Objectivism & Education

[Dagny]

In another thread called "An Objectivist Church" GreedyCapitalist posted this:

"When I say that most people won't get a liberal arts education, I mean that 12 years of primary education should be sufficient for most people. Now remember that this is a rational society where you can get an education in primary school that far exceeds anything you can get in college now. I went to a public school myself, and I took several years of biology, chemistry, physics, calculus etc. I think the stuff I was learning in high school can easily be introduced in middle school so that high school can more like what a four-year university degree today."

Now I don't plan on having children anytime soon. But because of my experience with public education and high school I have been giving a lot of thought to how I want my future children to be educated. Even though GreedyCapitalist's statement was in a "rational society", I completely agree that High School should be more like a four year university degree. Or rather that one should be able to obtain their bachelor's by age 18. However, I think this could be achieved in our world today.

Here are my reasons:

1) In public schools, one is taught addition and subtraction in the 1st and 2nd grades, multiplication in the 3rd grade, and division in the 4th grade. Pre-algebra in the 7th, Algebra in the 8th, Geometry in the 9th, etc...etc. My point being that multiplication and division could be taught a lot sooner...like in the 2nd and 3rd grades. Also, notice that the 5th and 6th grades were pretty much review and completely wasted years. Now I'm speaking for myself here. I was taught in the Los Angeles Unified School District public school system, which is pretty bad to begin with. I would like to hear about other people's experiences. If the teaching was better and if they allowed at least the brighter students to learn ahead one could easily learn calculus by the 8th grade. As a matter a fact, I met someone who did just that because he took math classes at a local college taught by his mother (a math professor).

2) A lot of students who plan on going to college take AP classes anyhow which count as college classes. Some even graduate high school with 2 years worth of college credit already on them. The problem is that AP classes are not offered until the junior year in high school. If it were offered sooner, at the freshman year, I'm sure we'd see students graduating with 4 years under their belt. In other words, students can take college classes during their high school years. I myself, graduated with nearly two years of college classes, and that was because I took AP classes and college classes (psychology, etc) during the summer breaks. Also, in England you graduate from High School at the age of 16. And if you want to go on to college you then take your first two years (or what they call A-Levels). Once you're 18 you go directly to the university campus and start on your major (none of the General Education classes required here) and can literally get your masters degree four years later.

Now I know some will argue that not all students could take the curriculum this fast. Perhaps not, but then that's another problem with public schools-that it caters to the collective versus the individual. For now I plan on sending my future children to the Van Damme Academy. According to one alumni he was at UCI by age 15 which sounds completely sensible to me.

[DavidOdden]

The question should not be about universities and BA or MA degrees, but what the content is at each educational level. The public education system is very inefficient and ineffective (in graduating students who are far from being fit for a university education but who are admissible by the numbers and often admitted, nevertheless). At the university level, expectations are adjusted downwards. High school students tend to lack fundamental skills, especially grammar, writing, argumentation and knowledge of history, as well as the oft-cited problems in math and science, and this has a dragging-down effect on higher education. There are well-prepared students of course: the point is that there shouldn't be any ill-prepared students graduating from high school. They shouldn't graduate from high school. They should be graduating from a trade school, picking up technical skills that would be useful in their future life.

My opinion is that 1st grade children are not generally suited for high-level learning, so that 1st grade mostly serves a babysitting function. Introducing multiplication for everybody in the 2nd grade would be a bad idea. But some children are ready for math and reading well before they get to first grade, so in some cases, multiplication should be introduced in first grade (I know of one case where it worked). The cause of the current educational stupidity is the "one size fits all" view that retards children of ability in order to keep the class going at a medium (read mediocre) pace, while at the same time not really addressing the problems of the, shall we say, "alternatively enabled" (slow) students.

I went through the public system in the 60's, and my mom (who was a teacher) tells me that they used to have a reasonably efficient system of tracking and skill-based segregation where they didn't just pile all of the smart kids into the class with the dumb kids; they had largely eliminated such ability-based segregation by the time I got to school. Contemporary American high school is the reductio ad absurdum of the single-track approach to education that has infected the way society thinks about child development, and it really does not help the future carpenter to be forced in the same classes as the future Nobel prize physicist.

[Godless Capitalist]

A lot of time is wasted even at the best schools so I agree finishing HS by 15 is quite feasible even for average students.

In elementary school I was in a program that let me take Gr 1-4 in 3 yrs and my brother and sister were allowed to skip Gr 7 entirely.

I know a woman who is home-schooling her kids (5 and 6). I would say they are at at least a Gr 3 level already!

[Scott_Connery]

In a more immediate sense, is there any practical alternative to homeschooling for objectivist parents? I would hate to send my children to a school that teaches altruism 8 hours a day, and I haven't seen any alternatives even amongst private schools.

[DavidOdden]

In a more immediate sense, is there any practical alternative to homeschooling for objectivist parents? I would hate to send my children to a school that teaches altruism 8 hours a day, and I haven't seen any alternatives even amongst private schools.

Why? Well, first, check the schedule -- it's not 8 hours. But more importantly, what you teach at home is vastly more important and influential than what they teach at school, when it comes to values. No school manages to teach values coherently or effectively, and presenting a child with a full-time consistent classroom in values by example will have a huge influence on your children. You shouldn't assume that schools have some magic power to cancel parental influence, if you are willing to take responsibility and exert that influence.

[Scott_Connery]

You shouldn't assume that schools have some magic power to cancel parental influence, if you are willing to take responsibility and exert that influence.

