Compulsory Public Schooling is Dumbing Down our Kids

[schola]

...on purpose.


I've been doing research into the public school system, and the truth is appalling.

My findings? Here's the bombshell and the reason why billions of dollars can't seem to solve declining test scores: The United States public school system, imported from Prussia in the 1840s, is not designed to educate.

Our education system of compulsory schooling was imported from Prussia in the 1840s. The Prussian system was designed to create obedient soldiers, citizens and workers. Not to educate. Not to advance literacy (which was already 97% in the United States before compulsory education was in place.)

Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.

The schools imposed an official language to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."

Prussian education system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was imported into the United States by elitists who were interested in controlling the notoriously independent American masses. It then spread throughout the rest of the world.

This is still the same system we have in place today.

For now, I'll leave you with an essay by John Taylor Gatto. This guy's credentials are impressive: 3-time Teacher of the Year in New York City and once voted Teacher of the Year in New York State. He took supposedly hopeless kids from the Bronx ghetto and turned them into A students, many of them going on to win awards and prestigious internships.

But his methods got him in trouble with school administrators and he eventually got frustrated and quit.

He wrote this essay to the Wall Street Journal when he decided to retire after 30 years in teaching:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/under.../prologue2.htm

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.
That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.

That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.

How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work.

[schola]

Another opinion piece from an educator's perspective. I'll try to post some of the history of the Prussian education system later on.

-----
The Exhausted School
THE EXHAUSTED SCHOOL:
"How Did We Ever Come to Believe that the State
Should Tell Our Children What to Think?"

Keep in mind as I speak that I spent 26 years in public school classrooms. My perspective is that of an insider, not an outsider. You have been warned.

We live in a time of great school crisis, and that crisis is linked to a greater social crisis in the general community. We seem to have lost our identity. Children and old people are locked away from the business of the world to a degree without precedent - nobody talks to them anymore. Without children and old people mixing in daily life, a commu-nity has no future and no past, only a continuous present.

We live in networks, not communities. Everyone I know is lonely because of that. In some strange way school is a major actor in this tragedy, just as it is a major actor in the widening gulf among races and social classes. Using school as a sorting mechanism, we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wan-der through subway trains begging, and sleep upon the streets.

I've noticed a fascinating phenomenon in my 27 years of teaching: schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes any more that scientists are made in science classes, or politicians in civics classes, or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides, and even as administrators. But the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care, and do work very hard, the institution is psychopathic - by which I mean it has no conscience.

Continues here: The Exhausted School

[geekchic9]

Our education system of compulsory schooling was imported from Prussia in the 1840s. The Prussian system was designed to create obedient soldiers, citizens and workers. Not to educate. Not to advance literacy (which was already 97% in the United States before compulsory education was in place.)

You got it.

One of the few reasons I'm glad I live in Texas (USA) is that we have relatively lax homeschooling laws. All you got to teach is the 3 Rs and good citizenship, and you're considered a private school.

Now, I'm not saying that homeschooling >>> public school inherently. I've seen people with decent educations that came from public school and people with horrible educations that were homeschooled. What makes a good education good is the willingness to be educated to the best of your capabilities, period. Teachers can only do so much.

There are many teaching philosophies besides the Prussian one. Two that I like are traditional classical education (as opposed to neoclassical education) and unschooling. The reason I am bringing these philosophies up is to show that there are other ways of thought in education that have merits, and that there are better ways of teaching and learning. There are solutions. Our responsibility is to implement them for future generations in whatever capability we can.

[magi13]

Education is to create lawful members of society needs. ^^ this isn't something new guys. why notice just now. :3

As bad as it seems, what can you do about it is the question. ^^

P.s. It's not that bad.

[Brutha]

I don't think that it makes much more sense to speak about public schooling being designed in a certain way than it makes to speak about the human being as being designed.
Both aren't created by intelligent design but by evolutionary principles.
When it comes to school you work with memes and when it comes to human beings it's about genes but it isn't design.

