Kevin's Watch

Cybr, you asked him to show you either of two things:

Cybrweez wrote:7W, show me the OBJECTIVE measure that proves only OBJECTIVE reality should be taught in any arena. Or to be specific, the OBJECTIVE proof that public school should leave religion to the parents. Or, show the OBJECTIVE proof public school should do ANYTHING it currently does.

He did. He showed you the second thing you asked for. The correlation between academic success and a successful life is the objective proof that school should be doing anything it currently does.

Now, if you want to change "or" to "and", you can. i'll answer it now. But we need to ask your real question: Why shouldn't public school teach YOUR religion, and no other? And the answer is because I am also paying for it, and I will not agree to any religion being presented as the One Truth. I will not agree to the existence of a creator being presented as a fact. The objective proof is that my money is being used, and you are not allowed (or should not be allowed) to do with my money whatever you want. Other people may have other criteria for how their money is used in education, but one of mine is that we teach facts that nobody, not even you, can argue with. If I was the only one who felt this way, or part of a tiny minority, I might not waste too much of everyone's money by fighting you. But there's plenty of us, so you can't force your views on my children without a fight.

So, religion is a fact of humanity. To my knowledge, all cultures have some sort of religion, even if not every member of every culture does. As I've said, I think we should teach about all religions. Maybe that's not possible, but we can possibly get a good cross-section, with several different major groups represented.

What Fisty said. Teach 'em all, or don't teach any of 'em.

I agree. I find teaching religion in schools to be quite useful, but it should be a cross-section, or at least a selection. My school wasn't a great one, but it taught a teeny bit of Christianity, then large chunks of Islam and Hinduism. Hinduism was actually really interesting.

I didn't follow any of them then, and I don't now - but it was interesting to look at them and come to understand them, at least to some extent.

rusmeister wrote:There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.

Wow, for something that isn't taught, you are able to define it with amazing precision. You can deduce all that from what is left unsaid in every classroom? Are you sure that's what is being taught? Do you have evidence for this conclusion?

Just because a math class, or a chemistry class, or a shop class remains silent on the Ultimate Truth does not mean that it is implicitly stating a view on this Truth--no more than remaining silent on Shakespeare in a math class is implying an opinion on his work.

From my standpoint you have an entire system that denies any truth by de facto denying the discussion of it - which is automatically hostile to Christianity

That's like saying that the math class I mentioned above is hostile to Shakespeare because it doesn't talk about him. If the class is not called, "Religion 101," there is no reason to discuss it. Leaving it out of the discussion isn't an anti-Christian conspiracy, it's just staying on topic.

I'm saying that the school system is in fact constructed on the basis of a particular philosophy/worldview, which it DOES teach by default without ever saying a word about it. It is impossible to teach (or even do) anything without having a worldview on it, and it is impossible to construct an education system without proceeding from an overarching worldview in doing so.

I agree that everything is taught within a particular worldview. But you are wrong to suppose that worldview is selected for anti-religious purposes, simply because that worldview excludes religion. In virtually every case, religion is simply off-topic. For instance, a shop class is taught with an implicit "worldview" that it's advantageous for humans to learn how to use tools. Knowing that Jesus was a carpenter isn't necessary for this goal. It doesn't help students to learn how to use power tools. (They run off of electricity, not the Holy Spirit.)

The modern school system proceeds from the view that moral/religious truth cannot be known - I'd like to say 'that the only truth is material truth', but I'm afraid it's worse than that, but for practical purposes, that is the base that is proceeded from.

I think it is fair to say that science classes are taught from the perspective of naturalism ("The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.") But that's becuase this is the worldview behind science, not the worldview behind education. We would be doing students a disservice if we taught them with a different worldview than the one science itself utilizes, if our goal is to teach them science.

However, this act of teaching does not presuppose that moral/religious truth cannot be known. Many scientists are religious. But that doesn't mean they include god in their equations and theories. Like schools, these religious scientists separate out their religious opinions when doing their job. Does this exclusion mean they suddenly doubt God? No, it means God isn't necessary to this particular task.

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.

Wow, for something that isn't taught, you are able to define it with amazing precision. You can deduce all that from what is left unsaid in every classroom? Are you sure that's what is being taught? Do you have evidence for this conclusion?

