COMPETING HISTORIES

One of the background bits of information undergirding a lot of what this blog has to say is the ongoing “debate” between establishment educators and academic educators.  A simple rundown of what divides them can take the following form:  the establishment favors a natural rights point of view and academia favors critical theory. 

The natural rights view summarily supports individuals holding basic rights and that they can behave to exercise those rights as long as such behavior does not interfere with others enjoying their basic rights.  Critical theory believes society is ruled and controlled by monied interests and the resulting political/economic system is set up and sustained to advance those interests. 

Each side strives to move education toward recognizing the governmental/political, national perspective they respectively harbor, to pursue policies it sees as ideal, and delegitimize the related beliefs of the other side.  This leads to a different set of policy preferences:

·        For establishment educators, policy should support and be directed toward preparing students for the competitive environment that categorizes the economy. 

·        For critical theorists, policy should encourage the citizenry toward overthrowing the exploitive society – this can be done peacefully – so it can advance to a general state of equality in which all will equally share in the economy’s benefits.

As a short expression of these opposing ideas, one can simply state what each side’s trump value is:  natural rights holds liberty – or what the literature calls natural liberty or equal condition – and critical theory holds equality – or what the literature calls equal results.  As a point of context, the current political landscape seems to indicate that the electorate is swinging toward one camp or the other by abandoning what is usually called the “political center.”  Another way to describe this:  both sides are getting closer to the extremes – nationalism and socialism.

As for this posting, the aim is to see how each side treats educational history in the US.  If either can have its view of the past as the general view, this would lead, among the electorate, to agreements over many assumptions one makes in promoting one set of policies as opposed to the other set.  This writer believes that that would be an important achievement by either side as it would “grease” the way toward being successful in many policy debates.

But before explaining that, here is a contextual point that needs to be mentioned.  One should not view education as a consumer service.  Instead, one should see it as a discipline; in order to succeed, it demands that a reasonable amount of effort be exerted by students.  This account mentions this because of its varied implications.  When reformers consider changes in education, they need to remember that this basic relationship – between students and subject matter – should dictate important parameters as to what should be considered.

Often, those who discuss reform, be they establishment advocates or critical theorists, do not take this fact into consideration.  How an educational system is run, therefore, goes a long way in determining whether the resulting service is reasonable in its demands in the expected efforts called upon by students, parents, or other involved adults, such as teachers and school administrators.  With those ground rules, what do these opposing sides view as being the educational history of the nation?  Here is a short answer.

Naturally, both sides have differing historical accounts they favor.  So, how can one see these dual views separately and in comparison, to each other?  A central concern of critical theorists can be used to begin this review.  That is:  why, to begin with, does an exploitive nation, such as the US, have a public-school system?  Here are the two opposing answers to this basic question.

The establishment believes that on the face of it, public schooling allows the masses to become educated and, through that experience, can improve their competitive posture.  In turn, this, with hard work, can lead to ever higher levels of rewards that lucrative careers can accrue.  In short, education can lead to equal opportunity assuming the educational system works sufficiently well. 

This assumption is one of many that critical theorists question.  Critical theorists do not accept that the above overall aim is true.  They argue that an alternate motivation was at play when the rich agreed to sign up and support a public-school system, an essential element in instituting such a system.  

On the critical theory side, one can summarize its view by stating that public schooling came about due to how rich people saw a vast population.  That population, mostly poor, would have little to no motivation to favor, uphold, or otherwise support the existing, exploitive polity and its economic system.  Given their lack of any meaningful stake in what was, the masses were left to their own devises to not only be antagonistic toward that system, but also, through lawlessness and outright rebellion, undermine it.

Chief among the upper class’s concerns, were behaviors that aimed at destruction.  Yes, religion could be counted on to stave off some of these beliefs or feelings, but on a day to day basis, a more instituted effort could be made to promote a message of how good the system was and, better still, that message could be imparted early in life. 

Not only could such a schooling institution do these things, but it could also socialize people to except such exploitive practices as forcing the working class to submit to the factory system, in which manufacturers forced workers to earn a subsistence wage.  By the way, schools used the factory model to physically structure their operations.[1] 

The promotors of public schooling could and finally did sell this essential message to the rich.  It has been further supported, critical theorists would say, with the underfunding that public schooling has struggled through the years since its inception.  Of course, because of funding formulas across the country, one can readily see the results of such funding when one compares the physical resources schools in lucrative areas have compared to say inner city schools where struggling people live.

