Anti-school sentiment

[Dave Scotese]

Had I had nothing but my own fancy, I would still be at the same stage. It was because of being coerced into reading, that I chanced to take that book and that I discovered a great love for reading...

How would you know this? Why would you make that assumption about yourself? Are you still learning? Are you still in school? Do you still have a teacher?

Foster its talents, but sometimes a little coercing doesn't go amiss.

Sometimes. But I think the question is - what's your best guess - coercion goes amiss more often, or freedom does? On this point, just from reading this one post from you, I think you sell yourself short, and you project that deficiency unfairly on others.

There are four situations to keep track of:

1. Coercion that produces outcomes better than average.
2. Coercion that produces outcomes worse than average.
3. Freedom that produces outcomes better than average.
4. Freedom that produces outcomes worse than average.

If we limit this to school, since no one "old enough" is coerced into school, we can only use the young as examples. So we can then use homeschoolers as the Freedom example and public-schoolers as the coerced examples (although homeschoolers are still coerced, they are coerced less). Most measures of success show a higher score for homeschoolers than for public-schoolers. I haven't heard of any study the finds the ratio of homeschoolers with poor outcomes to homeschoolers with good outcomes, but comparing that ratio to the same thing measured for public-schoolers would help too. Maybe there's some in the books.

Your post also suggests that you don't consider learning something that kids can do without a teacher (you consider parent vs school as "the teacher"). Is the necessity of a teacher one of your assumptions?

[stlukesguild]

I've been reading a lot of non-fiction. I have three kids and I work from home, so we enrolled in CAVA, which is a homeschool program. I started reading about education and have come to view school as quite damaging. If non-fiction is tolerated here, I'm interested whether anyone has read anything by John Taylor Gatto or Grace Llewellyn.

The first problem with both Gatto and Llewellen is that their ideas are nothing new. One can largely dismiss Llewellen's ideas as rehashed hippy-dippy versions of what Rousseau put forth a good many years ago in Emile and the concepts of Dewey... which have never been practical on a large public institutionalized scale. Llewellen bases her arguments on a mere three years experience as a teacher and then throws out ideas like this? :

"A healthy social life requires much more that indifferent daily acquaintanceship with three hundred people born the same year you were. It starts with a solid sense of self-esteem and self-awareness. It builds in time -- time to spend with other people in worthwhile, happy activities where no one loses, no one is forced to participate, and where conversation and helping one another are not outlawed."

- Grace Llewellyn, in The Teenage Liberation Handbook, how to quit school and get a real life education.

Building student "self esteem" has been a favorite concept of progressive education for ages. Unfortunately it ignores most facts: American students have plenty of self esteem. They think far more highly of themselves than students from anywhere else. The problem is that this self esteem is often disproportionate, misplaced, or undeserved. In one study example students taking a math test were asked before testing began how well they knew their subject and how well they thought they would do. The American students invariably stated that they knew their subject very well and would do extremely well while students from Korea, Japan, and Germany... all who actually did far better on the test... were far more honest about what they felt they didn't know.

This sense of false self esteem is in part the result of continual efforts of progressive educators to promote "feel good strategies" in which no one ever makes a mistake, gets something wrong, or fails. T-ball replaces baseball so that the kid who can't hit a pitched ball can still get a hit. Teachers are prodded to offer positive comments even on wrong answers or poor tests. Words like "don't" or "no" are to be avoided... even red ink should be avoided when marking wrong answers as they may demoralize the child. Absolute bunk... and the result is a false sense of accomplishment that has nothing to do with the realities all students will eventually face in the adult world where competition rules and corporations and employers don't give a rat's as@ about your fragile sense of self esteem.

Gatto is a figure to be taken a bit more seriously. The model of modern public education is indeed based upon the concept of creating a large population of workers able to function within our industrial society. Such was the basis of classes in rows, bells, lining up and all going to the bathroom at the same time, and the past efforts to "correct" any bad habits such as left-handedness. Gatto may overstate the case is his arguments suggesting that all the failings of public education (the boredom, the lowering of standards, etc...) are the result of some grand draconian plan for churning out continual good consumers... although I suspect their is indeed something of the desire of the wealthy to keep everyone in their place involved in allowing such poor conditions and lack of resources to be even acceptable in the poorest schools in the nation.

Unfortunately, the abandonment of public education and the move to home-schooling or private schooling will only intensify the problem of the gap between the rich and the poor. Of course this solution is favored by many conservatives because it affords them an escape from the unpopular ideas presented in public schools (evolution, multiculturalism, religious tolerance). Public education also represents a huge potential for profit for those establishing large private schools.

Just how prepared is the vast percentage of our population to undertake home-schooling? Certainly wealthier families may get by on a single income while one parent remains home and teaches the children... but even then, how prepared are they to tackle a broad array of subjects... especially as the child becomes older? Where does this leave the middle class who depend upon two incomes... or the huge percentage of single-parent families? Where does this leave the poor urban parents who in many cases are not well educated themselves? Yes, there are some teachers who are unqualified to teach, but let's be honest about just how many parents are seriously qualified to replace them. Let's also be honest when we consider the fact that a student in public school has access to a number of teachers... many of whom specialize in one subject or another... as well as other specialists just as social workers, guidance counselors, therapists, psychologists, etc... Public education has many problems, but abandoning it is not the solution.

Before jumping on Gatto's (and especially Llewellen's less than scientifically grounded) ideas, it might due to look at a few alternative viewpoints. I would especially put forth E.D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them). Hirsch was a great champion of a liberal idea of public education... the notion that all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society. Hirsch, however, noticed that many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as Llewellen's "feel-good/no losers" approach) actually had the exact opposite effect... especially in the poor schools which needed it the most. Hirsch discovered that the Italian politician and theorist, Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by Mussolini) had recognized the problem of progressive education as early as the 1930s:

"The new concept of Schooling is in its Romatic phase (ala Rousseau) in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated... Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new aspect of school is being advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but crystallize them in Chinese complexities."

