Nine Assumptions of Schooling and Twenty-one Facts the Institution Would Rather Not Discuss

Spinning Globe ^ | John Taylor Gatto

[Clintonfatigued]

I'll start off bluntly by giving you some data I'd be shocked if you already know. A few simple facts, all verifiable, which by their existence call into question the whole shaky edifice of American government compulsion schooling from kindergarten through college and its questionable connection with the job market. The implications of this data are quite radical so I'm going to take pains to ground it in the most conservative society on earth, the mountain world of Switzerland. You all remember Switzerland: that's where people put their money when they really want it to be really safe.

The Swiss just like us believe that education is the key to their national success, but that's where our similarity ends. In 1990 about 60% of American secondary school graduates enrolled in college, but only 22% did in Switzerland; in America almost l00% of our kids go to high school or private equivalents, but only a little over a fifth of the Swiss kids do. And yet the Swiss per capita income is the highest of any nation in the world and the Swiss keep insisting that virtually everyone in their country is highly educated!

What on earth could be going on? Remember it's a sophisticated economy which produces the highest per-capita paycheck in the world we're talking about, high for the lightly-schooled as well as for the heavily schooled, higher than Japan's, Germany's or our own. No one goes to high school in Switzerland who doesn't also want to go to college, three-quarters of the young people enter apprenticeships before high school. It seems the Swiss don't make the mistake that schooling and education are synonyms.

[wintertime]

This is what Gatto said:
The only way I can see after spending 35 years in and around the institution (53 if I count my own time as inmate) is to put full choice squarely back into the hands of parents, let the marketplace redefine schooling - a job the special interests are incapable of - and encourage the development of as many styles of schooling as there are human dreams. Let people, not bureaucrats, work out their own destinies. That's what made us a great country in the first place."

If we allow parents, teachers, principals the freedom they will maximize the potential of all children in as many ways "as there are human dreams". ( What an nice simile)

"

[GSlob]

'And I still hold that the best place to educate these very bright children is in the home. "
Yes - if the parents are polymath university professors. But from what I gathered by observing that school, majority of the kids there were not coming from such hyper-educated families. Their parents were merely bright. These kids typically were brighter than their parents - but they needed still brighter instructors.

[wintertime]

Any solution to the current educational system failure will have to include the return to [or introduction anew of] the rigorous streaming [segregation] by intellectual ability - i.e. to having separate and by design unequal educational streams, say, 5: retardees, dullards, normals, brights, and the gifted. There ought to be a mechanism for transition between adjacent streams, say, test-based.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GSlob,

The best way to approach the problem of differing intellectual and talent abilities is to allow the free market to work. Allow parents, teachers, and principals to devise educational programs in a private school setting.

For my family and our bright children I would NOT segregate them in classes filled with child with certified IQs above 140. It is my opinion that these children would and do develop an overweening opinion of themselves and their abilities. I would counsel other parents of similarly gifted children not to do this either.

It was interesting to watch my children mature academically. They immediately formed collaborative friendships with college students ( some graduate students) who were twice their ages and their professors. Not only did they get guidance from the older students, they too had the opportunity to support others. In this mature give and take environment of a serious university and graduate school program of math they soon developed a very realistic opinion of their strengths and weaknesses in mathematics.

Becoming a mature mathematician, GSlob, is far more than taking classes with other smart children. Sorry, but I doubt that an age segregated class of smart 12, and 13 year old children ( even with a junior college instructor) can provide the experience that my children had of associating, learning, collaborating, and socializing with some of the most talented mathematicians in the U.S. today.

I would counsel parents of gifted children to homeschool if they possibly can and to use institutions only as a last resort.

However....In a private system of education the market would soon make self-evident the best course to take.

[VOA]

bump

[wintertime]

Yes - if the parents are polymath university professors.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not a poly math professor. I taught my children only to Algebra II using the Saxon math books.I learned as they learned, one problem at a time. Thousands of homeschoolers are doing this every day. It does NOT require specialized education to teach your children in this way.

At that point they were ready for community college and then at age 14, and 15 the university math program with all its challenges and rewards.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Sobering!

Thank you, for your kindness then, and your posting now.

[Robert A Cook PE]

You brought up a minor - or perhaps major! - benefit few discuss about home schooling.

A (dedicated, determined) home schooling parent - and, of note, most ARE dedicated and determined parents, WILL LEARN and WILL IMPROVE their own education far above that of the least-common-denominator required by the government school system simply because THEY (the parents) WILL LEARN as they teach.

A person who slipped through math, spelling, algebra, or phonics WILL LEARN those subjects as they teach their kids. A person who ignored nearby museums, battlefields, train and car shops, libraries and playgrounds and zoos WILL GO to "give the kids a field trip" because they are home-schooling now.

[GSlob]

Well, I'm afraid that despite your best intention you shortchanged them. Hopefully they'll make up for it. BTW, "Junior college instructor" was a relatively young [very late 30s] equivalent of Ivy League associate professor. He was not a full professor in his 50s, that's why I used an unfortunate word choice "junior".

[little jeremiah]

Bump for later read.

MM - FYI.

[little jeremiah]

List?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Our daughter (my wife is a chemical engineer, HS physics and AP chemistry teacher, sometimes geometry teacher) pushed HERSELF through HS with AP classes and a dual-enrollment HS-College for her two last years.

IF anyone's child wants to - and the "want to" is essential! - I'd STRONGLY recommend dual enrollment, or college-level enrollment. AP classes at a minimum.

What she saw as an advantage to going to college at age 16 (as soon as she could drive tot the campus) was

(1) she did the same amount of effort taking a full-time college class (in physics for example) as she did taking an AP class, but did NOT have to worry about the single exam or getting some college to accept the equivalent of a AP class. She had finished it, and would not need it again.

(2) It was a college class, and would be accepted anywhere.

(3) She was on her own, and was finally being challenged by classes, rather than being bored.

(4) Equal-level classes (English lit, calculus, physics, history, etc) were the same in college and HS, so she could avoid repeating a >LOT of stuff in both.

(5) (Most important - to her, at least) College classes weer two days a week, 1-1/2 to 2 hours. Even Mon-Wed_Fri classes were shorter, and had fewer tests and assignments. So she could sleep late, go to a 11:00 class, eat lunch and go to 1 or 2 others, then come home. So she actually spent less time in class as a college student than she would have as a *:00 - 3:00 every day HS student.

And THAT let her work part-time for some extra dollars at the library!

Anyway, she graduated at age 19 with a two BS degrees, one in Physics, one in Math - and is now on her way to a masters.

The boys didn't want degrees, so they chose other ways, but it also shows that REEQUIRING a culture of "free college for everyone" only serves to pay for college professors.

[Vinnie]

He also as much as admitted that the REAL reason they wanted ALL these kids in school was the $3,000.00 per kid per year (I’m sure that number is higher in 2001!) they then got from the state and federal government. Empty seats = lost funds. As in most things, follow the money.

I have a teacher friend.

He told me the school gets a certain amount of money per student based on the percentage on attendees per day.

If attendance is way down on a day they actually go out on the street and drag people in to fill the roster.

They also get something like $400 per 'handicapped' child.

ADHD is considered a handicap.
$$$$$

[Old_Mil]

Somewhere along the line, liberals got it in their head that a college degree was the key to success and that we could eliminate social ills through education. So they expanded colleges at an unprecedented rate and in doing so did two things: created a jobs service for PhDs that would otherwise be unemployable in the real world and devalued the Bachelor's degree to the point that it represents what a high school diploma did 50 years ago.

The fact that liberals fail to see is that every society must have its doctors and its janitors, must have its telephone sales reps and its lawyers. If you educate everyone equally, you will merely end up with a society that has degreed janitors.

The Swiss "get it."

Eliminate the Department of Education.

[Tax-chick]

How depressing inspiring! I'm afraid my 15 and 12-year-old are just children. Pleasant, interesting, and informed children (my oldest is an Ann Coulter wannabe), but way behind your examples!

[LadyNavyVet]

They won't think outside of the box because they feel guilty. Most modern parents simply aren't willing to make the commitment to homeschool. Some are truly unable, but most are unwilling, and the ugly little secret is that a lot of parents love their children but don't like their children and really don't want to be around them all day. I've actually had people admit that to me. One woman said it in front of her child, much to my horror.

There's a whole lot of bad parenting out there, and a whole lot of me, me, ME that doesn't make for clear thinking. The fact that you're willing to sacrifice money and time when they're not makes some people feel guilty, and to make themselves feel better they come up with the most ridiculous justifications, like "school is a great place for a child to be socialized." Those who think children will be better socialized in a rigid, institutional, conformist setting by paid strangers rather than a flexible, home setting by the people who love them most aren't thinking, they're feeling.

I've been homeschooling for six years, and I also get frequent compliments on my childrens' behavior, usually right before the socialization question. Most people don't see the irony in that because they're just not creative thinkers. That's their problem, not mine.

You're following the "road less traveled," so you're going to take some flak from unthinking conformists. Let it roll off.

[Clintonfatigued]

"Please explain again. Why isn't government schooling child abuse?"

Because the people involved in it aren't aware of it. There are many well-meaning people who work in the public schools, but the system as a whole defeats them just as it does most of the students.

The biggest problem is that most people can't imagine that education can be done in any other way.

[Clintonfatigued]

It's a mistake to assume that before the 1960's, public schools were bastions of academic excellence. If you research their history, they have had problems from the very beginning.

More than any one factor, way the material is presented that is the problem. Whole-word reading instead of phonics (formerly called the alphabetic method) is just one big example. Everything is presented in a dull, repetitive, assembly-line manner, in which sitting still, being quiet, paying attention to the teacher, and waiting for permission is the core cirriculum, while developing thinking and reasoning skills aren't all that important. The educational problems we face now are simply the fruits of a schooling system the country adopted in the late 1800's. The only way to change things for the better is to stop using public schools.

[Robert A Cook PE]

First - Keep encouraging them..... Be positive about their abilities!

And, let THEM know what options are available, then fully support what options (out of all of them) THEY CHOOSE!

So, go look for which government schools (or junior colleges) in your area support dual enrollment, and what the requirements are.

Find out whether your local HS district allows college credit, AP classes, advanced classes, or honors classes. Find out what their policy is about dual enrollment, or college summer classes. Then you have a little armament in your pocket when you start discussing HS.

Find out also whether he (and she) really want "proms" and HS football games or band or drama, or whether they are bored stiff with those "socially correct" (er, corrupt) themes. I'm rather more impressed with how many man-hours at the HS level are targeted towards prom and major athletics than towards advanced placement, drama, and honors classes.

[Dick Bachert]

Robert,
This fellow Atlantan thanks you for your kind words.

[Tired of Taxes]

Homeschool Ping!