Posted on 07/18/2008 7:05:51 PM PDT by Amelia
...Gradually, he realized he wanted to teach children. After three years introducing middle-schoolers at Sandy Spring Friends School to social studies, he decided on his life's work: starting a school like none the Washington area has ever seen...
..."The model is inspired by the success of home-schoolers," he said. Students will set their class schedules, enabling them to learn at their pace and in their styles. Teachers will act as advisers, not taskmasters...
...Much of Shusterman's plan is inspired by John Dewey, a 20th-century educational philosopher whose devotees have called for teachers to be "guides on the side, not sages on the stage." Dewey led a movement called progressive education in which, he said, children learn best when pursuing individual projects that allow them to explore their world....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
LOL. Homeschooling, but its not homeschooling and it costs $12000 per year.
He said he expects to charge about $25,000 a year in tuition, the typical amount for independent schools in the Washington area, but the schedules and lessons will be radically different.
Washington’s own Summerhill? But only for the uproariously wealthy, of course ...
Does Mr. Schusterman have kids of his own to watch flail around in constructivist math, or will he be experimenting with other people’s kids?
It sounds like yet another liberal educational scam to me. It’s pretty much what the worst schools are already doing.
It says he has 3 children, one of whom he homeschooled for a year...also, according to the article, he’s brillant, which goes against the stereotype of teachers having the lowest SAT scores in town...
I wondered why it was going to be so expensive if the students were going to be doing most of the work. ;-)
Well, here’s a question I was hoping someone would answer...this guy says he’s using a homeschool model, but also that his plans are based on what John Dewey thought would work best...
And project-based learning models do seem to be followed by a lot of homeschoolers...let students follow their interests and they’ll “pick up” other things along the way...
On FR, this model of homeschooling is generally thought to be a really good thing, yet John Dewey is routinely villified as one of the main people who began the downward spiral of the public schools. Aside from the fact that Dewey’s political leanings were socialist, I’ve never quite understood this. Can you explain?
Why do some home schoolers like the idea of discovery learning for their own, but look down upon it in a school setting? What some proof? Look at the thread about discovery math where posters say that kids shouldn't discover math, they should memorize it. So, what's with the double standard?
The problem in my school system is that there is ONLY discovery learning, not a healthy dose of both. I actually, would not mind a "fun friday" of discovery learning math each week, as long as my kids also knew the basics.
Here is my feeble attempt. The main "pro" for homeschooling is that a parent has the best interest of the student at heart - therefore, most parents will make sure their child is learning all that they are capable of learning. Each student is unique and capable.
With the little I have read about Dewey, he focused primarily on group equality - where the students were seen more as a group, rather than individuals who can achieve at different levels. He was against virtually all rote learning and was certainly anti-Christian. He focused pretty heavily on self-esteem, as well.
Just my take - would love to hear a more educated opinion.
The article says that $25,000 per year is "the typical amount for independent schools in the Washington area"...
So, what's up with that? Are parents just paying for the status, or do the smaller classes & better facilities that money helps to buy really improving the students' education?
There are excellent public schools just a few miles away in Virginia and Maryland - supposedly in many cases even better than these private schools, although I don't know how much the public schools actually spend per student, and right now I'm too lazy to try to look it up.
Sent the article on to a friend who has been a teacher in the Houston Independent School District for years. Is extremely unhappy with the administration and in his last year before he can barely afford to retire but will teach English lit and poetry - his passions - in a local private school. Will be interesting to see his take.
There is the interesting prevalence of homeschooled kids in objective contests, scholarships, spelling bees and such.
“Discovery” appropriately directed is a wonderful educational tool, I believe Socrates used it to great benefit beneath an apocryphal shade tree.
In your last paragraph, you confuse “math” with arithmetic. My fourth grade arithmetic teacher forced us to memorize multiplication tables to 20, very useful in a day when the only portable calculator was an abacus, and in fact, she demonstrated its usefullness to us.
Math is best taught plane geometry and proofs first, then algebra, trig and calculus. It is logic in order of difficulty. Multiplication, long division, dividing fractions, decimal conversions,(or for that matter, counting back change at the grocery) these are arithmetic, and should be memorized, just in case the power goes down in the middle of a major dope deal. Just hate it when that happens.
When folks talk about homeschooling, what we mostly hear about are the positives of the loose structure of the day. Anywhere from 2-4 hours of academics, then time for play and personal discovery, and that's touted as a good thing.