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that it makes much more sense to speak about public schooling being designed in a certain way than it makes to speak about the human being as being designed.
Both aren't created by intelligent design but by evolutionary principles.
When it comes to school you work with memes and when it comes to human beings it's about genes but it isn't design.

So, what's your solution to the problem?

[Brutha]

So, what's your solution to the problem?

Starting with understanding the problem is a good first step.

I generally don't think that you get far by attacking the human right that are written down in the UN conventions that give children a right to primary education and being free from childlabor (you have people who want to homeschool children to learn their trade complaining about childlabor laws).
Those rights happen to be defended to prevent children from being exploited by their parents.
I don't agree libertarian argument that those rights should be abolished.
It's also doesn't happen to be an effective way to win the public debate.

I however have nothing against homeschooling when there is some way there is the condition for parents to teach their children things like the three R's.

Two that I like are traditional classical education (as opposed to neoclassical education)

Traditional classical education is about having a certain curriculum. You had Prussian schools that followed that curriculum.

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Starting with understanding the problem is a good first step.

Do you think I don't understand the problem? If so, why? And what is the next step in your solution?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I generally don't think that you get far by attacking the human right that are written down in the UN conventions that give children a right to primary education and being free from childlabor (you have people who want to homeschool children to learn their trade complaining about childlabor laws). Those rights happen to be defended to prevent children from being exploited by their parents.

The UN's "Rights of the Child" have not been approved officially in the US yet, but Obama discussed approving it officially without putting it up for a vote in Congress. This concerns a lot of people who feel that homeschooling could be abolished, like it has in many other countries who approved the "Rights of the Child", without even letting their elected representatives in Congress discuss its merits. I think it's a legitimate concern. Parents should be free to determine how their children should be educated, not the state.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I however have nothing against homeschooling when there is some way there is the condition for parents to teach their children things like the three R's.

The condition about the 3 R's is pretty much the minimum standard in this country. Most states have way more elaborate rules for homeschooling than Texas does. So, what's your complaint if we're meeting your conditions?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Traditional classical education is about having a certain curriculum. You had Prussian schools that followed that curriculum.

Many places in Europe followed the traditional curriculum, including the Prussians, before more "progressive" and "Prussian" education techniques came along to replace it. The traditional system is different than the "Prussian" system that schola is complaining about, because traditional classical education's goal was to produce thinkers and communicators, not just workers.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that it makes much more sense to speak about public schooling being designed in a certain way than it makes to speak about the human being as being designed.
Both aren't created by intelligent design but by evolutionary principles.
When it comes to school you work with memes and when it comes to human beings it's about genes but it isn't design.

The history is documented for anyone who cares to do the research.

First of all, schools existed before the 19th century and no one is suggesting that children don't deserve an education. But 1) they weren't compulsory, meaning attendence wasn't required. And 2) they weren't controlled by the state. This means schools were free to choose their curriculum and parents had options on where to send their children.

The modern compulsory public school system was designed in Prussia in the 19th century for an explicit purpose - to indoctrinate children. It didn't evolve ala some kind of Richard Dawkins meme-etic evolution.

It was originally created to make soldiers so obedient to orders that they'd charge into a line of bayonets without blinking an eye. After the indoctrination system was put in place, Prussia went on to conquer the rest of the German states, eventually creating the German Empire.

The system was studied by countries all over the world. It was attractive to both capitalist elites and socialist elites - the socialist elites had a means to control the "masses" and thus create their idea of a utopia managed by scientist-elites. The capitalists had an obedient workforce to man their factories.


The Public School Nightmare
"The structure of American schooling, 20th century style, began in 1806 when Napoleon's amateur soldiers beat the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. When your business is selling soldiers, losing a battle like that is serious. Almost immediately afterwards a German philosopher named Fichte delivered his famous "Address to the German Nation" which became one of the most influential documents in modern history. In effect he told the Prussian people that the party was over, that the nation would have to shape up through a new Utopian institution of forced schooling in which everyone would learn to take orders.

