It is true many students lost their schools and some 372,000 had to be adopted by neighboring school districts and states. There are several ideas to give the kids and schools the best opportunity for success. "Let's have every campus in the regions where displaced students are temporarily residing - every public, private or charter school - compete for these kids. For each student who enrolls, the schools should receive $7,500 in federal funds - which is the current average annual cost per pupil in the public schools, according to the Texas Education Commissioner" (Goodman, 2005). I think this is a great idea because it will give both the students and parents more latitude without overwhelming each school.
The article makes an interesting point about the schools not necessarily being the best fit for a student if only judged externally. I would assume the best schools would be located in the most affluent areas, but this is not always the case. Goodman states, "You might be tempted to try wealthy Highland Park, suburban Plano or one of the pricier private schools. But that might not be the best option, particularly if you are minority, poor and your child is scoring well-below grade level." The fact is that certain schools are much more successful at educating minorities than others, and even more specifically some schools are more effective at educating either blacks or hispanics than other races. This is very interesting data and should be readily available to parents for guidance in their child's educational future.
There is even suggestion that mathematicians and scientists be allowed to teach without having ever taught. I understand the desire to attract the brightest minds to teach the brightest minds, but many "bright minds" do not have the disposition to be a teacher. It's one thing to bring in mathematicians and scientists because there is a shortage of qualified teachers, which I believe is a perfectly sound reason. However, the reality is if you are a mathematician or scientist worth your salt and have any social skills, the school system is not going to be able to afford you. Which brings me to my next point, these schools would have the ability to pay the teachers more in order to attract the best of the best to educate these students. I do not agree with this because it sounds like preferential treatment is being given to schools who are educating evacuees. There are many students in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area not just the schools teaching evacuees. Every student would benefit from having the best teacher available. This sounds to me like political PR to smooth over tension because of the FEMA fiasco. The whole philosophy of equality is everyone gets an equal opportunity.
All in all I think the majority of this proposal was well planned. It would create beneficial competition amongst schools as different schools flexed their educational muscle demonstrating their strengths and weaknesses. The government would give assistance directly to the school to provide money for more teachers, and the educational needs of newly enrolled students. Giving the students and parents the opportunity to choose the best school for their needs provides the best opportunities for all. I do take exception to the salary increase because there are many great teachers who work just as hard but will not be compensated for their efforts because they do not teach evacuees.
I like this model for coping with the arduous circumstances a surplus of students provide. I think it would be very effective for school systems offering vouchers for students at underachieving schools to attend schools with higher achievement scores. I do not believe the current one in Tennessee provides information about school performance as specific as the demographics provided for the Texas schools. This is most beneficial for helping the student choose the best school. The only addendum I would make is pay increase would be issued to ALL teachers who demonstrated exemplary ability not just those teaching evacuees.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
What Do We Do? #4
Immigration is s a slippery slope for most politicians because in today's culture of political correctness no one wants to offend another. I love America and would fight for this country if it meant keeping its freedoms and ideals. Many Americans would lay their lives for their beloved country, but as our government continues to prove its ineptness, those good ol' America is the best country in world types are becoming disenchanted by our government's irresponsibility. Our country used to be one that upheld the law, but over the last 20 years we have ignored the increasing problem of illegal immigrants. The biggest concern is terrorists. If I was a terrorists, I would enter America through the path of least resistance. There is no question that entering America through Mexico would be much simpler for terrorists than through Immigration Services. We have demonstrated very poor judgement with our border control. Now, we are facing an extraordinary flow of immigrants to our country, and this is a burden we may not be able to bare.
The multiculturalist perspective is one that sounds good in theory, and ideally, we would be unified by a common bond, but will we? Kirsch states similar sentiment,
"I want to focus my remarks on the distinctions between these two conceptions of multiculturalism. On the surface, they have a lot in common. Both seem to advocate pluralism, express admiration for diversity, and have a broad sympathy for the values to be found in all cultures. But in their philosophical and practical implications the two conceptions are polar opposites. One version is the universalistic view of Melville, which might be called "cosmopolitanism." The other is a particularistic vision that stresses loyalty to one's local culture. It could be called ethnocentrism, but one can also use the less pejorative term "ethnic loyalism."So the issue about multiculturalism that we need to decide is this: Do we define ourselves as belonging to a particular "ethnos" or do we define ourselves as belonging to a broad "cosmopolis"?