As a matter of fact, I do, Malik.
(Hi guys! Sorry about the building lack of response on recent threads - I'm sick, overloaded with work, and not up to much now.)
Malik, I fulfilled requirements for teachers in both NY and CA. I can certify from personal experience that it is REQUIRED that teachers profess the modern ideology that I have described (despite claims of 'tolerance') - most teacher candidates are 23-yr old females who have been brought up in this ideology and do not question it, and so, have no problem. But for people who believe in the freedom of thought to challenge conventional (mis)understandings of 'tolerance', 'diversity', etc, the path to teaching is barred. Teachers of public schools MUST comply with the requirements. If a course requirement (and it was a point in every. single. course. in my state teacher prep program) requires one to show how they will teach these concepts when the candidate fundamentally believes that they are wrong, they will be failed - on the basis of what they believe - not on any lack of academic merit. The case of Steve Head www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html is just a case in point (PS - I, as an agnostic, made a similar challenge, but upon a similar response from the instructor, decided to shut my mouth and toe the party line - for me, getting the credential was absolute priority). These requirements are continued in the constant mandatory trainings, staff mtgs, etc. Point is, the teachers in the classrooms have no choice but to believe and profess those things.

Fact - those are state requirements, pretty much universal, as far as I know, across the United States. NY and CA I know from personal exp, TX and VT from research, etc. All teachers are required to profess that ideology on a regular basis.

It is true that much of what a math teacher deals with will not touch on moral/religious questions. But at the same time, is math, for example, completely isolated? Of course not. But whatever whys or motivations for learning the facts, as well as the context in which facts are to be understood, must ultimately refer to that particular worldview. Reference to any other - specifically, that one of them is actually true, or more true than others, is a risk to one's career.

Sorry I don't have time for more. I'm somewhat dismayed that people did not understand what I said and still speak of tolerance, etc as if it were an unqualified good, as if there were no such thing as something not to be tolerated, no such thing as a philosophy actually poisonous and destructive, or as if there were no such thing as negative impact from this enforced world-wide mixing of cultures. Also at the inability to see that the value of all things to be taught proceeds from a very definite worldview; the assumption that worldview can be completely divorced from what is being taught. Anyway, hope to clarify more over the next week!

rusmeister wrote: . . . for people who believe in the freedom of thought to challenge conventional (mis)understandings of 'tolerance', 'diversity', etc, the path to teaching is barred. If a course requirement . . . requires one to show how they will teach these concepts when the candidate fundamentally believes that they are wrong, they will be failed - on the basis of what they believe - not on any lack of academic merit. . . . Point is, the teachers in the classrooms have no choice but to believe and profess those things.

There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.

So you're forced to believe that you can believe whatever you want? Assuming that even makes sense, what's the problem? It sounds like they don't want you forcing your beliefs upon children and teaching your personal opinion as if it were a fact. If schools didn't have this requirement, I'd be really worried.

All teachers are required to profess that ideology on a regular basis.

Sorry, I don't believe it. If you can produce some kind of documentation that shows our education system forcing teachers to believe "there is no Truth," I'd love to see it. Until you do that, this sounds way too paranoid to be true.

Are there any other teachers out there who can verify that our system constantly forces teachers to swear they believe there is no truth?

Sorry I don't have time for more. I'm somewhat dismayed that people did not understand what I said and still speak of tolerance, etc as if it were an unqualified good, as if there were no such thing as something not to be tolerated, no such thing as a philosophy actually poisonous and destructive, or as if there were no such thing as negative impact from this enforced world-wide mixing of cultures. Also at the inability to see that the value of all things to be taught proceeds from a very definite worldview; the assumption that worldview can be completely divorced from what is being taught. Anyway, hope to clarify more over the next week!

I think we all understand you. We just disagree. I think it's silly to be scared of this "poisonous philosophy" that teaches us we can believe what we want. I find it much more frightening that you seem to have no problem with the idea that children should be taught that they can't believe what they want, and that there must be one absolute truth. I am very relieved that we have a system which weeds out people like you from teaching their personal beliefs in our public schools as if they were facts.

"Profess the ideology"?

"Profess the ideology"?

I'm trying to find the words.

Really.

I'm sorry, but this was so far removed from any facsimile of rational discourse.....