This is a bit of a caricature of homeschooling, often representative of one done poorly. My wife and I home schooled our two children from 3rd to 8th grade and worked with others who did the same. Our children's days were well structured, albeit with more flexibility than a traditional school with large classes. I do not equate 'flexible' with 'unstructured.' If math class needed to go an extra 30 minutes to accomplish the goals, the schedule was easily adapted. The main point was that the structure was designed to develop them into independent learners with a desire for life-long learning. Our external structure taught them to be self motivated. They had a very easy transition to high school because they knew getting their work done and mastering the material was their responsibility; the teacher was their resource/aide. These skills permitted our daughter to take advanced calculus via independent study her senior year of high school. Both were in the top 5% of their class. Both completed college with honors (one degree in chemistry, one in meteorology.) Our son,the chemist, went to Law School and is now an Army JAG lawyer. Our daughter is finishing a Ph. D. in meteorology. The skills they learned in home schooling served them well, as did the skills they learned from subsequent studies and teachers.
The choice to home school is an intensely personal decision. It works very well for some parents/children and can be a disaster for others. The optimum choice of home/private/state schooling for a given child can vary at different stages of development. Parents need to consider the choices and consequences carefully and solicit good counsel.
'Guided discovery' is a valuable tool when used appropriately. However, it is over-used in education today. There is simply too much material that needs to be taught to permit exclusive use. It is foolish to derive the periodic table of elements, it is better to show how it is structured and have students explore examples. It is foolish to "discover" the quadratic formula or trigonometric identities; these need to be taught and applications explored and practiced. There is no substitute for homework - without it students never master the subject. I can assure you after 'auditing' a few classes, I remember very little. Those where I worked the 'problem sets from hell' taught me skills I retained.
I think every high school student should read Thomas Friedman's book, "The world is flat." These young people need to understand that there are bright, motivated Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. youth who will work hard and gain skills and get the good jobs if American students don't or can't compete. Trying to support a family without a skill is a ticket to a very hard life. An education and a skill is not a guarantee of a good life, but it improves the odds. Working minimum wage retail or food service jobs is a good way to earn spending money during high school and to help pay for college; these jobs will not likely be very lucrative careers... Finally, a nation of low wage earners cannot finance even essential government services, let alone the largess promised by our libertine government.
Administrator salaries? Gold-plated bathroom fixtures?
I've only read 2 of his books, and he was a prolific writer, so I don't claim to know all his views. Also I don't have the books handy for reference.
From what I recall, I'd disagree with the part about not treating students as individuals, although "socialization" I believe was important to Dewey, IIRC because he thought that a lot of learning was a social process (but I may be confusing him with someone else).
In the books I read, Dewey definitely was against rote learning, but I don't recall the anti-Christian and pro-self-esteem stuff...as I say, I haven't read everything he wrote by any means.
That could be. I don't really know.
I'm sure the D.C. schools are overpriced for what they deliver, and there is a lot of fraud and waste in that system.
What I also wonder, though, is what the expensive independent schools offer that make people willing to pay so much for them -- and is there something in that model the public schools ought to be looking at, and attempting to borrow, even though they certainly can't afford the "full deal"?
That's an interesting question. Part of what makes anything with a very high price "worth it" is simply the fact that a few people can afford it while others can't. There's a great deal of class positioning involved in "education" of this kind - it's a marker of who is U and who is not-U, irrespective of intellectual attainment.
A high-tuition school doesn't turn a student of average or below-average ability into a genius, so one thing to be considered, if looking at expensive private schools as a model for others, is objective measures of achievement such as SAT scores or independent science, math, or writing awards to students. Simply graduating, or even admission to a high-status university, can just reflect "breathing while rich," which isn't something that can be transferred to the D.C. public schools.
I do know that several of these expensive private schools agreed (at least on paper) to participate in the D.C. voucher program, but said voucher students would have to meet their admission requirements, and apparently very few have been able to do so.
I think there is probably a significant “breathing while rich” component, too...but some of those schools seem to have very small student-staff ratios when compared to public schools and even parochial schools.
Not a surprise. Since vouchers are generally available only to students in desperately failing schools, it's unlikely such students would be able to meet any meaningful (literacy, basic math) admissions standards. Such students would also be very unlikely to be comfortable at Sidwell Friends or Cathedral Prep.