So the world got compulsion schooling at the end of a state bayonet for the first time in human history; modern forced schooling started in Prussia in 1819 with a clear vision of what centralized schools could deliver:

1.Obedient soldiers to the army;
2.Obedient workers to the mines;
3.Well subordinated civil servants to government;
4.Well subordinated clerks to industry
5.Citizens who thought alike about major issues. "

Prussian Education System
"After the defeat of the Prussians (Germans) by Napoleon at the battle of Jena in 1806, it was decided that the reason why the battle was lost was that the Prussian soldiers were thinking for themselves on the battlefield instead of following orders.

The Prussian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), described by many as a philosopher and a transcendental idealist, wrote "Addresses to the German Nation" between 1807 and 1808, which promoted the state as a necessary instrument of social and moral progress. He taught at the University of Berlin from 1810 to his death in 1814. His concept of the state and of the ultimate moral nature of society directly influenced both Von Schelling and Hegel, who took an similarly idealistic view.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the "duties of the state", combined with John Locke's view (1690) that "children are a blank slate" and lessons from Rousseau on how to "write on the slate", Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered "scientific" in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important part of the Prussian system was that it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought about, how long to think about it and when a child was to think of something else. Basically, it was a system of thought control, and it established a penchant in the psyche of the German elite that would later manifest itself into what we now refer to as mind control...(continues at link) "

[SomeRandomGuy]

I think that compulsory education has many other problems, aside from those mentioned by the OP. My primary complaint with compulsory education is that it does not seem to do a good job on delivering a good education to those students who truly want to be educated.

With compulsory education you have many students there who do not want to be. They have no interest in learning, and are mostly a distraction to the teachers and students who do wish to learn. Also, in many schools (especially smaller ones) the curriculum is aimed at the "average" student. When your average student does not want to be there in the first place, this results in a curriculum aimed at students with no desire to receive an eduction, which in turn holds back those students who truly do want an education.

I fully support public eduction in terms of everyone having equal access to education. I think it is great that the costs, transportation, etc of education are being taken care of for students in public school. My experience, however, is that very often a public school education isn't really a good education. I know that it is a complex issue, with many different factors attributing to the level of education given. I don't profess to know the solution, but I do believe that having classrooms filled with students who actually want to be there and who care about learning would be a good step in the right direction.

[schola]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

With compulsory education you have many students there who do not want to be. They have no interest in learning, and are mostly a distraction to the teachers and students who do wish to learn.

I think everyone is born with an interest in learning (curiousity.) It's just bred out by 12-16 years of rules, drills, bells, lectures, and rote memorization. The only thing public schooling "teaches" is that learning is boring.

Originally Posted by geekchic9

There are many teaching philosophies besides the Prussian one. Two that I like are traditional classical education (as opposed to neoclassical education) and unschooling. The reason I am bringing these philosophies up is to show that there are other ways of thought in education that have merits, and that there are better ways of teaching and learning. There are solutions. Our responsibility is to implement them for future generations in whatever capability we can.

Unschooling is an interesting idea. Thanks for the links.

[carenkh]

I've been unschooling with my kids for 9 years now, and I've seen firsthand how much more alive and interested in life unschooled kids are. I teach drumming at a private school, and it kills me to go in and see the kids in there with deadened eyes, who are just marking time until the final bell rings. Even the kids who *love* the drumming class feel trapped - because they are.

The costs of compulsory schooling are many. One thing I've been thinking of lately is the loss of family time - the kids are away from home for 6 - 8 hours every day, then are forced to do an hour or more of homework each night. And, oh! The angst with homework! The arguments, the cajoling - and it's for... nothing. Absolutely nothing. I hate how a government entity dictates how families should spend their time together. I have counseled a few families who weren't ready to jump into unschooling to just drop homework unless the student *wants* to do it, and to stop caring about grades. The few who were ready to take those steps have more freedom than most in the midst of that most crazy system.

