News-Record.com

Tom Sparks: "...it becomes increasingly difficult to remain optimistic that anything meaningful will be accomplished about the problems our country faces, regardless of who becomes president."

Two sources of this national malaise:

1) The states that ratified the original Constitution saw themselves as THE paramount entities, with almost all of the vested powers, reserving for the national government very view indeed.

But a consolidation of power in the national government began early --- with Federalist Party control of the courts (though quickly defeated the polls) --- and, by repeated judicial usurpations by unaccountable and unelected judges, has continued a power grab over policy ever since.

So says historian Kevin Gutzman in a provocative interview with Carolina Journal:

Friday Interview: The Politically Incorrect Constitution
Historian Kevin Gutzman discusses key themes from recent book
By Carolina Journal Staff
April 04, 2008
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=4681

2) Schools: The current population is all but helpless to resist this dismal state of affairs as state-run schools insure mass ignorance:

"...at his [Shakepeare's] elementary school in Stratford, according to a recent article in Academic Questions, he “would have studied Latin and Greek over the course of eight years, in a curriculum that exposed students to essential masters, including: Lucian, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Aristophanes, Homer, Euripides, Terence, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, Caesar, Salust, Origen, Basil, Jerome et al.” (EdNews.org)

Two-time Pulitzer Prize-Winning historian David McCullough, at 2002 speech at Depauw University:

"They [the Founding Fathers] were steeped in, soaked in, marinated in the classics: Greek and Roman history, Greek and Roman ideas, Greek and Roman ideals. It was their model, their example. And they saw themselves very much like the Greeks and Romans, as actors on a great stage in one of the great historic dramas of all time."

Then --- roughly 60 years later --- came the invention of state-funded elementary schools [in Horace Mann's Massachusetts] and would never see the likes of a Shakespeare OR the Founding generation again.

Agreed it was suppost to be "States Rights", but the 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, drafted by John Adams and which It served as a model for the United States Constitution, included " ... it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates ... "

"Section II: The Encouragement of Literature, etc

"Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people."

I would further argue that the mandated "learn to read, write, and do 'rithmetic" was one KEY reason America was able to kick ecomomic ass in the 19th century.

Near unlimited resources was another.

Near unlimited territory was third - if you didn't like the local laws (fed, state, local), just Go West Young Man.

2 and 3 are gone - physical constraints, and #1 is about gone for reasons outlined elsewhere.

James, you are spot on!

I will point out that, gridlock, for lack of a better term, is good. In some ways, this IS what the founding fathers wanted.

JDR: "I would further argue that the mandated 'learn to read, write, and do 'rithmetic' was one KEY reason America was able to kick ecomomic ass in the 19th century."

Nonsense. Here is a history of U. S. compulsory [mandated] attendance laws:

"The first compulsory attendance law was adopted in Massachusetts in 1852. During the next 15 years, no other state followed Massachusetts. But, beginning in 1867, a steady stream of states began adopting compulsory attendance laws and, by 1918, all states had enacted them."

If --- other than in Mass. --- the first children --- to experience state-mandated attendance at government elementary schools "graduated" in 1880 or so and would make up --- initiall --- a tiny sliver of the overall work force, then the U. S. industrial revolution was well under way independent of any effect of mandated elementary school attendance.

As late as 1900, by the way, only 5% of the population went to high school.

So the state's grip on children and families during that early period of rapid industrialization was exceedingly limited --- by today's standards.

Moreover anti-academic "schools of education" --- teacher training institutions --- had not been invented . Nor had the elaborate teacher licensing schemes that in effect repel the intelligent and protect the field for the intellectually challenged. Ed school fields dominate the far left side of any bell curve distribution of GRE [Graduate Record Examination] scores as I've note in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal.

As to the origins of Ed Schools --- these gateway institutions for anyone hoping to teacher --- New York University education historian Diane Ravitch recounts their origins:

"Teachers College, the premier pedagogical institution in the nation, began as an alternative to the academic tradition. It traced its origins to the Kitchen Garden Association, incorporated in 1880 to teach 'the domestic industrial arts among the laboring classes,' that is, to train young girls to work in domestic service as cooks and housemaids. Four years later, hoping to attract boys as students, the institution changed its name to the Industrial Education Association and added classes in carpentry and manual training to its curriculum of sewing, cooking, drawing and domestic service . . ."

