As is usually the case, I'm out of step with the "prevailing wisdom."  This is okay, I've gotten used to it.  Still, I don't think I was the only kid who attended public schools who never bothered to even question the role of government in our lives until well into adulthood.  If that lack of critical thinking in regards to government isn't planned (and I'm not conceding that it's not - I still believe that things happen - for the most part - because people make them happen) it's at the very least certainly of great benefit to those in power.

 cc_rider wrote: 
There are in certain areas and districts which hire exemplary teachers (at higher rates) based on success rates.  Unfortunately, those districts are often only the most affluent, since areas with greater financial woes often do not have that option.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I agree, the success obviously varies by region and teachers, and the presence of bullies is a terrible reality far-too-often.  I generally did not like going to school, originally because I was reluctant to engage in the "social environment", and as I got older, there were occasional "bully" issues.  I went to public schools in the NYC metro area, and whatever skills I learned there helped in my adult life, but I won't deny that there are also some scars.  Eventually, most children will grow up and have to enter the un-sheltered life of an adult; it seems better (to me) that they learn about interaction throughout childhood, than all-at-once in adulthood.
Just my 2¢

 Lazy8 wrote: 
But if that skill is so rare, why is it not compensated accordingly? One argument for exorbitant executive salaries is 'to retain the best and brightest'. So why does that not apply to teachers? We generally agree being a teacher is a tough job, and not that many people have the ability to do it well. So why do we not compensate good teachers commensurate with their scarcity?

Am I missing something?

 Proclivities wrote:
School doesn't have to be a kid's whole life. The homeschoolers in my area have quite a network for activities, and those kids are over-represented in civic activities. Probably because they have time and freedom to pursue them.

 Proclivities wrote:

Schools are good and bad at this, sometimes both at once for different students. Some cope well with the social environment and find a comfortable place in the pecking order, some just get bullied, some become bullies. Some teachers are much better at creating a positive environment than others. Doing it well requires a very rare skill.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

Whether or not it's always "successful" socialization is another matter.  Where else have most people met their childhood friends (and enemies)?

 Proclivities wrote: 
Yeah, right. Socialization through school is like finding peace through war.

 winter wrote: 
A lot of schooling is not just about teaching the curriculum, it's about Socialization.  The outside world is very different then being at home with one's family; concepts like sharing, acceptance of others different from one's self, and general themes of interaction are pretty good to learn.

 winter wrote: 
Public school teaches you how to stand in line and be a good little servant to your master. This hasn't changed for years. Finally schools are looking at their methods and making changes.

School teachers and administrators are masters of the status quo. No conspiracy there, it's just the way they are. Unorthodox methods are not necessarily approved by the higher ups, because they don't like waves.

 oldslabsides wrote: 


It's also worth noting that schools teach children, who need little help in learning to push boundaries and flaunt rules. Find me a child who never misbehaves and I'd almost guarantee they've been abused.

Imagine how parents would react if their kids became more rebellious and unmanageable because of their teachers. And imagine how hard it would be to handle a classroom full of kids constantly questioning everything. You want them to think critically and question what doesn't make sense to them, but young kids aren't ready to start questioning authority in a meaningful way (and teenagers do it just fine on their own).

 Lazy8 wrote: 
The only thing I would add to this is that due to a confluence of influence from economics, politics and the realities of day to day life over the last ~30 - 40 years, a major purpose of schools has been to keep kids off the streets and generally out of trouble, real education has been a secondary concern in most places. With both parents working and limited opportunities for teenagers to get employment or vocational training, there is a real need for them to be someplace out of the way.  Schools (especially inner city ones), have become this placeholder.

It's no surprise then that the ones who go through the institution without working to take advantage of the learning opportunities are receptive to the message of "sit down, shut up, stay out of the way, don't complain".  

 oldslabsides wrote:
Don't sell yourself short. Research isn't that hard.

I think you and Miami are seeing a plot where there is none. A result doesn't always flow from a plan.

AM Talk radio is almost universally conservative. Hollywood is almost universally liberal. Was this by design? Hardly. It shook out that way, but nobody sat in his underground lair cackling over a master plan. The rules don't favor any particular faction but the audiences do, to some extent. AM talk radio mostly wafts out of speakers at blue-collar worksites and break rooms. It matches the tastes and biases of the audience. There are a few exceptions but they're vanishingly rare.

Hollywood movies are a bit different. The audience is broader but the people that produce it represent a very narrow political spectrum. You could count the oscar nominees from the last 30 years who aren't lefties on the fingers of one hand. They can't be too overt about it or half the audience will desert, but when was the last sympathetic portrayal of a corporate manager in a Hollywood movie?

