Utah's Republic

A Constitutional Right

Daily Herald: What Social Democracy means to Utah County Educators

March 13th, 2010

The Herald Journal published an opinion piece by Axel Donizetti Ramirez called “What ‘Social Democracy’ means to Utah County Educators.” Below is my response to his piece, which I hope motivates him to re-evaluate the motives behind those who use the phrase in question.

***************

Lets look at the history behind the “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy”. This phrase comes from one of the 4 Moral Dimensions of teaching by John Goodlad. Mr. Goodlad was hired by BYU to come and set up a Public School Partnership in 1983. Mr. Goodlad is a follower of John Dewey and Horace Mann. All 3 of these individuals are humanists, atheists that want to enculturate the young to only believe in what they can prove with the 5 senses. From Mr. Goodlad’s book “Developing Democratic Character in the Young” we get these two juicy tidbits.

“Again, we are looking for a balance—for an institution, really—that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children. Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.”

“Education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents, and children all have interests that must be protected.”

Which of you believe the state has a right to your children and has interests that must be protected in the education of your child?

After setting up the Public School Partnership between BYU and 5 surrounding districts (Alpine, Provo, Wasatch, Nebo, and Jordan), Mr. Goodlad helped BYU become a founding partner in the NNER (National Network for Educational Renewal) organization he established.

From the NNER website:

“The NNER pursues the Agenda for Education in a Democracy and its implementation in member settings, with other educators and partnerships, and in policy arenas at the state, regional and national levels. The Network carries out this commitment through the following practices:
• continuing to serve as a laboratory and proofing ground for implementing the Agenda and further testing its specific components for validity and application within varying contexts;
• assisting member settings by facilitating fiscal support through external funding for work on the Agenda.”

Also on the NNER website:

“Why Do We Focus on Democracy? Many different forms of government have tried to meet this challenge: fascism, socialism, communism, and democracy, to name a few. Democracy, while certainly not without its flaws, seems to offer the best hope of enabling us to live together in relative peace and prosperity. This is because democracy has a great virtue that the others generally lack: real democracy strives to ensure that everyone in a society contributes to the decision-making processes that affect their lives.”

In other words, the NNER has a stated agenda. Part of that agenda is to promote democracy as a form of government. This is not democracy as a form of a republic type of government as the Alpine School Board tried to suggest in their bizarre statement earlier this week, this is a political democracy.

You can also find other elements of the NNER agenda on their website such as these on social justice and the gay agenda:

“Nicholas Michelli has led the NNER efforts to advance social justice in our schools and universities throughout the NNER. His leadership in the policy arena and commitment to implementing structures and processes that promote social justice are essential to the NNER. His work on every facet of access to knowledge and inclusion of diverse voices in our work models the ideals of democracy.”

From 2006 minutes of an NNER meeting (link):
“Ada Beth Cutler shared copies of an Op Ed that took a stand against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage written by a BYU adjunct faculty member and a newspaper article about the firing of this faculty member for writing the Op Ed piece. She shared her grave concern about BYU’s action and policies that discriminate against homosexuals, given the principles of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy. She asked for discussion on the implications for the NNER and the mission of access and inclusion. Vern Henshaw responded, noting that he was reflecting only his perspective, not representing the larger partnership. He noted that the BYU partnership governing board does not have the authority to change policies at BYU, that the decision and policies do not reflect the actions at the partnership level. He indicated that the partnership co exists with the BYU policies and includes not only BYU but also public school districts that are not bound by the BYU policies.”

So regardless of how innocent sounding the people at the local level try to make a social democracy sound, the fact is, the NNER is an organization promoting the philosophy of Mr. Goodlad and he not only talks about ways of life contrary to ours, he actively promotes an agenda contrary to our way of life, contrary to our form of government, and contrary to our social and moral standards.

You may not question our local educators, but they aren’t questioning the national ones putting poison in the well. That poison does seep down and teachers who don’t study these issues and aren’t aware of creeping socialism/progressivism are slowing drinking the kool-aid that comes from John Goodlad’s and John Dewey’s progressive philosophy. Drinking it in will slowly poison them until they too believe the other false doctrine Mr. Goodlad espouses which was based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil.” (Dewey in The School and Society)

Please reconsider your position based on these additional facts. Please also do your own research on these people and organizations, John Goodlad, John Dewey, NNER, the PSP, and CITES, the BYU organization that is intricately tied into the PSP and headed by the former Alpine School District superintendent Steven Baugh (incidentally he’s running for the legislature against Stephen Sandstrom).

Sincerely,

Oak Norton

No related posts.