The "romantic" progressive concepts of schooling avoid the learning of "facts" because it is feared these will perpetuate stereotypes... the notion that one writer, one artist, one historical personage is more important than another. This is them combined with the lack of any real federal or national standards resulting in a system in which almost every school has its own curriculum... makes its own choices about what books to read and what facts to present. When this is combined with No Child Left Behind which led to schools focusing upon teaching strategies for taking tests, the result is an absolute mess in which we cannot be certain that a child in this school at this age will be expected to have mastered the same knowledge and skills as a student in another school just around the block... let alone across the country.

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist. The reality is that public education is not the end-all/be-all. Once a student has mastered certain facts, reading, math, etc... he or she is certainly free to branch out and explore other alternative ideas and voices... and certainly higher education should be expected to offer just that. At present, however, higher education needs to begin at a remedial level... teaching many of the basic skills and body of knowledge that should have been mastered inelementary and secondary school.

Of course Hirsch's plan is not a cure-all. Public schools in the US especially face many challenges (poverty, gangs, violence, drugs, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, lack of parental involvement, etc...). The notion of a strong and clear curriculum stating what should be learned by grade 4... by grade 5, etc... enforced by a federal government that does not pass laws and then push the responsibilities off on the states would certainly be a solid start.

Most measures of success show a higher score for homeschoolers than for public-schoolers.

The problem with these studies is that they are inherently skewed. The homeschoolers already have the advantage of engaged parents. The public scores of the public schools are certainly not helped by the scores of the large number of students whose parents are not involved and who have no interest in learning. Such a comparison is not unlike the other commonly quoted fact: Students who are held back a grade do worse than those who never failed. This is often used in support of the idea of social promotion. Of course it ignores the fact that what should be compared is the success of students who should have been held back until they had mastered the skills needed to move on (and not the success of all students who were never held back) with those who were given the extra needed time.

I haven't heard of any study the finds the ratio of homeschoolers with poor outcomes to homeschoolers with good outcomes, but comparing that ratio to the same thing measured for public-schoolers would help too. Maybe there's some in the books.

There probably are such studies. Again... considering the fact that the parents are the most important element in a child's learning, I have little doubt that home-schooled students probably do better on a whole. The problem, however, remains that such an option is an impossibility on a large scale. There are far too many parents unable to home-school their children properly for it to be put forth as a practical alternative excepting on an individual voluntary basis.

[Dave Scotese]

The first problem with both Gatto and Llewellen is that their ideas are nothing new.

I think you must mean that they have already been refuted in the past. Not being new generally qualifies something as already proven useful (hence its existence in the present). But you haven't provided any refutation. So what are you getting at?

One can largely dismiss Llewellen's ideas as rehashed hippy-dippy versions of what Rousseau put forth a good many years ago in Emile and the concepts of Dewey... which have never been practical on a large public institutionalized scale. Llewellen bases her arguments on a mere three years experience as a teacher and then throws out ideas like this? :

[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]"A healthy social life requires much more that indifferent daily acquaintanceship with three hundred people born the same year you were. It starts with a solid sense of self-esteem and self-awareness. It builds in time -- time to spend with other people in worthwhile, happy activities where no one loses, no one is forced to participate, and where conversation and helping one another are not outlawed."

It sounds like you haven't read any Llewellyn except the bit I quoted. More on this later...

Gatto may overstate the case is his arguments suggesting that all the failings of public education (the boredom, the lowering of standards, etc...) are the result of some grand draconian plan for churning out continual good consumers...

Not sure what you're talking about. The history book he wrote shows pretty clearly that there was no grand plan - just lots of not-so-useful-to-students minority interests that find their way into any coercive institution by lavishing favor on the perpetrator of the coercion.

Unfortunately, the abandonment of public education and the move to home-schooling or private schooling will only intensify the problem of the gap between the rich and the poor.

You are absolutely right, and you qualify it quite well below...

Just how prepared is the vast percentage of our population to undertake home-schooling? Certainly wealthier families may get by on a single income while one parent remains home and teaches the children... but even then, how prepared are they to tackle a broad array of subjects... especially as the child becomes older? Where does this leave the middle class who depend upon two incomes... or the huge percentage of single-parent families? Where does this leave the poor urban parents who in many cases are not well educated themselves?

Exactly. They are not prepared to undertake homeschooling. Well, teenagers are, but not the parents. And they are not prepared to tackle a broad array of subjects either - no one really is, not these days when our knowledge is so vast. Forcing parents to take responsibility for their kids rather than sending them off to school would certainly be a hardship for many middle class families, and even moreso, the poor urban parents. This is an excellent qualification of your earlier point.

This is why I am encouraging people to read these books. When parents understand how much more valuable their children can be to them if the time school takes away is given back, they will start choosing to let the kids start learning on their own rather than being forced to attend school.

The danger here is that many who kids are old enough and on the verge of giving up on their ability to learn could use such new freedom to complete the process of giving up and become the low quality kind of people that are associated with dropping out of high school. This is what makes Llewellyn's book so important. These kids have to get the chance to rediscover their ability to learn without teachers before it's too late. This ability is what school destroys the most. Look through the thread and you'll find that nearly everyone who doesn't support homeschooling holds an implicit assumption that learning cannot take place without a teacher. Take a critical look at yourself and you'll see that you have learned plenty without teachers. We're born with that ability.

Before jumping on Gatto's (and especially Llewellen's less than scientifically grounded) ideas, it might due to look at a few alternative viewpoints. I would especially put forth E.D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them). Hirsch, however, noticed that many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as Llewellen's "feel-good/no losers" approach) actually had the exact opposite effect...

