The Positives

As I promised, I will write out the positive things I picked out from the book.  

1.  "As students become familiar with and eventually conversant with the great ideas of humanity, they learn how to think, how to lead, and how to become great." (pg. 40) 

"At a deeper level, knowing how other think, feel and act allows us to predict behavior and lead accordingly.  We can develop empathy, compassion, wisdom and self-discipline without subjecting our relationships to a more painful learning curve."  (pg 62)

I really think he has a good point here--besides being a little corny about the great part.  Reading classics seems like a great way to learn about humanity and philosophies.  I feel that by reading a wide and deep level of books you begin to recognize the patterns and behaviors of people and begin to understand how life has not varied much for humans for thousands of years.  It gives you a larger perspective and I think makes you less narrow-minded and prejudiced.

2. "When Scholars do an assignment, either say 'great work' or 'do it again.'  You can help them, but have them do most of the work and never accept a low quality submission or performance." (pg. 46)

I think this is a brilliant idea.  And I was extremely impressed to see how Andrea applied it in her classroom.  If I ever homeschool, this is one method that I would really like to apply.

""Multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and other such exams measure memory of facts only, which requires little thinking." (pg 76)

I agree again completely.

3.  "People sup together, play together, travel together, but they do not think together.  Hardly any homes have any intellectual life whatsoever, let alone one that informs the vital interests of life.  Educational TV marks the high tide for family intellectual life." (pg 60)

Indeed!  I really need to find ways to introduce more "intellectual" conversion into our home.  My parents were really good at this--mostly we discussed books.  My husband doesn't like to read so that makes that strategy hard. Our good friends from Europe say that's the most annoying thing they find about living in the U.S.: that guys only talk about sports and women only talk about tv shows and the like.  I guess I take that as a compliment that they like having us over. 

4.  "The classics can be hard work, and that is exactly what is needed to learn to think.  Thinking is hard; deep thinking is not entertaining or easy.  Thinking is like exercise, it requires consistency and rigor.  Like barbells in a weightlifting room, the classics force us to either put them down or exert our minds.  They require us to think. Not just in a rote memory way, either.  The classics make us struggle, search, ponder, seek, analyze, discover, decide, and reconsider.  As with physical exercise, the exertion leads to pleasing results as we metamorphose and experience the pleasure of doing something wholesome and difficult that changes us for the better."  (pg 65)

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best argument in the entire book for his methodology and his best idea altogether.  This is exactly why I'm participating in this blog and reading random books on the Cold War. 

5. "The arts are perhaps the most important because they deal in the medium of feeling and expressing.  Writing comes before reading because most students, if left to their own devices, will ask how to write their name before they seek to learn to read.  That is, self expression comes before the desire to study others.  Art comes before writing.  Children can be practicing artists before they study great art, and their studies will be the better for it."  (pg. 88)

As a wishful artist, I just liked this thought.

Ta-Da: My Views of TJEd

Once again I'm writing a prologue to my essay, mostly to say that my remarks on this book are not going to be in essay form. Lo siento. Perhaps I will write an essay later, but I'm on vacation and I might just focus on responding to the remarks and essays already written. So here goes.

First of all, I wanted to list the things that really, really bugged me about this book.

1. "The truth is that this debate will continue until we realize that it is a fruitless discussion. Education will never be fixed, and in fact it doesn't need to be fixed. Any effort to "fix education" will fail for two reasons. First, education is so many things to so many people..." (pg 11-12).

"At the risk of being redundant, let me reiterate: the solution to America's educational dilemma is to get students to voluntarily and passionately study hard..." (pg. 104).