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote: . . . for people who believe in the freedom of thought to challenge conventional (mis)understandings of 'tolerance', 'diversity', etc, the path to teaching is barred. If a course requirement . . . requires one to show how they will teach these concepts when the candidate fundamentally believes that they are wrong, they will be failed - on the basis of what they believe - not on any lack of academic merit. . . . Point is, the teachers in the classrooms have no choice but to believe and profess those things.

There IS an attitude (worldview) publicly taught, and yet is couched in language that makes it difficult to define. Put simply, it is: You can believe whatever you want. But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual. In a word, there is no truth. There are only facts. Only what can be "proven" (in the scientific sense) is true.

So you're forced to believe that you can believe whatever you want? Assuming that even makes sense, what's the problem? It sounds like they don't want you forcing your beliefs upon children and teaching your personal opinion as if it were a fact. If schools didn't have this requirement, I'd be really worried.

Malik, the part you bolded is the concession they make. Why don't you highlight the words that follow, which is what I am saying?
But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual.
This IS what is required, and the language that this EQUALS "there is no truth" is carefully avoided. I told you I was a lazy agnostic when I went through those programs and my public school experience. I believed in being honorable, but did not believe in God. It was the intensity and universality of those requirements that eventually drove me towards faith - to kick back against them was a starting point that made begin asking the questions I had hitherto avoided.
Point is, the resulting overarching truth is that there is no truth.

And the evidence? How about a majority of people on this forum who went through (and probably graduated) public education that all believe what I am describing and are fine with it and only two or three people on the other side of that divide? Shouldn't there be a much more even divide between people who believe in absolute truth and those who don't? Why does everyone use the words "in my opinion" and "from my point of view"? Because they all, by strange coincidence, came to that same view on truth - something we know that, when left on its own, we don't - or because that's. what. they. were. taught?

Malik23 wrote:

All teachers are required to profess that ideology on a regular basis.

Sorry, I don't believe it. If you can produce some kind of documentation that shows our education system forcing teachers to believe "there is no Truth," I'd love to see it. Until you do that, this sounds way too paranoid to be true.

Are there any other teachers out there who can verify that our system constantly forces teachers to swear they believe there is no truth?

First of all, they don't don't ask teachers to "swear". They require them to profess, in the prep classes and in the school, something that adds up to the proposition that there is no truth. On this, all you have to do is go to course descriptions that list requirements for the course and for the teacher. Most private accredited programs doubtless have similar requirements, but I can't claim to be certain of that - but I will bet on it. It can be objectively proven - just takes a bit of work. Would you believe it then? Go to every state college of education, it's teacher certification program, course requirements, and look for a point that requires the teacher to demonstrate how they will "teach the values of tolerance, diversity, social justice, etc." All standard buzzwords that are designed, not to make you think, but to stop thought, by the way.

Malik23 wrote:

Sorry I don't have time for more. I'm somewhat dismayed that people did not understand what I said and still speak of tolerance, etc as if it were an unqualified good, as if there were no such thing as something not to be tolerated, no such thing as a philosophy actually poisonous and destructive, or as if there were no such thing as negative impact from this enforced world-wide mixing of cultures. Also at the inability to see that the value of all things to be taught proceeds from a very definite worldview; the assumption that worldview can be completely divorced from what is being taught. Anyway, hope to clarify more over the next week!

I think we all understand you. We just disagree. I think it's silly to be scared of this "poisonous philosophy" that teaches us we can believe what we want. I find it much more frightening that you seem to have no problem with the idea that children should be taught that they can't believe what they want, and that there must be one absolute truth. I am very relieved that we have a system which weeds out people like you from teaching their personal beliefs in our public schools as if they were facts.

Since you happen to agree with the public education philosophy (strange coincidence!), of course you think it's silly.
I think I have established a rational case that the philosophies are at war, all the more because you are glad that people like me have been weeded out. So much for the pretense of tolerance. The root of what you believe is what I have described. It doesn't matter what I believe, because it can't reflect a truth that also impacts you. Faith doesn't matter and doesn't really reflect ultimate truth. It is nice, it is quaint - so go ahead and believe it - but it is irrelevant to truth. That is what many here believe. Because that is the baseline ideology that is taught. Pounded in over 13 years of school plus whatever university time you put in. It's pretty thorough conditioning.

