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.

[Tired of Taxes]

You could put them in little league when they're young. But, as they grow older, if your local school district doesn't allow homeschoolers on their teams, then you could try private school teams; otherwise, you may be out of luck. There are homeschool leagues being created and competing against the schools, and there are many talented athletes homeschooling. For example, I once talked to a woman whose homeschooled son competed in X-games, and homeschooling worked perfectly for them because they traveled statewide for competitions. Hockey leagues are separate from the schools, too, at least where I live. But, sports like baseball, football, and basketball seem to be tied in with schools.

[Tired of Taxes]

Though I think education is important, to a certain extent. Its not the beginning and end all of a persons worth or accomplishment.

Well said! I admire people based on how they treat others, not on how much useless information they might know. And common sense is far more important than the results of any IQ test.

[wintertime]

But, sports like baseball, football, and basketball seem to be tied in with schools.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What the government is doing in baseball, football, and basketball, is running farm teams for the major leagues. It is morally WRONG for taxpayers to be paying for this.

If we had a universal system of private schools these very wealthy professional leagues would be running their own private schools. Not only would the training for these very talented athletes be better but the public wouldn't be paying for it.

[wintertime]

The key isn't to separate kids according to ability, but to begin with all kids at a very young age. Not at government-type schools, or schools where kids are stuck together in one classroom.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I agree, Tired of Taxes.

The best place for all children, ideally, is in a home with a rich educational environment. All would do better.

I can see GSlob's point that the mathematically gifted children he refers to were benefiting by special and intensive math courses with qualified teachers, but, if I were there homeschooled mother, these kids would already be in college or their math classes would only be a part of their day with the majority of their education with other qualified tutors or self-directed. Age segregation for long periods of the day in institutions is not good for any child.

In my home, I started teaching phonics, colors, shapes, and numbers when they were newborns ( literally). We did not have TV and only videos from the library and ( rarely) from the video store. There were only educational computer games in our home. I read to them morning and night and our house was filled with a wide variety of music. Any child would thrive in this environment. That my children were so advanced is, in my opinion, NORMAL. It is the institutionalized child who is artificially developmentally delayed academically and socially.

[Tax-chick]

But no one knows what's in store in the future.

Absolutely. Our goal for our children is that when they reach adulthood, they will have the character, education, and skills to make the most of whatever opportunities they choose.

[wintertime]

GSlob,

Two of my children ( girls) graduated from our flagship state university with B.S. degrees in math. They were only 18. The older of the two finished a masters degree at the age of 20.

Yes, it is a state university and not an Ivy League school. They are NOT going to get a teaching position in an Ivy League school with degrees from the university in which they graduated.

BUT,,,,they are so much better prepared in every way than equally bright government schooled children of the same age! That's the point. They are better prepared ( and more advanced) than any child coming from any gifted program offered by our government. They do not have a sense of specialness because they have matched wits with the best young adults and adults in the field and have a realistic assessment of the competition in the real world of mathematics.

As it is, both are married now. They have chosen to end their formal education at this point. They are now doing what many women do. They are following their husbands' careers and raising families. They ARE educationally far more advanced and better prepared for life's emergencies than other women of their age. They are broadly educated and fully capable of creating a learning centered home for their own children and raising up a righteous generation of children.

I do not agree that segregating children by age or ability for large portions of their day is good for them educationally, emotionally, or spiritually.

By the way,,,my children's best friend was an elderly woman who had spent her life as a dishwasher, housecleaner, and babysitter. She lived next door and our children spent many hours wandering our small town with her visiting this woman's many friends.

[Tax-chick]

I do not agree that segregating children by age or ability for large portions of their day is good for them educationally, emotionally, or spiritually.

I agree. I was a "gifted and talented" student all through public school, National Merit Scholar, state spelling champion, all that stuff ... and I got an ego and attitude problem that had to be knocked out of me by years of experience :-). (Nothing like a bunch of babies to put your SAT scores in perspective!)

The "school" environment simply does not prepare one for Real Life, even though it may result in a solid academic education.

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

Well, you can eliminate social ills through education...it's just that the kind of education required has nothing to do with college. ;)

[GSlob]

The kids I was talking about were given WAY MORE than you [by your own admission not a polymath] would have EVER been able to give - it was not restricted to math there, the rest was in keeping with the level. I have looked at programs for the gifted wherever I could find them, and that one is the best I know of. Not many kids were, or would have been able, to receive so much - and that's why it was, and had to be, a highly selective program. The slogan "no child left behind" did not apply to it, quite the opposite - to give them that much, quite a lot more had to be left behind. But then, many things that were going there would be completely above the heads of average, and even many bright, students.

[wintertime]

The slogan "no child left behind" did not apply to it,

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

Once children are segregated into same age groups SOME of the children in that group are going to be left behind because they can't quite keep up and some are going to be unchallenged. No classroom of children is completely homogeneous in talent and ability...not even in gifted classes.

By the way,,,,my children are NORMALLY bright. Yes, they did win math competitions at their university but it is very likely that they would not have qualified for the elite group that you describe.

I have repeatedly posted that my children are NORMAL. It is the institutionalized child who is academically and socially delayed in development. This is my opinion.

In a free market, I feel confident that schools would emerge that would subscribe to your philosophy. I fully support the parents who would choose this for their children. They know their own child better than I do or any government bureaucrat.