Is it just me, of did he just contradict himself? I think he did. And I think his first argument still trumps his second argument. His solution holds no weight because people will never agree on what an education is and so it's really no solution, it's just another "popular option" as he puts it, that "will not and cannot fix education." (pg. 12)

2. "Greatness isn't the work of a few geniuses, it is the purpose of each of us. It is why we were born. Every person you have ever met is a genius. Every one." (pg. 8)

I may be cynical, but I completely disagree. I think there are definitely people out there who are not so bright. Stupid, in fact. Very, very stupid. The whole IQ system--which yes I know, is flawed and biased and all that--was an attempt to measure self-evident differing levels of intelligence. Not every child will be able to read the books in his indexes. It just won't be possible for them. And even if they can read it, not every child will be able to understand it, and they never will, and no amount of teaching or mentoring will change that. Along with that, to go back his solution above to fix education, I really don't believe that all children simply can be motivated to teach themselves by a great mentor. Yes, it may work for a large portion of them, but there's no way you could motivate them all. So many other factors come in to play. The largest being that children are motivated and influenced first of all by their family and home life. I think his method would work if first you fixed all the homes in America. No more abusive, addiction driven, unloving parents, or lack of any parents, and replace them all with concerned, loving parents that prioritize education. Oh wait, that would be all the families and teachers that have so great success with his program in their homeschooling and charter schools. Hence, all his talk of how his method is proven to be successful is garbage, it's only worked in a limited settings as far as he's explained.

3. "Could anyone (in the class of 25 students) say anything about the Mayflower Compact? Complete silence. John Locke? Nope. James Madison? Silentia. Magna Carta? The Spanish Armada? The Battle of Yorktown? The Bull Moose party? Don Giovanni? William James? The Tenth Amendment? Zero. Zilch. Forget it. The embarrassment was acute." (pg 16)

Van DeMille assumes throughout the book that a classical liberal arts education is to be educated and that by lacking this education, you wouldn't know how to think and therefore could not be an effective leader. I once again disagree on every single point. First of all, he's extremely pompous in my mind to even dare label what an education is or should be. I think there are innumerable ways of being educated. And here's my pompous assertion, I think an education is whatever allows you to live, provide for yourself and family, navigate society successfully, and improve your status within that society. Knowing how to think is definitely a part of that, but I find it ridiculous to conclude that the African Bushman in the Kalahari don't know how to think simply because their education doesn't include liberal arts. I think their education was very well suited to their needs (well, until recently anyway) and I'm sure they knew how to think through problems facing them and that they have their share of brillant leaders among them as well. A liberal arts education is simply not necessary for everyone--even here in the US--to be able to learn how to think and lead. That being said, I do agree that a liberal arts education can help a person be more well-rounded and conversant about world events and such.

4. "The second type of education is the professional system... This is done by teaching them when to think. ...Their specialized knowledge makes them valuable as experts in their field, and an important part of an interdependent system where other other experts tell them when their knowledge is to be applied and what to do outside the scope of their expertise. ...The professional system has been very effective in achieving its goals, but it is not a substitute for leadership training." (pg. 23)

Are you kidding me? Obviously Van DeMille has never worked in a professional setting outside of education. As a nurse, yes I realize that often (at least in my field) benchmarks and formulas are set to follow of how to respond or treat certain conditions, made by other experts. Many nurses and doctors daily recognize something amiss before the patients have reached those benchmarks and develop treatments uniquely for a patient, outside of what a textbook or other "expert" recommends which work fabulously. Medicine and healthcare demand a extremely high level of imaginative and creative thinking, as no human is the same or reacts to treatments the same. To say that professionals are not capable leaders and thinkers is ridiculous. There are amazing leaders throughout the history of medicine just as much as there are throughout the history of statesman and politics. For instance, Clara Barton, Florence Nightingale, and Hippocrates. If professionals simply relied on being told when to think, no advances in medicine, chemistry, computer science, psychology, etc would ever occur.

5. "In class societies, the middle classes have tended toward the professions while the aristocracy received leadership education." (pg. 22)

Again, this argument is lost on me. He claims that those with the leadership training were the ones who changed and shaped and improved society. As I recall from history classes, it was the bourgeois--or middle classes, the ones from the "professional system"--that brought together the ideas and then put into action the formation of the United States. John Locke, Rousseau, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin etc. were all not members of the aristocracy. They were all members of the professional class: lawyers, farmers, and the like. (Which ties into my argument in #4.) So where does this leave his ill-thought out theory? Aristocrats received training on how to rule, not lead. That's why revolutions occurred.