Daniel

wow. wow. wow. Oak Norton, this is embarrassing.
“Again, we are looking for a balance—for an institution, really—that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children. Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.” – yes, yes. this is correct. We do believe in agency. Parents do not have the right to “fully” control their childrens' education. Parents should guide their children, but ultimately children themselves chose what to learn and accept and reject.
“Education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents, and children all have interests that must be protected.” – again, who disagrees with this? Parents should teach their children…obviously. The state should teach their citizens how to be responsible citizens. The public school system teaches children responsible citizenry and how to obey the laws of the land. That is definitely a duty of the state.
http://blog.oaknorton.com Oak Norton

Uh, no thank you Daniel. Show me where the state has a right to my children? Show me where the state has a “duty” to teach my children to obey the laws of the land? When's the last time your school pulled out the law books and started teaching your children the laws of the land? Show me where any of our Founding Fathers ever thought this was a good idea.
Molly

Parents do not own their children? Really? Who does, then? Not the government. And it's not up to the state to protect the children's best interests, sorry. Does the state know more than the parents? Why does the state have interests that must be protected? What are these interests? Perhaps we should question that. Isn't our country based on individual freedom, and who better to teach that than individual parents to their individual children?

The founding fathers did not give the federal government the right to implement public education. Many of the founding fathers did not even agree with using tax dollars for public schools. Having publicly-funded education is one of the planks of communism (ala Karl Marx) as it is a wonderful way to spread government propaganda. Some of the founding fathers DID want public education, however.

Thomas Jefferson was one who really wanted and educated citizenry and was in favor of a public education system. But I think he'd be in shock if he saw the education system we have today. He wanted education available to all, but he never wanted it to be compulsory. He wanted opportunities, but he never wanted it controlled at a federal, state or even school district level. He believed that tax-subsidized elementary schools should be governed by the parents of the local children attending the school as students. It was never intended that the government would dictate the curriculum and produce a trained citizenry, rather than an educated one. What was intended was small, local schools that would be run by highly-involved parents where motivated students would have to sacrifice for their education of classics and learn to discuss, question, and think so that the freedom of a republic could be preserved. Jefferson also believed that education should be fully in the hands of the families, not take it out of their hands. America didn't even have a compulsory school system until a few of the states passed compulsory laws in the 1850's!

The problem is that we have come so far from that, that families DO turn their children over to state-run schools and don't even think twice about it. No one has to work hard for an education, so education isn't very highly valued and we don't even question what we have been or our children are being taught. Don't you think the state might be a little bit biased when it comes to teaching the people what it wants them to believe? Take the issue of tolerance for example. The state tends to teach that we should be tolerant and let everyone do whatever they please – be open-minded! Anything goes – we certainly don't want to offend anyone. On the other hand, as a parent I teach my children tolerance in a very different way. I teach that tolerance means that we may disagree with you and your way of life, but we'll still be civil towards you. The parents should be the primary teachers of character and values (which includes citizenship), not the government.

I am not embarrassed for Oak Norton at all.
buffysnell

Oak, thank you for defending the integrity of our country and our families. We cannot abdicate personal responsibility for our children without losing freedom, theirs and ours. They are our stewardship.
Jim Davis

Daniel, your philosophy that the state has the duty to educate children is rooted in collectivist/socialist theories. In fact, Marx and Engels share your philosophy that the state supersedes parental authority (10th plank of the communist manifesto). Ideas like this are furthering the destruction of the family unit and are destroying liberty. If socialized education is what you advocate then thank you for your honesty. I wonder though, do you also advocate liberty?

Socialism and liberty cannot co-exist.
Adam

Hmmm, some of your comments remind me of a *unanimous* United States Supreme Court decision:
“Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. . . . The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925).

Let's read that last sentence again: ” The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” That sure doesn't sound like it is the state's right or duty to ensure a responsible citizenry; it sounds like that is the right of parents.
Bryan

So, parents have the right to “fully” control the education of their children, eh? Let's follow that line of thinking: a particular parent might be an Islamic Fundamentalist and teach their children that homicide bombings are the morally right thing to do, a parent might be a Neo-Nazi or Facist and teach their children that killing people because of their race or ethnicity is okay, or a parent might be addicted to heroin and teach their children how to cook and shoot up. Are you saying that you're fine with that? Are you sure you wouldn't want some government intervention in any of those circumstances? Be careful dealing in absolutes, folks. They rarely hold up under scrutiny.