"In 1887 . . . the institution decided to specialize in teacher training. It was once again rechristened, this time the New York College for the Training of Teachers, and began offering courses in the history of education, pedagogy, industrial arts . . . In 1889, a final name change produced Teachers College, which in 1893 became the pedagogy department of Columbia University.

" (Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, pp 52-53)

From Kitchen Garden Association (1880) to Industrial Training Institute (1884) to College for the Training of Teachers (1887) to Teachers College (1889):

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. (Romeo and Juliet , Act II)

Tom: We can argue over the words "compulsory" and "mandated" but regardless .. it's clear there was intent and action by The Founders to make Education a priority :

==

"THE MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION LAW ... of 1647 required that towns of fifty families hire a schoolmaster who would teach children to read and write. Towns of a hundred families must have a grammar schoolmaster who could prepare children to attend Harvard College.

"Education became more of a social responsibility as teachers were formally hired for the sole purpose of teaching the nation's young people. Perhaps even more surprising in the light of previous practice is that they were paid to do so, either by the government or individual parents and guardians. School was becoming more of a priority. Another institution that made its appearance on the educational stage was something called a "Dame" school. These schools were set up in the homes (most often the kitchens) of women in the community who had both the time and inclination to teach students in a tutoring capacity and in exchange for their services the women received some meager allowance. Also on the education scene were traveling schoolmasters who made their way to various towns for the purpose of teaching the children so as to contribute to the dream of social harmony via religion and literacy.

"We see that it was during this period in Massachusetts that religious concerns (e.g., learning to read in order to read the Bible) laid the groundwork for modern education. Although it was a response to an ecclesiastical quest in the new world, it was adequately catalyzed and necessity eventually turned itself into education being conceptually pursued in and of itself in America. The early immigrants were paving the way toward a better educational system, one brick at a time."

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/%7Ecfrnb/masslaws.html

==

"After the American Revolution, the new national government passed the Land Ordinance of 1785, which set aside a portion of every township in the unincorporated territories of the United States for use in education."

"The Land Ordinance of 1785 .. was also significant for establishing a mechanism for funding public education. Section 16 in each township was reserved for the maintenance of public schools. Many schools today are still located in section sixteen of their respective townships, although a great many of the school sections were sold to raise money for public education.

"Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789

"BE IT ORDAINED BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT the territory ceded by individual states to the United States, which has been purchased of the Indian inhabitants, shall be disposed of in the following manner ...

"Know ye, That for the consideration of..........dollars, we have granted and hereby do grant and confirm lot No. 16 for the maintenance of public schools ... "

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdcc13201))

==

"The New England Puritans valued education, both for the sake of religious study (which was facilitated by Bible reading) and for the sake of economic success. A 1647 Massachusetts law mandated that every town of 50 or more families support an elementary school and every town of 100 or more families support a grammar school, where boys could learn Latin in preparation for college. In practice, some New England towns had difficulty keeping their schools open and staffed, but virtually all New England towns made an effort to provide a school for their children. Both boys and girls attended the elementary schools (though sometimes at different hours or different seasons), and there they learned to read, write, and cipher. In the mid-Atlantic region, private and sectarian schools filled the same niche as the New England "common schools."

"The South, which was overwhelmingly rural, had few schools of any sort until the Revolutionary era. Wealthy children studied with private tutors; middling children might learn to read from literate parents or older siblings; many poor and middling white children, as well as virtually all black children, went unschooled. Literacy rates were significantly lower in the South than the north; this remained true until the late nineteenth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Colonial_America

JDR,

It's certainly true that colonial Massachusetts was way out front --- and admirably so --- in trying to push towns to educate their children. But Massachusetts did not get involved in running the schools or even in funding them.

And, as far as I know, there is no evidence that Massachusetts did anything to towns that may have balked at this schooling requirement. Schooling, including what to study and whom to hire, remained decisions of local people.