That was a mouthful, but I think it highlights one very disconcerting trend we are experiencing in America today. There is as much division to today in America as there ever was. I do not see the unity across our great land that made America the most powerful nation in the world. I see America as a shell of its former self if the current trends are not corrected. There is much more ethnic loyalism than cosmopolitanism in America today, and the education system knows it because there would not be such an urgency to assimilate our cultures if this were not true. The hispanics need to learn English if they want to be Americans not the other way around. We are converting everything Spanish to accommodate them, why? During the Roman empire there were a few groups the Romans were not able to dominate and suppress in order to establish their culture in place of the indigenous one. The Jews and German Barbarians were at least two cultures that were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire. Right now, there are two groups that going to giving us trouble as well. The muslims some will assimilate but many will not, and the Hispanics are but very slowly. I say this out of concern for our country. Why do we continually invite more foreigners to our nation, instead of, coming to grips with reality? Aren't we just inviting more trouble down the road?
This responsibility is put squarely on the shoulders of the education system. We must develop a curriculum that engages all and teaches various perspectives. If we do not, then, the very fabric that held this wonderful country together will begin to disintegrate. I do not believe the curriculum necessarily needs an overhaul, but if our goal is unity, then, we definitely need a multicultural perspective to bring harmony to the imbalance. We must embrace a cosmopolitan perspective as opposed to ethnocentric.
The multiculturalist perspective is one that sounds good in theory, and ideally, we would be unified by a common bond, but will we? Kirsch states similar sentiment,
"I want to focus my remarks on the distinctions between these two conceptions of multiculturalism. On the surface, they have a lot in common. Both seem to advocate pluralism, express admiration for diversity, and have a broad sympathy for the values to be found in all cultures. But in their philosophical and practical implications the two conceptions are polar opposites. One version is the universalistic view of Melville, which might be called "cosmopolitanism." The other is a particularistic vision that stresses loyalty to one's local culture. It could be called ethnocentrism, but one can also use the less pejorative term "ethnic loyalism."So the issue about multiculturalism that we need to decide is this: Do we define ourselves as belonging to a particular "ethnos" or do we define ourselves as belonging to a broad "cosmopolis"?
That was a mouthful, but I think it highlights one very disconcerting trend we are experiencing in America today. There is as much division to today in America as there ever was. I do not see the unity across our great land that made America the most powerful nation in the world. I see America as a shell of its former self if the current trends are not corrected. There is much more ethnic loyalism than cosmopolitanism in America today, and the education system knows it because there would not be such an urgency to assimilate our cultures if this were not true. The hispanics need to learn English if they want to be Americans not the other way around. We are converting everything Spanish to accommodate them, why? During the Roman empire there were a few groups the Romans were not able to dominate and suppress in order to establish their culture in place of the indigenous one. The Jews and German Barbarians were at least two cultures that were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire. Right now, there are two groups that going to giving us trouble as well. The muslims some will assimilate but many will not, and the Hispanics are but very slowly. I say this out of concern for our country. Why do we continually invite more foreigners to our nation, instead of, coming to grips with reality? Aren't we just inviting more trouble down the road?
This responsibility is put squarely on the shoulders of the education system. We must develop a curriculum that engages all and teaches various perspectives. If we do not, then, the very fabric that held this wonderful country together will begin to disintegrate. I do not believe the curriculum necessarily needs an overhaul, but if our goal is unity, then, we definitely need a multicultural perspective to bring harmony to the imbalance. We must embrace a cosmopolitan perspective as opposed to ethnocentric.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Where to Start? #3
This are some topics I have a lot of opinions about some of them are not always politically correct, but really what is political correctness except a divisive effort to silence anyone who rocks the boat, all in the name of tolerance. There is no question that the face of America is changing, and I do not insinuate that I have all of the answers. However, a Kingdom divided against itself will not stand, and America is more divided now than ever before. There is very little unity over what direction the nation should go, and not one of our politicians seems to really know anything.
For a nation to succeed, there has to be some sort of ideology to galvanize the people as one. As already stated America is more divided than ever. It is like America is becoming many smaller nations within itself. The sense of patriotism and pride associated with being an American is becoming a thing of the past. I had a black friend in high school that told me, "I would never go to war for America." I thought that was ridiculous because of all the freedoms we have, but he did not see it that way. Who wouldn't fight to keep this country the greatest country in the world? Yet, he did not feel the same nostalgia for America as me. Today, that sentiment is growing by leaps and bounds. I never thought about Modern America being the white man's country especially according to the history books having such an impact on non-white Americans. The truth is the Europeans settled this country and did so the only way they knew how. They relied on the backs of slave labor and removing their competition(Indians) to do this. The truth is that not all history tickles the ears, and the European settlers did some shameful things all in the name of conquest. Cannot various perspectives throughout history be entertained while still bringing unity to the American ideal? Can we instill pride and honor to everyone without forgetting who we are?
