Money won’t solve the nation’s education woes, and there are many woes in need of solving, but love will. I say that knowing that I will be misunderstood by most, simply because that world, “love”, is almost always misused and has become inadequate for conveying the thought it’s supposed to convey. You see, we live in a society that has been so thoroughly steeped in Secular Humanism that it no longer understands “love”. Secular Humanism is a materialistic/naturalistic worldview. So more money actually is interpreted as more love as well as conversely. So when someone, like me for example, contends that the educational-industrial complex doesn’t need more confiscated cash in order to make itself better, we will be speaking a foreign language to the humanist.
But not only does the institution not love your children, it can’t love your children. It’s not even interested in loving your children, nor is it responsible for loving your children. The institution is made up of individuals from top to bottom that love themselves, and because they love themselves, they love the institution, because as part of the institution their fortunes are intertwined with the institution’s fortunes. But ultimately love, not money, will bring about the best fully rounded education you and your child can hope for.
So we have a story today from Western Journal:
The title gives us a clue where the article is going. The institution expresses love by projecting onto children their own bad feelings, and then it attempts to remove those feelings by patronizing them. They do this by telling them that they deserve a trophy for just showing up. But that’s not love. It’s just a lie. Love teaches reality, and reality dictates something totally different than receiving rewards just because you’re there.
From the article, the first sentence says it all:
…the job of schools is to teach students, [and] not to provide jobs for teachers.
This is a true statement… to a point. But it’s not true realistic. My guess is that this author, though he is able to articulate the problem well, is not able to think outside the institutionalized education box when it comes to solutions.
In The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow wanted a brain, but the Wizard gave him a diploma instead, assuring him that plenty of people with diplomas have no more brains than a scarecrow. He must have been a wizard because he perfectly predicted the 21st century American education system.
He goes on to comparing American students with a global community. And it is a very gloomy comparison. But I found this to be the most depressing and telling statistic:
We now have a Department of Education that spends about $70 billion a year, yet our students are tied for last in problem solving with the Slovak Republic.
If today’s students were taught real rather than revisionist history, they’d know the Education Department was created in 1979 by President Carter. Mark Twain, Jonas Salk, Thomas Edison, Dian Fossey and millions of other Americans — even Carter! — somehow got better educations than today’s students without any federal involvement.
But I would not say that the government is failing. In fact, I’d say that the government has been successful beyond its wildest dreams. You bear the children. You’re responsible for them when they mess up. You cloth them, feed them, house them, and then you send them to the schoolhouse to be turned into government worshipping robots. What government would call that failure?
But there is a better way for your child. Keep her home. Teach her well, and she will flourish.