Here's a list from Hirsch:

* LESS whole-class teacher-directed instruction
* LESS student passivity, sitting, listening, receiving
* LESS attempts by teachers to cover large amounts of material
* LESS rote memorization of facts and details
* LESS stress on competition and grades
* MORE experiential, inductive, hands-on learning
* MORE active learning with all the attendant noise of students doing, talking, collaborating
* MORE deep study of a smaller number of topics
* MORE responsibility transferred to students for their work: goal-setting, record-keeping, monitoring, evaluation
* MORE choice for students; e.g., picking their own books, etc.
* MORE attention to affective needs and varying cognitive styles of students
* MORE cooperative, collaborative activity.

If you compare Llewellyn's work with this list, you'll see that she is advocating the same thing. Hence my suspicion that you really don't know what she wrote about. She is putting the burden of implementing this list on those students (who choose it) rather than the system. And they go for it with gusto too.

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist.

I haven't read much of Hirsch, but from what you've written here and a brief Internet search, it seems that he writes about efforts to educate through the state. On californiahomeschool.net, I found "The facts and skills [Hirsch] identifies are based on reports issued by state departments of education, professional teachers' associations and the educational systems of several other countries, like Japan, France, Sweden and West Germany, which he considers successful." He is not addressing homeschooling, probably because, as you point out, homeschooling by choice is generally far more successful than public school.

I think at core, I have to agree with you that forcing the parents of existing publicly-schooled students to homeschool them would be a disaster. That's not what I'm promoting. I am promoting an exploration into the possibilities that open up for those who are able to free themselves of the educational stranglehold the state has on us.

There are far too many parents unable to home-school their children properly for it to be put forth as a practical alternative excepting on an individual voluntary basis.

Absolutely. I think everything is that way. Individual choice is really an important element in all kinds of endeavors. I hope no one ever construes anything I propose as something that should be protected from individual choice.

[JBI]

Honestly, the reason why places like Japan, Korea and Taiwan, and for the most part, the bulk of the former Eastern Bloc countries for the past 50 or so years have done better in terms of test scores, which can be measured cross-nationally, meaning mostly math, and the sciences, is quite simply because education in those societies was, and in the case of the former three countries, is far more intense.

Take Japan for example - the schoolyear there is far longer than the school year in The United States. Children go to school for far more days during the year, and therefore benefit from more exposure to material. There is also the other major factor at play, quite simply, in Japan, if you don't put in the effort, and you don't get the grades, from what I understand from talking with Japanese people, and from reading (which of course, is limited to a Canadian perspective, I must admit) in Japan, if you don't do well, you will fail, and people won't pity you like they do here, and won't help you; they will merely let you fail, and let you amount to nothing.

In the Eastern Bloc countries, it seems to have been similar. From my experience, people from those countries were all far better at math and at subjects like physics than their North American counterparts by far. The reason for this, is because, quite simply, if you didn't do well, you wouldn't do well - plain and simple.

I can't tell you how many people here, that I went to school with, all slacked off, and then used their parents' fortunes for boosting their marks. It seems here, that the people who generally have the highest grades, and achieve the most, quite simply are the ones who take things seriously, and put in the most effort - ironically, where I went to school, these people happened to be mostly those from South-East Asian, and South-Asian countries, as well as the few from former Eastern Bloc countries, such as Romania, and Russia. The rich Jewish kids, whose parents were all doctors, and had far larger resources available to them as a whole, had far worse averages, in almost all subjects (the one difference on a compulsory subject was probably English, but I think that is somewhat understandable) than the small minority families, who, for the most part, came from unestablished families, most of which had just emigrated to the country.


Homeschooling makes sense, as long as the parent/teacher is up for the task, and the student is made to take things seriously, and do extra work. Quite simply though, it is not practical - putting that much faith in the parents does not work, and cannot work. That's really the reason for standardization in schooling - quite simply, the fact that a person in a bad area would be subjected to a worse education, as a means of boosting the general grade of the school could not possibly be beneficial, as it would, in the long run, merely perpetuate a sense of generational poverty.

The system of schooling, ultimately, is designed to sift out those who can make it, and those who can't. In order to make it, one needs two things, 1) a lot of effort, and 2) a good foundation, and perhaps a little bit of natural talent. Generally speaking, if the right effort is put in, nobody should have a problem reaching a proficient level making them fit for working, and functioning in society. Despite this, however, the system ultimately fails, as, quite simply, people fall bellow the line, and don't care. When they fell, instead of maintaining the bar, educators, it seems, merely lowered the bar. My literacy test for high school was the biggest joke in the world. The questions were, quite simply, "what is your favorite color", or "write a story based on this photograph." We were given 3 hours, I finished in 40 minutes, with the messiest handwriting in the world, that quite simply I can't even read, didn't take it seriously, and passed without another thought. With such an attitude toward the test then, it is no wonder that people aren't taking things seriously.

Now, how does this apply to homeschooling? Well, quite simply, if the parent is bad, lazy, or does things wrong, the student suffers. Generally, if the family is less well off, the student's grades will be too (there is a correlation here). This isn't even taking into account domestic issues, such as child abuse, and simple bad-parenting.

The public school system, however, quite simply tries to flatten things, and give everyone the same tests. That is the goal, to provide education the same way for everyone, no matter what their background is. In the past, in the States particularly, the system wasn't quite public - African-Americans would be sent to 'lesser' classes, or in some States, different schools, and the odds would be rigged against them (as they were for their parents, causing domestic issues at home as well). Ultimately then, what the system needs is for everyone to get the same opportunity. From a governmental perspective, the easiest way to solve the problem (which is more like make it appear that problem was solved) was to pass everybody. What really needs doing though, is to intensify things. If kids are in school more, quite simply, they are going to have less exposure to the inequalities outside of school. When the whole population is in the same school programs, generally there will be a more equal footing, and those who deserve to succeed, will ultimately come out on top. Beyond that though, if, for instance, instead of the summer break being 2 and a half months, it was one month long, like in Japan, not only would the amount of material covered go up, but the amount of equality would increase too, as, quite naturally, parents are likely to, if they have the money or time, boost their children during the summer, where money permits, by sending them to, for instance, summer camps, or other programs, designed to be both educational and interactive, and if the year is longer, such monetary boosting will be more difficult.