[Fullcrum]

Drop homework? But how?

What path does that lead the child on? I mean, if grades drop but you do not pull the student out of the school system, they'll just be placed into remedial classes, and many opportunities they would have had would be gone.

[Lil Chris]

Charlotte Iserbyt - Something to Consider in your investigations

[Brutha]

In Prussia compulsory education started in 1717 a century before Fichte's "Address to the German Nation".

First of all, schools existed before the 19th century and no one is suggesting that children don't deserve an education.

As a matter of fact a lot of children had to work in coal mines at that time.

But I didn't argue anything about history but that the presently those rights get defended and that you have a problem in the public sphere when you want to get rid of them and give the power of choice in that regard completely to parents.

The modern compulsory public school system was designed in Prussia in the 19th century for an explicit purpose - to indoctrinate children. It didn't evolve ala some kind of Richard Dawkins meme-etic evolution.

Modern school don't contain strokes as teaching aids anymore because those don't fit into our modern zeitgeist anymore.
Ideas that having huge amounts of testing is "scientific" and therefore good are deeply ingrained into our modern zeitgeist with people like Peter Drucker saying that measure things is the way to improve them.
The belief in the bell curve is also a center of our modern intellectual culture.

Those memes that fit into our zeitgeist survived while other haven't.

If you want to change the modern school system you have to attack those memes. You win a debate by showing that the strongest arguments of the other side don't work. Showing that the weak arguments don't work won't bring you far.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by schola

Unschooling is an interesting idea. Thanks for the links.

If you're interested in unschooling and untraditional educations, you might want to read on Free Schools and Democratic Schools. I especially like A.S. Neil's books about Summerhill School, which he founded almost a century ago and that still runs today.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Drop homework? But how?

What path does that lead the child on? I mean, if grades drop but you do not pull the student out of the school system, they'll just be placed into remedial classes, and many opportunities they would have had would be gone.

Not true - most teachers are fed up with the system, as well! The families that I have known who have done that had really bright, interested kids - they aced the tests and took part in discussions. The kids didn't get stupid because they didn't do their homework - they became better students who were genuinely engaged. No remedial classes! No missed opportunities. One of the students did have poor grades, but got into the college of her choice because of the personal essay that she wrote. You can't hide intelligence and enthusiasm.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I thank schola for bringing this topic up for discussion. Although I was just the right type of person to excell in school without hating it too much, I still find the idea of compulsory education (as it's currently practiced) rather crappy. I favor laws preventing forced child labor and find it pretty funny that we protect kids from being forced to work, but do not protect them from being forced to do multiplication tables every night in third grade until they hate school with a fiery passion. Where I was capable and breezed through school, my infinitely more intelligent brother fought with the strictures and meaninglessness of it all. This is a man who understands physics and abstract math, who writes music and poetry, who knows more about more subjects than I could ever hope to learn. School pained him and I think actually prevented him from pursuing things he was passionate about for the sake of testing him on knowledge he would never use nor even remember a year later.

I love the idea of unschooling and all of the talk I've heard from parents who practice it is that their children are hungry to learn and are highly intelligent. They get to study what moves them and become more than proficient at it. I believe most children start out in life with a thirst to learn. Babies keep getting up to learn to walk no matter how many times they fall. Toddlers put shape blocks into the corresponding hole 50 times till they get it right and celebrate. Have you ever seen the joy on a pre-schooler's face when they read a word for the first time? That's magic...magic that school beats out of you, particularly if you aren't very organized, or don't learn auditorily, or have trouble following directions.