As far as the topic at hand, though, anyone who actually believes that Alpine School District is a subversive socialist organization trying to undermine local parents needs to have their logic called into serious question. Most of the people who work for Alpine School District ARE local parents (including the board and administrators). Many (if not most) were raised in the very culture that has now branded them domestic enemies. Please.
Research your logical fallacies, too. Because I take one or two ideas from another person, does that mean that I agree with that other person's philosophy? Does it mean that I agree with all of their ideas? Of course not.
Honestly, the agressive and hostile way people are reacting to the district illustrates that those people are the ones with an agenda. Cherry picking loosely implied socialism while completely ignoring the excellent academic and social outcomes that the district produces on a daily basis is a nice way to promote anti-education propaganda, but it doesn't have much to do with the truth. I challenge those concerned to find communist or socialist agendas being taught in classrooms. If it is happening, it is isolated and happening without district awareness or approval. Teachers found to be promoting any political ideology are reprimanded or worse. ASD teachers teach the core like the teachers in any other district in the state. The teachers and administrators are only interested in one thing: giving their students the best education possible so that those students will be successful and our great country will grow stronger. The current hostile groupies will have a difficult time finding any teacher or administrator that does not fully support the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps they should educate themselves a little. They should go talk to some teachers on a one-on-one basis, go speak to administrators, go visit and observe a class or two, and take a close look at the academics. They should talk to the students, for heaven's sake. Do those students spew anti-American socialist propaganda after graduating from the district's high schools, or do they love their country as much as their parents taught them to? Stop listening to extremists with agendas and start finding out the truth for yourself. Take back your intellectual independence. That's what educated people do.
http://blog.oaknorton.com Oak Norton

Daniel, you said “Stop listening to extremists with agendas and start finding out the truth for yourself,” and I couldn't agree more. Read up on John Goodlad, an extremist with an agenda. There are more quotes from Goodlad on this page:
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/democracy-media-fi…
buffy

Bryan, so because some parents teach their children to break the law or harm others, all parents should partially abdicate responsibility for the nurture of their children to government? Be careful dealing in absolutes. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And when did it become extreme to insist that our educators are correctly educating? Go ahead and ask your neighbors, and their kids, if we are a Republic or a Democracy…. See what they say. Despite the fact that we have good teachers, somehow we are producing generations that are “intellectually independent” of the principles that made us free. I wonder how that happened…
buffy

Bryan, so because some parents teach their children to break the law or harm others, all parents should partially abdicate responsibility for the nurture of their children to government? Be careful dealing in absolutes. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And when did it become extreme to insist that our educators are correctly educating? Go ahead and ask your neighbors, and their kids, if we are a Republic or a Democracy…. See what they say. Despite the fact that we have good teachers, somehow we are producing generations that are “intellectually independent” of the principles that made us free. I wonder how that happened…
Bryan

Sad. I never said all parents should abdicate responsibility. I said that not all parents have the right to be “fully” responsible; therefore, the state must take some responsibility. There is no absolute there. If you think the ability to have sexual intercourse and carry a child to term qualifies everyone to take full responsibility for a child, that's your right; but you're wrong.
Also, you can argue semiotics all you want, but we live in a democratic republic which is often referred to as a democracy (even by the founding fathers who, admittedly, did not like “pure democracy” but were very much in favor of ideas like Jeffersonian Democracy which gets its name because it was Jefferson's idea). Was it Thomas Jefferson's or George Washington's teacher's fault that the didn't use “republic” every time they spoke of our government? You can call our government a republic or a democracy and it doesn't change what it is (like you can call any facial tissue a “Kleenex” even if its actual brand is “Puffs” and its still a tissue. Just because a child doesn't use the term you like doesn't mean that that child is ignorant of the principles that made us free. Like I said in my earlier post, you can ask them. Like religion, kids will pick up on their political views from their parents, not their English or math class. If your kid can read and write well, thank their evil communist teachers. If they are leaning away from you politically, thank yourself. It is interesting to me how many people will place the blame on schools while claiming responsibility for thier children's education. Maybe people like you should realize that the school's main purpose isn't to teach the particular semantics that you prefer. If you think parents are “fully responsible” for their children's education, and those children don't use the terminology that the parents would prefer, point the finger at the parents.
How about this: instead of whining and protesting and complaining about a link that was immediately removed and a mission statement that only implies anything socialist in the most loose and contrived interpretations, you read for an hour or two a week with your child. Read with them from a book that promotes your political ideals. Spend some time with them. Explain your views to them. If you do that, even Karl Marx couldn't pull them away.
Anyway, best of luck with your crusade (which I'm sure you'll continue anyway against all logic).
Bryan

Sorry about my typos. It's late.
http://blog.oaknorton.com Oak Norton

Bryan, did you read the link I posted? This isn't just about a word. It's about an entire philosophy.