I am sure many white Americans feel the pressures from such an influx of diversity. I do not know any that want to secede from the Union, but I know a lot who would like to see all of the illegals sent back to their homes. I am one of those. A commonality between the Roman Empire before it fell and the USA today is both were overran by illegal immigrants, just a thought. I do not understand our government when it comes to immigration be it illegal or legal. The muslims are not our friends regardless of how nice we play, and we are inviting them into our backyard. We as a nation are losing our backbone, and no one wants to do what is right because someone else might be offended. The point I am making is that we cannot make everyone happy, but we will try at the cost of our own identity. Why are we trying to reach every ethnic group in the world and make them feel at home? Why are we allowing our nation to become bilingual? It's so simple. If you come here illegally or legally, learn the language and assimilate into the culture. Why are we the ones making all of the changes to accommodate the foreigner? Since these are political maneuvers of today, it is also reflected in the classroom. If I moved to another country, I would be fluent in their language in 6 months. I would want to be an asset not a burden. What's the problem? I bring these political issues because they are educational issues as well.
Another remark I found interesting was the comparison of a multiculturalist to multi-faith or multi-religion. I found this interesting because there is worldwide movement to homogenize the major world religions. What better way to gain unity throughout a people than have them share a similar ideology? As the division of our nation increases so will its fragility. Somethings have to change but who is gonna do it?
For a nation to succeed, there has to be some sort of ideology to galvanize the people as one. As already stated America is more divided than ever. It is like America is becoming many smaller nations within itself. The sense of patriotism and pride associated with being an American is becoming a thing of the past. I had a black friend in high school that told me, "I would never go to war for America." I thought that was ridiculous because of all the freedoms we have, but he did not see it that way. Who wouldn't fight to keep this country the greatest country in the world? Yet, he did not feel the same nostalgia for America as me. Today, that sentiment is growing by leaps and bounds. I never thought about Modern America being the white man's country especially according to the history books having such an impact on non-white Americans. The truth is the Europeans settled this country and did so the only way they knew how. They relied on the backs of slave labor and removing their competition(Indians) to do this. The truth is that not all history tickles the ears, and the European settlers did some shameful things all in the name of conquest. Cannot various perspectives throughout history be entertained while still bringing unity to the American ideal? Can we instill pride and honor to everyone without forgetting who we are?
I am sure many white Americans feel the pressures from such an influx of diversity. I do not know any that want to secede from the Union, but I know a lot who would like to see all of the illegals sent back to their homes. I am one of those. A commonality between the Roman Empire before it fell and the USA today is both were overran by illegal immigrants, just a thought. I do not understand our government when it comes to immigration be it illegal or legal. The muslims are not our friends regardless of how nice we play, and we are inviting them into our backyard. We as a nation are losing our backbone, and no one wants to do what is right because someone else might be offended. The point I am making is that we cannot make everyone happy, but we will try at the cost of our own identity. Why are we trying to reach every ethnic group in the world and make them feel at home? Why are we allowing our nation to become bilingual? It's so simple. If you come here illegally or legally, learn the language and assimilate into the culture. Why are we the ones making all of the changes to accommodate the foreigner? Since these are political maneuvers of today, it is also reflected in the classroom. If I moved to another country, I would be fluent in their language in 6 months. I would want to be an asset not a burden. What's the problem? I bring these political issues because they are educational issues as well.
Another remark I found interesting was the comparison of a multiculturalist to multi-faith or multi-religion. I found this interesting because there is worldwide movement to homogenize the major world religions. What better way to gain unity throughout a people than have them share a similar ideology? As the division of our nation increases so will its fragility. Somethings have to change but who is gonna do it?
Friday, June 17, 2011
Religion- What Is It Good For! Absolutely Nothing! #2
I used to be a bartender, and I only had a few rules: don't annoy me, don't annoy my customers, no religion, and no politics. Politics and religion polarize people in a way no two other subjects can. You could only imagine how quickly drunk people will get into a yelling match; hence, the rule. If you think because of the title of my post that I do not want anything to do with religion then you would be correct. However, I love Jesus!!! If you are confused, no problem, I will clarify.