Homeschooling then, if taken seriously, would fix the problems with education - if the parent is good, has the time and resources, then the student can learn things faster, better, and have far more exposure, and perhaps more hands on experience. I see no reason, for instance, that such a child would need to sit in a boring classroom when they could be, for instance, reading a book under a tree. But what happens when such resources are not available - what happens with a single-parent family, with the parent not having much of an education either?

Homeschooling then, ultimately would have the exact same problems as the regular school system. The only way to really curb that then, is, like I said, to intensify things, and make it clear right from the start, both on an educational level, and on a societal level, that if you don't try hard, and don't do well, you will fail, and end up a loser. All the American (and Canadian for that matter) educational problems stem from that. From a feeling that either a) I can survive without this stupid material, who needs it, or b) my parents are rich, I'll make it no matter what. Take away those two things, by balancing the playing field, and what you end up with is everyone doing better, and those that are truly capable and dedicated doing better in the long run than those who aren't.

[kiki1982]

How would you know this? Why would you make that assumption about yourself? Are you still learning? Are you still in school? Do you still have a teacher?

I have been learning selectively in the last 8 years. I have learned a lot about languages, different cultures, I have greatly learned in my perception of the world. But that is also down partly to my education I had in school.

Had I not been bombarded with Western European history in school, I would never have gone on to have a certain perception of politics, the way human nature moves and tries to get what it wants by any means possible, how certain nations see it differently. And why that is. How society as a whole works. How society has changed during the French Revolution and what that did to us.

I have not been learning on Physics, Engineering, and those things. I couldn't care less, yet it is essential to a fully educated person to know those things. We are no longer in the 19th century and before where people didn't know what water consisted of because their parents didn't know or they weren't interested. Why water boils. Why apples fall as they fall. Why they fall more slowly on the Moon. There are certain things I do not remember (whether an apple would fall faster or less fast from a tree on Mars, f.e.), but the principles are the most important. How fruit gets to be on trees. How perspective is drawn, how many different ways there are. And I can go on like that. There are many more people who can explain those things much better to my children than I can, because they know a lot more about it, so why would I do it myself with my limited knowledge?

Sometimes. But I think the question is - what's your best guess - coercion goes amiss more often, or freedom does?

There are people who get out of school, yes. People should do what they like. If they do not want to be an academic, they shouldn't be coerced into it, because it will make them unhappy. But there are bounderies. Not knowing anything of modern history f.e. because you weren't interested is not an option.

Not learning algebra, f.i., is an option to people who are not interested. Only, it introduces abstract thinking to students. It teaches them not to be afraid of things or concepts that say nothing. It teaches to 'calculate' something that isn't there, or to get the value of something totally unkown, as so much utilised in science. Imagine you wanted to study one orother science all of a sudden, but you weren't interested in science. In Belgium, you would have to make up 6 years of algebra to be able to reach the level of an 18-year-old. 6 years, of on average 4 hours of Maths a week... Do the maths, you wouldn't go through the trouble. Tastes change. I was never interested in French, if they had let me, I'd have stopped with it at 15, because I just couldn't do it. Not the fault of the teacher. Now, I love it. Had I followed my inclination, I'd never have learned the language. And by the way, what do I do if my child wants to learn a language I don't know?

Not learning all about plants is a great problem, because plants are the basis of everything. Learning no cell-structure just deprives you of all you should know about reproduction and energy supply.

Not learning about the Romans would be a great great failure.

On this point, just from reading this one post from you, I think you sell yourself short, and you project that deficiency unfairly on others.

And how and why is that?

If we limit this to school, since no one "old enough" is coerced into school, we can only use the young as examples. So we can then use homeschoolers as the Freedom example and public-schoolers as the coerced examples (although homeschoolers are still coerced, they are coerced less). Most measures of success show a higher score for homeschoolers than for public-schoolers. I haven't heard of any study the finds the ratio of homeschoolers with poor outcomes to homeschoolers with good outcomes, but comparing that ratio to the same thing measured for public-schoolers would help too. Maybe there's some in the books.

I can imagine that in some countries, homeschooling is better as the education system there is total crap. Yet, that is not the case everywhere, and in Belgium, homeschooling would probably be rather something that reduces your knowledge than something that enhances it.

There is only one case in which I would support homeschooling, and in very rare cases: if the child is highly intelligent. Because then, the child can learn on its own pace, which is much faster than a normal child. Highly intelligent children are mostly also interested in everything. Going at a slower pace creates boredom and results in bad results. Having a reduced spectrum of knowledge (for them) creates the same boredom. And still then I doubt whether the parents would be able to teach their child everything it wants to know, as it is (probably) more intelligent than they. And how many of those children are around, do you think? Certainly not as many as there are in home schooling.

Your post also suggests that you don't consider learning something that kids can do without a teacher (you consider parent vs school as "the teacher"). Is the necessity of a teacher one of your assumptions?

For an adequate, all-round knowledge of all subjects, a teacher is indispensible. I, as an intelligent person with a lot of knowledge, can teach my children something, but not all. I can teach them Dutch, French, English, German (rather another as it is not perfect enough). I could take an attemt at history, biology and a little geography. And I could still do music (if it is theory, the recorder, accordeon or the piano. Violin I don't know). Physics and chemisty would be an absolute no-no, certainly on the highest level, as I couldn't do it myself. Drawing is a no-no. I can't draw myself. Technology is a no-no. Computer knowledge is limited. How am I supposed to teach my children if I don't know myself and can't understand? Stay one lesson in front?