Once again, how did Neo react in the Matrix on learning that everything he had been taught to believe was an engineered lie? How would you react in similar circumstances? Denial would be the first and automatic response.

Seven Words wrote:"Profess the ideology"?

"Profess the ideology"?

I'm trying to find the words.

Really.

I'm sorry, but this was so far removed from any facsimile of rational discourse.....

If I were disposed to be offended, I would be. But really, 7W, what on earth makes you think that there is no connection to rational discourse? I suspect that you merely lack some of my context for saying what I said.

Hopefully my response to Malik has made perhaps a few things clear.

PS: I have my own response to your observation on success, but can't keep up with everything right now. I'll just ask you to define the word "success" and then from what worldview we should evaluate the concept.

rusmeister wrote:Once again, how did Neo react in the Matrix on learning that everything he had been taught to believe was an engineered lie? How would you react in similar circumstances? Denial would be the first and automatic response.

When someone is accused of being an alcoholic, and he says, "I'm not an alcoholic!", the accuser says, "That's the first thing an alcoholic would say." But it's also the first thing someone who's not an alcoholic would say.

No, absolute tolerance is not a good idea. We should not toleract the Nazi way of life. And we should not tolerate someone who wants to teach that their, or any, version of Christianity is the One Truth of existence. No, I didn't put you in the same paragraph as Nazis because I think your worldviews are similar, or equally evil, or anything like that. You're both just two examples of things that should not be tolerated. Falling off my house might not be as bad as falling off the Empire State Building, but both are bad.

rusmeister wrote:Malik, the part you bolded is the concession they make. Why don't you highlight the words that follow, which is what I am saying?
But what you believe does not and can not reflect an absolute truth that also affects others. It is personal. Individual.
This IS what is required, and the language that this EQUALS "there is no truth" is carefully avoided.

No, that sentence isn't saying there's no truth. It's saying not everyone agrees on what 'the truth', and as someone who is going to profoundly influence the development of children, you should accept that not everyone will see the 'truth' you see.

Rus--

You're right. That was rather offensive of me, and uncalled for. I'm sorry.

Without trying to be offensive (trying for maximum clarity), your statement shows your basic assumptions are far, far divorced from virtually everyone else's perceptions of reality. I said PERCEPTIONS of reality, not simply "reality". To be absolutely honest, they sound a lot like schizo-typal paranoid ideation, where vast numbers of anti-Christians toil in a never ending conspiracy to utterly suppress Truth. Substitute "democracy" for Christianity, and your statements look like those of the 1950's warnings about the "Red Menace".

I do not think (nor do I desire for) my comments to change your religious beliefs. What I'm hoping for is to get you to reevaluate how you present your beliefs to society at large, and reexamine your assumptions about said society.

Fist and Faith wrote:He did. He showed you the second thing you asked for. The correlation between academic success and a successful life is the objective proof that school should be doing anything it currently does.

Great point. And if you know public education history, it started basically teaching the Bible, that's how kids learned to read. And, the country was pretty successful back then too (wasn't removed til what, '50s?). So, if that's the reason, its hardly a good one to determine what to teach, especially in regards to a religion.

Fist and Faith wrote:Now, if you want to change "or" to "and", you can. i'll answer it now. But we need to ask your real question: Why shouldn't public school teach YOUR religion, and no other?

No, my real question was as stated, IOW, what objective measure is there to determine what we should teach. In regards to anything, not just religion, not just Christianity. I know you may want to focus on that example. The point, there is no FACT that says, "you should teach me in school". Is that not nonsense? WE determine what is valuable.

Fist and Faith wrote:Other people may have other criteria for how their money is used in education, but one of mine is that we teach facts that nobody, not even you, can argue with.

This makes history unteachable, as there is plenty of argument over what really happened. A lot of science too, b/c of course science is constantly changing, so that indicates argument. Obviously, I'm sure you didn't really mean what you said, but I'm not sure what you did mean.

Fist and Faith wrote:If I was the only one who felt this way, or part of a tiny minority, I might not waste too much of everyone's money by fighting you. But there's plenty of us, so you can't force your views on my children without a fight.

Cool, and vice versa.

Sorry, I can't quote only certain parts of a post with my cell.