I used to be quite a wild young man. Without going into a whole lot of detail, lets just say I lived the bartender lifestyle to the fullest. For several years I was looking for something. The funny thing was I did not even realize I was looking for it until I found it. I was searching high and low for Jesus unbeknownst to me. The irony was HE was there the whole time. Finally, after so much struggling and failure, I was ready for a change. It was Christmas night 2005 when my family was praying that I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I had an encounter with Jesus and my life was never the same. I left my life behind in Knoxville and moved back home. Jesus is so good!!!! Three months later, I spent 2 months in Kenya traveling throughout the countryside telling people about how the radical love of Jesus changed my life. You might be thinking, "what does this have to do with anything?"
The reason I say this is because our problems can all be resolved by one thing, a relationship with Jesus. It is not about religion. Religion constricts and distorts man's image of God. Religion is simply knowing about God, but Jesus died so that we could know HIM and when you know someone on a personal level, that's a relationship. A.W. Tozer said, "A civilization can never rise above it's own perception of God." I would submit to you that right now America's perception of God is dismal. The reason is because so many do not know Him. He is actually very nice and loves to talk to His children. So many Christians especially in America have waved the banner of religion but forgotten their first love, Jesus. The result is people become so disenchanted with the Church and everything it represents they want nothing to do with it. That is the harvest we are currently reaping in America. The secular progressivism that is so pervasive today results from people wanting nothing to do with religion. The fact is people have already been to church, and they found nothing there they wanted. How can people who do not know Jesus demonstrate His love and kindness to others? The answer is simple; they cannot. This is the root of problem.
For me, there is no separation between Church and State, and if you read the Bible, you will see God is really into politics. I have some very concrete beliefs and am unwilling to compromise. When I read articles like these, I already know the outcome. Nowadays, when our government rules about religion, it often slants towards the secular. Sadly, we are trying to excommunicate God from everything that could possibly cause conflict but at what cost? We have a generation of children growing up that are more messed up than ever. So many kids are on drugs these days, it's crazy. Did we ever stop and think? "You know, the moral decline in America correlates to us separating ourselves from God and going our own way."
I guess the irony of it all is that we all have a faith system, but if you believe in evolution, you can't. Evolution states that everything happened by accident and we are all here by one big, accidental, biological experiment that turned out in our favor. If that is true, then nothing I do matters. There is no hope. There is no purpose because it all evolved from chance. The irony is that people who believe in evolution do not usually also agree, their life has no meaning, but ultimately, if you accept evolution, you must accept the former.
The case with Jehovah's witness is interesting because I for one love America and Jesus and see absolutely no conflict with scripture. He quoted from the 10 commandments, but a graven image is something that is worshipped. I would have asked him about Romans 13:1 which states," Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." God is very clear about submission to authority in both the Old and New Testament. In fact, there are several more verses that are just as plain that support submission to authority. The Lord is also very plain about honor, and saying the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag is nothing more than honoring our country. It is in no way worship or idolatry. Idolatry can be defined simply as anything that you put before God. It is something that you worship. I see absolutely no conflict with scripture. I would have ruled against the Gobitases.
In closing, I would love to see something done in the classroom that would actually be beneficial. Educators are so focused on trying to get results, but we are leaving out the One who brings the harvest. I would love to see creationism taught, prayer in the classroom, the 10 commandments on the wall, and lives radically changed not managed. However, I would like to see it because it was valued. We used to invite God into our Nation but we are slowly asking Him to leave. He is a gentleman and will honor our request. We are trying to disciple a nation without the One who created discipleship. We are disregarding the most important foundation our country was built upon. Hopefully, America does not have to get into the same mess as I did before I saw the Light.
Reference:
Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Romans 13:1
Tozer, A. W., (1961). The Knowledge of the Holy.
I used to be quite a wild young man. Without going into a whole lot of detail, lets just say I lived the bartender lifestyle to the fullest. For several years I was looking for something. The funny thing was I did not even realize I was looking for it until I found it. I was searching high and low for Jesus unbeknownst to me. The irony was HE was there the whole time. Finally, after so much struggling and failure, I was ready for a change. It was Christmas night 2005 when my family was praying that I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I had an encounter with Jesus and my life was never the same. I left my life behind in Knoxville and moved back home. Jesus is so good!!!! Three months later, I spent 2 months in Kenya traveling throughout the countryside telling people about how the radical love of Jesus changed my life. You might be thinking, "what does this have to do with anything?"
