Getting Real
Increasingly, I find it impossible to read a newspaper, listen to NPR, or even to check out what my favorite columnists are opining these days. Part of my lack of interest stems from my cultural, moral, and spiritual detachment from life in these United States. But this personal secession is only a part of my indifference. After all, my future is being damaged every day by the perverted children who make up 95% of the American political class at every level, from the superintendent of district 205, who is throwing away a great deal of tax money in a largely successful campaign to destroy the minds and character of local children, to the inarticulate brats who lie in Congress and play their nasty games in the White House. At the very least, I should care something about the police and fire protection I am paying for or the security of my retirement accounts. Then why is it so difficult to care?
The answer is quite simple, really. The truth is that political reform is impossible so long as we accept the terms that have been imposed on us by generations of servile Americans and the masters who exploit them. If I can find the time, I am going to spell out several sets of conditions that must be eliminated if we are to hope for any productive change. And, if I can find the energy and inspiration, I shall point out a few plain truths that should be obvious, whether the subject is welfare, foreign policy, criminal justice, or education. I make no claim to originality or brilliance, only to a certain Machiavellian insight that has been with me since I can remember.
For the sake of simplicity, I am going to sketch out, as a preliminary, a few rules that should be obvious to everyone. The important part is to treat them as if they were universally true, when, in fact, they may only work 99% of the time. Rule number one: There are no unintended consequences, at least not in the sense that neoconservatives have used the phrase. People who pass welfare legislation are seeking power. While they may not entirely intend to degrade and enslave welfare recipients, they certainly do not wish them to be free and independent. The same rule applies, mutatis mutandis, to every government program, whether it is educators who stupify the students or military officers who use their services as indoctrination programs to inculcate feminism, multi-culturalism, and homosexualism, even though they are quite aware of the disastrous consequences to our preparedness.
Rule number two: People enter politics to benefit themselves. If a politician seems to be sacrificing his interest to the public good, it is always an illusion. He is either being blackmailed or he has an interest we have not yet perceived. Remember: For the sake of argument we can admit no exceptions. Even politicians who have ideals will always sacrifice them to the exigencies of power. You can almost always figure out what is going on when, for example, Orrin Hatch betrays every principle he has ever claimed to stand for. It may not be true that no one can run for office unless his party has documents or photographs that could ruin him, but it is never safe, in any given instance, to think otherwise.
Rule number three: The sole purpose for seeking higher office is to increase bribability. If, for example, a city councilman goes for $500 s vote, a state legislator will require several thousand, a congressman tens of thousands. I am speaking in terms of dollars, though, in fact the bribes can take many forms: women, drugs, junkets, favorable write-ups in major papers, access to more important power-brokers, or even the flattering attention of great men.
Finally, rule number four: Policies and programs are never aimed at doing the good their sponsors profess but only at advancing the interests of legislators, administrators, and the special interests who pay the bribes, whether those interests are Wall Street investment houses, labor unions, or minority ward heelers. There is, in these United States today, no such thing as good legislation.
Well, then, let us start with the problems of District 205. The main complaint is that Rockford schools are being ruined by an arrogant and ignorant anti-white superintendent, who refuses to protect teachers from the violence of students, who squanders tens of thousands of dollars on boondoggle conferences and has responded to state cut-backs by firing teachers only to replace them with her friends. The superintendent is obviously an uneducated harridan who hasn't the faintest idea of what a real education might be. She may have never met an educated man or woman in her entire life. But who chose her? An elected school board that generally backs her up all the way and responds to criticism with the arrogance we have come to expect from the lowliest public officials. One board member is an ex-teacher, who naturally champions higher pay for the almost entirely worthless teachers of the district. Another--and I find this hilarious--is the shining light of Rockford's Libertarian Party, who claims his life was changed by LP presidential candidate Ed Clark. And yet, this Libertarian has made common cause with leftist board members who have devoted themselves to the expansion of government and the destruction of education. If the emptiness of Richard Weaver's title (imposed by the publisher) needed to be exposed, our school board chairman, David Kelley, has done it. If "ideas have consequences," a libertarian would oppose the fraud, waste, and mismanagement of the school district. Instead, he aids and abets the criminals.
But, why blame poor Dave Kelley? Nothing in his background as construction foreman has prepared him for dealing either with education or with school board politics. He is hopelessly unqualified for his position and makes a fool of himself whenever he opens his mouth, but, then, who elected him? The voters in his district.
So long as stupid uneducated people select unqualified candidates to hire and supervise the arrogant and crooked educrats who run our school systems, nothing whatsoever can be done. The problem is not this particular superintendent: Every superintendent in 25 years has been almost equally stupid, uneducated, arrogant, and wasteful. The problem is not this particular board: Every board in the past 25 years has been equally obtuse and pliant, even when they claimed to be standing up for the taxpayers. (The exception that proves the rule is a board member who could read a balance sheet--Stephanie Caltagerone--but she was hated by the district, whose goons planted porn on her computer, and by fellow board members.) Without any real education themselves, school board members cannot have the slightest idea of what to do. But these ignoramuses and dummies actually control the largest employer and largest budget in Rockford.
The problem does not lie in the mere fact that public education is public. 100 years ago, community schools in northern Illinois were parsimonious and effective. But with school consolidation, the centralization of power, the growth of "professional" teacher training, a nightmare was created. What is the solution? It is quite simple. First, decertify the unions. Then delegitimate the pseudo-professional education degrees. Downsize the districts to something like an area that could be served by a current elementary school, abolish the state board of education, and eliminate the US Department of Education. At this point, local neighborhoods will be able to decide if they want public schools, what the goals of their schools should be, and what kind of education they wish their children to receive.
Will they choose wisely? Probably not. They are still Americans, after all, and thus incorrigibly stupid. Will some neighborhoods light upon a few educated men and women who can help them establish decent schools? Certainly, and those schools, when they succeed, might be imitated by well-meaning parents in other neighborhoods.
What I have sketched out is not a reform of the schools. That can only be done by disciplined and educated men and women who understand the purpose and function of schooling. But the demolition of the entire system would clear the way to make reform possible. Any well-intended attempt to reform the schools--and, believe me, as teacher, headmaster, scholar, and "education expert," I have looked at hundreds of them--is a waste of time that will probably--inevitably--make matters worse.
But, since this demolition will only take place sometime after the thundering arrival of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, there is absolutely nothing to be done with public education except to vote against bond issues and oppose every school board candidate who has any agenda except budget cutting. Parents who actually care about their children, unless they happen to live in one of a very few bourgeois districts, will either send their children to private schools or else teach them at home. Of course, Rockford's private schools are for the most part only whiter and safer imitations of public schools and home-schooling is far from an ideal solution, even in principle. But, even though protecting children from predatory savages is not a primary goal of education, it is a minimum prerequisite.
There, you see how simple it is? From now on we do not have to entertain any fantasies about ""No Child Left Behind," Charter Schools, Vouchers, or the "Effective Schools" movement. When a discussion starts in the media, turn it off, blank it out, and go read a good book to a child.,
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming: That is the best discription of the state of modern political, and education reality, I have ever seen. Your solution is the best. Tend your own garden and help out your relatives and friends. The government is not the solution and doesn't seem to be reformable.
"home-schooling is far from an ideal solution, even in principle. But, even though protecting children from predatory savages is not a primary goal of education, it is a minimum prerequisite."
How true. Our homeschooling isn't going as well as I would like and I agree that it's not the ideal solution. But for some of us, it's better than the alternative.
Better for my children to be illiterate than to be exposed to lowest-common-denominator-culture when they're Kindergardeners. That applies especially to our daughters.
My friend and mentor here sends his kids to an expensive Christian (non-denominational) private school. Yesterday, a boy in his 12-year-old daughter's class fully exposed himself in front of the entire class.
This solution seems to apply to just about every other area of life in America today as well, from entertainment and mass media to most religious denominations, to welfare, to the 'economy', to government, etc., etc. Even 'marriage' as it is currently practised.
Education reflects the rest of the system, which is as unsustainable and impossible to fix as the Soviet system was in 1985. We are going out the Soviet way.
As we travel down this path of collapse, let's stop once in a while and see the sights, mostly garbage, such as the fallen, cracked Lenin statue here, the discarded, faded Komsomol scarf over there, and remember that we, travelling this already trodden path, are not so exceptional after all just because we are Americans, and we can leave that busted Lincoln bust right there, beside that fragmented Marx head, and drop that arm load of cheap Chinese Wally World plastic trinkets there, beside that pile of old rusted tank junk. Thus we continue on into a new world, scary as that may be.
I did not intend at all to denigrate home-schooling but only to suggest that it is difficult in practice and far from ideal in principle. For many, it is the least worst option, one that we tried for more than a few years, though with the mixed results that many families experience. One good thing that came out of our experiment is that none of our children is as gullible as their friends, and none accepts the party line fed us by the government and its media spokesmen on the networks and in the press.
Welcome back Dr Fleming.
I actually see it the opposite way - homeschooling is the solution, maybe not in the short term, but in the long run. Public schooling practiced on a large scale was a major transfer of authority from the parents. First to the neighborhood, then the county, then the state, and now the federals, and maybe eventually a UN bureaucrat. I see the large scale return of homeschooling as a start of reversal of the centralization.
Is my view incorrect?
I agree with Daniel Maxwell's assessment that public schooling is a major transfer of authority from the parents and is getting farther and farther from parental control. It is a state-run secular monopoly. I suggest the whole system should be changed to a privately run/parental choice system where parents are given vouchers to go to the school of their choice or to apply to home schooling costs (including remuneration to a parent teacher for her/his work). There's no reason the government should be running a school system. School is a major culture-forming institution and we need to take it back. This is radical and it's doubtful it could happen all at once, but could we move in this direction?
Mr. Maxwell,
I think homeschooling is a stopgap solution. In a reasonably normal and healthy society, I wouldn't have to hide my kids away.
@7 Youre missing the point. I was talking about hiding anyone. It is my opinion that public schools have weakened the family.
@8 'was' should be 'wasnt'.
That's what I feel like I'm doing. Hiding my kids away.
I think there's a solution somewhere between homeschooling and mass public education controlled by Washington (admittedly, closer to home than to Washington).
I, of course, agree that public schools (and many private schools) undermine parental authority and weaken the family.
Our experience of homeschooling (ongoing) is that the problems lie with us, my wife and especially with me. It's not the overt "educational" content that's the problem. It's that there are no correctives to my glaring character flaws in the examples of other people in other settings. But the kids are safe, not least from tv, and they can read and write and find Indiana on a map and do arithmetic, so "the least worst choice" is the one we will continue to make.
Northern Illinois schools (I grew up a little ways east of Rockford) were already violent hellholes in the late 70s and early 80s.
I really love Dr. Fleming's rule number two. It shows the brotherhood of Lincoln and Obama, two truly great dividers who can overlook anything on paper unless they wrote it.
I hope the good Dr. Fleming is not being apologetic about his "personal secession". Sometimes, as a home-schooling family here, it feels that way. But to see our kids address adults and children, familiar or otherwise, and deal with situations that seem to paralyze some children, reaffirms our decision to educate/instruct/strengthen our children ourselves.
Homeschooling has been the object of intense assault in much of Europe; I think it will come under increasingly hostile attack here too. The ruling elite are not about to surrender to the family so easily.
I also believe that the primary weapon used by opponents will be
"alternative lifestyles." Any family teaching Christian values will be viewed as "intolerant promoters of hate" and be forced to surrender their children back to the "safety" of the state.
"Homeschooling has been the object of intense assault in much of Europe; I think it will come under increasingly hostile attack here too. The ruling elite are not about to surrender to the family so easily."
Because they rightly see it for what it is: counter-revolutionary.
I would go a little bit further and say: Don't even worry about who's on the school board or who is the superintendent. Certainly, vote down all school funding. Otherwise, don't think about it. It doesn't matter which Deweyites are running the farce.
Instead, promote parochial and private schools, and home schools. If enough folks do so, the votes for government-school funding will decline.
And every church should start its own school. As a Catholic, I'm gratified to see the many good, orthodox young priests now coming along. As Cardinal Mahony retires (finally!), along with others of his hippy-dippy generation. These young priests, I hope, start good schools, or reform the often heterodox schools now the norm.
Protestants and Jews also should start their own schools, and expand existing ones.
And Dr. Fleming is right: Make sure the private and parochial schools are not just expensive imitations of government schools. Only hire school principals who think Dewey worse than Stalin.
(I'm referring Uncle Joe, as FDR and Truman called him, kicking Dewey out of the USSR for dumbing down the top science programs Stalin used to turn out engineers and boffins to build tanks and planes and bombs.)
In brief from the road, i used to think home schooling the ideal until I began to realize that the purposes of education are more social than individual. Parents should be in charge but not isolated. Government schooling is usually quite wicked but there are alternatives to the two extremes. Sorry for the brevity. More later.
Dr. Fleming (#16) is right that the purpose of education is "social," but people should not confuse that with the hackneyed argument against home-schooling, which is that the children are not "socialized."
The obvious rejoinder/question to that is "socialized by whom?" Home-schooling parents do not want their kids "socialized" by the miscreats in public schools.
Home-schooling is very tough. The parents must be particularly devoted and disciplined, and frankly they have to be more devoted to it and disciplined than the children.
The isolation problem can be solved by the ad-hoc groups of parents who set up programs that home-schooled kids attend that is more like real school, in that one parents teaches a subject to several kids.
Home schooling worked best when homes consisted of at least four walls, smoke rising from a chimney, two parents and at least one of the parents was female. Our country can no longer agree on even this much. Today the only rational call to be made to this ancient institution is " every man for himself!!" In my opinion.
The headmaster of our homeschool, my husband, prefers to use the term social interaction rather than socialization. Homeschoolers who have neighbors have ample opportunity for learning from and with other children and adults. We need only go visiting, or invite folks over, or offer our services to our neighbors (from lawn work to tutoring to musical performances) in order to learn how to behave in social situations. Most communities also include such collections as Little-League baseball teams, dance studios, and church groups, that is, private groups in which children can learn to work with many children to whom they are not related. Best of all, when they are old enough, and have listened to several years of TRI courses on tape, they can attend The Rockford Institute Summer School, which we shall do this year. We are very grateful to you gentlemen who fight against the demise of our civilization. Thank you.
On the smallest of scales,I might be an exception to rule # 2.
I can only attest to our experience deep in the swamps of southeast Georgia. As orthodox Catholics in a textbook dysfunctional government school system, we felt it imperative to home-school. We lacked other options, and candidly, wished to isolate ourselves from the societal rot enclosing us.
I have a 17, 16 and 13 year old being home-schooled. I can not imagine better educated and socially adjusted individuals. As for "socialization"... if it entails inculcating my kids to act like foul prison trash, no thanks, we'll go our merry way and remain "different."
Daniel Maxwell writes: "I actually see it the opposite way – homeschooling is the solution, maybe not in the short term, but in the long run. Public schooling practiced on a large scale was a major transfer of authority from the parents. First to the neighborhood, then the county, then the state, and now the federals, and maybe eventually a UN bureaucrat. I see the large scale return of homeschooling as a start of reversal of the centralization.
Is my view incorrect?"
Most likely not. Why? Because homeschooling is done by women 98% of the time, and these women, filled with estrogen good intentions, flock together in various women's groups for 'homeschool moms' and forge a pro-Jesus version of effeminizing educratdom.
Ward, you would only be apn exception if you were actually a politician which as your friends know you are not. As mayor of Roscoe you were more like William Jefferson Smith than Richard Daley.
Excellent article.
TJF: "What is the solution? It is quite simple. First, decertify the unions. Then delegitimate the pseudo-professional education degrees. Downsize the districts to something like an area that could be served by a current elementary school, abolish the state board of education, and eliminate the US Department of Education. At this point, local neighborhoods will be able to decide if they want public schools, what the goals of their schools should be, and what kind of education they wish their children to receive."
I remember reading a report some years ago on public education in Massachusetts that discussed the historical ratios of teachers to administrators in MA public schools. ("Administrator" here essentially means non-teacher.) I cannot remember the exact ratios, but they were something along the lines of: in the late 19th century, MA had around 6 teachers for every administrator. Today, there are about 30 administrators for every teacher.
I haven't read any reports on higher education, but I suspect that in the larger state universities there are at least 50 administrators for every instructor.
As Fleming notes, a significant problem is teacher certification and the schools of "education," which are scams. People graduating with these "education degrees" rarely know the subjects they teach and spend four years studying the trendy (and ridiculous) educational theories of the day, which often amount to politically correct indoctrination (such as "diversity sensitivity training").
When T.S. Eliot left Smith Academy (since vanquished) in 1905, his secondary school in St. Louis, he pursued a course of study characteristic of many gentlemen of his time. He gained proficiency in Greek, Latin, French and German; studied advanced mathematics; and read many of the greats in English literature. One would be hard pressed to find such a school today. Almost all the better "conservative Christian" schools in my area only teach Spanish, refuse to teach other languages, and have curricula as watered down as many of the public schools -- and these schools are markedly better than most of their public counterparts (if for no other reason than students there won't be shot). These are barbaric times.
There is no such thing as a perfect school, because there are no perfect teachers, headmasters, parents, or children. We must do our best in whatever circumstances we are forced into. Some of England's public schools (e.g., Eton) were great institutions, but even at their best they were plagued with bullying and sodomy. Some home-schooling parents fill their children's heads with the complete bunk of their religious cults, and yet on balance they do a far better job than even a fairly good government school system. Home-schooling seems to work best within a community of families who can share skills and resources, and there are several such consortia here in Rockford. I know what the Flanders children are studying, and they are already well beyond the high school graduate level in humane learning and beyond all but the best students in the best programs in the best colleges.
Then there is my friend Mark Atkins' tiny school in Cottage Grove Tennessee. I know Catholic families with more children than are in this school but still it is shining a light in the darkness of Middle America. The mistake he is not making is to waste lots of time trying to fix the local public schools--which are by no means as evil or stupid as most American school systems. As I am arguing in two future issues of Chronicles, while it is lots of fun to curse the darkness--I of all people should know that--our time is better spent pouring wax into candle molds and setting up our little lights.
"As I am arguing in two future issues of Chronicles, while it is lots of fun to curse the darkness–I of all people should know that–our time is better spent pouring wax into candle molds and setting up our little lights."
Amen!
As long as we are bringing lights and darkness into the discussion, I believe that there is one basic thing that we can be do to positively affect matters that does not require spending thousands of dollars or debating "curriculum". By itself it's not a "war-winner", but it makes the job of the parent/teacher much easier.
I refer, of course, to turning off the television set and powering down the iPod/mp3 players. Let's remember that the State schools are largely the formal education system; the State/Corporate-controlled media (particularly television) is the more powerful and more important emotional-education system. It's as Dr. Fleming described it on more than one occasion; the stories we tell and are told shape us far more than we know.
And what more insidious story-telling/emotion-shaping device is there on Earth than the television set ? Turn it off, and a good 30-50 % of the fight has been won.
Bruce:
In time of war and barbarism, precious and fragile things need to be hidden away, to keep them from being broken.
I have nothing but admiration for home schoolers.
Mr. Bass,
The dilemma you describe - "character flaws" - is precisely what kept me from home schooling my first born. I had sworn I would home school, nothing would make me turn him over to strangers; until the day I took the look-in-the-mirror test. Do you really believe, I asked myself, gazing at the evidence this life has etched on the mug looking back at me, do you really believe you can trust your son's formal education to this guy?
Up until the day I went to meet his teachers for orientation day, having already put down a non-refundable application fee, I was telling myself "You can't do this, you have to step up and rescue him." Meeting his fine teachers and seeing the materials he would have at his disposal in the spotless and meticulously ordered Montessori classroom assuaged my anxiety and guilt somewhat, but I still nurse that guilt.
Dr. Fleming,
I eagerly await your thoughts and observations on Montessori education in those upcoming issues.
@29
I would say at the very least people should shut off the cable/broadcast TV. I would like to that myself, but my roommate will not allow it. Still, a good case to keep the tube around for DVDs/movies, since you can pick and choose to keep the bad stuff out.
I began teaching in 1968: German in Kindergarten. I have taught for the last forty-two years: Kindergarten, grammar school, middle school, high school, college, U.S. military and home-schooling - public and private, in Germany and in America. Some days, I catch a glimmer of hope; on other days, the glimmer is replaced by gloom. I am, I suppose, where Dr. Fleming is: candle before me, I move forward into the darkness.
I became cynical about politics when I was about twelve. My father was the life-long friend of the mayor of our hamlet. My father was complaining about the corruption of the Longs, referring in the 50's to Earl, Russell, Speedy O., and Gillis. His friend responded that he liked the Longs because they included him in the corruption. Since then, the "noble" words leaving the tongue of any politician have struck my ears as "I have been included in the corruption!"
In order to strengthen Dr. Fleming's "candle molds", I would suggest some clarification for rule #3 above - particularly how we assess the motivations of members of the political class and what kind of "bribes" will most tempt them.
There is a difference in how a politician driven by greed will behave compared to a politician driven primarily by ego or vanity.
Notice that when a House seat opens up, the major players at the state level are almost always completely disinterested in the "promotion" available to them - despite the increase in prestige, it's far more lucrative to be in a key political position at a lower level where money is allocated to local businesses (with whom these part-time office holders are probably linked) to provide infrastructure, legal services, etc. than to be a full-time back-bencher in DC.
It is quite common for a local party boss to rid himself of a free-thinker whose ideas - or worse yet, principles - get in the way of steering lucrative contracts by offering a "promotion" to Congress.
I think my friend George is being naive. Being a back-bencher can have many rewards, most of them untraceable. Occasionallly a little light is shed on their shenanigans and they either go to jail or leave office in haste. I once knew a congressman reasonably well--I won't say how or when because I do not wish to damage his reputation. Let us just say he did pretty well out of his undistinguished career. I am sure there are exceptions to all my rules, and I think I can name half a dozen honest men in the House and perhaps one or two in the Senate, but it is never safe to assume anything, and, by the way, the idealists tend to be utter and complete fools who do not even understand what the Congress exists for. Save us, dear Lord, from politicians with ideals that justify their defections from party loyalty. There are no free-thinkers in politics because there are no thinkers, not, at least in American politics during my lifetime. There are not even readers any more.
It's hard to debate this topic with Dr. Fleming without going into specific cases, but based on a good deal of 1st hand experience even in my short lifetime, I maintain that being a big fish in the small pond of state government, with influence on judgeship appointments, road building, attorney and accountant contracting, etc. is far more interesting to your average political scum than being a little guppy taking orders from the whales like Pelosi or DeLay, hoping for some kickbacks over the years.
What's more interesting is the career trajectory after leaving office - a former congressman could easily land a nice lobbying gig worth millions a year just for the sake of his rolodex, whereas a state senator told to retire and focus on playing golf would probably reply that once he's no longer in office, nobody would want to golf with him anymore.
Yes indeed. Was it Jack Anderson who said: "Old congressmen never die; they just become lobbyists."? Thank you for making my point so effectively.
Bruce (#2), and TJF (#5):
I would agree with you both. Our homeschooling isn't the panacea that so many reports show that it is. Their math is not where I would like it to be and is a continual struggle, but their English far exceeds that of their school district peers. Getting rid of the television has them reading for fun and my fourteen year old son reads Shakespeare for enjoyment and can't see why other kids don't. Even so, I'd rather have semi-literate kids with a proper view of God, family, society, and the world, than to have fully "enlightened" world citizens on the highway to hell. Frankly, I believe I have the best of both worlds.
yup. http://townshipnews.org/?p=697
As a future homeschooling mother, part of the problem I see with homeschooling is the lack of guidance for parents as to what to teach their students. With so many different philosophical options (Classical, Montessori, Charlotte Mason - to name just the popular Catholic ones) and even more "curriculums," it sometimes seems like one needs a PhD to just wade through what the kids will learn.
Even with classical education, I find that I do not quite have a good example of what that would look like (although, Dr. Fleming's previous articles on the subject have been most helpful!). There are even some thinkers today, like William Michael of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy (http://www.classicalliberalarts.com/), who go so far as to claim that parents cannot give their children a classical education unless they are educators themselves and that the modern trend to use Dorothy Sayer's essay as guidance for what education should be is completely wrong.
Mr. Jacobi, I am also eager to hear Dr. Fleming's opinion of Montessori. My own education has been socialist from the beginning, first at the hands of Soviet schools and then American public and Catholic schools, so I have some difficulty with sifting through what a real Catholic education would look like. However, I am very sceptical of Montessori if only because it does seem disconnected from the tradition of Classical education and because it seeks to create a child-centered environment for the learner. The later seems to fit more in with Englightenment individualism than the culture of the traditional family and community.
Mrs. JDS, my brief answer is that we all fail to educate our children. I am deeply suspicious of all modern methods, because child-rearing is by its very nature an attempt to inculcate in our children the best qualities of their ancestors or at least of the people our ancestors looked up to. I have visited one Montessori school, discussed it with parents, and met graduates. While I admire the commitment to discipline, I have failed to discover other virtues. As for child-centered education, the very phrase is a betrayal of the obligations of parents and teachers. The Charlotte Mason method seems to me to have very little to do with education. I don't know who William Michael is, but in looking him up on his own website, he has rather little formal training in classics--an undergraduate degree in classics and history--but his group seems to be making something of a cult figure of him. That alone could be quite dangerous. While I admire Dorothy Sayers as a fiction writers, some of her ideas are foolish, such as teaching Medieval Latin because it is easier, more Catholic, etc. I recently met a Latin teacher who insisted that only a "living" language approach would teach real Latin but the more he enthused, the more he revealed his own ignorance and incapacity. These are sad times, but we must do the best we can. I do wish some of the classical gurus would take the trouble to learn their Latin before writing textbooks.
I have been urging our webmaster to redesign the autodidact section of our website in order to provide the help that you are seeking. The basic problem today is that the leaders of the classical education movement are generally not well-trained in the classics.
Mrs. JDS,
That you and Dr. Fleming both have called attention to Montessori's child-centered environment and consider it a weakness has me deeply worried. I had previously confined my worry to the method's lack of emphasis on meeting specific goals by a time certain, as one must do in higher education and at work. But now that I see it as part of the tradition of Enlightenment individualism and as a betrayal of our obligations... I'm visiting my son's classroom Thursday and I hope I can constructively bring up this theme...
Dr. Fleming,
Are you not favorably impressed, for example, with the Montessori method of tactile and visual assistance in comprehending arithmetical and geometrical concepts? The "geo-board", in which the child stakes a rubber band around nails on a board in the shape of a square, triangle, etc., thus feeling and seeing perimeters, areas, etc. I thought a good idea.
I am in no position to evaluate the success of Montessori's methods in math but it seems too much like playtime for my taste. Yes, children learn a great deal by playing, but I am not at all sure that it is a good thing for adults to participate in and supervise their play. Writers as opposed as Walter Scott and Hegel both strongly objected to the child-centered methods being introduced in the early 19th century. One thing to ask any teacher or principal is: "What is your goal, namely, what ideal of human mind and character do you have in mind as you are teaching." If the answer is something like what I have often heard, "Ours is a child-centered curriculum that permits each child to develop into whatever human being he wishes to become," then you can say, "I may as well save my money and let him play at home." Here is a plain truth about math: Very few people ever use any math beyond what used to be the sixth grade level. I used to pose little practical questions to teachers, which required them to set up the most minimal equation, for example, if one and a half pounds of butter costs $3, what does a pound cost? Only math and science teachers could answer, typically, and only math and science teachers could remember how to divide fractions. Supposing the only purpose today in studying math is to pass the SAT math section, then Montessori or other private schools would have to be able to demonstrate a greater success with children of similar IQ levels in other schools. If they cannot do that--as they usually cannot--then they are asking you to take things on faith. I strongly believe in math instruction, along with Latin, geography, history, and English composition, but what we know is that in all these areas, American students are generally inferior to students in Europe and the advanced parts of Asia.
Very good discussion. I would not care if my children learned some Latin by a teacher who likes St. Thomas or one who liked Ceasar as long as they learned some Latin. After High School and College they could argue over who taiught them more and why. Today the arguments between Home Schoolers, Classicist and what few Latin teachers are left can be reduced to" my method is the best because I ...." Hell, my kids Latin teacher spent a week in Rome debunking Christians whle praising the pagans. Father Most tapes were once all the rage, then Lingua Latina, then Julius Ceasar, then Ovid, who knows who is next, ST. Albert The Great, St. Bonaventure, the Dominicans?
I have enjoyed Tom Fleming's tapes and know they will work. But if I were teaching thrid and fourth graders, I would trade it in on some Latin songs and Italia in Europa est. I am just delighted this debate even exists anywhere in America. So delighted I prefer the participants fight to the death, so as to inspire an otherwise disinterested audience.
#45:
"Yes, children learn a great deal by playing, but I am not at all sure that it is a good thing for adults to participate in and supervise their play."
This will give me a point to focus on for Thursday: "How is what they do here different from play?" is a question I might ask. If we are allowing them to play while telling them it's education, then aren't we leading them to expect, well, that life will be fun and games? I've spoken to one parent who took his son out of this school after the first year, giving the reason as wanting a more defined, curriculum-centered approach. For which he is paying $17,000 a year. Other parents have said their children had no trouble making the adjustment from Montessori (ours is pre-k - 3) to traditional classrooms.
"One thing to ask any teacher or principal is: 'What is your goal, namely, what ideal of human mind and character do you have in mind as you are teaching.'”
This is a great question. From memory, the (partial) answer that is given in our school's Montessori Guidebook does contain some language in the vein of allowing or guiding the child to discover and develop his own talents and abilities. It also states that another goal is a capability for self-teaching, or learning how to learn, and that proficiency in core subjects will be required.
Thanks again, Dr. Fleming; I have more hope now of making this Thursday's meeting productive.