Cybr... Regarding your first part, it's never been my position that the objective facts that we all agree are objective facts can't be taught as well in the type of setting you want as they can in the type I want. My position is that your setting teaches other things; things that I object to being taught as objective facts.

Regarding your second point, the objective measure should be objective facts. Teach what we all agree are objective facts if you want to use my money to do the teaching.

Regarding your third point, there are certainly inaccuracies. Especially in the field of history. What do we know to be absolute fact about the Roman Empire, other than the fact that there was a Roman Empire? How are those "facts" known to be accurate? Personally, I don't know. I know the "facts" I was taught about Columbus' discovery of the Americas are now thought to be a load of crap; horrible mistreatment and murder of the Native Americans he found spun into pretty tales of exploration.

Science is another matter. There is no question that at least some of the ends of the chains of knowledge are wrong. But there is also no question that the rest of the chain is accurately known, and we'll refine the ends as we become aware of the problems.


Regarding your last point, I am not trying to force my worldview on either of our children. I want them to be allowed to form their own worldviews, based on all the data to which they can be exposed. But you and rus want our children to be exposed to all the data they can be, but in such a way that they will be unable to see any overall worldview but Christianity.

Seven Words wrote:Rus--

You're right. That was rather offensive of me, and uncalled for. I'm sorry.

Without trying to be offensive (trying for maximum clarity), your statement shows your basic assumptions are far, far divorced from virtually everyone else's perceptions of reality. I said PERCEPTIONS of reality, not simply "reality". To be absolutely honest, they sound a lot like schizo-typal paranoid ideation, where vast numbers of anti-Christians toil in a never ending conspiracy to utterly suppress Truth. Substitute "democracy" for Christianity, and your statements look like those of the 1950's warnings about the "Red Menace".

I do not think (nor do I desire for) my comments to change your religious beliefs. What I'm hoping for is to get you to reevaluate how you present your beliefs to society at large, and reexamine your assumptions about said society.

Thanks, 7W,
(Doing triage on responses - preference given to polite, thoughtful posts)
I totally get why you would think that. It is far from what most people perceive. I would encourage you to check out Gatto's research (and credentials - otherwise you would be asking why read stuff that at first glance looks like crackpot stuff). I find it to be true for 2 simple reasons. 1) Gatto knows the system. You can't not learn it over 26 years in it. 2) It explains everything. Why everything is in the mess it is, why some people do OK in spite of it, and why it is impossible to reform the system.

I'd start with the History Tour, tho'. Takes just a couple of minutes:
www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm

A brief excerpt from his "Underground History" (Free online - it's a comfortable read.) www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
:

With conspiracy so close to the surface of the American imagination and American reality, I can only approach with trepidation the task of discouraging you in advance from thinking my book the chronicle of some vast diabolical conspiracy to seize all our children for the personal ends of a small, elite minority.

Don’t get me wrong, American schooling has been replete with chicanery from its very beginnings.*

Indeed, it isn’t difficult to find various conspirators boasting in public about what they pulled off. But if you take that tack you’ll miss the real horror of what I’m trying to describe, that what has happened to our schools was inherent in the original design for a planned economy and a planned society laid down so proudly at the end of the nineteenth century. I think what happened would have happened anyway—without the legions of venal, half-mad men and women who schemed so hard to make it as it is. If I’m correct, we’re in a much worse position than we would be if we were merely victims of an evil genius or two.

If you obsess about conspiracy, what you’ll fail to see is that we are held fast by a form of highly abstract thinking fully concretized in human institutions which has grown beyond the power of the managers of these institutions to control. If there is a way out of the trap we’re in, it won’t be by removing some bad guys and replacing them with good guys.

Who are the villains, really, but ourselves? People can change, but systems cannot without losing their structural integrity. (More...)

www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue8.htm

If you go through it, hopefully the perceptions of 'irrational paranoiac' will fade. Consider this - if the perceptions of a majority do not explain a situation or phenomenon - why it is in the state that it is in, but a theory that, though strange-seeming, does explain it, is it not worth at least considering as a possibility?

Look up "Horace Mann" and his connections to Prussia and its education system (which happens to be the one most people went through).