RP forums are another good example. They are nothing like a cross-section of the country RP is based in: graphic designers and "knowledge workers"—people with all-day access to the internet—are way over-represented here. Bill's choices in music favor people with broad tastes and (to some extent) open minds, but mostly white baby boomers. And the politics of the forums mirrors that audience. Nothing about the rules here favors any particular faction, but the vast majority of what gets posted is from the left corner of American politics.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but they are a dogma, not a revelation. American education is done, by and large, by female college-educated union members. What do you expect to come out of that demographic? Yes, there is a tilt to the politics at the front of the classroom. It isn't universal but I'm willing to bet there are damned few teacher's lounges playing Gordon Liddy on the radio. And out of that kind of environment a subtle drift of the message taught comes out. It isn't by anyone's design, but it's real—and searching under the furniture for conspirators won't change it.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Given that I'm bereft of even a bachelor's degree in anything, my research skills are probably not up to the task, but that doesn't mean it isn't obvious to me - and in my humble opinion should be so to others -  that very little in the way of questioning the status quo was offered in the public education I was party to.  It's insidious - and that's putting it mildly - the indoctrination that victimizes the unwashed masses.  It's designed to be so.

John Dewey was a man who believed in "the greater good" and had a profound influence on public education in America.  It is this "greater good" that some of us have an issue with.  Either we belong to ourselves or we don't.  If we don't, we're nothing more than ants.

 aflanigan wrote:
With all due respect, I'm not surprised that most people don't see it. The abuse/indoctrination inherent in any government system isn't advertised or on the agenda, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. It works the same way in the military too. People are conditioned, and not in a good way. I might suggest that you look at other governments and take note of their abuses and wrong doing and use that same critical eye here at home. Peace

 Zep wrote: 
And replaced by whom?

It's easy to be discontented. It's our default mode. Now what?

n aloowa cc_rider wrote: 
In  my area, it's got nothing to do with greed. These are families that have lived here for 4 or 5 decades. They are  elderly people running for their lives from the gangs. The home invasions are unstoppable by any current form of law enforcement. The governmental failure of enforcing it's own laws is unforgivable and undeniable.

They should all be fired.

 miamizsun wrote: 

Well, if this is merely your "humble opinion", what do you base your opinion on?  On your recollection of your own education four decades ago?   I'm sorry that your schooling experience was so distasteful for you, but to extrapolate it into a broad-brush insistence that all US public schools are designed to "indoctrinate" students against libertarianism/anarchy strikes me as hyperbole.

I learned about government and social organizations (things like tribes, feudal systems, and other proto-governments) from a variety of sources, including books and discussions.  I believe, for example, that 1984 was required reading in one of my literature classes (how's that for indoctrination into statism?)

Yes, we learned the pledge of allegiance in school (written by a socialist/progressive), and we also learned about the Barnett decision that determined participation in the pledge of allegiance was optional.  We were not indoctrinated in a belief that the state, or federal government, was always right or could do no wrong.  Often in school we studied wrongs committed by various governments (like discrimination against blacks, genocide of native Americans, the Holocaust, etc), and studied other nations and cultures in the context of their being viable (if flawed) alternatives to our flawed system of government.

One of the most influential people I encountered in school was a physics teacher, Valentine J. Walsh, an irreverent, iconoclastic fellow who wore bow ties and taught students to question everything, especially authority.  He had no love for any government, but if you had invited him to be an anarchist, he would have skewered your theories as gleefully as he skewered anyone who rose to defend communism or capitalism or socialism or any other ism.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.  You can find the statewide Standards of Learning for the Commonwealth of Virginia HERE (go to the "MAIN MENU" on the right; the standards are listed by subject).  If, as you claim, public schools are designed to indoctrinate students into a belief in statism/a prejudice against libertarianism/anarchy, it would have to be done on the state level, because there is no national curriculum.  Feel free to comb through these standards (which form the basis for basically all curriculum materials and pacing guides used in Virginia schools, and are the blueprint followed by textbook publishers who hope to sell textbooks to Virginia schools) and locate, if you can, the proof to back up your opinion.

 bokey wrote:
Those houses are unattended due to an unchecked infestation of criminals on Wall Street, and DC too for that matter. It is that infestation that has so destroyed the internal fabric of our nation.

I am not trying to discount your anger, Bokes. I'm just saying we've always had criminals and we've always had illegal immigrants. What we have NOT always had (at least not for about 80 years) was a financial system run amok.

My guess is there are plenty of legal citizens perpetrating that vandalism and theft too. Those houses are empty because greedy-headed people tried to buy houses they had no way to pay for, and because other greedy-headed people gave the first batch all the rope they needed to hang themselves, while raking in huge fees.