The Canary is Dead: It's Time to Exit Public Schools

Author's Note: I hate the literary device of a "fictional argument" in philosophical or persuasive writing. It is far too convenient for an author to set up his side of the contest to be the winner, and the other side to be the loser. In fact, I think that very few of these types of writings are anything more than a glorified straw-man argument. With that said, this blog post is written in this very form I despise and is probably guilty of a straw-man here and there. My reason for using this device is that it is derived from 10 years of real conversations about home-schooling along with things I wished I would have said at the time, but now plan to say in similar future conversations. Feedback is welcome to help me improve the dialogue.

CHARACTERS:

1. Seth Nielson - A hot-headed, argumentative home-schooling dad
2. Amy Nielson - Seth's beautiful, fiery wife who converted her husband to home-schooling in the first place
3. Abby Normal - An excellent public school teacher
4. Mary Olivia Moore - Just your average MOM of three.

SETTING: A party at the Nielson's house for friends and family. All the other guests have left except for Mary (who left the kids with her husband) and her ride, Abby.

PART I.

During some small talk in the living room, Mary, who hasn't known the Nielsons very long opens up a new topic. "So, I hear that you guys homeschool."

"Yes we do," Amy replies.

"That sounds like lots of work. Why do you do it?"

"Well," Seth says, "like everything in life there are pros and cons."

"Yeah, I guess that's true." Mary nods seeming satisfied with the answer

But before a new conversation topic can open up, Seth shakes his head, looks up at the ceiling and shaking his fists exclaims, "I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

Both Abby and Mary stare in surprise. "Umm, is there something wrong?" Abby ventures.

"What's wrong with him?" Mary asks with a tone of worry.

Amy, realizing what is happening, sighs. "I'm afraid he's grown tired of being polite," she states.

"YES!" Seth says looking at the two women in frustration. "I am SO tired of trying to not offend everyone instead of just saying what I think! Do you know what Carbon Monoxide is?"

This seemingly disconnected question further convinces Mary and Abby that Seth is having a "special" moment and they think that maybe the party is "over," but the frustrated man proceeds. "Carbon Monoxide is a 'silent' killer. It is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas and before you realize you're being affected by it, it will kill you. Death comes because the carbon monoxide molecules have blocked the blood's ability to carry oxygen.

"The risks of carbon monoxide poisoning increase in enclosed spaces for obvious reasons. Miners were especially prone to this destroying angel but were generally capable of rapid detection of the gas through the use of a canary. The small (bright yellow) bird, with a more sensitive metabolism, would visibly sway (and then drop) when the concentration of CO was still low enough that a human being could continue to function and effect an escape."

"What in the world does this have to do with anything?" Abby asks in annoyance.

"Well," Seth states, "when people ask me why I homeschool my children, I haven't been very honest. In the interest of being polite and kind and 'tolerant' I usually avoid saying what I really think."

"And that is," Mary presses.

"What I really think is that I've seen too many children swaying and dropping from their exposure to a colorless, odorless, and tasteless educational system. We value being 'nice' in our society over telling the truth to such an extent that I don't usually have the guts to tell you," he says looking at Mary, "that it's the impact of public schools on your obviously bright children that sends me running in the other direction as quickly as possible."

Mary and Abby both gasp while Amy shakes her head and mouths an "I told you so."

"I beg your pardon!" Mary fumes when she's recovered.

"Have you ever read about the symptoms of CO poisoning? At a 15% exposure, you get a mild headache, at 25% the headache increases accompanied by nausea but you'll get better if you can get out quickly. But by 30% you start having long-term irreversible effects. At 45% your unconscious and at 50% or more you'll just die."

"Are you comparing education to carbon monoxide poisoning?" Abby asks incredulously.

"No, I'm comparing public education to carbon monoxide poisoning and I think the symptoms are astonishingly similar. I wish that more parents would recognize that the canary is dead and get the heck out.  I wouldn't put my child in most of the public schools for just about any reason. And those few schools that might be passable would be a temporary education solution until I could find something better."

"But, but, but," Mary protests, "my child's school is wonderful!"

"Based on what metric?"

"What?"

"How are you judging your child's school to be wonderful?"

"Their school has some of the highest test scores in the state!" Mary responds proudly. To the ladies' surprise, both Amy and Seth start laughing almost uncontrollably. "What's so funny!" Mary demands.

"So," Seth says finally catching his breath, "you're going to judge an institution by tests created by that institution?"

"Well," Abby jumps in, "whatever you want to say about them, I think that the testing is reasonably fair and accurate."

"And I don't," he replies evenly. "But even if I did, those tests are NOT a good judge of the school's effectiveness with the children. More importantly, they aren't a good judge of the school's effectiveness on a specific child. Shoot, we haven't even started talking about how those tests have negatively impacted curriculum and teaching methods."

"Whatever," Mary answers. "My children are doing very well and are near the top of their classes."

"Wait, what?" Amy speaks up. "You're saying your children are doing well because they're doing better than other children in the same school? Hey, why don't you move into inner-city Baltimore so they can move right up to the top of their class."

"I'm sorry to offend you ladies," Seth says, "but with some exceptions, I have rarely found public schools to help children reach their potential."

"Seriously?" Abby says disgusted, "You think that little of all the people you know? All the people you've gone to college with? All the people in the world are suffering in ignorance while those few homeschoolers are the only ones reaching their potential?"