Another big surprise for me was how close Frank Gilbreth, Sr. was to the 20th century developments (via Taylor). I always liked "Cheaper by the Dozen", and it never occurred to me that that stuff was connected to the Superman, Shaw's ideas on engineering human behavior, etc. When you read Dewey and discover that that's what he talks about, too, it gets eerie. But I've already said too much.

Rus--

I have read some of those materials in college. Not for any class, just curiousity. The fact that America/world in general is not thoroughly Christian is seen as a a problem, the assumption being that Christianity is the correct state of affairs. Therefore, their logic goes, there must be active widespread opposition. From those premises, their analyses are logical and consistent. However, schizoid belief structures are also logical and highly internally consistent. Their logic,however impeccable, still depends on unproven (in fact, unprovable) assumptions.

These writers are not any different (excepting sometimes the call for violence) than the imams who explain, in detail, how the world is oppressing Islam. Same sort of interpretations of historical events, same basic assumption (except it's Islam rather than Christianity which is cast as the natural proper way). For that matter, I know of a few rabbis who portray Judaism in this manner, too.


--edit to clarify....the "call to violence" is in reference to the imams who use their perceived persecution to justify jihad....I said sometimes because I know of more than a few Christians who espouse Dominionist interpretations of Scripture, and encourage violence to bring the world to Christ.

Seven Words wrote:Rus--

I have read some of those materials in college. Not for any class, just curiousity. The fact that America/world in general is not thoroughly Christian is seen as a a problem, the assumption being that Christianity is the correct state of affairs. Therefore, their logic goes, there must be active widespread opposition. From those premises, their analyses are logical and consistent. However, schizoid belief structures are also logical and highly internally consistent. Their logic,however impeccable, still depends on unproven (in fact, unprovable) assumptions.

These writers are not any different (excepting sometimes the call for violence) than the imams who explain, in detail, how the world is oppressing Islam. Same sort of interpretations of historical events, same basic assumption (except it's Islam rather than Christianity which is cast as the natural proper way). For that matter, I know of a few rabbis who portray Judaism in this manner, too.


--edit to clarify....the "call to violence" is in reference to the imams who use their perceived persecution to justify jihad....I said sometimes because I know of more than a few Christians who espouse Dominionist interpretations of Scripture, and encourage violence to bring the world to Christ.

You must not be familiar with Gatto. he's a Buddhist-leaning guy, but doesn't talk about Buddhism at all or present lack of Buddhism as a problem.

Again, before you assume conspiracy theory/crackpot ideas/complaints from Christians, etc, I'd encourage you to look at what is actually being said.

Rus--


I'm not dismissing their assertions based on perceived "wackiness" (for want of a better term). I'm dismissing them because without solid, intangible, objective proof I can NOT share their basic premises. If you start from the same premises they do, then everything else follows in a logical, rational manner. It makes perfect sense under those conditions. They are well thought out, well-researched. But the premises are flawed (i.e., not proven).

Seven Words wrote:Rus--


I'm not dismissing their assertions based on perceived "wackiness" (for want of a better term). I'm dismissing them because without solid, intangible, objective proof I can NOT share their basic premises. If you start from the same premises they do, then everything else follows in a logical, rational manner. It makes perfect sense under those conditions. They are well thought out, well-researched. But the premises are flawed (i.e., not proven).

This makes no sense to me. We are not talking about religion or faith here. We are talking about a quite objective and investigable history of compulsory education in the United States. Did Horace Mann and colleagues travel to Prussia to observe Prussian education? Objectively so. Did Mann collaborate with the governor of Massachusetts to install Prussian education in the US? Undeniable fact. Did NY quickly follow suit? Proven. What premises are you talking about? What on earth do you need for proof?? If teachers tell you that that requirements for certification are thus-and-so (verifiable, generally even online), if basic recorded historical facts are presented, complete with references, dates, primary sources, etc, then it would seem that nothing would satisfy. Ever.

FWIW, in your defense, if I hadn't worked in the system myself, I probably would have been more skeptical of Gatto myself. But the premises are rock-solid. It's not a question of faith - except in whether you believe that any history can be established/known at all.

Rus--

They are starting out assuming there's active opposition to the "Truth" of Christianity (since it's not universally taught/accepted, there must be active opposition), and seeing everything through the lens of that assumption. Christianity as sole truth, and active organized anti-Christian conspiracy (for want of a better term) are the premises I need proof of.