 years ago. Texas with its STAAR and now Fla are ready to push into the pure digital/Transformational OBE/developmental focus.

  2. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/seeing-past-the-colorblind-myth

    This is the best yet. A document from the utterly debased Columbia Teacher’s College pretending to be an academic analysis but which is among the most unalloyed examples of naked, unrestrained indoctrination and ideological cheerleading I’ve yet seen in the the world of Brave New Ed.

    The entire document is one vast, question begging circular argument in which almost every statement within it assumes the truth of the other statements and numerous unstated premises and assumptions lurk beneath almost every paragraph. There is not a single logical argument, or body of logical argument, in the entire text.

    If this is the state of most of the teacher’s colleges in the United States (and based upon my own studies, it is), then there is probably no reform possible here. We are looking at new institutions, wholly outside the traditional academic framework and culture of cultural Marxism that dominates modern academia and pedagogy, that will provide a clear alternative to the continuing gestation of intellectually vacuous but passionately committed ideologues such as Amy Stuart Wells who have no business, in a sane and healthy society, teaching our public school teachers.

    She has, after all, nothing of any substance to say.

    • Loran-it continues though what we saw in the MacArthur Connected Learning report, in the Ga collusion documents, in the title of that Ed Conference in New Zealand starting tomorrow on “Excellence, Equity, and Inclusiveness” with OECD sponsorship. It’s all an education trying to make it illicit to push anything not accessible to all.

      Tomorrow’s post will really hammer this home. It too is from a stunning global document that leaves no gray area on what is intended by developmental or that these ed reforms are intended to force people to submit to public management of society and the economy. By the time I knew precisely what I was going to say today, it was time for afternoon carpool and then dance classes.

      Remember that report may be factually wrong, but it can still be hugely influential. Under the definition of ed research, it has been published by someone with ed credentials and that is the threshold, not accuracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.