The following e-mails were received after the authors read the missives sent to learn-usa.com and accessible from The Web of Deceit – K12®. The authors, Mary Thompson and Leslie, have done an excellent job of describing the tactics of the trained facilitator.

Tactics of the Trained Facilitator

I read every word of the exchange of correspondence you posted re: K-12. Your antagonist is so typical of a couple kinds of people. I have found that ...

1. there is the trained change agent/facilitator whose only means of pseudo debate is their definition of “dialogue”. It requires other listening “ears” since the psychology of group dynamics is foundational. Their first consideration is not to persuade you personally. The objective is to discredit you so you don't influence others. If their “trained” modulated original tone of “voice” doesn't disarm the one they are challenging, they go to the next step of “authoritative” tone designed to impress with “credentials”. When that doesn't work, they challenge the opponent's legitimacy to express facts. When that doesn't work, the knuckles get white, the tone of “voice” becomes shrill, and the motives and accusations of political agenda are used. When that doesn't work, they take their self righteous leave of the scene implying that the challenged party is not worthy of their time and warped wisdom.
2. I've encountered another similar, but differently motivated type. They are sincerely wrong but committed to the erroneous idea. They usually have some vested interest in whatever they are defending, being part of an organization behind the program or issue or whatever. They see themselves as spokesmen for not only the issue, but also the organization sponsoring it. Any criticism of the issue is construed as an attack on the organization and its representatives. They are truly blinded by the association of which they are a part. They, too, start out mildly trying to bring you around with true sincerity. They actually are interested in changing your mind, individually. As that doesn't work, however, they begin to question your authority to question the institution or idea. The debate becomes more strident as with the trained change agent. Ultimately, both do the same “exit” scenario of being the one to cut off the exchange, dismissing the challenger as unredeemable.

Long ago when I challenged my church synod about their bragging about being the first of that denomination to adopt PPBS, I was finally told, “Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. We suggest this correspondence cease”. To this day, I suspect, the official correspondent had no clue what he was defending, but someone up the chain did.

The passing reference to the Modern Red Schoolhouse leaped out at me. I am currently reading a book, Commies, A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left, by Ronald Radosh, co-author of the Rosenberg File. In the book, he has a chapter titled, “The Little Red Schoolhouse” in which he describes his days as a child of New York Communist Party parents (the commie youth camps, the schools, etc.). He attended a private school in NY, Elizabeth Irwin School,

“distinctive in that it was a refuge for teachers who would be thrown out of the public school system because they would not sign the Feinberg Law oath, stating that they were not members of CPUSA, refusing to testify at HCOUA, etc...”

He says,

“There was a reason why we called the institution we attended 'the Little Red Schoolhouse for little Reds.”

One wonders about the name of the Modern Red Schoolhouse for the 21st Century.

Mary Thompson

California

Note: There is a book, put out by Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1995, entitled Schooling for “Good Rebels”; Socialism, American Education, and the Search For Radical Curriculum by Kenneth Teitelbaum with a foreword by Herbert Kohl. This book describes the “Socialist Sunday Schools” of New York. In reading the book, it is hard to miss the parallel to systems education. Kenneth Teitelbaum, at the time this book was published, was an Associate Professor in the Division of Education at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamtom.

I was thinking about this last night. Because I had just heard of a positive response to an on-line debate, I thought about what was the difference.

In the case where the lady responded positive, after some lengthy back and forth, she actually switched gears from opinion to fact. She went out and did some background research as she had been encouraged to do. She ate humble pie! She was willing to admit that yes, she had been only spouting opinion, and an ill-informed one at that! She went on to sign the WSFH Statement and Resolution.

What a stark contrast to Lynn's debates with this so-called “Gladys.” Some of us have concluded that “Gladys” and some of these other “ladies” are not real people at all, but plants from the public policy institutes and think tanks, well-trained in the exact form of debate that Mary described yesterday, and perfectly willing to go so far as to engage in very nasty personal attacks and threats.

The days of gentle grassroots activism are over. We are now facing the big boys head-on and they aren't pleasant. In fact, they aren't pleased that a truly spontaneous, genuine grassroots movement erupted. They intended to control all sides of the debate from the Right to the Left, and suddenly a few websites show up, and a few articles by Lynn Stuter appear, that expose their agenda a bit too closely.

Leslie

╪