I think we do a disservice to children and to the whole nation and world when we plop kids down in schools and wash our hands of it. I can't say I have a solution that will suit everyone because I don't, but I know what we have is not working for the majority of kids. You have to be a very specific personality to do well in traditional schooling and if my brother is any indication, the brightest are dimmed by it rather than unleashed to bring their passion and intelligence to the world.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

But I didn't argue anything about history but that the presently those rights get defended and that you have a problem in the public sphere when you want to get rid of them and give the power of choice in that regard completely to parents.
Modern school don't contain strokes as teaching aids anymore because those don't fit into our modern zeitgeist anymore.
Ideas that having huge amounts of testing is "scientific" and therefore good are deeply ingrained into our modern zeitgeist with people like Peter Drucker saying that measure things is the way to improve them.
The belief in the bell curve is also a center of our modern intellectual culture.

Those memes that fit into our zeitgeist survived while other haven't.

If you want to change the modern school system you have to attack those memes. You win a debate by showing that the strongest arguments of the other side don't work. Showing that the weak arguments don't work won't bring you far.

The history is just one angle to approach the subject from. I posted essays that approached it from other angles.

You can take the reductionist route and nitpick different scientific theories about stages of psychological growth or the bell curve or nature vs nurture, but I'd rather look at the big picture.

The history of a system is always necessary in understanding it. In the case of the public schooling system, a confused and frustrated parent, teacher, or politician can gain some clarity when they study the history and realize this: The school system is failing to educate students because it wasn't designed to educate students. Everyone knows the system is broken. They want to know why.


Anyway I have another essay I really like written by a college professor and I hope everyone will excuse the title.
THE STUDENT AS ******

"In fact, for most of your school life, it doesn't make that much difference what subject you're taught. The real lesson is the method. The medium in school truly is the message. And the medium is, above all, coercive. You're forced to attend. The subjects are required. You have to do homework. You must observe school rules. And throughout, you're bullied into docility and submissiveness. Even modern liberal refinements don't really help. So you're called an underachiever instead of a dummy. So they send you to a counselor instead of beating you. It's still not your choice to be there. They may pad the handcuffs--but the handcuffs stay on.

Which particular subject they happen to teach is far less important than the fact that it is required. We don't learn that much subject matter in school anyway in proportion to the huge part of our lives that we spend there. But what we do learn very well, thanks to the method, is to accept choices that have been made for us. Which rule they make you follow is less important than the fact that there are rules. I hear about English teachers who won't allow their students to begin a sentence with "and." Or about high schools where the male students are not permitted to wear a T- shirt unless it has a pocket. I no longer dismiss such rules as merely pointless. The very point to such rules is their pointlessness.

The true and enduring content of education is its method. The method that currently prevails in schools is standardized, impersonal and coercive. What it teaches best is--itself. If, on the other hand, the method were individual, human and free, it would teach that. It would not, however, mesh smoothly into the machine we seem to have chosen as a model for our society.

It's how you're taught that does the harm. You may only study geometry for a semester--or French for two years. But doing what you're told, whether or not it makes sense, is a lesson you get every blessed school day for twelve years or more. You know how malleable we humans are. And you know what good learners we are--how little time it takes us to learn to drive a car or a plane or to play passable guitar. So imagine
what the effect must be upon our apt and impressionable minds of a twelve-year course in servility. Think about it. Twelve years of tardy bells and hall passes; of graded homework, graded tests, graded conduct; of report cards, GPA's, honors lists, citizenship ratings; of dress codes, straight lines and silence. What is it that they're teaching you? Twelve years pitted against your classmates in a daily Roman circus. The game is Doing What You're Told. The winners get gold stars, affection, envy; they get A's and E's, honors, awards and college scholarships. The losers get humiliation and degradation. The fear of losing the game is a great fear: it's the fear of swats, of the principal's office, and above all the fear of failing. What if you fail and have to watch your friends move past you to glory? And, of course, the worst could happen: you could be expelled. Not that very many kids get swats or fail or are expelled. But it doesn't take many for the message to get across. These few heavy losers are like severed heads displayed at the city gates to keep the populace in line."