That, in a few sentences, summarizes why critical theorists argue the rich – in this nation and in just about all nations that have public education systems – supported initiating and funding such expensive operations among the states of the US.  Of course, lately the rich are thinking of ways to lighten that financial burden.  Critical theorists are apt to see such “reforms” in this light, and one can easily see why the critical theorists might question the motivation behind moves toward some alternate school models such as charter schools.[2] 

On the other side, natural rights advocates favor a different history.  They might see some of the above counterproductive practices – e.g., the factory system model for structurally arranging schools – but usually chalk those up to how people generally saw education at a given time.  They instead look and emphasize those actors and movements that strove to make education available to the public. 

And they proudly point out those cases where people of modest means have been successful in an array of professional careers.  For example, the head of Amazon went to high school in the Miami-Dade school system. 

In addition, they like to tout the efforts of such historical characters as Horace Mann who in the 1800s “believed passionately in the value of public schools and common education for the children of Massachusetts and defended his proposal in flowery … terms.”[3]  But, one should note an issue that bogged down a harmonious beginning to the public-school system. 

Among the populous, initial efforts found a lot of disagreement over any normative elements being included in the resulting public-school curriculum.  What one needs to keep in mind, initial efforts at public schooling emanated from a time when there was broad concern over any educational effort especially those involving moral content. 

Most insisted any resulting curriculum should include moral content based on sectarian foundations.  But, the founders of the public system faced a public strongly divided – for one thing, Roman Catholics who objected to the Protestant bias started their own generally affordable system.[4] 

Despite this divergence, American schooling evolved into a homogenous product.  Here is Toni Massaro’s summary:

Despite this resistance, compulsory schooling came to dominate the educational landscape during the 1900s.  By 1918, every state had adopted a compulsory school act.  In the 1920s, Cremin reports, “over ninety percent of American children between the ages of seven and thirteen were reported as enrolled in school,” and the vast majority of them were enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools.  Moreover, the content of this education became reasonably, though never completely, coherent.[5]

This writer argues that the resulting curriculum up until roughly the 1960s had a strong moral component.  Cremin lists various moral strains which categorized the content among the various state systems that include:  New Testament values, Poor Richard’s Almanac wisdom, and Federalist Papers’ political messaging.  This writer feels this ended in the sixties and that a more natural rights bias has become dominant and has instilled a less communal content-based curriculum that generally avoids dealing with moral questions.

Part of adopting federation theory to guide educational efforts, especially in civics, is a call for a communal curricular base that actively deals with moral questions, but on a secular basis.  This blog has argued that the federalist view can and should be seen as a compromise between both the natural rights view and critical theory.  Again, the nation seems to be edging toward the extremes of these views and that, in turn, can result in dire consequences.

---

[1] Here’s the analogy:  The raw material was students, they were submitted to timed sessions, they were molded and passed on the assembly line of different workers/teachers and were submitted at the end of the assembly line as finished – educated – products.  In addition, production areas, the classroom, were to be arranged in neat rows to better keep oversight on how well the material was progressing.

[2] These semi-public, semi-private schools are often seen as just means of draining public resources away from regular public schools to provide cheaper semi-private schools to affluent families that usually do not have the oversight to which regular schools are subjected.

[3] Toni M. Massaro, Constitutional Literacy (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press 1993), 12.

[4] For an account of this division, see Robert Gutierrez, “Some Initial Rancor over Education,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, December 1, 2017, accessed July 25, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/12/some-initial-rancor-over-education.html .

[5]  Toni M. Massaro, Constitutional Literacy, 14.

MORE INFORMATION ON OPIOID CRISIS

In the past, this blog has shared lists of factoids and insights this writer links to the opioid crisis.  His interest in that concern has not waned.  His reading into the topic has led him to Beth Macy’s book, Dopesick.[1]  Using Macy’s work, this posting adds to the previous listings.  Below, it also informs the reader how to find the initial listings.

          First item:  One depressing factoid is that America’s life expectancy, between highest fifth in terms of wealth and the lowest fifth, widened between the years 1980 and 2010 by 13%.  The Appalachian poor account for a significant portion of that widening due to the incidence drug taking (much of it being opioids).  “[O]verdose mortality rates [are] 65 percent higher than in the rest of the nation.”[2]

          Second item:  Part of the marketed advantages, according to its producer, of OxyContin was its longer period of pain relief.  Purdue Pharma claimed its relief lasted three times longer than the claimed relief time – four hours – of most other pain pills.  In addition to that reported advantage, the company claimed that since the drug had a slow-release time, it would frustrate those who used the drug to elicit a euphoric rush and, therefore, discourages its use for that purpose.  This latter advantage has proved to be untrue.