6. "In addition to these considerable benefits of public schools, they often came with a down side. Consider two of the most successful cases: Eighteenth Century Germany, and Nineteenth Century Britain. Each instituted public schools to educate the poor, and the standard of living increased. But eventually the professional and leadership schools deteriorated because they simply couldn't compete with free, government-subsidized schools." (pg. 22)

I'm a little confused by this statement. First of all, without any specifics or explanation he expects me to believe that "professional and leadership schools deteriorated." Now, I don't know much about Eighteenth Century Germany, but as far as I know about Nineteenth Century Britain, they were pretty much at the top of the world still with their huge Empire, universities and colleges that people came from all over the world to attend, and were making vast contributions to science, literature, music and math. Van DeMille does this throughout his book: makes wide claims with no evidence. Thank you, I know how to think, and I do not swallow random examples without proof. He also makes the claim that teachers are "handcuffed." Now I don't deny that, but the only examples he gives are a list of mostly fictional movies on page 104. That's pathetic.

Another wild claim: free the teachers and they'll be able to inspire kids. To use one of his examples for this--Stand and Deliver, one of the few movies based on fact not fantasy he listed, is about a phenomenal teacher who does inspire his students. Do you know what happened to him ten or so years later? He was fired for allowing too many students in his class (now that is a valid example of teachers being handcuffed) and he started teaching in San Francisco whereas he had been in Los Angeles before. However, he didn't have nearly the success he'd had before, mostly because his classes were far more racially diverse and he didn't have the same connection he had had with his primarily Hispanic classes in Los Angeles. So my point is, even if you have a fabulous teacher (which due to my lame roommates in college I have a low opinion of a large portion of educators, so I consider a fabulous teacher quite rare) other factors can strongly influence their effectiveness.

7. In talking about grade schools: "What happens if you try to get ahead? A factory worker moves you back into place." (pg.25)

I don't believe it. Ever heard of AP programs, honor classes, skipping grades, besides the thousands of teachers that willingly work with advanced students to help them learn at their level.

"But once you're in that percentile, once you make it and say, 'I'm at Harvard,' you are required to get on the conveyor belt for several years until they stamp another diploma on your forehead. You say, 'But I want to think; I want to be a leader.' The institutional response is that there is time for that later, after you have graduated; for now you need to focus on your conveyor belt studies." (pg 26)

This seems to me the second half of the scenario he suggested in the first quote. Again, I don't believe it. In college, yes you still jump hoops, but I fail to see how any person who wants to "lead" as he puts it, could not find the opportunity to do so. In college and universities there are so many opportunities to influence whatever you set your mind too; just as many or more than you would find once you're graduated. Also, the conveyor belt studies, or gen ed classes, would fill some of his expectations for a more liberal arts education I would assume; as people would not generally take a literature or humanities class are required too. I really just can't accept his premise here, and again, he makes no attempt to validate his statements.

8. In his index sample questions, he lists a Jane Austen as being in a Victorian time period. They were set in the Georgian era. Nit picky of me? Yes. But he's the one that going on with lists of things that show how people aren't educated, and that seems like a basic knowledge of Jane Austen to me.

9. He doesn't like Lord of the Flies, in fact he calls it a broken novel. And then he suggests reading few "broken" stories. This whole concept or broken, bent, and whole stories seems highly idealized to me. (His whole method in fact, seem idealized to me). I personally love "broken" novels. I find them more realistic and believable, also more moving and emotionally charged. My favorite author is Edith Wharton and one of my favorite books is Catch-22, all of which are deeply broken. I guess this is personal taste, but I found his claim that everyone hates Lord of the Flies tasteless.