The reason I say this is because our problems can all be resolved by one thing, a relationship with Jesus. It is not about religion. Religion constricts and distorts man's image of God. Religion is simply knowing about God, but Jesus died so that we could know HIM and when you know someone on a personal level, that's a relationship. A.W. Tozer said, "A civilization can never rise above it's own perception of God." I would submit to you that right now America's perception of God is dismal. The reason is because so many do not know Him. He is actually very nice and loves to talk to His children. So many Christians especially in America have waved the banner of religion but forgotten their first love, Jesus. The result is people become so disenchanted with the Church and everything it represents they want nothing to do with it. That is the harvest we are currently reaping in America. The secular progressivism that is so pervasive today results from people wanting nothing to do with religion. The fact is people have already been to church, and they found nothing there they wanted. How can people who do not know Jesus demonstrate His love and kindness to others? The answer is simple; they cannot. This is the root of problem.
For me, there is no separation between Church and State, and if you read the Bible, you will see God is really into politics. I have some very concrete beliefs and am unwilling to compromise. When I read articles like these, I already know the outcome. Nowadays, when our government rules about religion, it often slants towards the secular. Sadly, we are trying to excommunicate God from everything that could possibly cause conflict but at what cost? We have a generation of children growing up that are more messed up than ever. So many kids are on drugs these days, it's crazy. Did we ever stop and think? "You know, the moral decline in America correlates to us separating ourselves from God and going our own way."
I guess the irony of it all is that we all have a faith system, but if you believe in evolution, you can't. Evolution states that everything happened by accident and we are all here by one big, accidental, biological experiment that turned out in our favor. If that is true, then nothing I do matters. There is no hope. There is no purpose because it all evolved from chance. The irony is that people who believe in evolution do not usually also agree, their life has no meaning, but ultimately, if you accept evolution, you must accept the former.
The case with Jehovah's witness is interesting because I for one love America and Jesus and see absolutely no conflict with scripture. He quoted from the 10 commandments, but a graven image is something that is worshipped. I would have asked him about Romans 13:1 which states," Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." God is very clear about submission to authority in both the Old and New Testament. In fact, there are several more verses that are just as plain that support submission to authority. The Lord is also very plain about honor, and saying the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag is nothing more than honoring our country. It is in no way worship or idolatry. Idolatry can be defined simply as anything that you put before God. It is something that you worship. I see absolutely no conflict with scripture. I would have ruled against the Gobitases.
In closing, I would love to see something done in the classroom that would actually be beneficial. Educators are so focused on trying to get results, but we are leaving out the One who brings the harvest. I would love to see creationism taught, prayer in the classroom, the 10 commandments on the wall, and lives radically changed not managed. However, I would like to see it because it was valued. We used to invite God into our Nation but we are slowly asking Him to leave. He is a gentleman and will honor our request. We are trying to disciple a nation without the One who created discipleship. We are disregarding the most important foundation our country was built upon. Hopefully, America does not have to get into the same mess as I did before I saw the Light.
Reference:
Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Romans 13:1
Tozer, A. W., (1961). The Knowledge of the Holy.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
It Is What It Is- #1
I never really put much thought into who the most influential educators have been. I never thought about the pioneers of education as either innovators or makers. I have very little knowledge about the continuing evolution of education, and to be completely honest, I'm O.K. with that. As I perused the list of the most influential innovators, I only noticed two names in which I definitely was familiar, Horace Mann and Booker T. Washington. I could not for the life me tell you what each man's contribution to education was before reading their brief biographies. However, the "makers" list from Gatto's website is a whose who of the most notable American business men in American history. Everyone listed is a common household name, such as, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Ford, the fathers of American Big Business. In fact, many of their contributions to society are still being experienced today.
Innovators desire change for the benefit of the student in order to bring about educational reformation. Every single person on the list recognized a problem and sought a way to change it for the better. The main difference between innovators and "makers" would be the purpose motivating their agendas. Each innovator is typically altruistic serving the needs of others who are suffering from social prejudices including race, class, and gender, as well as changing the paradigm from which we approach education it self. On the other hand, the "makers" tend to serve personal interests and have much to gain if Gatto's assertions are true implying the purpose for education is to train the population to be manageable, need driven consumers which provide the kindling to fuel America's powerful capitalistic economy.
As an innovator, Booker T. Washington stands out to me because he wanted to teach useful vocational skills to his fellow African-Americans, instead of ,what some would esteem as "true education". He was the founder of the Tuskegee Institute for African-Americans, a school which provided vocational and character education. I wonder if his motivations for doing this, vocational training, were centered upon a belief that blacks would not get a fair shake; therefore, vocational training would be the most realistic method to provide jobs since their opportunities would be limited. I think he was more pragmatic than that. I believe Booker T. Washington knew that the American black population needed as much relief as possible from the marginalized role they had in society, and vocational training was the quickest, easiest, and most reasonable area for the black population to find a niche in society.
Another man I find very intriguing is Andrew Carnegie. He is listed as one of the "makers". He was originally from Dumferline, Scotland and came to America when he was a young boy. He held a few odds and ends jobs as a young man but nothing of any consequence. Nonetheless, he came into his own by growing and building the world's largest steel company, Carnegie Steel Company. In 1901, he sold Carnegie Steel for 480 million dollars to J.P Morgan, who merged with several other steel companies to become U.S. Steel. Carnegie had become the second richest man in the world, second only to man by the name of John D. Rockefeller. He was truly a rags to riches story, but what is even more amazing was his desire to give. He truly believed that everyone should have access to libraries. He built over 3,000 libraries throughout the world and contributed large donations birthing several universities; one of these included the Tuskegee Institute.
Gatto would have us believe that Carnegie and his contemporaries only contributed to education because it satisfied their own needs for capitalism. It seems like quiet an conspiracy to assume the wealthiest want a society with a herd mentality, but if you look at society as a whole, that's what ya got. So maybe, the 4th Rule really is not too far off base. However, I like to believe that Carnegie's motivation was simply for the betterment of his fellow man. It sure warms the heart to embrace Carnegie and his cohorts as people who see a need and are trying to fulfill it the best way possible; instead of, Carnegie helping Booker T. Washington because he saw a labor force in training. Honestly, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
Innovators desire change for the benefit of the student in order to bring about educational reformation. Every single person on the list recognized a problem and sought a way to change it for the better. The main difference between innovators and "makers" would be the purpose motivating their agendas. Each innovator is typically altruistic serving the needs of others who are suffering from social prejudices including race, class, and gender, as well as changing the paradigm from which we approach education it self. On the other hand, the "makers" tend to serve personal interests and have much to gain if Gatto's assertions are true implying the purpose for education is to train the population to be manageable, need driven consumers which provide the kindling to fuel America's powerful capitalistic economy.
As an innovator, Booker T. Washington stands out to me because he wanted to teach useful vocational skills to his fellow African-Americans, instead of ,what some would esteem as "true education". He was the founder of the Tuskegee Institute for African-Americans, a school which provided vocational and character education. I wonder if his motivations for doing this, vocational training, were centered upon a belief that blacks would not get a fair shake; therefore, vocational training would be the most realistic method to provide jobs since their opportunities would be limited. I think he was more pragmatic than that. I believe Booker T. Washington knew that the American black population needed as much relief as possible from the marginalized role they had in society, and vocational training was the quickest, easiest, and most reasonable area for the black population to find a niche in society.
Another man I find very intriguing is Andrew Carnegie. He is listed as one of the "makers". He was originally from Dumferline, Scotland and came to America when he was a young boy. He held a few odds and ends jobs as a young man but nothing of any consequence. Nonetheless, he came into his own by growing and building the world's largest steel company, Carnegie Steel Company. In 1901, he sold Carnegie Steel for 480 million dollars to J.P Morgan, who merged with several other steel companies to become U.S. Steel. Carnegie had become the second richest man in the world, second only to man by the name of John D. Rockefeller. He was truly a rags to riches story, but what is even more amazing was his desire to give. He truly believed that everyone should have access to libraries. He built over 3,000 libraries throughout the world and contributed large donations birthing several universities; one of these included the Tuskegee Institute.
Gatto would have us believe that Carnegie and his contemporaries only contributed to education because it satisfied their own needs for capitalism. It seems like quiet an conspiracy to assume the wealthiest want a society with a herd mentality, but if you look at society as a whole, that's what ya got. So maybe, the 4th Rule really is not too far off base. However, I like to believe that Carnegie's motivation was simply for the betterment of his fellow man. It sure warms the heart to embrace Carnegie and his cohorts as people who see a need and are trying to fulfill it the best way possible; instead of, Carnegie helping Booker T. Washington because he saw a labor force in training. Honestly, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)