No, but I also don't want to pay to have my children (who don't yet exist) taught that socialism is great, the environment needs to be saved from businesses, Marx was just misunderstood etc.

[Areactor]

We'll, through High School, we weren't really taught Socialism was good but there was a lot of sympathy for Roosevelt. The schools really go at great lengths to push enviornmentalism now that I think about it. Not in Highschool but between 4th and 8th grade. Forget Marx. Roosevelt, Che Guevara, JFK, LBJ and Clinton are the good guys.

But here's good news, no one I know is satisfied with public school either, 90% of the teens I've met in Highschool said they plan to send their kids to private schools.

[erik]

I just had a boy and he is 6 weeks old today. This is something I've been thinking about for a few years now. My hope is that they will at least have some kind of voucher system available by the time he is school age. Either that or we will home school. If for some reason my wife has to go back to work, as a last resort we will use the crappy public school system. I live in a state that has an atrocious public school system too, ranked in the bottom 10% of the nation.

As far as rushing the kids through school you can do that in the public school system now. some kids can handle it fine. I took Algebra II with a kid 10th grade and by the time I taking AP Calculus 12th grade he was teaching it at the Junior College. Of course he was in remedial English classes so go figure. Why rush everyone though? Its not like its a race to see who can finish school the fastest. I didn't stop growing until I was 21 and didn't "fill out" until 25. I didn't really consider myself an adult until about 25 either. Physically or mentally. I say if anything start school later to give kids more time to play when they are young. 1st grade at 7 or 8 would be nice. Of course if you want to jam your kids through school early and fast you could but they will probably hate you for it.

[Yes]

In a more immediate sense, is there any practical alternative to homeschooling for objectivist parents? I would hate to send my children to a school that teaches altruism 8 hours a day, and I haven't seen any alternatives even amongst private schools.

Really? You were taught altruism 8 hours a day?

When I went to school, I spent 8 hours a week with altruistic courses. History had this altruistic bent to it, hence, its title "Citizenship Education." The other altruistic courses were religious instruction (aka Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) classes.

Times must have changed, judging by the commentaries I read about education on the various capitalism sites. That one can take subjects like math and give them a collectivist bent is a sad commetary on our times.

[Areactor]

Here's a bad one.

I dug up an old High school book and as I browsed at the definitions, the definition of Antitrust laws is...

-"Laws that encourage competition in the marketplace."

Man....

[Scott_Connery]

Really?  You were taught altruism 8 hours a day?

When I went to school, I spent 8 hours a week with altruistic courses.  History had this altruistic bent to it, hence, its title "Citizenship Education."  The other altruistic courses were religious instruction (aka Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) classes.

Times must have changed, judging by the commentaries I read about education on the various capitalism sites.  That one can take subjects like math and give them a collectivist bent is a sad commetary on our times.

All of the liberal arts type classes had an altruist slant to them. History praised FDR, and tryed to teach me that white men were the cause of all the world's problems. English classes can't help but teach altruism, as most classics are altruistic. (Though I did read Anthem in 8th grade ). Science was often about how the environment needed saving. Almost all of my spanish teachers have been open socialists. I guess I can't really say anything bad about my math courses, though I worry that my children may have some sort of collective style whole mat system. This "teaching" style was adopted by the middle school I would have gone to if I went to public schools.

[Godless Capitalist]

In a more immediate sense, is there any practical alternative to homeschooling for objectivist parents? I would hate to send my children to a school that teaches altruism 8 hours a day, and I haven't seen any alternatives even amongst private schools.

Look into Montessori schools. They start as early as age 2 and some go as high as Grade 6. Past that, any academically rigorous school should not spend too much time teaching altruism.

Certainly kids will get taught some nonsense in any school but it won't kill them. Discuss what they "learn" with them and use it as an opportunity to promote critical thinking skills. They are going to be exposed to a lot of nonsense sooner or later; its actually probably better that they get used to it early.

[stephen_speicher]

Look into Montessori schools.

That is an excellent suggestion. Montessori education, in general, can be quite a wonderful experience for children. However, there also can be disparity among some of the schools in adhering directly to the standard Maria Montessori methodology. Though not always the case, the AMS affiliated schools are usually not as good as the AMI affiliated ones. Best to first read Maria Montessori's books and then quiz the school to see how closely they adhere to the method.

Also, for anyone nearby the Orange County area in Southern California, Dr. Peter Leport has started a series of schools for toddlers up to fourteen year-olds. Peter is a long-time Objectivist and he is on the Board of Directors for ARI. See the Leport Schools web site.

http://www.leportschools.com

[janie]

Montessori education, in general, can be quite a wonderful experience for children. However, there also can be disparity among some of the schools in adhering directly to the standard Maria Montessori methodology.

The Montessori experience is not only great for children but aduts as well. I recently became an assistant teacher in a wonderful Montessori school here in Anchorage, and so far it has been incredible. The children are so bright and eager to learn that it is sometimes overwhelming. I have three year olds in my class with better reasoning skills than most adults I know. I plan on becoming a certified Montessori teacher in the future, and would highly recommend a Montessori school to any family with young children.

Stephen is very right to caution parents about how well a school adheres to Dr. Montessori's methods of teaching. Not only do you see disparities between AMS and AMI certified schools, but any school can use the Montessori name, even those that are not AMS or AMI certified. There is a chain of day-care centers here that use the name Montessori, but do not have one single certified Montessori teacher in all four of the schools. The difference between one of their classrooms and one of ours (we are an AMS school, but an excellent one) is night and day.