[schola]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Charlotte Iserbyt - Something to Consider in your investigations

That's a good video! I hadn't heard of Charlotte Iserbyt. Thanks.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by schola

That's a good video! I hadn't heard of Charlotte Iserbyt. Thanks.

You're welcome... I also agree with your previous post as well.

[Brutha]

In Australian economics states are seen as fiction and there is the general argument that the thing that matters are decisions of a large number of individuals.
This is true in a similar sense for a system like education which happens to be produced by a lot of individual actions.
If you start believing that large abstract concepts like states define what happens you miss the things that matter.

The history of a system is always necessary in understanding it.

Selectively picking the arguments that you need for your agenda out of history doesn't lead to understanding.
Especially if you argue that someone who acted in the 19's century produced compulsory public schooling which happened to have been introduced in 1717.

Religion conflicts between protestants and catholics played their part in having compulsory public schooling in Prussia. The humanist tradition which followed the enlightenment also had a lot to do with the content of education.

The UN's "Rights of the Child" have not been approved officially in the US yet, but Obama discussed approving it officially without putting it up for a vote in Congress.

The US voted for the the Universal declaration of human rights in the general assembly of the UN which happens to say:

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

But even if you think that the universal human rights are some strange thing that isn't legally binding for the US, it still is a strong moral argument in the public discussion.
Violating the universal human rights like Bush leads to the rest of the world looking down on the US.

You can take the reductionist route and nitpick different scientific theories about stages of psychological growth or the bell curve or nature vs nurture, but I'd rather look at the big picture.

You need to tear down those ideas to change education because those idea keep the kind of education we have today alive.
The bell curve is also extremely damaging in other areas like economics (classical economics is filled with the bell curve). Nassim Taleb for example makes the argument that the belief in the bell curve coursed the present financial crisis.

Originally Posted by Lil Chris
Charlotte Iserbyt - Something to Consider in your investigations

UN declaration:
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

She seems to have a problem with that part of education. I see nothing wrong with speaking with children about starving children in the third world to teach them compassion for the third world. I also see nothing wrong with teaching tolerance with she seems to be programs that she dislikes.

[schola]

I've been doing some more reading and I'd like to share some more of my thoughts on the subject. I'm writing this as much to crystalize the thoughts in my own head as to share them with you all. I'd like to know what the homeschoolers and unschoolers think about this.

It seems that the point in which public schooling really started going in the wrong direction was when the idea of the teacher shifted from being a receptical of knowledge, into something more. The child used to be trusted with much more responsibility for his or her own education. The teacher was a passive source of information for the child to use in his studies.

This changed in the 19th and 20th centuries, when educators decided that children couldn't be trusted to manage their own education. They decided that teachers musn't just make the information available, they must condition the child to accept certain modes of thought. The teachers must "grow" an individual (Kindergarten = garden of children) capable of understanding the material presented to them. These modes of thought were based on the prevailing psychological theories of the time.

Some quotes by prominent educational reformers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Emphasis is mine on all these quotes:

"He [a teacher] is concerned, not with the subject-matter as such, but with the subject-matter as a related factor in a total and growing experience. John Dewey "The Child and the Curriculum"

“Education must be increasingly concerned about the fullest development of all children and youth, and it will be the responsibility of the schools to seek learning conditions which will enable each individual to reach the highest level of learning possible.” Benjamin Bloom Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning

“The educator by the very nature of his work is obliged to see his present work in terms of what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, for a future whose objects are linked with those of the present.” Experience and Education


These quotes seem fairly innocuous but they're dangerous in their implications. What the reforms of the Kinder Gardeners (growers of children) eventually led to is the idea of Outcome Based Education. OBE placed the emphasis not on the education itself, but what the child is able to do with the education.

Seems like a good idea on the surface right? What use is an education if the child can't put it to good use? Well, one person's idea of "good use" is another person's idea of "waste of time." Who's authority is it to decide whether one is putting their education to good use or not?