Also, your comments here are either carefully worded or just incorrect. Yes every parent has the *right* to be “fully” responsible, but some do abdicate that right and abuse their children. Nobody has said carrying a child to term “qualifies” parents to take care of a child. It's their natural God-given right to do so, but clearly, not all are capable of that.

When John Goodlad writes that schools must “enculturate the young into a social and political democracy,” we shouldn't dismiss that phrase when a school district casually puts their own interpretation on it. If Goodlad has an agenda, which he clearly states he does, then if the district uses his philosophy and implements the agenda unknowingly, they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I just posted a John Taylor Gatto audio file which I really encourage you to listen to, but also, if you want the whole story about what's going on with this, please click the upper right link to the “Democracy media frenzy.” If we still disagree, fine, but that's a much more complete picture.
Bryan

No. I've read your links and followed your posts. This is not a philosophical debate unless you actually believe that ASD subscribes to Goodlad's agenda and not just their own interpretation of his words. If you do believe that, I would point you again to my first post here. If you are, as some have stated, just afraid that ASD has let some “poison” into the “well” of the district through this one quote, then this is an argument of semantics and logical fallacy.
Let me see if I can illustrate one of the problems with your argument. From what I've read on this site and the links you've posted, I would assume that you would agree with one or both of the following quotes: “It is not the State that orders us; but it is we who order the State,” or, “Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.” You like those quotes, no? You can interpret them to fit your philosophy and may even consider posting them on your website. I, myself, agree with the first one as it brings to mind much of what the founding fathers of our country believed. However, both of those quotes are from Adolf Hitler. Does the fact that I (or we) agree with something Hitler said mean that I (or we) agree with everything Hitler said and align ourselves with his philosophy? No. That's a silly argument, isn't it? I would feel intellectually ashamed for having even made that argument. However, because ASD uses a quote from Goodlad and posted an admittedly mistaken link (which, again, was immediately removed as soon as the district's attention was drawn to it) on their website, you accuse them of subscribing to all of Goodlad's philosophy and allowing his poison into the well. You're just off base logically.

Once again, as well, you would very much like to ignore all of the things ASD does right in order to focus on your grinding axe. I have never seen a school district more concerned about listening to its stakeholders. In my experience, parents concerns and rights are paramount, and the district tries very hard to meet the needs and wants of its community. I could offer you examples of books being removed from district libraries because a tiny minority of parents found something objectionable about the content (even if the overwhelming majority of parents were confused as to what the books contained that was offensive). I could point you to policy meetings that involve very heavy parental input. I could point you to high school community council meetings where parents and students take part in determining where and how money is spent; how the school policies are created, interpreted, and enforced; and what kinds of curriculum is taught.

I know I'm probably talking to a wall, so I'll finish up. You and your group have an agenda. Why is it only now that you seem to have this desperate semantic problem with the district's mission statement (taking into account that the statement has been in place for years)? Most of us in this area are concerned with the way our country is currently being managed. Most of us in this area are alarmed with the rate at which government is expanding. We don't like seeing socialist trends encroaching ever more into our capitalist structure and we want to fight back against them. However, as Nietzsche said, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Stop taking out your frustrations on one of the most conservative school districts in the state (if not the country). ASD is made up of fine, patriotic Americans. The vast majority of its people believe in the constitution, freedom, capitalism, and all of the other ideals that have always made America great. They want success for your children. They are your friends and neighbors, not your enemies. If you want private schools, vouchers, more home schooling, or even just policy changes, great. Fight for what you want in the political arena or in board meetings. Stop using the sneaky and contrived back-door methods of name-calling, mud-slinging, and inflammatory accusations in the media.
buffy

While most people just say they “don't like seeing socialist trends encroaching ever more into our capitalist structure,” Oak Norton is actually doing something about it. And the only name-calling, mud slinging, inflammatory accusations I've seen are coming from his critics. Maybe you should stop criticizing Oak and start using your fine skills of intelligence and articulation to do something productive. If ASD is in fact full of fine, patriotic Americans, then they won't mind changing their socialist mission statement. What's not logical, is to insist on representing yourself with words, and people, that don't.
buffy

Since this is just a silly war on semantics and Jefferson used the words “Jeffersonian Democracy”, go ahead and ask your same neighbors, and their children, if they know what a Republic is or if they understand the difference between that and a democracy (I'm sure Jefferson could have told you.)

Because society at large has abdicated responsibility for the nurture of their children to government, generations are being produced that are “intellectually independent” of the principles that make us free. I wonder why that's happening…