I don't think there's all that much to be learned from the schools of the ultra-rich. Yes, a whole lot of money buys the *opportunity* for a good education. And families with a whole lot of money generally see to it, one way or another, that their kids end up with a degree and at least basic academic skills. Great - Chelsea Clinton and a batch of Kennedys. Is this output of which our nation needs more?
It’s the same scam introduced 10 years ago as the great, new, middle school model. And grades have gone down, down on that instruction mode.
Yes, basically Dewey was the single person most responsible for “progressive” education, and for dumping the classics—history, literature, and so forth.
The use of his name as a model for this school is a clear warning to expect more progressive junk.
Teaching needn’t involve simply setting out the facts. You want the kids to participate. The best model for that is probably the Socratic method: asking questions, getting kids to figure things out for themselves.
But, that doesn’t mean letting the kids set the curriculum. Contrary to some progressive misunderstandings of the “Socratic method,” Socrates believed that there was such a thing as transcendental or objective truth. Plato’s dialogues proceed by questions, but if you really look at them you can see that Socrates knows where these questions are leading—or in the case of a few invincibly ignorant characters, to expose them and their delusions for what they are.
Homeschooling works because most homeschooling parents have strong values—religion, morality—that form a basis for educating their kids, and that motivate them to do it in the first place. But public schools aren’t permitted to base their educational methods on traditional values or a supreme truth. Which takes us right back to John Dewey, as well as the meddling Supreme Court.
Reading what I see this is just another opportunity for someone to get wealthy.
All kids need structure to learn. And when I say learn, I mean a marked change in a behavior. Allowing them to do their own thing does not, at least I believe, give them the chance to learn skills they will need to survive.
Me personally, if I were given that sort of option, I doubt I would have taken any courses that would have been worthwhile in survival in the job market.
I envision a set of small wireless cell-phone style devices that each student would carry and perform instant feedback to the teacher. The teacher would do a pretest on the lesson for the day on the devices and see what areas need focus. The teacher would then split the class into groups using the teacher's device, if necessary, and choose from an array of handouts and activities both on the student devices and on paper. For each group, teaching material like slides would be annotated and seen at each students' device, and the teacher could ask questions for everyone to answer, which would pop up on the teacher device for immediate feedback on the lesson.
For the groups that complete the lesson early, a teacher wants to make sure that students aren't being loud, or bored, so the device would allow for educational games and silent texting from student to student. Any problems and the teacher's device can command any or all the student devices to shut down.
I think it would only cost the amount of a single computer to outfit a classroom of 30 with the devices, and be far more usable.
I think it's mainly to keep out the riff-raff. I'm pretty sure that a school would do better if it only allowed students from birth families who were still in their first marriages and regularly attended religious services. I'm not sure how you would accomplish such a thing, but allowing only upper-middle class families into your school probably reduces behavior problems as well.
According to the story, it will cost more like $25,000 a year. True, homeschooling doesn't cost that much, but many people don't think they can homeschool for high school, but still don't like the way schools are run, so this might be a good alternative to the typical public high school, or high pressure private school.
*snort* Yeah, a real bummer, man!
My hubby, SirKit is a Math guy, and he would agree with you. Kids NEED to have those basics down cold, then, when they get to real Mathematics, they won't have to expend any mental energy on the ciphering, and can spend that time on the abstractions.
Actually kids in grammer school are like little sponges. They CAN memorize all kinds of stuff, so why not take advantage of that; throw all that at them early? They can do the fine tuning stuff later, as they age, and developmentally, can handle it.
Our daughter homeschooled from the 8th grade, all the way through to graduation. I knew there were some courses she'd need to be admitted to college, so we worked things she loved into those requirements, but wouldn't have been available at any of the schools in the area. For example, she loved Japanese, and decided to teach it to herself. She watched Anime, without subtitles, and read Manga, first in English, then in Japanese. I'd also bought her a basic Japanese language text and workbook, but she found they weren't as useful for learning to speak the language. She can hold a conversation, but because she doesn't have a full grasp of the grammar, she will spend more time on that, now. In a regular language class, much time would have been spent on grammar first, and it would have been a real bore for her to absorb the language. Now, she knows the words, so learning the grammar rules to them in proper order will now be easier for her.
Every child learns differently, even within families, and some kids are just strange in how, and how much, they learn. Having a school that recognizes that will be a boon to families who have one of those kids who just learns in what most folks consider a weird manner. They'll learn what they need, and even if they are not employable, or are even interested in, a corporate setting, they will have no trouble creating work for themselves, and probably quite lucratively.
Sweet example! There are times I try to be more structured and it fails every time. I have heard people condemn television, but I found out I could read science books all day to my oldest. He would have a glazed look and not know anything I just read or had him read five minutes ago. But, the exact same subject on Discovery and he can tell you all about it. Then, he’ll pull out every book he can find on the subject. I did have to tell him that watching “Weapons of the Future” still wasn’t going to count as a class for school.
Sure it could!! If it's combined with his looking up other information, and learning more about the science and technology involved.
Our son is sitting here watching a show on the Science Channel called "Atom: Clash of Titans", and we're counting it as time spent learning Physics. Of course, his Dad is sitting here, pausing the show, from time to time, and discussing the subject, and the scientists involved.;o)
Our kids were registered at a school that allowed Self-Designed courses, so that makes it possible for the kids to learn in the way that suits them best, be it any combination of reading, watching videos, or taking part in physical activities to cement the knowledge. We just counted up the hours spent, and determined the credits based on that.
The way I described it is how it has been described to me. With no more than 2 hours of work and the rest is play and time for personal discovery. I understand that your situation is different, and personally, I think your kids are better off for it, but I am not using paraphrases, but actual words posted here on FR
The World is Flat was required reading for my daughter's economics class. I agree, it is valuable reading
The World is Flat was required reading for my daughter's economics class. I agree, it is valuable reading
How did did your daughter respond to the book?
She wants to be a doctor and is starting college in a few weeks. After reading this book, she decided to change her focus to a specialty that could not be outsourced. Originally, she had thought about radiology, or research. She gets that she must acquire skills that can’t be easily replaced by someone through the internet, but more face to face.
Good for her. Best wishes in her studies!
$25,000?!?!
I don’t think I spent that much for twelve years worth of homeschooling three kids.
Which is why homeschooling is flourishing if the public schools in an area rot. There’s usually no realistic alternative, especially out in the sticks.
The unschooling movement probably plays into that.
Our school time was pretty structured. We used text books and work books and the kids could play when they were done with their lessons for the day. They could also pursue anything else that interested them.
We only spent 2-4 hours a day on book work because that's what it took. We did math, English, science, and social studies every day. We filled in with art, music, health, gym during the week and anything they did on weekends or non-traditional school times, also counted.
The reason that the class work only took 2-4 hours was due to the lack of wasted time. It would take more if the kids were goofing off and they learned pretty quickly that it did not pay.
The problem I see with undirected time in a classroom setting is that not every kid wants to learn and some will be disruptive just to cause trouble. Kids tried that when I was in high school. We had a sub, and God help her.
I think, myself, that that is the major reason the self-directed learning will not work in your average public school setting; kids who don't want to be there.
LOL!
Actually, if you don't know what you're doing in math, even a calculator is not going to be much help. You'll never have any idea of whether you're even close to the correct answer.
Plus, if you have your math facts down, you can go way faster than a calculator. You can have the answer while the other kids using their calculators are arguing over whose answer is right because they got different answers; and then waste even more time re-entering the numbers to try again.
I vaguely remember a study involving college students when handheld calculators were more common than laptops, but a time when the slide-rule business had already faded to buggy-whipdom. (BTW, I still have an old K&E sixinch, dates me a bit, I think.)
The test subjects were told they were there to evaluate what we would now call the user-friendliness of these new hand-helds. They were given a series of written questions, the computations ranging from simple to 10-12 iterations. They were not informed that the calculators were programmed to give incorrect answers. In the initial stages, a significant minority of students came up complaining that something was wrong, the calculator answer was out of the ballpark, but virtually all of them went back to the task at hand after reassurance from the authority figure “professors” running the test.
Best I remember, only two or three stubbornly held their ground, even when the answers were an order of magnitude off.
Sad but true, I got held up in a grocery when the light blinked and the registers went nuts. My order had been totalled, I had given the clerk a Grant, and I had to get a manager to authorize her to count back my change before my frozen goods melted (and he was reluctant; an advantage to old-fartdom, we graybeards can browbeat these kids into nearly anything so long as we sound like we know our stuff.)
I think, myself, that that is the major reason the self-directed learning will not work in your average public school setting; kids who don't want to be there.
Problems caused by the lack of commitment to education and subsequent class disruption causes problems that go far beyond the use of group learning and discovery learning in large classes. These problems may be solved when parents cooperate with teachers and administrators and 'extinguish' the behavior in childish students.
The real problem occurs when there is either no parental interest or support and when there are 'helicopter parents' who insist their child can do no wrong and do not discipline their children when their children do not buckle down and get their work done before socializing or play.
I believe that the combination of radical egalitarianism applied to education culminating in 'No Child Left Behind' and compulsory public education seen as a right are at the root of this problem. Why is investment in those who perform acceptable in sports and music and not academics?
Home schooling works because usually only motivated parents attempt it and there are fewer distractions. Exclusive private schools can work if disruptive and non-performing students are either expelled or put in situations where they do not distract hard working students.
My personal view is that we can no longer afford the educational largesses we have in a global economy. I would look very carefully at return on education investment. I see public education as a benefit bestowed on children by hard working taxpayers who realize that skilled, educated citizens are a benefit to society. I would make education voluntary and fund a basic education for all students who will apply themselves, try their best, and treat teachers and other students with respect and civility. I would expel (and cut the losses) on students who fail to meet these standards. I would drastically limit the financial 'security net' to able body (and mind) adults and teens who do not perform. I would use these cost savings to fund remedial education for teen or adult who realized they made poor choices in their youth and wanted to rectify the situation.
I believe this approach is the only way the United States will survive in a global economy. I am concerned that we are heading for a massive economic collapse, caused by the failure of 50 years of unbridled liberalism that has destroyed the nuclear family and is unsustainable in a global economy. Making some hard choices will let us enable the maximum number of citizens to have decent lifestyles and not get caught in the bondage of a dependent lifestyle.
I worked at a McD’s in the *get change back from your dollar* days. No electronic cash registers; you had to do everything by hand.
Now I was not great in math in those days, but I sure did learn to add.
Today, using that skill, I love to give the YOUNG cashiers odd change in pennies, nickels, and dimes and watch the look on their faces. They look at me like I have two heads. I tell them that I want the quarters and they look at me even stranger. Then they shrug and punch in the amount I gave them. Then, I particularly enjoy seeing the look on their faces when the cash register shows 75 cents worth of change.
I can’t do that to older cashiers. They get it.
The idea that every kid can and will get an education should be thrown out.
The first reaction to the mention of dismantling the education system as it stands is concern that there will be kids who do not get an education. But there are kids who are not getting one anyway, even when the put in the requisite amount of time.
Since the kids who want to get an education will, and those who don’t won’t; it makes no sense to keep wasting money on them.
I don’t see that dismantling this broken system is going to make any significant difference in the literacy rate in this country.
I agree with you. Let them learn the hard way. There was a higher level of literacy in the days before compulsory education, and even the illiterate could provide for themselves.
To a certain extent, they're paying to send their kids to school with the sons and daughters of Senators, Cabinet Secretaries, Ambassadors and the like. Basically, these school are not only very good, but the only people who go there are the kids of the elite. They establish lifelong networking connections that are worth many, many times the cost of tuition.
Frankly, that is one of the reasons I would be hesitant to homeschool- the social connections would seem to be much harder to form.
How do we know that? Are we sure we are comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges?
and even the illiterate could provide for themselves.
They probably could now, but they'd have to do "jobs Americans won't do" because a lot of basic manufacturing jobs have gone overseas now...
Good point.
I can see this as a reason to send a child to an elite school, if being well-connected is important to your ambition for the child. However, very few schools provide connections that are valuable in that way. Very few students in my high school were very high achievers, and, although I did maintain some friendship with a few for a while, none of them turned out to be valuable lifelong connections as referred to in this context.
I don't think it would be any harder for homeschooled kids to establish social connections with the offspring of the elite than it would be for most kids attending a campus school. Unless you have the bucks to buy your way in, you are on the outside, homeschooled or not.
We live in DC, so in terms of schooling, our options are going to be sending our kids to private school or moving out to a place like McLean with good public schools. But I lean towards private schools like Goergetown Day School or the British School of Washington. I went to a top-tier private school in Canada, which has led to lifelong connections. But I agree with your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.