          Third item:  The use of poppy derived opium can be traced back to Neolithic humans.  Apparently, the two aims have been all along to induce a high and/or to get cured of some malady.  Jumping to a much more recent time, but considered some time ago, were the years before and during the Civil War.  It is during that time the use of morphine became common.

Fourth item:  An early proponent of morphine, an opioid, was Dr. Alexander Wood, the inventor of the hypodermic needle.  Wood touted that one use for his needle could be injecting morphine which was to avoid the drug’s addictive quality that resulted from either swallowing or smoking it.  His promotion was made in the mid-1800s.  Of course, his claim proved to be untrue as its application to Civil War veterans demonstrated; many of them – 100,000 – became addicted.

Fifth item:  The Macy book should be read if for no other reason than to become informed of the work done by Dr. Art Van Zee and Catholic nun, Sister Beth Davis, in their work to combat the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies to promote the distribution and use of opioids.  They should be considered for one of those awards that are handed out in Washington to outstanding citizens by a president or the heads of Congress.  Van Zee has won over a dozen national awards.

Sixth item:  On a cultural level, Macy provides an insight into the Appalachian people.  “In an Appalachian culture that prides itself on self-reliance and a feisty dose of fatalism, peddling pills was now the modern-day moonshining.  Some passed the trade secrets down to their kids because, after all, how else could they afford to eat and pay their bills?”[3]  Macy, with this last reference about being able to afford food, is reflecting the devasting effects caused by the elimination of jobs in that region due to the cessation of coal mining or manufacturing jobs.

Seventh item:  The Appalachian coal region can be credited with bucking a trend.  Many postings in this blog have repeatedly claimed that the nation has abandoned, as a dominant view, the federated view of citizenry.  That is, as was the case before World War II, Americans were easily apt to involve themselves in communal efforts to address local problems.  But since that war, they have not been so disposed.

It also describes, as an exception, how after many years suffering from an opioid addiction problem, the city of Portsmouth, Ohio of late has begun to seriously address this addiction.  The lack of initiatives generally can be regarded as an enabling factor in the spread and severity of that epidemic.

But here is another case countering the general trend.  It turns out that miners in Appalachian localities had portions of their pay directed to build a clinic way back in 1973.  In addition, these communities of miners have initiated fund raising efforts – like bake sales and talent shows – that have actively solicited money from their neighbors to meet the needs of drug affected families.  Of note, these efforts were organized by three nuns who were, in turn, inspired in their youth by the War on Poverty programs initiated by the efforts of LBJ’s administration.

Eighth item:  An added factoid regarding the elements of an addiction is that an opioid addiction, like alcoholism, lasts a lifetime.  Relapses are common and active treatment, to be effective, needs to last ten years.  While 40-60% of treated addicts experience remission – when assisted with appropriate medication – relapsing among them is a problem.  In the meantime, 4% of opioid addicts die annually from overdoses.  Given that the death rate is 68,500, in 2018, over 1.7 million Americans are addicted today.

Ninth item:  And for this posting, the last factoid it offers is to report that, as with the addiction problems after the Civil War, recognition of opioid addiction on such drugs as Oxi-Contin was slow to develop.

For readers who are new to this blog or to those who have not kept up with the blog’s description of how factoids and insights are used for classroom purposes, the following is offered.  Factoids are “bundled” facts that can be utilized in conducting an inquiry over an issue or societal problem.  Insights are statements of some cause and effect relationship between or among factors.  In both cases, these statements are useful in constructing arguments.[4]

Also, this writer has accumulated a list of factoids and insights relating to the opioid crisis.  That can be found online and has the following URL:  https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8 .  He will, within the next few days, add the above factoids and insights identified to this online site.

---

[1] Beth Macy, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America (New York, NY:  Riverhead Books, 2018).

[2] Ibid., 16 (Kindle edition).

[3] Ibid., 42 (Kindle edition).

[4] See Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London:  Cambridge University Press, 1969) AND Robert Gutierrez, “The Structure of an Argument or Two,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, May 15, 2015, accessed July 22, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-structure-of-argument-or-two.html .