The main aim of OBE is to make a productive member of society and a good citizen. Dont' believe me? Here's a quote from the website of the American Association of School Administrators:

Public Schools: "If you look back in history, you will find that the core mission of public education in America was to create places of civic virtue for our children and for our society.

Civic virture? What does that even mean? Where does living a happy and meaningful life fit in with those ideals?

The answer is, they don't. Living a happy and meaningful life is at odds with the ideas of the Kinder Gardeners. The Kinder Gardeners aren't interested in the individual's quality of life. They're just interested in creating "good citizens" i. e. cogs for the giant machine called society.

Anyway, all this has led to standardized testing and disasters like No Child Left Behind.


In closing, I have a question for you all: How much trust should we give the child in educating themselves and deciding how to utilize their education. I'm especially interested in the unschooling perspective on this.

[Brutha]

Seems like a good idea on the surface right? What use is an education if the child can't put it to good use?

Exactly, most dangerous ideas look like a good idea on the surface. That happens to be part of the reason why they are dangerous, as it makes it easier for the idea to spread.

The teachers must "grow" an individual (Kindergarten = garden of children) capable of understanding the material presented to them.

Not really, a Kindergarten is traditionally a place where children were encouraged to play together and didn't had to learn material that their teacher gave them.

Intuition or first-hand experience (Anschauung) was to be recognized as the true basis of knowledge, and though stories were to be told, instruction of the imparting and " learning-up " kind was to be excluded.

This changed in the 19th and 20th centuries, when educators decided that children couldn't be trusted to manage their own education.

The interesting thing is that this happened to be the time when teachers really became professional teachers. Beforehand teachers often were from a lower social class than the children that they taught.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by schola

...on purpose.
Our education system of compulsory schooling was imported from Prussia in the 1840s. The Prussian system was designed to create obedient soldiers, citizens and workers. Not to educate. Not to advance literacy (which was already 97% in the United States before compulsory education was in place.)

Prussian education system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was imported into the United States by elitists who were interested in controlling the notoriously independent American masses. It then spread throughout the rest of the world.

This is still the same system we have in place today.

For now, I'll leave you with an essay by John Taylor Gatto. This guy's credentials are impressive: He took supposedly hopeless kids from the Bronx ghetto and turned them into A students, many of them going on to win awards and prestigious internships.

But his methods got him in trouble with school administrators and he eventually got frustrated and quit.

He wrote this essay to the Wall Street Journal when he decided to retire after 30 years in teaching:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/under.../prologue2.htm

The falsehood of there being 'Learning-disabled children' is just that,
an utterly-deceitful LIE"; Drummed-up by "learning-Disabling teachers, & schools". WAKE-UP!!


Millions of us parents, well aware to the truth, therefore removed our children from that ("schooled"-"publically") hell, to unschool them.

To what Outcome?: so their precious Individuality can continue to flourish...
and
Learning, & Achievements can remain. - All that is necessary, is teaching a child a few basics, and then get OUT of the way, and let them fly... - as so many other parents, I with a few other homeschooling parents started a program for Rural kids,
where many graduated, with honors, from colleges, while yet in their teens. And all this, is as it should, and can be!
.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Exactly, most dangerous ideas look like a good idea on the surface. That happens to be part of the reason why they are dangerous, as it makes it easier for the idea to spread.

The interesting thing is that this happened to be the time when teachers really became professional teachers.

Yes, and why millions of US-parents, have removed our kids, from such 'dangerous professionals'

Our children do not need, their dysfunctional behaviors.

Get back to unschooling and Intelligently-Created by GOD this way-- simply Succeed...

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

so their precious Individuality can continue to flourish...

exactly why I homeschool

[sk8joyful]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk8joyful
so their precious Individuality can continue to flourish...

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

exactly why I homeschool

kewl!

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

exactly why I homeschool

Were their any legal requirements you had to fulfill to do that...?

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Were their any legal requirements you had to fulfill to do that...?

Yes, every US-state has different rules, to satisfy, Check here: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp