The Underground History of American Education

Chris Acheson writes "John Taylor Gatto is a former New York City school teacher. During his 30-year career, he has taught at 5 different public schools, has had his teaching license suspended twice for insubordination, and was once covertly terminated while on medical leave. He has also won the New York City Teacher of the Year award three times and the New York State Teacher of the Year award once during the final year of his career. The whole time he has been an outspoken critic of the school system. Nine years after leaving his career, he published The Underground History of American Education (full text available here), in which he puts forth his insider's vision of what is wrong with American schooling. His verdict is not what you'd expect: the school system cannot be fixed, Gatto asserts, because it has been designed not to educate. Skeptical? So was I." Read on for the rest of Acheson's review.

The Underground History of American Education
author	John Taylor Gatto
pages	700
publisher	Oxford Village Press
rating	9
reviewer	Chris Acheson
ISBN	0945700040
summary	A damning look at the institution of modern compulsory schooling and the factors which brought it about.

The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.

Over the course of the book, Gatto exposes many of the individuals, organizations, and crises (both real and manufactured) that helped to make our public school system what it is today. Such architects as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and a handful of teaching and management experts sought to benefit directly from a dumbed-down citizenry. Others contributed in a naive attempt at Utopian social engineering, mostly unaware of the harm that they were doing. There was never any master plan, though. The author puts it best:

With conspiracy so close to the surface of the American imagination and American reality, I can only approach with trepidation the task of discouraging you in advance from thinking my book the chronicle of some vast diabolical conspiracy to seize all our children for the personal ends of a small, elite minority.

Don't get me wrong, American schooling has been replete with chicanery from its very beginnings: indeed, it isn't difficult to find various conspirators boasting in public about what they pulled off. But if you take that tack you'll miss the real horror of what I'm trying to describe, that what has happened to our schools was inherent in the original design for a planned economy and a planned society laid down so proudly at the end of the nineteenth century. I think what happened would have happened anyway-without the legions of venal, half-mad men and women who schemed so hard to make it as it is. If I'm correct, we're in a much worse position than we would be if we were merely victims of an evil genius or two.

Gatto maintains throughout the book that all individuals have an innate curiosity and desire to learn. Examples are given in the first chapter of prominent historical figures who prospered with little or no formal schooling. But I found the examples of desire for substantive education on the part of "the masses" to be most compelling:

When a Colorado coalminer testified before authorities in 1871 that eight hours underground was long enough for any man because "he has no time to improve his intellect if he works more," the coaldigger could hardly have realized his very deficiency was value added to the market equation.

The real function of the school system is not to empower people by giving them knowledge, but to crush this instinct toward self-improvement before it makes the workers too independent and troublesome. Another compelling example is the "Jewish Student Riots" described in chapter 9:

Thousands of mothers milled around schools in Yorkville, a German immigrant section, and in East Harlem, complaining angrily that their children had been put on "half-rations" of education. They meant that mental exercise had been removed from the center of things.

The book does have a few problems. Gatto is by his own admission somewhat casual about citing his sources. This is important because there are some assertions made that many will find dubious. For example:

Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered.

This would be a great fact to toss out when trying to convince someone that schooling is unnecessary. But where does this statistic come from? What does "wherever such a thing mattered" mean? Some readers may be willing to simply take Gatto's word for it and accept this assertion, but skeptics will be left unsatisfied. According to historical census data from 1840, the national average literacy rate for white adults was indeed approximately 93%, and the literacy rate for white adults living in Connecticut was 99.67%. Why not simply say that the statistic refers to white adults? The omission hurts the author's credibility in the eyes of a skeptical reader.

The other thing that I found disappointing is that Gatto doesn't discuss solutions to the schooling problem as thoroughly as I wanted. Throughout the book examples are shown of educational methods which have worked well. As I read, I mulled these over, and anticipated that the final chapter (titled "Breaking Out Of The Trap") would be a comprehensive look at these methods and ways to promote their implementation. But that final chapter is mostly a collection of anecdotes. Gatto does provide a short list of positive suggestions and a promise to cover solutions more fully in a future book.

The picture that Gatto paints for us of our school system and society is frightening, but I also found it comforting to see evidence that ignorance and apathy are not the natural state of humanity. I found hope in the fact that things were once different. Having a clearly defined problem that can be solved is preferable to having a vague suspicion that something is wrong, but no clear idea what it is.

The ideas presented in Gatto's Underground History have the potential to change our society and our individual lives for the better. Even when we are trapped within the system, knowing how it works and what it is really up to can help us retain our wit and our humanity. If you are a student, if you are a parent, if you know or care about anyone who is in school, or even if you are just concerned about corporate and government control versus individual freedom, you need to read this book.

---

You can purchase The Underground History of American Education from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Religion and Schooling

[a5cii]

The sooner we get an education system which does not teach religion or political or patriotic based material the better.

This idea has been around for a bit.

[outZider]

Fans of Daniel Quinn should take note that this very idea has been around in both Ishmael and The Story of B. Our educational system isn't designed for learning, per se, but to train kids to be proper working adults, and to make sure they know how life "really works" in our culture.

There are always exceptions to the rule -- you will always find a teacher willing to go the extra mile, or a student who rises far above the rest. Mediocrity reigns in the American public school system, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

One word.

[Anonymous Coward]

homeschool

Education systems are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Children should be with their parents and extended family. Having transient adult figures isn't the way to be raised.
Children shouldn't spend all day with their human contact being dominated by others of exactly the same age. A child should have contact with a wide range of age groups.
Children should be being taught by example.
Children should learn the values needed to want to learn and understand the reasons why they should. Passing an exam doesn't make a person a good person, nor productive, nor creative, nor caring.
The longer a modern education system is present in a society, the more the society dies.

No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been railing against the mis-use of the university system in North America for years. It is no longer about learning, but memorizing, cheating and begging to get a 'grade' so you can get a job. It's a system designed to keep young people out of the work force (because work is mostly illusory these days anyways) , to keep them in debt and create a class of permanent woker/paupers with the illusion of being 'educated'.
So they can get ready to compete against each other to curry favor with the dominant monkeys instead of enjoying life.

"No Child Left Behind"

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother is a school librarian in NY and she has told me how Bush's current plan means that teachers teach tests instead of lessons, but I agree with this guy; it seems evident that the school system was designed to make quasi-educated, but more importantly obedient factory workers. You want your workers to be able to read instructions, etc, but not much more; not think on their feet or anything. Its the only explanation for the disparity between college and primary school; and now that everyone is going to college, it's becoming the difference between a masters and a bachelors.

Re:dupe?

[wolrahnaes]

I also recall seeing this recently, but I think it was over at k5, not here.

The guy has a point

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've worked with little kids, one of the first things you notice is that almost every single one of them really, really wants to learn.

But somehow, during about K-4th grade, most of the kids in the US educational system seem to have that crushed out of them.

Personally, I don't think the schools are wholly to blame. Quite a lot of it is cultural. Kids learn early -- from TV, from movies, and even from books -- that it's cool to be ignorant, it's cool to be a wiseass, but it's never cool to be a nerd.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[AKAImBatman]

SINCE THE MODERATORS SAW IT FIT TO MOD DOWN MY ORIGINAL POST, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN:

Please mod the parent post down! The author did not claim that "religion" in schools was a problem, he claimed that the school IS A RELIGION.

This time with a +2 modifier so it gets heard.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[strictfoo]

The sooner we get an education system which does not teach religion or political or patriotic based material the better.

What school system are you referring to? Not the US school system clearly, a system where highschool religion classes exclude Christianity, where political science teachers worship europe, and where students are told that if the US were to vanish in a instance the world would be fine again in a month or two (a subject I once had a heated debate with my AP US History teacher about)

Come on now. Yes I know there are some school districts across the country that may also teach creationism as well as evolution, but those are clearly not the norm by any means.

Educational Triage

[TrentL]

Interesting ideas.

My problem with current education is the ridiculous "leave no child behind" mentality. We don't need to send all these people to college. Let's be realistic about that and send some of them on the path to a meaningful trade. High school is all "college college college", and as a result, lots of kids get NOTHING out of it (and a bad side effect is that college is becoming the new high school with an influx of immature students). So, my proposed Triage:

Kids who want to go to college.
Kids who want to learn a trade skill.
Punks who are on their way to prison. Priority #1 is separating this group from the first two.

Re:Education systems are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

moderated down straight away? That's the fraility of the Slashdot moderating system. Yes, people really do think this way, see here [unschooling.com].
Schools have become so normalised that people can't imagine society being without them. So you immediately decide it to be an invalid opinion because you consider it unthinkable.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[grape jelly]

I take issue on your points.

Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.

Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.

Lasly, patriotism is a vague term that is largely misused by the right to imply that you should be doing what they say. Patriotism itself is not inherently a bad thing and can pull people in a nation together. However, through education on varying political and religious systems, as well as through education that teaches the people to think on a global scale, we can both be proud of the nation we reside in (for it truly is still great, imo) and yet also be conscious and aware of other nations' desires, beliefs and rights.

Re:The guy has a point

[dup_account]

Mod this argument up. Stupid is so cool that we (meaning you all who voted for him) elected an intelligence underachiever (Bush) rather than a brainiac (Gore). And I believe it is because being intelligent (or appearing intelligent) is not cool. OOOO.. the nerd claims he invented the internet. He's too stiff (meaning he's thinking rather than being driven by emotions)

Re:As a former teacher, I agree--it's not fixable

[Anonymous Coward]

Boys especially need to have a break at certain stages of their growth, usually about 13-15 yo, when they should be sent away from home to some sort of boarding school/military school/vocational school arrangement.

Could you justify that statement more?

Re:as a former teacher

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Which is why his entire book is available for free on the web!

Sounds like a load of crap

[cunniff]

Caveat: I did not read the whole book, just browsed through the online pages. However, this seems like a classic example of the "hasty generalization" fallacy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/hasty%2 0generalization [thefreedictionary.com]). The author extrapolates his personal experiences and assumes that they are representative of the whole nation's school system, weaving a conspiracy theory through it to further sensationalize it.

First of all, there is no "national school system" in the United States. Each state is responsible for public education within its own borders. I don't know about New York, but at least in Colorado, the situation is nowhere close to that described in his prologue. If a Colorado administrator had subjected a student to the verbal abuse described there, they would be subject to disciplinary action at the least, and possibly termination.

I know that education in the United States is not perfect. There are many areas that desparately need improvment, especially science and math education, but hysterical diatribes such as these do little to advance the dialogue and only serve to inflame the True Believers.

As the son of two teachers

[teamhasnoi]

I can agree - education is going nowhere fast. I can't believe that kids are being taught how to use Powerpoint and Word in school. What happened to learning to think?

Teach someone to think, and they can figure out Powerpoint and Word. Teach someone Powerpoint and Word and you have an idiot who can't do anything else.

Every homeschooled person I've ever met have been crazy geniuses because they were taught how to think and reason. Of course, they are also socially inept as they didn't have to deal with masses of other children.

Keep the population stupid, and they will be more apt to eat up your propaganda. Ignorance is bliss.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There is no conspiratorial "true purpose"

[Ben Escoto]

The true purpose of schooling, according to Gatto, is to produce an easily manageable workforce to serve employers in a mass-production economy. Actual education is a secondary and even counterproductive result since educated people tend to be more difficult to control.

I'm currently teaching now (college level) and my parents were both public school teachers (elementary and high school level) all in the US. So I'm so glad I found out that our true purpose all this time wasn't to educate people! Congrats on enlightening us!

But seriously, large organizations have no single "true" purpose which determines their effect, but are composed of tens of thousands of people, who each have different goals. Much more important is what the people actually doing the work (all the teachers and principles, who actually interact with the children) are trying to do, what their purpose is. It's laughable that we are against "actual education".

Of course certain structural reforms could improve education. But to say that the true purpose of the American educational system is against education is silly.

Not what I'd expect...?

[dameron]

That's exactly what I'd expect. Our public school system grew out of the industrial revolution's need for people to have a minimum skill set and be regimented from an early age to follow a bell system. Ring. Lunch. Ring. Work. Ring. Leave.

Now that we're moving into a post industrial world (or that the industrial world is moving overseas) the regimenting is a bit less important and the skills taught have eroded to the point that McDonald's now has pictures of the food on the cash register instead of text.

The schools are great at producing people with stunted reasoning skills who can be content working at Wal Mart and make great consumers, and who vote (when they vote, if the system were perfect they wouldn't vote at all) based on emotion and often against their own interests.

There are some political parties who just can't afford to have an informed or educated electorate (hint: they tend to cut education spending and demonize teachers), and who's children never touch public school anyway.

-dameron

Re:"No Child Left Behind"

[jayayeem]

New York has 'taught to the test' a lot longer than Bush has been president. I moved to NY state when I was high school age, and spent 3 years learning to take 'Regent's exams.'

Re:As a former teacher, I agree--it's not fixable

[garcia]

Boys especially need to have a break at certain stages of their growth, usually about 13-15 yo, when they should be sent away from home to some sort of boarding school/military school/vocational school arrangement, at least for a time. It all depends on the kid.

I guess I was one of those kids that didn't need that. What kids do need is to go to college AWAY from home... When I mean AWAY I mean outside of a single day's drive. No going home on the weekends for laundry, food, family time. These people need to stay the fuck at school and experience the "half-way house" experience that College helps to create.

Sending someone off to boarding/military/vocational schools when they are in their mid-teens will do nothing but help to alienate the child in a time when they might be alienated enough.

Kids need time to be apart *AND* they need time to grow but seperating them from their family at this point of their lives is hardly the way to do it. Wait for them to be of a mature enough age 18+ here in the States and don't let the little bastards come back.

You learn a lot, grow a lot, and change a lot in those years but you are still under the light security blanket that the college envrionment creates.

Re:"No Child Left Behind"

[RZeno]

The results of the "No Child Left Behind" program are obvious to anyone in education: The majority of the time and money is spent on those students who either value education the least (different cultures value education very differently) or have severe language and/or learning difficulties.

"No Child Left Behind" = the bar has been lowered to the point where most can get by. It ensures everyone gets an education just good enough for employment in the fast food industry. If you want your child to have other employment options, find other education options for them.

Teaching?

[ackthpt]

The sooner we get an education system which does not teach religion or political or patriotic based material the better.

Here's a clue for you. Teachers spend so much time preparing students to take tests (Ever hear of a political candidate saying they've got a better idea on making schools accountable through testing?) there's scant time to teach outside of a packaged program, let along politics or patriotism (and religion, that's a livewire in the local schools, don't touch it.)

Re:This is brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thankful I had several teachers like you when I went to school. Thank you.

Re:This is brilliant

[CrimsonAvenger]

All of those examples seem to be primarily liability issues. So your problems may be the lawyers, not the schools. Which I can well believe.

Re:Educational Triage

[GoofyBoy]

What about "Kids who have no idea of what they want to do for the rest of their lives"?

That would be a bigger group than any one of yours.

the European system is even worse

[Trepidity]

The European system is even more overtly designed to train good little workers. In many countries, you have to pick a career by the time you're 16, and rather than receiving any sort of further general education, you at the age of 16 start receiving specialized education to train you for that job.

Same with higher education: whereas in the US people who want to be doctors get a general undergraduate degree, and then go to med school, in Europe they go straight to med school.

Re:This is brilliant

[kevlar]

This is why you send your kids to a reputable private school. In private schools the only thing you might see is parents getting pissed at teachers, but in any decent school the parents won't win (the exception is when money is involved but that is a rare occasion!).

I've suspected as much for years.

[snarkasaurus]

One of the things forcibly impressed upon me from wasted years of "education" is the way school actively decieves you about the nature of the workplace.

Medical education is my latest nightmare. It fills the student with theory and visions of how things "should" be done, and informs them not at all regarding how things ARE done. Pity the poor medical student on their first hospital placement. The garbage colectors know more about what the score is than they do.

I've been out of public school for so long that I can't comment on how things are now, but higher education baby, that I can. What we have here is what I call Certification Syndrome. You aren't worth a damn to anyone unless you are Certified in some subject or other. Like a Certified Microsoft Engineer has a clue why XP screws up on one PC but not another.

The unholy alliance of lazy large busineses looking for replaceable cogs and schools willing to crank them out is what we have these days. Unfortunately people trained to be good little cogs don't do great things. Bill Gates for example is not a good little cog. Bill doesn't have a CME either, I bet.

Bottom line, if you want to be educated instead of trained, you have to WORK your ass off at it. Same for your kids. Teach them how to think, give them the tools of rationality or put up with them when they become Radical Vegan Socialists for Peace with a CME or an MD. Because that's what's fashionable at school this decade.

Next decade it'll probably be Radical Christian Conservatives For War. I don't see that as an improvement. You got a brain, you should get some decent software for it. God forbid you should have an origional thought.

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[marshmeli]

It'll make you want to homeschool your kids.

why would anyone want to homeschool their kids?

they get no interaction with other kids and are far too sheltered. It think it is a big mistake and many times its becuase the parents are scared of the world - well that is life and the world we live in you have to deal with it. Schools have many problems but hopefully the parents will help and motviate their child and guide them in the right direction. But I do not think home schooling is the correct fix.

In Education...

[BJZQ8]

I work in education, and never has a truer article come along in my memory. Schools are not here for teaching students; they have become self-perpetuating job-producers for people unable or unwilling to pursue "hard" jobs. Incompetent teachers are protected by unions and simultaneously given raises just for existing. Billions of dollars are poured down the drains of "technology" and "special education" with little or no accounting and rationale for them. In short, though, you will never change the system now. It is too entrenched. Much like the governmental system in general, it now feeds off itself. Try to run for President saying that you will dismantle the Education system...it's similar to saying you're going to get rid of Social Security. It is so entrenched in society's collective mind that it will never change without a revolution.

Re:The guy has a point

[mzwaterski]

Its up to parents to teach their kids that being cool to some kid in 5th grade isn't as important as it may seem. Teach kids that there is a whole world of people out there and that there will always be some people who will like you and some that won't. I feel like today parents are more worried about their kid fitting in at school than actually learning anything at school. Don't get me wrong, developing social relationships is extremely important, but so is standing up for what a child believes is right. It is possible to be smart and to have friends. Kids should be taught that their curious nature and desire for learning should never end. This may only happen in private schools, but I was told over and over again: "I can teach you something today, but tomorrow it may be outdated. You need to be involved in life-long learning."

Finally, I'd like to comment that a child's school life and his/her home life should not be discrete and seperate things. Parents need to emphasize learning at home, especially starting at a young age.

Many Problems, Many Partial Solutions

[matima]

It's not just the format of American education that's the problem, it's the content and the objective.

I think of American public schools like I think of American prisons. We really haven't figured out if we want to help the inhabitants improve, or babysit them to keep them from hurting others or themselves, and so far, we've done a shitty job of both.

But perhaps that's oversimplified. There are many different pieces that join together to form the whole problem.

1) Teachers - underpaid, underappreciated, and undertalented. We need to train, pay, and expect the best from teachers, and treat them with the respect and admiration deserving of the people who nurture the minds and interests of the next generation, because they are.

2) Parents - underinvolved and unwilling to do their part. It used to be that if you got in trouble at school, it was nothing compared to the trouble that you'd get into when you got home. Conversely, parents used to be much more active and supportive of their children's education, and "active" is not defined by putting pithy stickers on the minivan.

3) Students - "some children left behind." The hardest problem is that we have the mindset that school has a plethora of solutions for children with problems. It doesn't. Those places would be called "juvenile hall" or "psychiatric ward." Some students are going to misbehave, cause trouble, underperform, or fail, and we should let them. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, and you don't get increasing results by applying declining standards.

School was pretty boring and unchallenging for me, but it wasn't miserable. It seems like it's heading that way, though.

Conspiracies? Give me a break...

[subrosas]

Our society doesn't care about education. Education is considered worthwhile if it:

1. keeps kids locked up so their parents don't have to pay daycare
2. insures our kids get jobs so that we don't have to support them anymore
3. is cheap. No one likes property tax increases

In the end, we get what we (as a market) ask for. If you think our system sucks, look at yourself and your neighbors to find the reason, not to some silly conspiracy.

Re:The guy has a point

[fbg111]

Stupid is so cool that we (meaning you all who voted for him) elected an intelligence underachiever (Bush) rather than a brainiac (Gore).

I didn't vote for Gore not b/c he was a braniac, but b/c he was an egotistical, insecure man in his 50s who still hadn't found himself. I have no problem with braniacs, but I have little regard for braniacs with something to prove, and Gore's apparent insecurity made me sceptical that he was truly a braniac in the first place. For chrissake, how could anyone vote for a guy who has to hire a renowned feminist to teach him how to be an alpha male. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. The election 2000 was pure Sophie's Choice. An unthinking, overly-religious, drug-addled idiot or a narcisistic man with a midlife identity crisis. Election 2004 isn't much better. The country's going to hell in handbasket, I tell you.

Re:Education systems are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Children should be with their parents and extended family. Having transient adult figures isn't the way to be raised.

That's a good way to make feudal systems of cliques, mafia-like gangs, and racist enclaves of rednecks waging wars against gangs of blacks.

Children need diversity and more than anything they need to learn how to work in a bigger world than their overprotective mom's house.

In this world of international business, interacting with people far far different from their own family is extremely important.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[bshellenberg]

The other point about religion, politics and patriotism is that much of the world's history is based on some combination of these. It would be difficult to foresee the future and its direction without a clear understanding of the past.

Re:Educational Triage

[ghost_world]

Yeah!

Once we figure out which kids are the bad seeds, we can send them directly to prison!
Where they will learn all of the skills necessary to succeed in their chosen field.

Thought-provoking, to be sure...

[ndykman]

A couple of points came to mind. First, literacy today is much different than in the 19th century. There's just more sources of knowledge, more types of knowledge, hell, just more stuff period.

To argue that "hey, people were okay" back then without formal schooling leaves some questions open. Imagine what TV would do to people from the 19th century, and you see what I'm driving at here.

Also, firstly, I like the notion that the role of "socialization" is uniformly a bad thing. Frankly, I don't think America has a problem with people being overly conformist yet (compare us to say, China). I still see plenty of signs that free thinking is still pretty common here.

In fact, sometimes I think focus on the "be yourself, whatever it takes" vs. "be nice to others and get along". Not that has to be a conflict, but it often is.

Finally, there is a terrible Catch-22 in education. Teaching is not an honored profession. The pay reflects that. So, we need to increase the social and economic status of teachers.

But the problem is that many professional teaching associations protect too many bad teachers. There are many states in which it is almost impossible to fire a teacher after he/she has taught for two years.

The profession has to look seriously at itself and get over the view that all teachers are saints. There are truly great teachers, but there are truly bad teachers, and as long as they are seen as equals, then we will be stuck with suboptimal education.

For me, the teachers are the key. A good teacher can overcome amazing obstacles, and a bad teacher can spoil the best of resources.

Value learning above all else!

[mariox19]

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I think this is the real principle behind your school's success (and other schools like it): the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education as a value.

This is the fundamental difference between such schools and public schooling, no matter what school board members, teachers, administrators, and teacher college PhD's say to the contrary. Learning and education is not valued in the public school culture.

In non-government schools, kids are there first and foremost because their parents care enough about education to spare the money for it. Moreover, every student's place in that school is conditional: fuck up, and you're out!

There are good teachers, good students, and good books in both government and non-government schools. The fundamental difference (that makes all the difference) is the above. Promote the value of education, and the work is half done.

This will not happen in American public schools, except for rare exceptions. Government schools in America cater to discipline problem students, half-idiot students, and every half-baked educational fad that comes out of the ivory tower. Apart from the good students, good teachers, and good ideas that happen to make it in through the doors, the public schools are a dumping ground.

For what it's worth, I went through graduate school, earning an M.A. in education and currently substitute teach in several districts. I'm familiar with what goes on.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[Kupek]

So as to not keep you guessing, I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. You said your school took all economic backgrounds - but what was the breakdown, and how "low" on the economic ladder? At my public high school, about 66% of the students were on free or reduced lunch. (I was on my newspaper and I crunched the numbers one time.) Our school was also not, in general, a bastion of academic achievemnt.

For standardized tests like the SATs, there's a strong correlation between performance and household income.

Oh, and if someone at my school had physically attacked our principal in the cafeteria, the administrators would have restrained the kid very quickly, and the kid would have been expelled. It wouldn't have been instantaneous like in your school, but it certainly would have happened.

("Free or reduced lunch" means the kid's guardians have an income low enough that the state is willing to sell lunch to him/her for a reduced price or free.)

Schools aren't about teaching.

[bs_02_06_02]

Schools are not about teaching. They are about money. School teachers have been weeded out of administration by politicians who campaign for money.

When have you heard, "We have enough money to get a good education for our students this year." ???
You will never hear anyone associated with education say those words.
But you will hear, "Our scores would be better if we had more money."
Kids are taught from an early age to equate money with education. They will not say, "You can't get a good education because there isn't enough money."
They will say: "Tell your parents to vote for the tax levy because we need a new $56 million dollar building, otherwise, you will not get a good education." Or, "We want to buy new _____ so they can learn better."
Kids equate money with education.
They're taught that school teachers don't make much money.
They need new textbooks, and textbooks cost a lot of money.
Money is the problem. "We need to cancel music or art because we don't have any money."
The truth is, there will never be enough money in the universe for education. "We need to close a few schools because we don't have any money."
Money solves all problems. "If we paid more money, we would attract better teachers."
Administrators pass this stuff down to the teachers, the school board, and the newspapers.
Teachers pass it to the kids. They send notes home to the parents.
With all this talking and crying about money, no one gets an education. Teacher unions are squarely focused on money. They have no concern over quality education. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If quality came into play, then teachers would be judged, and unions don't want teachers to be judged.

Another common statement, "We need new books."
I hate to say it, but math hasn't changed much. Neither has reading or writing. Yet every year, the textbook gets a new revision, teachers simply have to have it to "stay current." Good teachers are weeded out of administration to be replaced by politicians who can campaign for budget.

Re:As a former teacher, I agree--it's not fixable

[Otter]

Before we get to deeply into "No, your country sucks!" (mixed in with "My country sucks!"), let's pause for a little perspective:

The fact is that millions of irreproachably competent graduates, and quite a few phenomenal ones, are coming out of the US educational system. And the Japanese and the German and the Australian and the British and the South Korean and the Swedish and the...

The notion that the US educational system, or that of any other developed country, exists to destroy students is self-evidently moronic. Certainly, I can tell you places where the US system needs improvement and having taught in Japan, Lord knows I could tell you where they need improvement. But the hook on which this discussion is hung is asinine.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[adavies42]

Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.

Among the religions we treat equally must also be atheism: we cannot encourage religion per se any more than we can encourage one religion over others.

Re:What are your solutions?

[jarich]

Solutions?

We homeschool our children...

I think a very good solution would be vouchers.

I should be able to take ~my tax dollars~ and spend them in any way I like.

If the local school is a good one, I'll spend them there. If the local school is bad, I'll spend my dollars at a private school or a charter school.

Vouchers don't take money away from the local schools... it puts the money in the hands of the parents.

Re:Educational Triage

[fbg111]

We don't need to send all these people to college. Let's be realistic about that and send some of them on the path to a meaningful trade.

Considering that many colleges are glorified trade schools now anyway, I won't protest too strongly. But theoretically, college should be a place where students are taught the liberal arts that produce an educated, informed, and critcally-thinking citizenry necessary for democracy. History, Philosophy, Art, and Literature are all super-important in that respect, and one reason our society has become so dumbed-down and easily manipulated by politicians, the media, and large corporations is that people no longer see value in learning anything other trade-skills that will get them a job and some income as soon as possible. So theoretically, if colleges were still doing their job of reliably providing that liberal (as in classical, Enlightenment Liberal, not today's left-of-center political liberal) education, I would disagree with your assessment that not everyone needs college. But as things are today, I won't protest too much...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is brilliant

[brufleth]

Thank you for being a good teacher.

Re:Education systems are wrong

[mdielmann]

Clearly there are a number of uninformed people with mod points today.

The best way to learn to be something is to observe and emulate that which you wish to be. A fair number of sociologists have stated that the most important part of socialisation of children is from their interaction with their parents. There are a lot of opinions on this subject, but this is not a fringe opinion.

This seems obvious, but can be missed when it opposes a common opinion, not unlike whether the earth revolved around the sun, or vice versa. This is the flow of the entire parent post (with the exception of the last statement), which I will enumerate.

Children should be with their parents and extended family. Having transient adult figures isn't the way to be raised.

If you want your kids to be like you, they have to know what you are like. This requires spending time with them, and letting your values show through.

Children shouldn't spend all day with their human contact being dominated by others of exactly the same age. A child should have contact with a wide range of age groups.

The goal of any parent should be to raise healthy, well-adjusted adults. Again, on the premise of emulation, that will not occur if the majority of their formative years (not counting sleeping time) are spent with something other than adults.

Children should be being taught by example.

I can't put it any more succinctly, but will add this. Adults learn through emulation, as well. Much of our learning is through texts/instruction, but most technical careers, and just about all less technical careers (manual labour, service industry, etc.) use a mentoring/apprenticeship element in some part of the training (in medicine, it's called residency). Why would children be different?

Children should learn the values needed to want to learn and understand the reasons why they should.

This is a concept that is beyond most children without seeing it somewhere else first. Sometimes delaying gratification has its benefits. This will be shown in a number of areas, such as a person's work ethic, how much they are willing to save, their desire to keep fit, and more. You will rarely learn this from your peers, and school puts almost no focus on this (beyond the technical elements).

To dismiss this out of hand is a clear indicator that no thought has been put into this topic.

Re:This is brilliant

[Chanc_Gorkon]

No the problem is NOT that the parents are involved....it's that they are NOT involved in their children's life. They are too preoccuipied with getting that Beamer then making sure that Johnny does his homework.

That may or may not be the parent's fault. I have seen some parents who want to spend time with their kid, but can't because they have to go to work at 5 am to beat the traffic and they end up staying past 6 so they can avoid the traffic. Noone eats together any more (even my extended family has great difficulty getting thigns together during the holidays) and we spend many a off day at the office (if your in IT) so you can apply that patch during the downtime(doesn't happen much but it does happen).

I have also seem some parents who don't give a crap about their kids. They figure once they are old enough to go to school that it's the schools problem...but then they come back on the teachers and say don't punish my kid. What are teachers to do? First thing I will tell my son's teacher is that they have my permission to punish him. If he is in a fight, they can put their hands on him and break it up. That's fine by me.

Re:The guy has a point

[solios]

If memory serves, it didn't become Cool To Be Stupid until I was in eighth or ninth grade, which would have been the mid nineties: at which point even the smart kids I'd been in the gifted program with were acting like complete fucking retards because it was the in thing to do. :|

Stupid conformity.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[mobiGeek]

understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak.

I sure hope that they start teaching politics in US schools...maybe then people will understand that there are numbers higher than 2.

Right vs. wrong? Left vs. right? Black vs. white? Elephant vs. donkey?

There are more than two sides to most issues. The problem with politics (at least in the western world) is that the populace can't understand (or doesn't want to think about) more than two sides.

Pro-choice vs. pro-life? Not that simple.

Capital punishment vs. life-long imprisonment? Not that simple.

Same-sex marriage? ... actually, that one is easy.

Teach something useful

[KB1GHC]

I think all this standardization is useless, i don't see why a person who's going into Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, is required to do the same things as someone going to lawschool.

I think many kids by time they enter 9th grade, they know what they want to do, so their courses should reflect what they want to do for a job.

Not all kids think the same, not all kids learn the same, not all kids work the same and this "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT" just makes the problem worst, it requires standarized tests.

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[jarich]

This is either a troll or someone who knows nothing about home schooling.

they get no interaction with other kids and are far too sheltered

There are lots of groups for home school families to get together. Lots of interaction. On the other hand, in the public school systems, they get exposed to lots of interesting things... drugs, apathetic teachers, crap curriculums...

It think it is a big mistake

It might be a mistake for you. Don't assume it's wrong for everyone.

many times its becuase the parents are scared of the world

And you know this how? How many home school families do you know? One? None? Your opinion in a vacuum is really pointless.

well that is life and the world we live in you have to deal with it

If you have a crappy job, do you stay or leave? If the service is bad at a restaurant, what do you do? Do you say "That's life... I'll deal with it"? No, you leave. We did the same thing with our local school system. :)

Schools have many problems but hopefully the parents will help and motviate their child and guide them in the right direction.

Well, yeah! That's why we home school.

But I do not think home schooling is the correct fix.

What is the correct fix? After 6 hours a day in overcrowded classrooms that can move no faster than the slowest student, you're going to catch them up with a quick pep talk after supper?

There are many solutions to the problems with the school system. Home schooling is a very valid choice, but it is only one of many good answers.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[cindy]

Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.

Fact based education is a great concept, but it assumes that designing the curriculum and those teaching are completly unbiased in their own understanding of the "facts" and have no agenda to put forward other than the "zen" of education. I strongly doubt that such a teacher exists.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[MilenCent]

Firstly, religion: we must make sure that in our quest to discourage endorsement of a particular religion, we do not discourage religion outright. That is, we must ensure that we accept all religions equally, favoring none.

But your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion. It's like asking whether you want grape, strawberry ot pina collada flavoring in your cynide slushie. Pick your poison.

A lot of important science raises serious questions that make people of many religions uncomfortable. But it should still be taught, undistorted. It should be taught specifically for the reason that it challenges religious belief: after all, that which is challenged and survives becomes stronger in the process, and if it does not survive, then arguably it *should* be destroyed.

Politically based literature, I believe is essential. It is absolutely necessary to create a populace that understands issues on both sides and is able to logically analyze those issues and "pick a side" so to speak. Most of our nations most dividing issues (abortion, being the most notable one that comes to mind) have sane, reasonable arguments on both sides of the fence.

I also take issue with this, though my point is more subtle here.

The person who picks how the sides are represented can determine the outcome. Rare has been the textbook I've seen that has gone out of its way to show that an issue is truly complex and difficult to decide. (This happens in favor of both sides.) Furthermore, presenting two sides of an argument equally implies to the reader that the answer lies between, when it fact the real answer could be beyond the extremes presented, or even outside of the duality presented. Many arguments have more than two sides.

Patriotism itself is not inherently a bad thing and can pull people in a nation together.

I had a German friend who went to school here, in the U.S., for a while, and the thing he said that struck him about the United States was how everyone is so determined to be patrotic here. American flags everywhere (even pre-9/11), and people conspicuously saying what a great country it is, and pledges of alliegience in schools. European nations don't fly apart at the seams, but neither do they, these days, have this kind of pervasive, cultural nationalism. We don't need these things to be brought together as a nation.

That's the evil word for patriotism of course, the negative version: nationalism. That's a thing that I'm not at all comfortable with having tought in our schools. It wasn't the everywhere-stars-and-stripes that brought the U.S. together after 9/11, that was just a result of a deeper sense of fellow feeling that emerged in response to adversity. What brought us together had nothing to do with our nation, but everything to do with our humanity.

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[BillFarber]

Careful, you're ignorance is showing.

We homeschool. Our kids get LOTS of interaction. At co-ops, at gymnastics lessons, at music lessons, etc.

We are not afraid of the world. We travel internationally once in a while and throughout the US several times a year.

What else ya got?

Re:The guy has a point

[Christopher Thomas]

If you've worked with little kids, one of the first things you notice is that almost every single one of them really, really wants to learn.

But somehow, during about K-4th grade, most of the kids in the US educational system seem to have that crushed out of them.

I work with kids anywhere from 4 years old to 15 on a regular basis. Kids are curious - yes. Kids want to learn what's important for them to learn - no. They want to learn about what they think is cool.

Think back to your high school days. How many of the courses did you take that you actually cared about? Given the option, would you have been in that school, or been outside playing or at home playing computer games? How many of these courses that you didn't care about then, are you glad you took now?

The whole premise behind the school system is that there are things kids Need To Know, and they're going to learn them whether they care about them at the time or not. Every time I hear someone suggest that kids should only learn what they're interested in I shake my head. It's only _after_ you need it that you realize what you needed to know, and very few kids have "planning for the future" as a priority at all.

In summary, your observations are adequately explained by kids not being interested in complex subjects they don't care about, not by their desire to learn being "crushed" by some oppressive authority.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[Tar-Palantir]

I'm homeschooled, and to be frank your comment pisses me off. You're just repeating popular stereotypes that have little to no substance to them.

they get no interaction with other kids and are far too sheltered...

Speaking as a homeschooled 17-year-old, that's bullshit. Any homeschooled kid who is "sheltered" and "gets no interaction with other kids" is that way because they are failing to take advantage of the opportunities available.

Did you know that homeschooling families can coordinate with each other and have "real" classes of all homeschoolers? Did you know that sometimes *gasp* a whole bunch of homeschooled kids might arrange a homeschool day at the park? Social opportunities *do* exist for homeschoolers, contrary to popular belief. Just because we aren't thrown together with hundreds of other kids does not mean we cannot socialize.

many times its becuase the parents are scared of the world

Um, not all homeschool parents are bible-pounding religionists. Not wanting to subject your child to the impersonal, unpleasant non-education given by public school != being scared of the world.

Schools have many problems but hopefully the parents will help and motviate their child and guide them in the right direction

If they are being taught poorly by overworked and underpaid teachers, get little to no personal attention, and are taught "to the test", how will a little "guidance and motivation" help?

But I do not think home schooling is the correct fix.

And I think you are wrong. While I am not claiming that homeschooling will work for everyone (it won't), your post is uninformed and incorrect. Learn a bit more about what you are criticizing (hint: not all homeschooling families are hermits or bible-pounders). Even better, go to a local homeschool association get-together or an all-homeschooler class, or talk to some real homeschooled students like me.

Then think again about your opinion.

Re:One word.

[omibus]

I'll second that. If the parents are devoted it can be done with astounding results.

I dont think I'll ever subject my children to public schooling. And I'm more worried about the teachers than the students.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[servognome]

Math textbooks are fine, science textbooks are okay. Once you get into social sciences though textbooks are just a tiny piece of the puzzle, since they present the author's interpretation.
In highschool we didn't have a "history textbook" we had the school district's book we called the "Gahrity(sp?) text" we also got photocopies of journal articles, historical text, and other documents by other authors that offered differing interpretations. Then it was up to the students to take all this information and come up with a logical supported arguement that showed understanding of both the event and possible causes. (ie Boston Tea Party was about the protection of tea smuggling profits) This was a situation where there were many "right" answers, but you had to demonstrate higher thinking skills and form a well thought out arguement.
It is important to have a good teacher who knows and is interested in the subject (not a gym instructor covering an english class) and who cares about teaching.

Help out the religion?

[Thalia]

The author claims that school is a religion, so it is time to pass the hat.

Help out your local schools by donating school supplies at TrueGift Donations [truegift.com]. You can donate cash on the "Paypal Donate" button, or ignore us and deliver what crayons, pencils, and scissors your local teacher needs.

In all of the commentary on our education system, no one has ever argued that having enough school supplies is part of the problem. Wouldn't you rather donate now than deal with the uneducated later? Once all the tax money has been spent on teachers, school buildings, administration, No Child Left Behind, etc., many teachers cannot teach basic lesson plans because of a lack of school supplies. School supply budgets for basic materials tend to run about $5 per student per year.

Re:This is brilliant

[bomb_number_20]

Please. What you are suggesting creates an economic barrier to basic childhood education. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to a private school. Everyone should, however, have the right to a decent education.

As funding for public schools continues to decline, it creates a larger separation between the rich and the poor and ensures an ongoing supply of worker bees. What I get out of your comment is that 'real' learning and knowledge should be constrained to private institutions where only the affluent have access. The public school joke is for the rest.

IMO, This continues into college as well. What do you think the real advantages are of going to places like Harvard or Yale? Sure, the quality of education is good, but more importantly, the students who go there are sons and daughters of presidents, senators and CEOs. They are all socializing with each other and building relationships that they carry with them when they are running the country in 20 years. It is nearly impossible for the average person to make similar 'connections'.

If we concentrate the learning into private schools, we are extending this problem into grade, middle and high schools and causing even further stratification between the upper and lower classes.

public school sucks, but I don't agree with the 'oh well, send them to private school' solution.

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[William Tanksley]

You just read this article, and you're /still/ asking why someone would want to homeschool their children?

they get no interaction with other kids and are far too sheltered.

This is the only problem you identify with home schooling, and you don't even seem to see that it's bogus. Public schools have a problem with insufficient interaction, not home schools; at a public school you interact only with a group artificially designated as "your peers". In every school the pressure is to interact only with students your own age; in large schools the number of students grows to the extent that interactions can be only with the students most like you (and thus the LEAST likely to teach/show you anything that can stretch you).

I can't totally dismiss the danger of antisocialization at home schools, though. I've seen it, and it's no more pretty than the millions churned out by the public schools. But the solution is so much easier -- involve your kids in a social life! Join community sports teams and training programs. Make sure the larger extended family gets involved (even Uncle Fester). Have the entire family volunteer -- that "old crazy homeless" guy has a story to tell, and isn't so old and crazy once you hear the story (but keep an eye out, of course; he might BE both old and crazy after all).

It think it is a big mistake and many times its becuase the parents are scared of the world

Bah. Even if that claim were true (I claim it's not), you'd STILL have to demonstrate that the parents that were homeschooling merely out of fear were unjustified in their fear.

Homeschooling isn't the only way to raise a healthy adult; you're not a bad parent if you choose something else. But remember this: the best predictor of educational success (measured in terms of the highest degree awarded) is the time the parents spend with the child. Nothing else makes anywhere near the impact. (I know, "highest degree" isn't a precise measure of learning, but it does correlate to eagerness and capacity for learning, with a large enough sample size, and it's amenable to being measured by a study.)

-Billy

Re: R&S? Benefit - Promotes Thinking

[nboscia]

I strongly agree with your statement. Teaching religions in high school can help in areas where students seem to be lacking the most these days. I believe that if students are opened up to the different philosophies of the world, they will better understand human psychology and culture. Perhaps it will reduce racism and promote analytical thinking (why is any one religion any better than another?).

I went to a high school in suburban Pennsylvania less than a decade ago. There was very little racial diversity (my class was 100% caucasian), and almost everyone was a Christian. Since I am not a Christian, I was made fun of and repeatedly reminded that I was "going to Hell." All I feel is sadness now. Sadness for the students' ignorance and for how hard it must have been for most to see and live in the real world. I blame the educational system. I was never taught about anything else until college, by which time I realized how much high-school failed to prepare me for the diverse world.

Students coming out of our (America) high school system seem to ever increasingly lack the ability to think on their own. Problem solving is key to a productive career. If students were allowed to debate fundamental philosophical questions, it would only benefit them. Having seen what our current educational system is producing, I have lost faith completely in it. It is embarrasing to me as an American to see this. I would very much prefer to move to Japan to raise children, knowing that their attitude towards schooling is far superior to America's.

I am not sure how one would fix America's schooling system, but perhaps the problem is not so much with funding, but instead requires a fundamental shift of our values. Students should want to learn as much as possible and contribute to extra-curricular activities. Whether or not someone in IT has perfect grammar doesn't matter - they need to be able to solve problems on their own or in a group to be useful. Teaching various world religions can help open that door, IMHO.

Re:As the son of two teachers

[Darthmalt]

Every homeschooled person I've ever met have been crazy geniuses because they were taught how to think and reason. Of course, they are also socially inept as they didn't have to deal with masses of other children.

As someone who was homeschooled for 9 years I have to disagree with your statement. I'm sick of all the ignorance about homeschooling.
There are many oppourtunities for homeschoolers to "interact" with other children. We had monthly homeschool meetings where we all got together (50-60 families and in rural south ga. I know of some groups that have over 200 ) There are many clubs we canjoin boys and girls club boy/girl scouts, 4-H etc. and since we can do a days worth of work by lunch time we have more time to devote to extracurricular activities. I have had several friends who were homeschooled for years go back to public school and fit right in. Most of them like it better becasue the class work is easier than what they had to do at home. I make friends quite easily. I've been at college for 3 weeks and this weekend I spent the entire weekend away from my house hanging out with diff groups of friends. Last night while I was hanging out with a couple guys I had 2 other groups call me and see if I wanted to do something.
Course we're not all crazy geniuses either. some people want to homeschool cause they think it means they wont have to work hard. Or because they are "discipline problems" which is entirely the wrong reason to HS.

for the past two years I attended a 2 year college with the reputation of being the hardest in the state. The English Teachers are proud of the high Regents essay test scores and work hard to keep it that way. I dont know how many times I heard someone say "I wish my teacher hadnt been so easy on me."

Homeschoolers actually tend to do better in college as well. We're already used to working on our own and having to get projects done on time.
As to the topic you wouldnt believe how much pressure has been put on the homeschool movement in the past and continues today. Here is an excerpt from the current issue Home School Legal defence association's monthly court report
"Two veteran homeschool families, both Home School Legal Defense Association members, received notices from the Calhoun Intermediate School District that they were in "violation" of the compulsory attendance law. Though aware that these families were exercising their constitutional and statutory rights to homeschool, the district demanded that the families' children be placed in public school the day after receipt of the notices. The notices threatened that failure to place the children in school immediately would result in "court action." If convicted, the families would be slapped with a fine, "imprisonment for not less than two or more than ninety days," or both. HSLDA court report [hslda.org]

To see some stats on homeschooling click here
One ladies decision to home school her son [metrowestdailynews.com]

Re:"No Child Left Behind"

[Keebler71]

My mother is a school librarian in NY and she has told me how Bush's current plan means that teachers teach tests instead of lessons...

No offense but your mother would have more credibility if she were a teacher as opposed to a librarian. No slight intended - my wife is an elementary teacher and I as well have teaching experience; we both know many librarians.

On the issue of teaching to the test, I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing.

If the test is well written and appropriately evaluates the learning objectives for that grade level, then teachers shouldn't have to spend one extra minute "teaching to the test". In this case the test would merely serve to "spot-check" the students knowledge. If there is a mis-match between the learning objectives for the grade level and the test for that level, then indeed your mother is correct. That is a problem with the way the test is being implemented - not the concept of testing in itself. In that case, I imagine there will be an iterative process by which both standards and test will evolve to produce the best result (one would hope anyway).

Granted, testing does have its limitations. For one thing, some subjects do not lend themselves to standardized testing. However, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and math do lend themselves well to such testing. Secondly, some children don't test well and will test significantly lower than their true ability. I don't think that this is too much of a problem, as in this case the testing could just be viewed as a method of identifying students whose promotion may be warranted under other considerations. Note that the converse is not as true, it is difficult to score significantly higher than your ability level on a standardized test.

Bottom line, if your or your childrens' teachers are "teaching to the test", don't knee-jerk and place blame all on the existance of the testing process.

Re:Schools aren't about teaching.

[DunbarTheInept]

Another common statement, "We need new books."
I hate to say it, but math hasn't changed much. Neither has reading or writing.

But history, social studies, and physics are always changing. I went to school quite a few years ago, and the books were fine, but it would be really stupid to be teaching about geography or modern history from a book that still says the Soviet Union exists.

Kids equate money with education.
You said this many times, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. This trait about money for schools is purely an adult thing. Kids don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about money period.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[Phillup]

I believe that some religious education is important to a society as a whole. It provides for a moral base (at least most religions).

Every church I've ever been to was full of sinners. Certainly wouldn't want them setting the example...

Me, I prefer the golden rule. Neat and simple.

Vouchers -- the silver bullet?

[steveha]

Are voucher systems somehow the silver bullet

They sort of are.

The real silver bullet is an effective system of negative feedback. When the schools do a bad job, they need to be punished, and when they do a good job, they need to be rewarded. A simple idea.

Simple, yes, but hard to do in real life. Teachers' unions, educational bureaucracies all the way up to the federal level, politicians making promises... all of these things can complicate the school system to the point where incompetence isn't punished, nor excellence rewarded. And attempts to use standardised tests to guarantee that kids are taught well, just mean that teachers will wind up "teaching the test".

The best thing you can hope to do is to allow parents to move their kids around to the best schools. This will not, itself, fix the problem instantly; but it will introduce an element of feedback into the system. Over time, this will inevitably force the schools to improve.

If a restaurant has poor food, people will take their business to other restaurants. It doesn't matter what kind of union the cooks have, it doesn't matter what kind of promises politicians might have made, etc. If the customers vote with their feet, the better restaurants will prosper and the worst ones will have to close. The same thing would happen with schools, but it would take longer (people eat several meals per day, but they would probably leave their kids in any particular school for at least a few months before deciding to move the kids somewhere else).

I have debated this issue in the past with some people who claimed that parents must not be trusted to choose schools for their kids. That's lunacy. There will be a few bad parents, but by far most parents really want what is best for their kids. The parents and kids together are the best judges of how well a school is serving them.

Note that middle-class and upper-class parents already have some freedom to pick schools; I know my parents, whenever we moved, would carefully consider what the schools were like, and they would only move someplace where the schools were decent. The poorest people, who are trapped in the bad part of town (no money to move somewhere else), those are the ones who really want school vouchers.

By the way, public school systems spend a lot of money per student. The vouchers are generally for less than the public school system would have spent on a student. If a student takes a $3000 voucher and goes to a private school, that is usually a net profit for the public school. In my state, the average per-student spending is $9,454 per year [washingtonpolicy.org].

For more on vouchers, click here: http://www.cato.org/research/education/vouchers.ht ml [cato.org]

steveha

Re:It's not the system, it's the users again.

[mariox19]

(Here's a self-test: Do you still have any of your school books or notes? When was the last time you reviewed the parts of it that you don't use day-to-day? Did you study it without intending to keep it?)

Ninety percent of them, selling back or throwing out only what I thought was absolute garbage.

Your comment rings true, but I think the public school culture squelches the young's desire to learn; and I believe that this is one of the points Gatto's book makes.

Re:"No Child Left Behind"

[DunbarTheInept]

Private schools don't do better than public because of the school itself. They do better because of the population of the student body goes through some strong filters that weed out the kids that bring the averages down for public schools. Firstly, a private school is under no legal obligation to *have* to teach every student like the public schools are - they can just drop any problem students and therefore the problem kids do not contribute to the degredation of the average, and also do not disrupt classes. Secondly, the kids they have are all kids who's parents obviously care about education enough to pay for it out of pocket, and this is going to be a VERY strong filter against parents who are apathetic about their kid's education. (Unfortunately it also is a strong filter against the poor, but that's not the reason for the higher grades. In addition to cutting out the poor, it also cuts out all the families that are rich but don't care about education.)

Yes, private schools turn out better students as output. But it's not because of the school itself. It's because they have better students, on average, as input.

Students don't want to learn

[clawhound]

I see people blasting the system for apathy. OK. I can deal with that. But no one blames the students for apathy. The current student culture not only wants to avoid learning, but holds as a religious mantra that school is a waste of time and completely useless. The students hold just as much blame as everyone else as the government or the teachers or the school administration. How different would school be if the students *valued* their education and then acted on that belief? Personally, unless you are headed for academics, I do not think that high school is useful to most people. For the non-college crowd, school should focus on developing leadership skills, political awareness, and the complex task of running a democracy.

Re:Tolerance? BWAHAHA!!!!

[snarkasaurus]

Boy howdy, you're an upset looking for a place to happen. Made my point for me there, eh?

The Christian religion is the philosophical basis upon which law and custom are built in Western society. By which I mean North AND South America, Europe, and their former empires. That's just the facts.

So if you don't know at least the tenets of Christianity, you have no idea what's going on here.

For example, the concept "freedom of religion" is derived from Christianity. Other religious traditions have no such belief. People who come to your country from those traditions will be most offended by your assertion that you are free to practice any religion you want.

Therefore if the tenets (and history!) of Christianity are not taught in school, there will be people in ever growing numbers who do not know about or understand the concept of Freedom of Religion, and who will be completely ignorant of the ass kicking awaiting them should they transgress against it.

Like the Muslim guy in Florida who fired his Latino secretary for eating a bacon sandwich at lunch. He is currently getting his ass kicked up and down and all around in the media and in court by the ACLU, because he doesn't understand that religious tolerance means HE has to tolerate OUR religion and values, not just that we have to tolerate his. In practical terms it means that while he is not required to eat bacon himself, his company does not have the right to declare bacon verboten for all employees.

A Conservative would state it thusly: "Welcome to my country. These are the rules. Play by them and there won't be any trouble. If you don't like the rules, go in peace."

I can't imagine what a Liberal would say, my mind won't bend that far into hyperspace. Probably depend on what day of the lunar calendar it was.

As for Christianity dying, only in New York public schools. But then math is dying there too, so pehaps we should not be shocked.

Maybe off-topic..?

[ImaLamer]

I was doing a paper recently about "school violence" and I was suprised to find that most of our problems are because we've modeled schools after mental asylums.

From Pedro Noguera's (Ph.D., professor of education at the University of California, Berkeley) paper: Preventing Violence in Schools Through the Production of Docile Bodies [inmotionmagazine.com]:

When public schools were being developed in north eastern cities during the latter part of the nineteenth century, their architecture, organization and operation was profoundly influenced by the prevailing conception of the asylum. As the primary public institution designed to serve the needs of the indigent, the insane, the sick or the criminally inclined, the asylum had a profound influence upon the design and management of public schools. While the client base of the early prisons, almshouses and mental hospitals differed, they shared a common preoccupation with the need to control those in held in custody. ...
While there is some evidence that schools were challenged in fulfilling their task of social control , in most cases it seems that they succeeded in producing "docile bodies"; students who were prepared to accept their roles as citizens and workers.

The best quote from this paper is:

"...urban education in the nineteenth century did more to industrialize humanity than to humanize industry"

It was easy to make my case that metal detectors, and such, are no solution to the problems we face. Seems that only the intelligentsia get this as it's lost on school faculty.

Re:This idea has been around for a bit.

[Pinball Wizard593]

The late Frank Zappa (Mothers of Invention) used to say something like...."Drop out of school and go to the library and educate yourself."

Re:Religion and Schooling

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to a Catholic school, you will learn that Catholicism is pretty cool. Same thing at a Jewish school, or any other religion. Why more people don't see that a government school teaches the students that government is the answer to just about any question. This leads to generations of kids growing up thinking that government should be the answer to everything. The powers that be want us to be dependent on them because that increases their power at the expense of the individual. I know some people are going to call this a troll, but look at the almost unchecked growth in the size of our government since the state took over education and compare that to the decline in the liberty, personal and economic, over that same time frame.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[AKAImBatman]

But your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion.

This is a silly statement. Atheism is as much a religion as any other. From the dictionary:

religion

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism is simply the "religion" that no higher being exists. From the dictionary:

atheism

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Thus atheism should be discussed as a belief system that many have chosen. This should lead into a discussion of the rationalizations inherent in such a belief system. e.g. Did a man named Jesus exist? If he did, what social and political factors contributed to his success as a spiritual leader? If he didn't, how did such a legend arise?

These things must be discussed, as it's insufficient to simply assume that our predecessors were mindless idiots. That sort of thinking is why people still think aliens must have built the pyramids, or that the Aztecs and Romans could not have possibly build calculation devices. History actually shows that man is very clever, and is capable of overcoming any problem he puts his mind to. As a result, one must think upon the issue very carefully to gain insight into the human condition.

Re:Premise

[Woody77]

I was lucky enough to be pulled from public schools in 1st grade, after the teacher wanted to send me back a grade, since I wasn't doing anything in class.

My parents looked at the ciriculum, noted that it was mostly stuff I'd learned when I was 3, and then pinched enough pennies to send both me and my younger brother to a private elementary school where you set your own learning pace, with a minimum pace set by the school (which wasn't slow, I went the minimum pace in math, and went through 1.25-1.5 texts a year).

At hte end of 6th grade, I was ready for my HS's 9th grade english class, and 8th grade math and science classes, and was similarly ahead in history, art, and social sciences.

Unfortunatley, that made Jr. High a compound hell of dealing with moving from a 30 student school distributed from K-6 to a 180 students per grade, and dealing with being bored out of my gourd for 6 hours a day in class. Good thing I read lots of books...

HS was better, but the regimented pacing was horrid in classes like English. Being able to outread all but a few other classmates makes 1 month dedicated to slowly going through 1984 very painful when you read it in a few days (or less).

I really think that being able to adjust the teaching rate for each student is by far the best method. That way they get to learn as fast as they can (or want to), and don't have to get mired down by other students. And then the slow students don't get heavily penalized for being slow, instead they just don't learn as much, or learn as much in the same period. They may have other subjects that they are much better in.

How to discover an organization's purpose

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>But seriously, large organizations have no single "true" purpose which determines their effect

"The purpose of a system is what it does".

Keep that in mind and you can cut through all obfuscation like a bandsaw through butter.

So just take a look at what the school system does. My late mother was a teacher. She got memo after memo from upstairs and filed tons of paperwork. Her report on the percentage that bore on helping children to learn: 0%.

Oh, and the author didn't say it was "conspiratorial", he said it was a pattern. As he points out, patterns are harder to change.

Re:The guy has a point

[iabervon]

I have never had any use for any of the things Kids Need To Know, while I use the stuff I was interested in all the time. I'm not sure I learned anything in school in K or 4, and 1-3 I was at a Montessori school where they let me study what I wanted to. It seems that most people's lack of interest in something important by the time they get to high school stems from it being associated with something they don't need to know.

Re:Not surpriseing - deliberate dumbing down

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you teach "you're" kids the difference between "your" and "you're"?

Why is it...

[DaveAtFraud]

Why is it that, when *every* other governement monopoly has been replaced by a competitive private equivalent, the quality of the product has gone up and the price of the product has come down but no one is willing to try this with primary education? Where there is competition, costs fall and quality rises.

Also, you assume that the only way to provide education is at the public expense through taxpayer funded schools staffed by so-called "education professionals" and the only alternative is a costly private school. I know of quite a few people who have home-schooled their kids to keep them out of the public school beast and have managed to do so on not a whole lot of money and with extremely good results (i.e., educated, inquisitive kids with independent ideas and without public education scars). Interestingly, this also didn't present a significant time-drain for the parents since a couple of hours of individual, quality instruction each day were more than sufficient to impart the same material that mass classroom instruction required a full day to attempt to communicate. Finally, the kids who have been home schooled also tend to be better disciplined than the public school product since they knew better than to "mouth off" and "goof off" with their parents.

Quit it with the Atheism = Religion crap

[Darby]

Would you people please quit repeating this stupid crap?

Pretty please.

It is absolutely false.

A - without
theism - belief in god(s)

An atheist is somebody without a belief in a god or gods. That's it.

Some people might be more militant about it, but that has nothing to do with what the word means or how it fits into reality.

Everybody is born an atheist. Everybody. The Pope, those people on your college campus yelling at you that you're going to hell, Bush, everybody.

It is the natural state.

At some point everybody who now believes in some particular god was taught about it through some means ( most often their parents tell them it's absolute truth from the time they're born ) and they started believing that that was true.

I personally, have never seen anything to convince me that an all powerful, all knowing creature who is at the same time good is even possible in this universe. If you choose to believe that, then that is your business, but the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one claiming such a thing exists. This isn't to say that you have some burden to try and convince me, just that the fact is that you are the one who is proposing something as true, not me.

In fact you are proposing something as true with zero evidence and a built in requirement that it shall have zero evidence and that it has to be accepted as such.

That is a religion. Not choosing to believe such a thing is in no way, shape, or form religious.

So nobody chooses to be an Atheist (at least initially. Some people have gone back and forth) they just are until and unless they make some other choice.

Do you get it?

Please stop repeating that mindless mantra which has no basis in reality.

Inclusiveness?

[divisionbyzero]

I didn't RTFA, yet, but based on the review inclusiveness isn't mentioned. It's easy to educate the elite very well, but getting a minimal level of education for all Americans has been the battle for the last 150 years, especially for the last thirty years. It's only natural now that we have most people attending school that we can focus on making the quality of the education better. Perhaps no education is better than a mediocre one, but that is a moot discussion at this point. The question is how we go from mediocre to good and then great.

Re:as a former teacher

[mcovey]

Schools are not designed not to teach, kids are designed, or molded not to learn. Today was my first day of school as a junior. I have a civics class and to get an idea the teacher held up a picture of george bush and said: who's this. 80% of the class said bush and ~20% said the president. Then Cheny, only about 20% knew this one, and I answered cheny. Then kerry/edwards. Some said howard dean, someone said "didn't he drop out so that cheny you just held up could run?" and only a few knew who edwards was. Nobody had heard of the swiftboat/kerry/vietnam contreversy or the bush/national guard contreversy except me and my brother, out of a class of about 20. Kids today are too preoccupied with music and friends and being "cool" to care. Listen I'm one cool cat ;-) and I am plenty aware of the events going on in the world. My cisco systems networking, British English 12 and Precalculus classes are going to be HARD. Kids just decide to play dumb and take geometry junior year, rather than work hard, push themselves and move faster. It's pathetic and I blame the media and these hippy parents.

Re:Religion and Schooling

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. It's a lack of belief in the existence of God -- that's what atheism means -- "without theism". To an extent, the term "agnostic" has encroached on that definition (which is different from its original meaning; "agnosticism" was more of a belief that the question is intrinsically unresolvable). The typical atheist doesn't think he can prove God doesn't exist or something, or even that he necessarily believes that God doesn't exist; he just hasn't seen any evidence for it, and in the absence of evidence, you choose not to believe it.

Re:This is brilliant

[kevlar]

Please. What you are suggesting creates an economic barrier to basic childhood education. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to a private school. Everyone should, however, have the right to a decent education.

Bullshit. This is bullshit. I'm not suggesting everyone send their kids to Exeter Academy.

A relative of mine (through marriage) who has two kids and lives in Elizabeth NJ managed to get her kids educated entirely in private schools on a salary of $35k/yr. How did she do it? She sacrificed a little and the schools met her half way.

The problem with Americans is that they don't consider their child's education important enough to downgrade their apartment and/or standard of living. Why? Because theres a cheap alternative called public schooling.

I don't see it that way

[beakburke]

As if the current system prevents "skimming" those students who are good and can afford a private education from the public schools. It doesn't, vouchers would only, "level the playing field" of who can afford these schools.

Most (but certainly not all) private schools have a per pupil cost much lower than their neighboring public systems, and at least SEEM to produce better results, even comparing apples to apples in terms of student body.

I really don't understand how the same people who decry k12 educational vouchers in one breath are happily choosing to attend whatever college they want, knowing that Federal loans and grants etc. are available regardless of the school you choose, public or private. Why can k12 education operate this way?

Each k12 school ought to be controlled by a board that is elected by the parents of the attending students. They would set tuition, hire the principal(s)/administration, and make school policy. Parents would be free to use the stipend from the state to pay for fees/tuition at any school. Least that's my idea.

Re:Atheism is NOT a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

No. To put it simply atheism is lacking belief in God or a deity, and is as much a religion as your dis-belief in the invisible dragon in my garage.

Re:Schools aren't about teaching.

[Anonymous Coward]

The level of physics highschoolers are learning certainly hasn't changed in decades. It's still the same Newtonian physics and basic vector arithmetic, not pushing the bounds of theoretical physics.

Social studies has always seemed a bit of an amorphous topic to me. Are we talking sociology or anthropology? The core of either discipline hasn't really changed to where new textbooks are an absolute necesity. (Think basic data gathering and analysis techniques). Sure, it's nice to share the latest findings, but that can be done through handouts and direct lecturing.

History? Again, you don't need a full new textbook constantly. At best, you would need a smaller, "update" booklet which gives the last decade or two.

Geography is a decent argument for new textbooks, but that's still an exception, not a rule.

Mostly, all the hubbub about new texts is just bouncing from one latest teaching fad to the next.

Re:Tolerance? BWAHAHA!!!!

[Grant_Watson]

Further, there should be different ideals of morality and existence. The artist shouldn't live by the same morality as the warrior or the politician or the farmer. This is why polytheism is so much better than monotheism.

Better in what way? Your other comments would seem to suggest that you see the purpose of religion to be to serve the civilization.

But isn't this the question to be asked of religion: Is it true? Service of civilization should be secondary to truth; besides, building a culture on lies seems counterproductive in the long run.

It really doesn't matter what people believe in their heads. We are assessing our civilization by their deeds. By any measure, the west has become so thoroughly decadent it is almost comical the vast majority of people belong to an established religion. Religion is dying because it offers nothing of value to people living in our current world.

You assume that religions exist to serve people. But you must see that if a religion, any religion is true, then it must dictate the goals of humanity. Only if religion is false can one say that its purpose should be to serve humanity, and then to observe a religion would be silly.

The central question is one of truth, not of function.

about time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time someone tackled this problem head-on.

I've believed for a very long time now, that America doesn't attempt to educate the way they should. "A" students and students of higher intelligence/intellect aren't weeded out at an early age and cultivated.

Slower students are misdiagnosed as average.
While above-average, but bored, students are misdiagnosed as below average or "slow".

We don't showcase and cultivate A students.
We don't quickly isolate F students.

We breed as many C students as possible, and do what we can to make that "C", that "average", that "normalcy" status, easily achievable for everyone.

We do what we can to make every child...and every parent...feel "equal."

think about it -

How many of you, spent 3 weeks in 4th grade, learning where to place the nouns, the verbs, and the conjunctions?

How many of you then spent 3 weeks, in 5th grade, learning where to place the nouns, the verbs, and the conjunctions.

How many of you spent 3 weeks in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade......re-learning the same thing?

How many of you were bored?
How many of you realized you needed to "brush up" on these skills?
How many of you, who had to "brush up" would be willing to diagnose yourselves as "below average intelligence"?

Its just like dude said in the Hacker's Manifesto - "Yes, Mrs. Teacher, I've done 32 consecutive fractional division problems now for my homework, every night, for the past seven nights......I friggin *GET IT*!"

My K-12 education was a complete and utter waste of time, I could have easily learned in 7 years what I picked up in 12.

And when I graduated and started kickin' it in college dorm rooms with Asian and European foreign exchange students.......I realized just how much education I'd missed out on. I realized how much American History I still *didn't* know, and how much world history I *REALLY* didn't know.

And believe me, it was damn embarrassing.

Kudos to this man, for exposing the red tape mess created by so many school officials scared to tell a handful of soccer moms, "Your child is slow."

Re:"No Child Left Behind"

[AK Marc]

It's about using phonics to teach reading.

Where did you get that from? I've never heard that. NCLB includes more than just reading.

Then there is the whole language camp, which basically consists of putting books under kids pillows and hoping they learn how to read.

Well, that's how I learned to read. I didn't learn to read by sounding things out. Of course, as you point out, that is rare. So, it confused the hell out of my teachers. I learned to read by translating the word into an idea, translating that idea into words, then speaking that word. Of course, that would result in mistakes that no one had ever made before, such as reading "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." and pronouncing "The fast brown fox hopped over the lazy dog." And it wasn't until that started happening (and I got a teacher that wasn't as dumb as a rock) that they realized that I didn't follow the normal learning curve. Of course, this was before there was the big push to identify learning disabilities in school, so I just had to pretend to be normal, or I'd go into the classes with the drooling kids that couldn't dress themselves.

She didn't believe in learning disabilities.

Then she was stupid, incompetent, and ruining student's lives. I ran into one such teacher. She locked me in a closet during lunch, every lunch, for an entire school year. She didn't understand that I thought in a manner inconsistent with others (what others classify as a "learing disability").

Of course, there still exist some places where the next nearest school is a 30+ minute plane ride away. When the commute is $400 per day or so, there appears to be a point of diminishing returns. NCLB will cost the pay of multiple teachers just to move a few students around in some places. Not that the neighboring schools are any better. To get them to the nearest district with more than one school, they'd have to fly 2+ hours a day (with the FAA's guidelines of 2 hours, plus going to and from the airport, that would be 6+ hours of travel per day to get them from their failing school to the nearest district that has more than one school). If you are truly going to leave no child behind, you have to address these problems as well. Just threatening to take some money from a district that is already under funded isn't going to make a difference when you can't get them to a better school.

Instead, it will result in the top students being under served, as they currently are, as well as paperwork, funding movement, and other such things with little effect to move a few students around from poorer districts. It seems a poorly executed plan created to facilitate federal mandate of school vouchers so that the uber-rich save a few thousand when they put little Paris in private school when she would never have gone to public school anyway. Not that I'm necessarily against Bush's push for welfare for the rich (energy companies, farming mega-corporations, tax cuts for the top 1%, etc.), but not at the expense of the children.

Re:The guy has a point

[aussersterne]

How many of these courses that you didn't care about then, are you glad you took now?

Zero. I am currently a freelance photojournalist/author who spends the rest of my time doing volunteer work and network administration. I have a B.A. in anthropology and an M.A. in sociology.

- Photography was not available to me K-12
- Computing was not available to me K-12
- Anthro and sociology = not avail K-12

English, mathematics, biology, physical science, and chemistry I took in K-12, yes, but I learned nothing in those classes. Literally. Luckily, both of my parents had graduate degrees in the sciences and my mom had an English education undergraduate background.

Every kid in my high school aced English, math, biology, physical science, and chemistry. None of them know anything about these subject to this day anyway, except those like me who were taught at home as well. The rest may as well have just stayed home and watched cartoons until they were 18.

I was reading novels already when I entered kindergarten because my parents read to me all the time as a kid. My dad had me doing times tables and playing with (late '70/early '80s vintage) computers before I ever saw the inside of a public school. My mom taught me immense amounts writing and biochem over the years. They both encouraged me to spend as much time as I wanted at the library, reading NatGeo and SciAm... the both took me to university bookstores regularly and just let me snag whatever I was interested in.

Everything I know and all of my success proceeds directly from after school hours with my parents and from my time at university.

I can honestly say that K-12 did absolutely nothing but make my question the structure and ethnical foundation of society and the social contract... Not because they taught me to do this, but as a reaction to the complete and utter hypocrisy and transparent worthlessness of the educational system and its relationship to "productive" society.

Triumphalism

[Thangodin]

Umm, no, Freedom of Religion is not derived from Christianity. Christianity is a triumphalist religion, like Islam. This means that, according to Christianity, unless you're a Christian, you're going to hell. Or according to Catholicism, if you're not a Catholic, or according to Presbyterians, if you're not a Presbyterian... you get the picture.

Christianity now plays nice mainly because it gets beaten up if it doesn't. It wasn't long ago Christians were as bad or worse as political Islam is now. Consider the Crusades, the slaughter of the Cathars, the wars that were sparked by the Reformation, Cromwell, the witch hunts, Northern Ireland, and the list goes on and on. And of course, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...

Ahem... sorry...

What I'm driving at here is that the First Amendment is the separation of church and state, because it means that the state is never to take any religion's side against another religion. A lot of the people who had emigrated to America had already had quite enough of that. I think every child should probably be taught the Bible in school, and the Koran, and the Tao Te Ching, be acquainted with the ancient Greek philosophers, as well as being taught critical thinking, the ideas of the enlightenment, and humanism. But none of the religions would permit their own faith to be treated as just one more color in the rainbow. Triumphalist religions think the have the TRUTH (caps necessary), while everything else is just the opinions of those who don't know any better--or work for Satan.

As soon as you teach religion in school, you have to choose one. The alliance of the faithful will only last until they win. That's when the real holy war starts, between the faiths, and the various forms of each faith. What the Falwells and Robertsons of the world have to understand is that the secular humanists are their best friends. They're the ones preventing the faithful from strangling each other.

And if anyone pipes up and says that science and evolution are religions too, I will have to hurt them.

Badly.

Re:As the son of two teachers

[WD_40]

I think the "socially inept" stereotype is completely false. Socially Different might be a better term, but most people hate things that are different and prefer to assign demeaning terms to such things.

From what I've seen, homeschooled kids are usually better able to relate to people of all ages rather than only people their own age.

I was homeschooled until grade 6 when my mom was forced to go to work, and I was never "socially inept" or "socially stunted." Infact, my math teacher told my mom I was a "social butterfly."

While I was in public school, I grew more and more bored, as I really wasn't learning anything. It really put it in perspective when I asked my math teacher why you solved a problem a particular way and he replied, "You don't need to know why, just how." That statement, to me, embodied the typical mindset of most public school teachers - they do not seek to teach kids how to think, only how to process formulas.

Obviously there are exceptions. My History teacher was quite good and encouraged the kids to learn by themselves and enjoy it. I also personally know some other public school teachers that seek to do the same thing, but the vast majority of teachers, in my opinion, couldn't give a damn if the kids learn or not.

My stint in public school only lasted a year before my mom and I both got sick of it and she pulled me back out and resumed home schooling. I buckled down, finished High School by grade 10, got a full time job as a CAD/CAM Designer 2 days later and started taking C++ classes at the local college. Now, at 23, I'm in my 6th year as a Systems Administrator.

I am eternally grateful to my parents for loving me enough to sacrifice their time and money in order to give me a good education. I believe I am a better person for it, and I plan to homeschool my children, should that day come.

Re:30 Years What Else

[VGR]

Q: There is a box in the computer lab with 3 lights on it (red. blue, and white). If any one of the lights are out there is a problem with one of the servers. The red light and the white light can never be off at the same time. You come into your office and all the lights are off, what is wrong?

Why:People will pine over this for 20 minutes. This is a test of common sense. I've heard that the box has failed, all the servers are down, even the power is out. Simply put "YOUR IN THE WRONG ROOM!" The box with the lights are in the Lab you walked into your OFFICE, duh. Some clever people will say, "I don't know but I turn the lights back on in my office and walk down to the lab and check so see if the box lights are ok." That is someone you want working for you verus "I don't know" as an answer. I'll take a guess over nothing.

Some of your questions are wise, but this one is not. It's a childish trick question that uses semantics. If all your questions required a careful analysis of their semantics, it would be a reasonable question; but to throw out ten or twenty or fifty ordinary fact-oriented questions, and then mix in a trick question based on semantics and shell-game manipulation of words, is just a petty power trip that mean-spirited teachers use to bolster their need for a quick fix of superiority.

Essentially, it's just changing the rules so the house is more likely to come out on top.

Re:I've suspected as much for years.

[miu]

School has to deceive students about the nature of the workplace, most of us would never join it if we were fully aware of what it would involve.

It fills the student with theory and visions of how things "should" be done, and informs them not at all regarding how things ARE done. Pity the poor medical student on their first hospital placement.

There are always has to be a point at which the student is first exposed to the reality of their chosen field of study. I think this should be fairly early in the process, but you need to understand the idealized model before you can appreciate the reality - which demands that students learn theory.

Like a Certified Microsoft Engineer has a clue why XP screws up on one PC but not another.

The thing is that IT work in the current scheme of things would not be improved by workers knowledgeable about hardware and operating systems. PCs are powerful because they are interchangeable and disposable. A CME is gonna learn by rote the steps to take with a problematic machine and follow company procedure to simply swap things out, someone with theories and knowledge about computers would waste a lot of time trying determine causes and fix things.

I'm gonna be an elitist here for a second and say that most people don't care about intellectual fulfillment or lifelong education - they want enough money to buy the stuff they've been told will make them happy, or they need to provide for their family and don't have the luxury of living on reduced income to follow their interests, or a million other situations. I think the freedom and desire to become truly educated is somewhat rare and that no amount of dinking with the school system is going to change that.

Re:as a former teacher

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that your "hippy" children are "plugged in" does not mean that all hippy children are aware of current events.

I commend that you make an active effort to educate your children with current events. That's a wonderful thing.

However, let us not assume that any social group is more aware than another. This is a major downfall in american society. Too many people beleive that being a member of a certain social class limits thier options.

One of my favorite highschool teachers once told me that you are taught how to learn in highschool. It is in college that you are taugth to think.

Possibly the error in public education is just that.

However, is it too bold to say that if parents were more involved with their children; that those children would become more free thinkers?

Or would it be easier to just blame the american school system?

Re:The guy has a point

[goliard]

How many of these courses that you didn't care about then, are you glad you took now? Not one. Every last one of them was a complete waste of my time. Speaking as someone who has taught high school English; has 25 years experience in music; is a professional computer programmer; is in grad school in psychology; attended MIT; and dabbles in the fields of medieval history and first-world anthropology. Did you want to tell me how shallow and poorly educated I am? I believe that's how this usually works: someone challenges the notion that what is taught in schools is actually necessary, and the rebuttal traditionally takes to form of impugning their intellectual or scholastic breadth or depth. The whole premise behind the school system is that there are things kids Need To Know Yes. And the whole premise of many insightful and humane authors' works, such as Holt, Neill, and, of course, Gatto, is that (1) before the advent of universal mandatory schooling, people somehow managed to learn the things they Need To Know without being forced to by a government agency, and (2) that is precisely what is wrong with the school system we have, and why it should be eradicated.

Finally, someone said it

[defile]

I graduated from High School with a career 59% grade average. For those of you who didn't go to school in New York, that's basically an F average. I was awarded a diploma because I passed all of the required classes, barely. The conclusion you might come to is that I hate learning. But you'd be wrong.

For someone who loves to learn, school is the absolute worst enemy in this regard. In my case, I would cut school simply to hang out in the library and study with notebook in hand. School is not about learning, it's about control, purely and simply. Some teachers could recognize your interests and help you along, but these teachers were so rare and could only do so much.

I never did go on to college. I never even took the SATs. I regret nothing.

One thing I said to myself then, which I say to myself now, is that the beaten path is the easy way out. Down that road is what everyone else has. A 9-5 job with unpaid overtime, living for the weekends, and genuinely being told what to do throughout life hoping that someone will someday appreciate your obedience and throw you some scraps. Public schools train you to fit in this kind of life. In my opinion, that's not life. I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine calling it life.

You can take away my car, house, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, heaven forbid even my high school diploma, but as long as you haven't taken away my ability to think, I can still survive and I can still be happy.

Like they said in trainspotting (but missing the point entirely): Choose life.

Re:Triumphalism

[geekwench]

Excellent points, all; and may I say how nice it is to see someone else on /. with a reasonably good grasp of history.
Christianity certainly didn't invent the idea of religious tolerance; in fact, it was one of the planks in the platform of the Pax Romana. After all, what did a few new statues in the Pantheon matter if their presence kept the barba^H^H^H^H^Hnewly-minted Roman citizens happy?
Part of the reason for the separation of church and state in this country was the rotten track record that the various early-arriving Christian factions had in playing nicely with each other. The Baptists and Anabaptists hated each other, the Anglicans and Lutherans despised one another, the Puritans didn't get along with anybody, and the Quakers kept getting booted out of every colony except Rhode Island. Somebody had to step in and say "No, no, no! Nobody gets to have more of a say than everybody else," and the only entity which could do so effectively was a secular government. (Of course, the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists had something to do with this, too.) So yes; the idea of Christianity as a religion of tolerance is inaccurate, to say the least. Even to this day, Christians of different factions the world over will gleefully turn on one another - unless presented wtih a common focus for their ire.

You, sir, have just been added to my friends list. Thank you for your delightful post.

Re:Educational Triage

[fbg111]

Moreover, the only sure way to get good grades in liberal arts courses is to say whatever the professor wants to hear. THERE IS NO THINKING, CRITICAL OR OTHERWISE, INVOLVED.

That's actually my point. As I said, "liberal arts" today is not what it should be. Too many of the courses are taught by professors who believe it's more important to teach a student what to think rather than how, or who sacrifice what's important for what's cool, fun, sexy, whatever.

As for history, philosophy, art, and literature being useless, they're not. See if you can answer a few questions without looking them up on the internet:

What was the fundamental philosophical conflict of the Cold War? (And don't give me a G.W.Bush-ish answer of "freedom vs. evil") E.g., why did the Cold War happen? How can understanding this help you as a citizen of a democracy prevent such a thing from happening again? Why would you want to?

Why is abstract art like computer programming?

What can literature teach you about linguistics and the evolution of human language?

All of these questions are things you learn in a true liberal arts program, and what they ideally lead up to is an understanding of humanity. Such an understanding is crucial when analysing the President's decision to attack Iraq, or figuring out your opinions on abortion, or deciding what religion means to you.

I concede that some people like yourself and many other posters at /. are curious and smart enough to pursue such learning on your own. You're one of the relatively few Americans pursuing a Master's degree, so you tell me whether or not you're a representative statistic in that regard. For the rest of the country, there's a good chance they didn't get any of this in high school (not if it was like my typical public hs, anyway), and college should provide some exposure.

Otherwise, we may as well kill off all the completely useless workers, breed the efficient ones, and send them to trade school their whole life where we'll indoctrinate them as workers of the peoples' education. They'll be easily led and manipulated, but they're guaranteed work and income, so what does it matter?

Re:Triumphalism

[snarkasaurus]

One of the consequences of not teaching about religions in school is that it makes telling the difference between science and religion much more difficult.

Certain members of the extreme ecology movement have in fact forgotten the difference, and are busy hammering science back into religion again.

You see my point, yes?

One does not have to practice a religion to learn its tenets, or to gain great insight from knowing them.