What do people usually do when they want to learn something? Yes, they go to school! I learned the accordeon by myself, because I wanted to play only folk music, but would have been a lot further if I had taken a teacher. I learned to play the recorder by myself and took a teacher afterwards. In those two years I advenced more than in the five years before.

Learning without a teacher is perfecty possible, but there needs to be method and structure. Teachers are trained in method, but above all, certainly high school teachers have studied their subject in detail or so it should be the case. Primary school level is still doable, I imagine, but from the age of 12, there is more perfect knowledge needed to teach children a subject as the knowledge goes more into depth. Is there anyone on this Earth who knows all subjects in school in detail? No. It is impossible. Since the middleages we have not taught all the knowledge existant in science, because it is too much.

Teachers have been always special people, that was so in the Roman times, that was so in the middleages, that was so in the 19th century and that is so now.

[Dave Scotese]

Homeschooling then, ultimately would have the exact same problems as the regular school system.

It sounds like everyone is interpreting my post as political activism - that I am suggesting laws be changed to force people to educate their children some different way than is currently the case.

I will probably start a new thread, requesting that people address the books I mentioned specifically, rather than getting all political and pontificating about what policies should be forced on everyone. That is so against my intent.

If there is one kind of discussion that I think should be outlawed, it is discussion about what "We the People" should force everyone to do. Yech.

I couldn't care less, yet it is essential to a fully educated person to know those things...

Do you consider yourself to be "fully educated"?

On this point, just from reading this one post from you, I think you sell yourself short, and you project that deficiency unfairly on others.

And how and why is that?

You insist that if you hadn't been forced to learn, for example, French, you would have missed out on something you now love. But you have been selectively learning now for 8 years. If you'd been doing that earlier, I think you'd be an even better self-directed learner than you are. As you point out, the student (you) eventually finds a good reason for a teacher in those subjects that interest her the most (recorder, accordion, in your case):

What do people usually do when they want to learn something? Yes, they go to school! I learned the accordeon by myself, because I wanted to play only folk music, but would have been a lot further if I had taken a teacher. I learned to play the recorder by myself and took a teacher afterwards. In those two years I advenced more than in the five years before.

Did you go to school for the recorder? Do you consider hiring a teacher to be the same thing as going to school? I think the act of choosing to pay an expert to help you learn makes a huge difference.

Learning without a teacher is perfecty possible, but there needs to be method and structure.

What was the method and structure you used when you learned to walk and talk - or play the accordion? I think what you mean is that in order to delve deeply into a subject, a method and structure is a good idea. I agree with this, but I also think that the perfect method and structure is different for each person. This is why smaller class sizes work better - because the teacher then has the ability to tailor the method and structure more and more for each student as class size falls.

[stlukesguild]

Your notion that we can do without the teacher... allow the child to decide upon what he or she desires to learn surely echoes Rousseau and Dewey. I question how practical this would be upon a large scale. Yes, I and many others have learned much on our own. But we are the self-motivated life long learners (to use the classic "educationese"). Teaching any number of unmotivated and just plain lazy students day after day I question just how well the majority of these students would do given such freedom. Most of the boys I teach would spend the majority of the day playing basketball with little thought to just what the chances are that they will be able to make a career out of such. I also question just how we imagine that students will acquire the basic skills and core knowledge needed to function and succeed in larger society if we allow children to make the choice to study only that which interests them. I for one am certain I would have avoided math, science (for the most part) and other areas of study. Certainly, I can function quite well without ever needing to employ trigonometry or calculus and perhaps it is ridiculous (and part of our national obsession with promoting math and science in education) to demand that every potential college student (even those majoring in comparative literature, French, art history, etc...) be required to take classes in such unrelated disciplines... but surely little that is learned is ever truly wasted. There are classes and courses of study that I would have avoided had such been possible which have greatly inspired me... or pushed me in directions I couldn't have imagined. Would I have been better off had I been free to study only that which interested me? I can't say... but I greatly suspect that the results would not be great if applied on a large scale. I may agree that teenagers or high-schoolers might be better off if afforded a greater degree of autonomy... but this would be dependent upon a much more solid grounding in the early years... one that focused upon developing the essential skills and core knowledge... and didn't waste so much time floundering around without any solid real curriculum.

[kiki1982]

Do you consider yourself to be "fully educated"?

Not by far I see myself as one. Starting to be one, I'd say, but my knowledge is not far enough advanced to be one, as far as I'm concerned. Anything less, and that would be truly frightful...

You insist that if you hadn't been forced to learn, for example, French, you would have missed out on something you now love. But you have been selectively learning now for 8 years. If you'd been doing that earlier, I think you'd be an even better self-directed learner than you are. As you point out, the student (you) eventually finds a good reason for a teacher in those subjects that interest her the most (recorder, accordion, in your case):

I maybe would be a better self-directed learner now, but I would have avoided, like Stlukesguild, a lot of subjects. In that, I would have failed to be a kind of all-rounder, who knows of most a little. I would have been a specialist in maybe one subject, but I'd be useless at the next. What if I suddenly wanted to go and study something totally different because I wanted to make my profession of it? (self-directed learning) Not possible, first acquire the knowledge in order to start. That is then an advantage? Tastes change hugely during adolescence and it is very dangerous to trust oneself at that age to drop something. It might be out of frustration, boredom, not enough time, whatever. You want change of scenery. Is that a good enough reason to ban it out of your life? No, to me.

Did you go to school for the recorder? Do you consider hiring a teacher to be the same thing as going to school? I think the act of choosing to pay an expert to help you learn makes a huge difference.

I didn't hire a teacher, I went to school for it. As I did for the piano and music theory. I did that for 8 years and wanted to stop, but my mother didn't find that I had a good reason. I can now look at something and play. Isn't that wonderful? I would have dropped it at 14 if it had depended on me...

What was the method and structure you used when you learned to walk and talk - or play the accordion?

Walking and talking does not require teaching, it requires instinct. How does an elephant start to walk in the first hour after birth? Instinct. How do they understand their fellow herdmembers? Instinct. Although, maybe animals do teach their off-spring. At least it is known in meercats (?) that they have 'classes' of youngsters being taught by elder members. My cat, when she has small ones, seems to talk to them. By repeating it, they learn. They see mummy wash herself, they try too. How do I kill a mouse? How did mummy do it? Not the catching of the mouse is taught, the killing of the mouse is taught. Cats who have been hand-raised can catch a mouse (instinct), but cannot kill.

Learning to play an instrument, is altogether different. I would probably advance much more if I had a proper structure, but I decide to do it like that. I don't have pressure, but I did have a book for the first ten lessons/steps... As a result, I have had pain in my left wrist, because of a ba way of playing. And now, I think, pain in my right shoulder, also because of bad posture. If I had had a teacher who could play properly, he would have corrected me on that...

When learning a language, I need grammar. My husband has an extraordinary ability and learns to talk it like a child does: by somehow discerning the structure of the language and repeating it. Do that with me, and after 20 years I'm still at point 0.

I think what you mean is that in order to delve deeply into a subject, a method and structure is a good idea. I agree with this, but I also think that the perfect method and structure is different for each person. This is why smaller class sizes work better - because the teacher then has the ability to tailor the method and structure more and more for each student as class size falls.

I definitely agree with that: smaller classes afford more time with the teacher so that the student learns better and faster. But then the teacher should still be a properly trained person with extensive knowlede of the subject. Otherwise, he might as well give the student a book on that subject to read. It wouldn't make a difference.

On students: I agree with Stlukesguild on that.

[JBI]

Your notion that we can do without the teacher... allow the child to decide upon what he or she desires to learn surely echoes Rousseau and Dewey. I question how practical this would be upon a large scale. Yes, I and many others have learned much on our own. But we are the self-motivated life long learners (to use the classic "educationese"). Teaching any number of unmotivated and just plain lazy students day after day I question just how well the majority of these students would do given such freedom. Most of the boys I teach would spend the majority of the day playing basketball with little thought to just what the chances are that they will be able to make a career out of such. I also question just how we imagine that students will acquire the basic skills and core knowledge needed to function and succeed in larger society if we allow children to make the choice to study only that which interests them. I for one am certain I would have avoided math, science (for the most part) and other areas of study. Certainly, I can function quite well without ever needing to employ trigonometry or calculus and perhaps it is ridiculous (and part of our national obsession with promoting math and science in education) to demand that every potential college student (even those majoring in comparative literature, French, art history, etc...) be required to take classes in such unrelated disciplines... but surely little that is learned is ever truly wasted. There are classes and courses of study that I would have avoided had such been possible which have greatly inspired me... or pushed me in directions I couldn't have imagined. Would I have been better off had I been free to study only that which interested me? I can't say... but I greatly suspect that the results would not be great if applied on a large scale. I may agree that teenagers or high-schoolers might be better off if afforded a greater degree of autonomy... but this would be dependent upon a much more solid grounding in the early years... one that focused upon developing the essential skills and core knowledge... and didn't waste so much time floundering around without any solid real curriculum.

But here is the irony. If you make such a case for math, certainly English can be used the same way. What is the point really, of humanist study? If math is useless, why don't we just say that learning how to read better, or understand art, or music, or history is irrelevant as well? There is the problem, but the truth is, such practices are not useless, as they create a sort of personality that works well in the workforce. Even people who study business won't acquire such skills, and generally when it comes to hiring, the jobs are split pretty evenly.

The more rounded one is though, the better they will become. I don't use my calculus, but I know it. I doubt I'll use my computer programming abilities in the future, but I can program. It's better to make people have abilities, and for them to perhaps not have to use them, than for people to only have one ability, and when that fails, end up finished - limited and useless.

There are a million English Ph. D.s for instance, floating around fighting over essentially no jobs in academia for them, and no real requirement for their expertise outside of the academe. I hear the situation is even worse for philosophers. Quite simply, the saturation will be permanent, and people will need to innovate away from being branded one thing. This is an example of people only doing what they want, and keep in mind, these are smart people too - the best of the best. Without the rounding, quite simply, a person with an MBA would seem the better candidate for almost all jobs. But this is University we are talking about. If we applied that to highschool, people would be branded from the beginning, and ultimately, if their one thing goes under, so would they, and have nothing to fall back on. I like that I can do math at a proficient level, and know a thing or two about science, politics, history, and a bunch of other subjects. In truth, the single subject construct of society is designed for the most part to mold people into limited positions, without an ability to break free easily.

[kiki1982]

I so agree with JBI. Much too dangerous.

@JBI: Philosophers and languages... I know the feeling... My husband knows 11 yet never was able to get a job, because he didn't want to be a teacher in school... Anyway, after years and years of failure he comes across an English training job, and is now teaching very high level professional students. But that took him 10 years to find. Before, he was stuck in call centres... There are not such a lot of jobs like the one he has now.

Philosophers... My friend has a master's in philosophy. Also is a bachelor Slavic Languages. She works with the national postal service... Really. Do you need to have that education for doing that? But ten, as you say, what would have happened if she didn't have any other knowledge but philsophy? It is just because of that type of all-round education that she is abe to go and do something else, even study something else if she wants later.

There were a few things in this list I wanted to address:

* LESS student passivity, sitting, listening, receiving
* LESS attempts by teachers to cover large amounts of material
* LESS rote memorization of facts and details
* LESS stress on competition and grades
* MORE experiential, inductive, hands-on learning
* MORE active learning with all the attendant noise of students doing, talking, collaborating
* MORE responsibility transferred to students for their work: goal-setting, record-keeping, monitoring, evaluation
* MORE choice for students; e.g., picking their own books, etc.
* MORE cooperative, collaborative activity.

The LESS-points: It looks all well and great to do those things. If one had lots of time, one would be able to do that. But, the point is, that children only have 12 years, at best 13, to learn everything that is necessary for them to enter higher education or society. At the age of 18 they are responsible for themelves. Thus they need to be (responsible) adults that function in that society.
In Great-Britain, if I am not mistaken, they have gone down the 'skills'-route of things. Children need to acquire skills not knowledge. This can be good: 'how do I look up a word in a dictionary?', 'how do I use a calculator?' (although it is doubtful whether that should be learned in primary school...), 'how do I look up (any) information on a subject I don't know?'. Sadly, this has as a consequence that children have to look up facts and not learn them. So... They don't know where London is and situate it somewhere near Manchester on a blind map. I might probably be a few centimetres out in such a case, but so much??? Those chilren don't know when exactly the French Revolution took place. 'Time' and 'Timeperiods' in themselves don't say anything to them. On a wider scale this means that they do not get taught about Thatcher, the Falklands War, the closure of the mines, the National Health Service, etc etc. They don't get taught European history. How are they supposed to vote properly with a framework of reference? They don't: only 24% showed up at the last European elections... How are we supposed to understand the society we live in y only seeing the here-and-now?

Even worse is the fact that people cannot spell. Apostrophies everywhere where they shouldn't be (even on signs outside shops ans pubs. Even saw one on public toilets in Manchester! Mens Toilets... They don't even know the proper plural...). They don't get taught grammar, so that goes down the pan as well... Because they haven't been taught English grammar, it becomes more difficult to learn another language. How are we supposed to uderstand cases and use them if we don't know what the bl**dy hell a subect, (in)direct object, verb and what-not are. So children end up with very limited knowledge of foreign languages if they are lucky. There are of course public schools (private despite the fac that they are called public...) who deliver people with good Frenh, whatever. School like Eton do well. They have a very high standard...

The sad standard of education is shown in the standard of newspaper news. Granted, there are good newpapers, about two if I am not mistaken: The Times and The Guardian and some specialised ones like The Financial Times. Diametrically opposed are the ones like The Star, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail, The Sun, News of the World and many more, that feature no news (at best there is a little piece of 100 words (?) about what was said in parliament yesterday on page 8 if that was interesting and sensational enough). The rest of the 'newspaper' is filled with 'news' of the cat of Downing Street 10, the latest candidate of Britain's got Talent, Simon Cowell (?), or whatever else that doesn't matter and that would be put in a celebity magazine in a normal country.

If one does not stress competition and grades, one does not make one's children used to the world. For something stupid like a driving test, there is pass or fail. No discussion. What JBI said about self-esteem above in America I can imagine very true... Self-esteem does not have to be destroyed by marks, but on the other side, it shouldn't end up inflated because the child has never had a bad experience. Doing that, protecting children for bad emotions like failure, is seriously failing in making them adults that can deal with draw-backs. By all means approach them with positive criticism, but if they fail to do something well then ask why, don't say 'oh, never mind. Next time better.' It will not get better, in fact it will only get worse. The reason why, in a normal system, there is so much emphasis on pass or fail (mostly around the 60%-mark) is that 50% or 60% of the the knowledge learned is required to have been understood in order to require more on the same subject. If not 50 or 60% is shown to be understood, guaranteed that the continuation of the subject is threatened.

If schools are induced to do more experiments and less 'I tell you and you remember'-things, it might look exciting, but for example science does not work like that. Experiments are primarily there to draw conclusions from. Drawing the conclusion takes mostly much more time. It is not the fact that the apple falls from the tree that is interesting, but it is the fact that one can calculate how fast, that is interesting. The structure of the eye is much more easily discernable on a picture than in a real eye, even if that is cut open. That is not to say that those things should not happen, but we shouldn't exaggerate... Most things are impossible to do anway (human reproduction: we can't cut open a woman) or too slow (the formation of fruit on a tree) to be really able to learn straight from that.

In my school, we once did a project on earthquakes:we had to look up the answers for questions, and we could use the internet. The result was that we took too long and that the concept was abandoned because we could never acquire the right amount of knowledge in the same timespan. Projects work somtimes. For example for books/literature, art (art history and what-not). But projects should not serve as a tool to acquire knowledge, but should serve to use that knowledge you have learned. In English, we had presetations about English-speaking countries. In French about French regions. That was interesting because it was a good way of exercising the English/French learned. The same for dialogues in all languages. Or reading books. We had to make a paper for the esthetics class. It was a good way to use the knowledge learned there. But as a tool for acquiring knowledge, the rate of things learned is firstly too diverse from group to group or student to student and secondly is too slow. If one works longer on itn then the knowledge resulting from it might be more, but another subject will suffer because of that.

Compare it to reading a book in a foreign language. It is an excellent tool to sharpen the feeling for that language, but one should have knowledge of the language before starting the book, otherwise one does not understand.

I agree about choice for students. Not everyone should read the same book. That is mostly down to the teacher who does not care for reading a whole booklist him/herself. But there should be bounderies.

[JBI]

I would also like to add, that as I know it, rote memorization for the majority of subjects is the most effective way to learn. Languages for instance, require that (though, from what I understand, American education isn't too language heavy). Science too benefits from this mode of learning, and believe it or not, English as well. It's perhaps the most useful skill - just try going back to memorizing after taking a break. I can tell you, after about 10 years of not memorizing poems, going back was a major difficulty. I used to get them on the first or second reading, now, it takes at least half an hour for a sonnet, which is reduced from 2 hours, as my memory improved.

The only real advantage of homeschooling, the way I see it, is that it allows one to learn things, if the student and teacher are willing, far faster, and far better, hypothetically of course, than the public school kid. I doubt this happens, and with breaking apart curriculum, it probably wouldn't, but the room is there.

As for the literature, to get back on it - it seems like some pretty mediocre typically American stuff. I think writing something like that in a French Academe, for instance, wouldn't go, because of a greater sense of class consciousness there, and a realization that homeschooling is not a practical alternative to anything, and the answer lies within policy reform. But hey, with so many people getting Ph. D.s in education now, these sorts of works are bound to pop up sooner or later.

I think though, that education will be quite messy within 5 years. Already, things are turning too digital, and I can't tell you how much more reliance on the computer than on the teacher is becoming required. Even my university courses now have giant online, interactive components, designed to substitute the professor, as, quite simply, there are too many people in some classes for any sort of dialogue to occur.

[stlukesguild]

But here is the irony. If you make such a case for math, certainly English can be used the same way. What is the point really, of humanist study? If math is useless, why don't we just say that learning how to read better, or understand art, or music, or history is irrelevant as well? There is the problem, but the truth is, such practices are not useless, as they create a sort of personality that works well in the workforce.

That, I would suggest, would be the primary problem of the self-learner. Subjects outside of his or her passion and probable career choice would quite likely be avoided. Perhaps they have no practical purpose... but I doubt that anything learned becomes "useless". Even if the knowledge is never put to day to day use it can impact your thinking in ways unimagined and surely the discipline needed to stay with something that you don't find particularly engaging or easy to master is itself a lesson well learned.

In Great-Britain, if I am not mistaken, they have gone down the 'skills'-route of things. Children need to acquire skills not knowledge. This can be good: 'how do I look up a word in a dictionary?', 'how do I use a calculator?' (although it is doubtful whether that should be learned in primary school...), 'how do I look up (any) information on a subject I don't know?'. Sadly, this has as a consequence that children have to look up facts and not learn them. So... They don't know where London is and situate it somewhere near Manchester on a blind map.

Hell, the kids are still doing better than mine. I have no doubt that a number would end up placing Ohio somewhere in Asia. Hell, there was a recent survey of college students in which some ridiculously high percentage couldn't even recognize a photograph of Adolph Hitler! We have the same misguided notion here that we should be teaching "higher order thinking skills" as opposed to facts. In other words a child need not know where Ohio is, but should know what tools to use and how to use them in order to find the answer. The problem is that higher order thinking skills are dependent upon a solid core base of knowledge (which is what E.D. Hirsch argues in favor of). The problem in the United States is that in an increasingly multicultural society the question of just what core knowledge is essential to the larger culture has become politicized. A good many progressive educators fear that such a core body of knowledge excludes minorities and stigmatizes them. Hirsch and Gramasci both argued that the data shows the reverse to be true: that it is the poor and minority students who suffer most from not having a solid grasp of a core body of knowledge... a body of knowledge upon which they can succeed in the larger society and a body of knowledge that can be built upon and expanded... even questioned and challenged. There is at least one teacher of whom I know who teachers her children that the first US president was black (not Washington, but a figure white America has hidden) and that Africans were flying as early as ancient Egypt. Such "facts" are presented as a means of instilling self esteem in the students... but how do such false "facts" assist the student when he or she enters the larger society... and the job market?

[kiki1982]

oh, my God! Well, in Britain they did a survey and teens dismissed Winston Churchill, Florence Nightingale (the nurse) and Richard the Lionheart Plantagenet as fictitious characters.

Even worse was the fact that in the same survey teens thought that Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Robin Hood a real-life status like they were in lit. Granted King Arthur and Robin Hood must have a foundation somewhere, but not as they are portrayed.

They also did not recognise Hitler on a photo and mixed him up with Churchill, Dalí, Einstein.

They also thought Auschwitz was a beer, a neighbouring country of Poland, a religious festival, etc.
(The Daily Telegraph)

There are just some facts that one should learn to avoid bad impressions...

I can well imagine that it is the poor that suffer, because they cannot have too much experience-learning as they never go anywhere (without wanting to seem too stereotypical). As such, they don't go to exhibitions, where they can train that knowledge and where they can have seen the picture of Hitler so many times, that they can finally remember...

[VenusInFurs]

I'm a bit skeptical about home-schooling. Most of the students I know that opted for home-schooling ended up dropping out all together and I knew a few that had been home-schooled for their entire elementary and high school education in college and they were quite naive and sheltered, and didn't relate well to others or deal as well with real life situations. I think though that if you make sure your child is exposed to a lot of social situations, that can be avoided though.

I learned a lot in school besides math and english lit. I learned to stand up for myself and be a strong person. I learned to deal with people that want to put you down. I was also very lucky in that I had wonderful, inspiring teachers for most of my education. I wouldn't trade that for the world. I understand that's the exception and not the rule but they're not the only ones out there I'm sure.

[backline]

...I can well imagine that it is the poor that suffer, because they cannot have too much experience-learning as they never go anywhere (without wanting to seem too stereotypical). As such, they don't go to exhibitions, where they can train that knowledge and where they can have seen the picture of Hitler so many times, that they can finally remember...

Unfortunately the poor are usually too tied up expediting their short term survival needs to pursue a broad based view of academic education. Or, worse yet, do not see academic education as a means of escaping
the cycle of poverty.
It takes a mentor to inspire and motivate such a position, and far too many economically disadvantaged people fall through the cracks with no safety net available.
Public institutions dedicated to making libraries and museams available cannot motivate someone who is depressed facing a seemingly insurmountable mountain to climb out of poverty.
In some of the East coast slums where I spent my formative years there was a lot of talk about "breaking out" (of the inner-city environment, or even the neighborhood of origin). Sadly, there are many roadblocks to gaining a vision of life outside the 'hood. Even worse, once out of the environment (and comfort zone of the familiar), it takes help to get a leg up into the fast accerating traincar of life as others experience it.
The military helped me gain a new perspective. Of course many of my friends in the late 1960's did not survive that experience physcologically, economically, or physically!