Two centuries later that lack of uniformity --- sameness everywhere --- would trouble Horace Mann who would succeed in the late 1830s in getting primary decision-making power over schools shifted to Boston.

Mann became the first head of a state school board in the nation, thus commencing a long line of luminous intellects who come to occupy that position. You can probably name a few of North Carolina's recent school board chairman --- so striking are they in intellectual prowess and insight.

Mann was no slouch:

"In 1852, he supported governor Edward Everett in the decision to adopt the Prussian education system in Massachusetts . . .

"The practical result of Mann's work was a revolution in the approach used in the common school system of Massachusetts, which in turn influenced the direction of other states. In carrying out his work, Mann met with bitter opposition by some Boston schoolmasters who strongly disapproved of his innovative [progressive] pedagogical ideas ... "

Too bad, schoolmasters. Distant experts are now in charge.

* * *

As to the Ordinance of 1785, as the link you provided indicates, it applied to "the the sale of land in the largely unmapped territory west of the original colonies acquired from Britain at the end of the Revolutionary War."

It had no effect on the states, who were the supreme authority in America at that time, the Constitution having not yet come into existence.

I must say I admire your considerable energy in support of state-run schooling --- not that that vast employment program for adults (10 million nationwide) needs your help.

I repeatedly told my kids their job was to be a sponge: soak it up.

I'm not necessarily in favor of "state-run schooling", and even less so federal run programs. I am in favor of - and often speak loudly for - extremely locally run schools, requiring all kids to learn, heavy on parent input and involvement, and in touch with both the business and the social needs of the community.

The model of early Mass. makes sense to me - it follows that model: Bully pulpit, but keep schooling, "including what to study and whom to hire" as "decisions of local people".

... which also puts me at odds with the Voucher proposals as well as the NCLB crap.

... and if all that makes me in favor of "Mandated Schooling" - your damm right, I proudly wear that mantle.

... and I continue to maintain the ability to read, write, and do 'rithmetic" was one KEY reason America was able to kick ecomomic ass in the 19th century.

I concede this was driven more by mom and pop (and church) than g-men, but still have found no evidence that The Founders were opposed to folks getting educated. As far as I can tell, they encouraged it fully .. but I'll also concede the word "mandate".

JDR: "I am in favor of - and often speak loudly for - extremely locally run schools..."

I'd go for that but with 85% of funding --- and thus rules, mandates, textbooks, hiring critieria (licensing) --- coming from Raleigh and Washington, it's hard to envisage the "extremely locally run" part, short of as clean a break as possilble with the state and with the federal government.

Some sort of G. I. Bill for parents (tax credits, vouchers) might restore a measure of "extremely local" control.

But its all theoretical. When the America enterprise has finally "fallen" --- in the Roman sense of the term, our schooling monopolies will be the only thing left standing --- formidable but also adaptable. eager to school the children of new masters. They are hardy survivors.

Would that this flabby nation had some of the toughness of its schooling monoplies.

Letter raises some interesting questions, but misses a key point: Congress is very good at doing one thing, and that is soaking up a progressively larger share of governmental spending.

Where does Bush succeed in getting legislation through?: No Schools (more fed $ and oversight) and more Medicare (prescription drugs). Where does he fail?: social security reform, vague plans to "cut spending."

Conclusion: Congress can occasionally agree to ratchet up the machinery of the welfare state. It cannot move in reverse.

Letter raises some interesting questions, but misses a key point: Congress is very good at doing one thing, and that is soaking up a progressively larger share of governmental spending.

Where does Bush succeed in getting legislation through?: No Schools (more fed $ and oversight) and more Medicare (prescription drugs). Where does he fail?: social security reform, vague plans to "cut spending."

Conclusion: Congress can occasionally agree to ratchet up the machinery of the welfare state. It cannot move in reverse.

"Congress .. cannot move in reverse."

Probably the most accurate statement ever made in this blog.

Aren't govt. spending cuts usually not actual cuts in spending, but decreases in the amount of proposed increased spending?