[after dark]

I think you are right. I read a couple years ago that this country uses the I.Q. test to label children more than any other country on earth. I have heard to many phony educators use the bell curve to excuse the mediocrity of our schools. According to international test our students are dummies. If our students were as dumb as educators claim , how is it they form the best military the world has ever seen.Our soldiers are not Harvard educated.Even their leaders aren't in line for faculty positions at Ivy league schools.If Gslob wants his elitest schools he should be pay for them out of his own pocket. He should not take money from "retards" and "dullards". If he likes caste sytems, he should move to India.

[spinestein]

[Do you care if "retards" and "dullards are home schooled?]



It seems to me, the less intelligent among the public school students are typically being short-changed on a daily basis by being shuffled along from grade to grade, without mastering much of the material, only to either drop out before graduating, or to graduate with a diploma that doesn't mean much academically.

IF the parents are motivated to teach their "less gifted" child at home, to achieve his or her highest potential, then that is the better outcome.

[kittymyrib]

One doesn't need expensive studies to confirm the pathetic results of our over-funded, under-achieving education system. One only has to watch Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" segments to see the absolute dregs of human intelligence, a goodly percentage of whom are college students...and many of them education majors! Truly a vivid testimony to the stupid leading the stupid.

[luckystarmom]

I am parents of 2 "gifted" children, and 1 that has brain damage.

My husband and I feel that our child that has brain damage is going to do more with her life than her siblings. She is very goal oriented, and works very hard.

For example, the library is having a summer reading program. After you read 5 hours, you get a prize. So far, my daughter has read over 15 hours since last week. She spent 5 hours on one day reading.

My "gifted" children are bright, but they tend to be a bit lazy. I hope they grow out of their laziness. I knew too many smart kids in college that did nothing. I had two young men that I knew in college. One was mensa and a National Merit Scholar. He ended up dropping out of college. He never went to class because he thought he didn't need to study. My other friend was bright, but not anything special. He had to work for good grades, but he did just that. He became a doctor.

[Tired of Taxes]

In a free market, I feel confident that schools would emerge that would subscribe to your philosophy.

Exactly. If an end were put to the government monopoly of education, the free market could provide so many more options.

[Tired of Taxes]

My "gifted" children are bright, but they tend to be a bit lazy.

LOL, luckystarmom, I hear you loud and clear! And don't forget insolent, too. I have one who fits that bill. Meanwhile, I have another who struggles along. Because he has to work harder, we have to focus more on each step. In the long run, he might be better off.

I've known people considered "geniuses", too, who seriously messed up their lives by making the wrong choices.

I just want my children to grow up to be good, kind people with common sense. It also wouldn't hurt for them to have high paying jobs, of course.

[GSlob]

That's one reason why herding the brights together helps - they no longer could "coast" against more drab background. When everyone around is pretty smart, being bright but lazy is no longer enough, unless one is a real genius.

[Tax-chick]

If an end were put to the government monopoly of education, the free market could provide so many more options.

That's the real key. There doesn't have to be one right way to educate, no matter what the abilities and interests of the students are. In a free market, we'd see all kinds of education, compare the effectiveness for different students and outcomes, support some providers and eliminate others, etc. That is, everything that happens with a free market for any product or service!

[Tired of Taxes]

In my home, I started teaching phonics, colors, shapes, and numbers when they were newborns ( literally). We did not have TV and only videos from the library and ( rarely) from the video store. There were only educational computer games in our home. I read to them morning and night and our house was filled with a wide variety of music. Any child would thrive in this environment.

I agree wholeheartedly that that is the best way. Before I ever even considered homeschooling, our firstborn was given what you described above, and he thrived. Our second born was even further along by age one. But, between ages 2 and 4, he spent a lot of time sitting in front of mindless television. So, once I began homeschooling when he was 4, he was a year or more behind. So, I had one child who, on his fifth birthday, could read college level textbooks. And another who, on his fifth birthday, was just beginning to learn to read. In hindsight, I guess that doesn't sound so bad, but I knew he had more potential, and now we had to work really hard. Now, at 8, he still has to work hard (though I'm not sure that's such a bad thing anymore).

Now, I could relieve myself of guilt by telling myself that kids are born with some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and that environment has little to do with it. But I know that's not true. When he was 2-3, there were things we gave to him that had educational merit, and one was a video called "Walking with Dinosaurs" that he would spend hours watching as a toddler. He REALLY shouldn't have been allowed to watch it, but my husband would put it on when I was at work at night. So, though he was behind in normal areas, from about age 2-3 he could read words like "Pachycephalosaurus", tell you how to pronounce it, and then tell you all about it. Now he's an animal lover, who can tell you all about different animals.

That's why I always argue against the IQ myth which often smacks of eugenics, as you see hinted at on this thread. It's all about environment, not some kind of inborn inherent trait.

[Graymatter]

"Isaac Newton was the son of a Lincolnshire farmer: unlike some mathematicians, he was not even bright in boyhood; he was a mediocre student when he went to Cambridge; and then within a few years, the spark descended. Gauss, one of the supreme geniuses of mathematics and electromagnetism, was a village boy like a million others...The by-blow of an Italian gentleman and a country girl was apprenticed to the trade of painting, like many thousands before and after him; but this one was Leonardo da Vinci...Socrates was a stonemason in a city crowded with builders. No, the whole history of human thought is as various, as marvelous, as unexpected, and as inexplicable as other mysteries of this universe...
"[T]he secret of education is never to forget the possibility of greatness."
---Gilbert Highet, "Man's Unconquerable Mind"

A book I can't recommend too highly to all teachers, especially homeschooling teachers.