I have recently joined, on a free trial basis, a group which involves consumers in education. Their site is: Education Consumers Clearinghouse.
My latest conversation was today with Mona in England, see below:
From Canada, just joining the ECC conversations. Mona’s posting today reminds me of conversations we had at CIDOC, Ivan Illich’s center in Cuernavaca, Mexico in the 70’s (he of deschooling fame).
1) Yes, I believe we can date the “crippling” to have started around 50 years ago (Mona’s words: half a century). Let’s pin this down as to the factors that contributed to making of parents and children as dependent clients.
2) At CIDOC we talked about the “iatrogenic” results of schooling. As in medicine, unintended illness or symptoms generated from medical treatment (Mona’s words: in school…at public expense…by hard-working, well-meaning but MIStrained teachers).
3) Yes, I too as a parent was told “not to interfere” with education. It was some kind of catechism handed down from the teacher unions, as I generally heard this first at school board meetings when parents dared to question methods (as new math, sight vs phonics, ita, etc.).
I am recording, for the historical record, my own experiences of the last half century in my blog.
I am hoping to produce an essay on the issues raised by Mona and hope others can contribute research and effort to establishing more genuine parent involvement in education, not less.
In another recent communication with Tom, he had said:
if education remains a socialist enterprise, all of our gains will eventually be swept away by the sort of creep who inevitably rises to the top in organisations which are not subject to the disciplines of the marketplace
I sent him the following note:
Reminds me of the Peter Principle:
The theory that employees within an organization will advance to their highest level of competence and then be promoted to and remain at a level at which they are incompetent.”
[After Laurence Johnston Peter (1919–1990).] Please remember or be acquainted with the origins of those insights of Mr. Peter’s. He was a long time employee in the Vancouver School Board system here in British Columbia, Canada.
I hope to shortly produce a d-r-a-f-t essay on the issues discussed plus bring forth a solutions-based approach to the problems of “hierarchism” as so ably articulated by Mr. Peter who probably should have received a Nobel Prize in Economics before he died.
The solution proposed will be the libertarian notion of subsidiarity:
Subsidiarity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level…
From Catholic social teaching:
The principle of subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person…