Well, now it is late, so I will have to save my list of things I did like about the book for tomorrow. But while I was writing I thought of a suitable essay topic, so I really may write one now.

So Much to Say, Where to Start?

I have so much I want to say on this book, and yes I did finish reading it today. But it's 9:30 PM and I have to get up at 4:45 AM, so I thought I'd limit my writing to answering Andrea's questions. That should give me a basis for my essay later anyhow.

1. How well do you feel you were taught “how to think?”

This is a silly question to me. I always knew "how to think." I didn't always want to go through the work to actually put what I knew into practice though. It's called laziness. And yes, I think it's very easy to get by with straight A's in the public schools while still being completely lazy. I know, I did it. But I don't ever remember not being able know how to work or think through a problem or issue if I wanted too. Did I learn it from school? Maybe some. Did I learn it from books? Probably, in part. The largest part was from my parents. Also I think my interest in art helped because I had to find creative ways to do things like burn crayons over candles to make what I wanted.

2. Have you written a personal and/or family mission statement/paper/motto—whatever? Are you planning on doing that? If so, what kinds of things are you thinking about including? I know the Eyres had something about learning themselves and then going forth to serve.

No and probably never will. However, I did like the quote "Shall we not go on in so great a cause?" well enough to hang on my wall in the living room, and in an abstract way without ever putting it into words (before now) I kind of considered it a personal motto.

3. Is there a leadership crisis today?

No. Prime example: Condoleezza Rice

4. DeMille lists public education as 75% social and 25% skills. Agree/disagree? And the ever popular: So What? If it is 75% social, what impact does that have on our children and society?

As an outcast, nerdy child for at least half of my public school years, I disagree to that. I think it depends on the child and their personality. So if it is 75% social, I don't really care if the other 25% is a worthwhile education.

5. People constantly point out the need to “socialize” our children. What does that mean? What are we socializing them for? What behaviors do we want to encourage? What social skills do they need for a normal life in our society? Is school the best place to get those skills?

I have personally never of heard of socializing a child before. Humans by nature are social animals. Biology, history, etc all prove that. Social skills I would want my children to have would include being able to express themselves clearly and hold a conversation with almost anyone of any age, being respectful of others and being able to work effectively in a group (just for the record, I don't discount the advantages of being able to convince that group to do what you want). I think parenting (as in teaching values and respect) have far more impact on a child being able to function in a social situation than simply being in a social situation ever will. But again, I think the personality of individual children and people will always play a major role in their social abilities and tendencies--extroverts vs. introverts.

6. Can you legitimately criticize homeschools for not socializing?

No. Like I said above, parents can effectively teach social skills.

7. What is your plan to socialize your child/children (in and out of school)?

Athletics and church activities and good friends and conversation.

8. What is the advantage of socializing across ages and how do you do that?

I think the advantages are huge. As soon as you are in the workplace, you meet people of all ages and need to be able to sound intelligent to them. Expose your children to being around adults.

9. “Leadership curriculum is individualized.” Do you have any examples in your own schooling of a teacher doing a good job individualizing the curriculum? Was that helpful?

No, I can't recall any examples of an individualized curriculum that was helpful. I was in an accelerated math class once that was based on the theory of working at your own pace, correcting your own papers, asking the teacher for individual help when needed. It was a joke, I goofed off all the time. The most helpful example I can think of is twice teachers recommended good books to me.

10. According to DeMille, depth and breadth are both vital in education. I feel that I missed the depth part until I got my masters—and now, I feel like I should, as a person with a master’s degree in history, know more about history than the underlying premise of masculinity during WWII. Talk about no breadth! Do you feel the same way?

I do think breadth is important. However, depth perhaps not as important for the general studies of a kid in public schools. (For instance, I had a humanities teacher that made us memorize the heighth, width, etc of the Parthenon. Who cares? It was a complete waste of time.) Personally, I'd rather see a curriculum taught that showed how different subjects are interrelated and connected--I think that leads to better understanding of consequences and possibities.

11. DeMille wrote: “The conveyer belt education system has made us more highly trained as a generation, but less educated.” Do you agree?

That depends entirely on your definition of an education. I'll explain more thoroughly in my essay my thoughts on that.

12. What is on your classics list? What do you think it is imperative that your child read?

Imperative? I don't know that I have any books I would consider imperative. However, I would like my children to be able to read and enjoy "classical" books and not just the latest Danielle Steel. As for my own classics list: Catch-22, Jane Austen's, Bronte's, War and Peace, Lord of the Flies, HMS Ullysses, The Time it Never Rained, Tom Jones, The Lord of the Rings, Edith Wharton's, The Perilous Gard, To Kill a Mockingbird, King of the Wind, The Scarlet Pimpernel, A Seperate Peace, Dracula, My Antonia, The Prisoner of Zenda, Mrs. Mike, The Dark is Rising Series, The Attolia Series, Ender's Game, Who Has Seen the Wind, and The Great Gatsby.

13. Do you aspire to having “wise” children, or are you okay with children who are happily settled into good careers? Is there a difference? Is the question leading and biased?

I hope to have children that are happy. I think it takes wisdom and good career to manage that. And the question is definitely leading and biased.

14. DeMille claims that we learn about human nature through the classics. Do you agree? Have an example? Is learning about human nature important?

Yes and yes. But I don't think that's the sole way to learn human nature.

15. DeMille wrote: “Learning is difficult but the process is not complex.” Agree?

Yes.

16. DeMille wrote that one goal for an educated person is the ability to define a problem. He maintains that almost anyone can solve a problem once it is clearly defined, but it is difficult to get to the heart of a problem. Agree/disagree? Do you think leadership training in a DeMille style program the most effective way to produce such a thinker?

I don't necessarily agree. I think often a problem is more complex than would allow for a clear answer and the difficulty often lies in finding the solution that will solve most of the problem's quandaries with the least ill repercussions. Yes, I think his method would be effective, but not the only way.

My TJEd Essay

3. Is there a leadership crisis today?



Many people claim that America suffers from a leadership crisis. The basis for their argument is the seeming inability of Congress and the President to create and pass legislation that effectively deals with the sizable problems our society faces. Immigration. Health care. Social Security. Reliance on foreign oil. Terrorism. Homeland security. Most Americans would agree that our country is in desperate need of solutions to these problems, but they would then claim that Congress wastes time and money by playing “party” politics instead of buckling down and solving these problems in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Certainly these arguments have some validity. Nancy Pelosi’s ill-considered trip to Syria was a superb example of “party politics” with little thought to anything other than discrediting the Republicans in general and the president in particular. Other examples abound; enough to convince most Americans that the main problem lies with our leaders.

I do not believe America has a leadership crisis. America is a country of able problem-solvers who embody all the characteristics of the founding fathers: ingenuity, dedication, vision, and even morals. There are many people capable of running the country and leading it effectively.

What America does not have are good followers. In fact, I suspect many of our problems stem from a “follower crisis.” I see this crisis as having three main parts: 1) special interest groups who care nothing for the general populace of the country and yet are so vocal and so demanding and so illogical that they manage to dominate our politics; and 2) an apathetic general populace who deign to get actively involved in the political process outside of vitriolic and ill-informed criticism; and 3) the media which refuses to disseminate information in a meaningful way, and instead produce “news” so biased in nature that it is impossible for the general public to understand the issues facing the country—even if they were so inclined.

Special interest groups’ influence has far exceeded their usefulness. I understand their historical importance. I am grateful to suffragettes and civil right’s workers. I am glad that conservation has become mainstream so that educated and informed decisions can be made concerning America’s incredible natural resources. Certainly, I am glad that sexual harassment in the workplace has declined and that citizens with AIDS are not getting fired because of their disease. These things are all good. Unfortunately, in America, we have forgotten that special interest groups are called “special interest groups” because they do not reflect the majority. Just because a small body of people feels a certain way does not mean that politicians should jump to attention and legislate in their favor. The reason they do so now is because special interest groups are increasingly vocal—shrill, actually. They make so much noise, claim so much media attention, and behave in such nonsensical ways (and they fork up big bucks) that politicians cannot see their way around them to find more moderate voices.

And the moderate voices are usually not even there! When the ridiculous law passed phasing out normal light bulbs and replacing them with mercury filled light bulbs that are poisonous when they break—how many moderate, average Americans knew that the law was even being considered? And if they did, how many of them wrote to their congressman? Exactly. So the wackos who care more about tree frogs than your children won again. I meant wackos in the most politically correct way possible. In a few years from now, when we are frantically evacuating our house because a light bulb broke—we can think fondly of the eco-Nazi’s who helped guide our country to new heights of stupidity. My point—moderate Americans (the vast majority of us) need to be more involved so that the strident voices of special interest groups are tempered by more mainstream ideas.

The media could help with this process, but instead they have aligned themselves with the most liberal voices they can find. Bush is Satan. Obviously—how could I fail to learn that lesson with the media’s accurate and unbiased news presentation? Oliver DeMille pointed out that one presidential debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass lasted 16 hours. Douglass spoke first, covering in detail his beliefs and plans for his presidency if elected. Then Lincoln expressed his appreciation for Douglass’s remarks, requested that everyone go home and get food, and then reconvene because his remarks would take at least as long as Douglass’s.

What could a common citizen like myself do with an eight-hour, detailed presentation of a candidate’s belief system and plans for his upcoming presidency? A whole lot! I might actually get a sense of who is most closely aligned with my own ideas and vote accordingly. Instead, we rely on short sound bites and two-hour debates where each speaker is limited to two-minute responses. Why two minutes? Why can’t a speaker explain himself fully? Nothing of importance can be explained in two minutes. Our current election is a perfect example. Two minutes was just enough time for Thompson to gather his thoughts. Before he had a chance to speak his turn was over. Two minutes was just long enough for Ron Paul to get laughed at and just long enough for McCain and Romney to get annoyed with each other for purposely misconstruing each other’s comments. Not enough time for the listeners to understand any of the candidates’ stances on important issues. Not enough time for any of the speakers to demonstrate eloquence or intelligence.

And yet our media prefers to have the general populace in ignorance. They like to pick stories to sensationalize and then mislead Americans by their coverage. The “Let’s Blame Bush for New Orleans” was a prime example.

As a result of the media’s and special interest groups’ hammering of our elected leaders and the majority’s apathy and sheep-like belief in the veracity of the media, our politicians are not unable to lead—they are terrified of leading. Any legislation is ripped to shreds before it has even been written. Americans display hostility and anger if a piece of legislation does not immediately solve a problem perfectly, and they want a guarantee of success before any new legislation is tried. The recent failure of the proposed immigration law is a perfect example. Our Congress is quite literally damned if they don’t and damned if they do. Imagine if FDR had worked under those conditions!

At some point, we have to let the leaders lead. Ask their think tanks, study out possibilities, and then create solutions without the onerous burden of infallibility. Unprecedented situations usually require gradual solutions. One step in the right direction, a few steps back, new insights gained, better legislation enacted, results analyzed. Time and space for leaders to breathe. Our current elected officials do not have that time or space.

Our media, not content with hamstringing our leadership, then proclaim to the world the unfitness, incompetence, and downright stupidity of our president and his advisors. Slander is acceptable under the banner of freedom of the press. The media certainly does not feel it necessary to maintain the dignity of the presidential office and appears entirely unconcerned that it weakens the administration’s position across the globe.

Is that the way to teach our children respect for authority and this country? Even if Hillary (God help us) is elected—she should be treated with utmost respect by the media. Although some might find me overly nostalgic, I think fondly of the media of the 1930s and 1940s which chose to be so respectful of their president that almost nobody realized FDR was confined (for the most part) to a wheelchair (although there is nothing wrong with being in a wheelchair—it is the respect shown our president that I am getting at).

Now—can teaching character education in the school bring back that kind of true patriotism (not the kind of patriotism that leads to Muslims getting harassed in our schools and neighborhoods)? No. Only parents can teach morals and values and patriotism and how to be a good follower. So do all people need to homeschool? Yes. Of course. Parents always have “homeschooled” in that they have passed on their fundamental values to their children. That should certainly continue. Do I think everyone needs to keep his or her children out of public schools in order to do that? Of course not. However, if we do not create many excellent followers soon, our leadership will soon be completely defunct.

A few thoughts on TJEd

I wrote down the Top Ten ideas I took from TJEd. I still have much to say, including some thoughts on the questions I posted, and my essay, but thought I would put these on first. Also--many of you (okay, Kami and Julia) expressed an interest in what my Dad had to say on the subject, so I will be posting about that later on as well. Sometimes when an "authority" which, face it, Dad is on education, says something it makes your own previously clear thoughts all muddled. I would rather we muddled each other's thoughts first, and then let Dad muddle us further.

“Lay down true principles and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender.” Thomas Jefferson

1. Education cannot be fixed because people cannot agree on its purpose (Dad and TJEd)

2. Students will determine their own educational attainment.

3. Teachers motivate and guide.

4. Liberals see school as a place to promote a social agenda; conservatives as job training.

5. At one point in the book, DeMille says that America doesn’t have an aristocracy. How ridiculous. Has DeMille ever cruised around the Mediterranean with the Kennedy’s? I doubt it. Does he brunch with the Rockefellers? Highly doubtful. The aristocracy is so rich and so far removed from our lives that we don’t even think about them. But they are very much a part of the social, political, and economic fabric of this nation.

6. One of my favorite points DeMille makes is that teachers should only accept QUALITY work. I know I rant about this all the time, but, I am ranting about it again, here.

I assigned five essays to my 11th graders for one semester. Almost every class day was spent in its entirety on working on those five essays. I worked extensively with the students one-on-one, and I never assigned anything else. Therefore—if they used their time in class, they had no homework. Ever.

Does that really sound that hard? No. So explain to me why I had so many parents complain about how “hard” I was, and how “excessive in my demands.” Why? Because I expected the essays to be perfect (for an 11th grader). The students wrote their best draft, and then I graded it. If a student was unhappy with the grade, he kept working on it until he earned the grade he wanted and stopped turning it back in and stopped meeting with me about it.

Parents were used to teachers expecting quantity work—but they got very angry when I expected quality work. As a side note—not all parents complained, and I had several parents request me because of my reputation—but many others were upset.

I do not understand how we can expect our students to learn to work and achieve and excel if no demands are placed on them. At some point a child has to learn that “anything worth doing is worth doing well” and we are NOT teaching that at school. Mostly because teachers with 40 students don’t assign things that require time-intensive grading in the first place, and then they don’t have time because of ludicrous government imposed time schedules (for tests) to allow students to resubmit work. Improving on our original efforts engenders the most growth.

Hmm-I waxed longwinded again—sorry. This is a very big issue with me. Students will never learn to write well if nobody holds them to a standard. On the flip side—I have rarely met a student who does not rise to the level of expectation set by the teacher.

What exactly does that mean for Miriam? Does that mean that I have told her she is “always disobedient” so many times that she believes it and doesn’t try anymore? Hmm. I must ponder that a little more.

7. “Virtually uninterrupted reading.” My favorite part of TJEd, the part that struck such a chord, is the idea that reading teaches more effectively than anything else. As a life-long, passionate readaholic, I definitely attribute my success in school to what I learned reading and writing.

I wish I had more teachers who pushed me to read more challenging books—although the hours I spent with dragons and magic were certainly enjoyable-I would be a better writer and reader if I had been pushed beyond my limits more often.

8. “Read, write, discuss. Keep it simple.” I am sold on that philosophy of teaching. As a “retired” teacher—I can attest that my students progressed the farthest and had the most enthusiasm when they had to motivate themselves and when the curriculum was cut to the bare bones. The more they wrote, the better their writing, and the more empowered they felt. You should have SEEN their faces when they got an A on a paper (it was very difficult to get an A on a paper, although I usually only gave A’s and B’s and F’s for term grades because when the students took control of their own education, they tended to work harder and blame me less for their end grade). I had students—big highschoolers—tell me that they had VERY PROUDLY taped their essays to fridges, bedroom doors, themselves, to show the world that they could get an A from Mrs. Young. It was awesome. Only real work creates real pride and belief in an ability to achieve. But--those were the semesters when we read, wrote, discussed, without falling back on all the cutesy curriculum devices.

I know it works because my students scored higher than the district average when the year before our school was 10 percentage points behind the district. Our school didn’t score higher than the district but all my classes scored higher than the school average, and all my eleventh grade classes (writing intensive) scored above the district average.

Yes, I’m proud of that—but it just proves that an emphasis on reading and writing and discussing, an expectation of quality, and turning over the responsibility to the student really does pay huge dividends.

9. Writing as learning! Very important. Writing requires clarity of thinking. I like the idea of daily writing, and daily essay writing in a “commonplace book.” Definitely something Miriam and I are going to do.

10. Set up your writing standards together and let students have a huge say in what they learn and do. I think DeMille made another strong point here. Obviously, some browbeating will take place, but the more ownership the child has, the better.

TJEd Questions

With the Life of Pi, I relied on questions I found on a website to generate discussion. The questions were not very helpful. This time, I created my own questions based on what I thought about during and after reading TJEd. Hopefully, these questions will prove more useful. I will be posting my responses to these questions and my essay tomorrow (hopefully). Feel free to join the discussion!

1. How well do you feel you were taught “how to think?”

2. Have you written a personal and/or family mission statement/paper/motto—whatever? Are you planning on doing that? If so, what kinds of things are you thinking about including? I know the Eyres had something about learning themselves and then going forth to serve.

3. Is there a leadership crisis today?

4. DeMille lists public education as 75% social and 25% skills. Agree/disagree? And the ever popular: So What? If it is 75% social, what impact does that have on our children and society?

5. People constantly point out the need to “socialize” our children. What does that mean? What are we socializing them for? What behaviors do we want to encourage? What social skills do they need for a normal life in our society? Is school the best place to get those skills?

6. Can you legitimately criticize homeschools for not socializing?

7. What is your plan to socialize your child/children (in and out of school)?

8. What is the advantage of socializing across ages and how do you do that?

9. “Leadership curriculum is individualized.” Do you have any examples in your own schooling of a teacher doing a good job individualizing the curriculum? Was that helpful?

10. According to DeMille, depth and breadth are both vital in education. I feel that I missed the depth part until I got my masters—and now, I feel like I should, as a person with a master’s degree in history, know more about history than the underlying premise of masculinity during WWII. Talk about no breadth! Do you feel the same way?

11. DeMille wrote: “The conveyer belt education system has made us more highly trained as a generation, but less educated.” Do you agree?

12. What is on your classics list? What do you think it is imperative that your child read?

13. Do you aspire to having “wise” children, or are you okay with children who are happily settled into good careers? Is there a difference? Is the question leading and biased?

14. DeMille claims that we learn about human nature through the classics. Do you agree? Have an example? Is learning about human nature important?

15. DeMille wrote: “Learning is difficult but the process is not complex.” Agree?

16. DeMille wrote that one goal for an educated person is the ability to define a problem. He maintains that almost anyone can solve a problem once it is clearly defined, but it is difficult to get to the heart of a problem. Agree/disagree? Do you think leadership training in a DeMille style program the most effective way to produce such a thinker?