"Actually, to some degree, yes, I think that a good segment of our society coming out of public schools can't think critically. I think a good chunk of them are also coming out with damaged creativity and an inability to continue learning out of a school environment. From where I stand, those public school children that manage to emerge more-or-less educated and functional, is more often than not thanks to caring parents, a reasonably stable and well adjusted peer-group, and the natural resiliency of their minds."

"How can you presume to judge my child's school?" Mary retorts. "You don't send your children there so what do you know about it?"

"Well, let me try to reduce it to one sentence. The public school system is a centralized, bureaucratic, authoritarian institution dominated by politics, a bankrupt education philosophy protected by a government monopoly, and far too many academically substandard teachers all supported and upheld by a disturbing number of uninformed, detached, and oblivious parents."

Abby shakes her head in exasperation. "You're so elitist. You can use all the big words you want, but I teach in these schools and I see all the good that's being done every day."

"Ok... if I understand you correctly, you're saying that my belief that the public schools are failures is wrong for two reasons. First, you think I'm wrong because I'm viewing it from an 'elitist' viewpoint as evidenced by the words I chose to describe its problems and, second, I'm wrong because you have personally witnessed the system doing good."

"You're still making it too complicated, but yes, I know the schools are not failures because I teach in the schools and know that, despite occasional problems, we do a lot of good in the lives of our students."

"And that, really, is where we disagree. I don't think the public school system has occasional problems. I think it is built on a dangerous and inherently broken foundation. When I gave you my one-sentence description before, it was not to use 'big words,' but to describe using as few words as possible the core problems of it. I said, for example, that it was 'centralized' and 'bureaucratic' and those are serious problem."

"How so?" Mary asks with a hint of curiosity.

"Well, the problem for the student sitting in his or her desk for about 180 days a year for 13 years is that the congressman/senator/president sitting in DC has never met them, except for the occasional political dog and pony show. I think trusting Congress, made up of a few hundred people of questionable motivations and interests, to dictate the education of millions of children is inherently unsafe and unwise."

"Most of the controls on education happen at the state level," Abby retorts.

"Even the state controls on education are far too centralized. As an anecdotal example, when we lived in Houston, we read a report in the city paper that the Houston Independent School District had its own lobbyists for the state government. Does that make any sense to you?"

"Yes, actually," Abby says, "the school districts need to make sure that the state government understands our problems."

"You don't see what strange situation it is that the state government controls what your district teaches? The other day, I browsed some of Maryland's mandated education curriculum and examined the math section. The fourth grade curriculum, for example, states that the child should be able to recognize right triangles. Can you believe that a detail that specific was decided by a state bureaucracy?"

"You don't think a fourth grader should be able to recognize right triangles?"

 "I don't think that bunch of state bureaucrats can decide what each and every child can and should know at each grade level. My fourth grader doesn't know what a right triangle is because we've been working on learning abstract thinking through computer programming. So because I think that abstract thinking is more important, my second child is 'behind' according to these guys. At the same time, my 5th grader is way beyond their math curriculum. These guys don't know my kids and they don't know my kids needs."

"But there have to be basic guidelines for the schools to work from," Abby replies. "There's nothing wrong with that."

"I think there is something wrong with having people I have little or no control over decide what 'normal' education means. The day-to-day impact of education is largely determined by bureaucrats that can't even be voted out of office! These bureaucrats have incredible influence over how the policies are implemented, and there are very few mechanisms within the system for preventing them from overstepping their authority. Homeschoolers deal with this constantly in the school districts they live within. School administrators and other public officials at all levels often attempt to impose requirements on the home-schooled students and only with the help of legal groups such as the HSLDA are they thwarted."

Abby snorts. "Thwarted? You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill."

"You really think so? I repeat: the public school system is fundamentally broken because an ever-increasing number of decisions about what is taught is determined by state and federal legislatures and bureaucracies. And that, in turn, reinforces the public school system as an arm of an authoritative government."

Abby laughs. "Oh seriously, Seth? Now you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist."

"Conspiracy? Homeschoolers are probably the most informed group in the country on what happens if you don't show up for school. Do you ladies know?"

Abby shrugs, but Mary shakes her head.

"The parents can be sent to jail."

"Oh no that's not true," Abby says hotly, "you're exaggerating again. The Truant officer will come by and make sure you know the kids have been absent."

"I am not exaggerating anything. In Nebraska there was a case where a home-schooling family, because of some scheduling problems was accused of truancy and given criminal convictions. And sometimes instead of jail time, you can have your kids taken away by CPS for a paperwork miscommunication."

"You're kidding!" Mary exclaims.

"Mary," Abby jumps in, "these sorts of things happen so rarely."

"Oh? And how do you know that?"

"Fine! Do you know how often they happen?"

"No, and I didn't claim to. The real problem here isn't how often they happen, the real problem is that the Government has the authority to do so. The fact that it can happen should be disturbing to anyone. Has it ever crossed your mind what mandatory education really means?"

"Yes, it means that everyone must be educated."

"Oh no it doesn't! You can't force someone to be educated, and you can't mandate wisdom. But you can mandate attendance, and with the full weight and power of the government behind it including police, jails, and forced dissolution of non-compliant families. Mandatory education means that the government orders you, at gun point, to put your children in their care, at the ages they dictate, in the places they dictate, at the times of day they dictate, to be presented the curriculum they dictate, with the other children they dictate, by the people they dictate, and under the rules they dictate. During the times of your child's incarceration, they will have little or no personal property protections, little or no protections of free speech, and (ever increasingly) little protection of religion."

At this point, Amy speaks up. "A good example of this was a young child I knew that was a member of our faith (LDS). When doing some kind of get-to-know-you paper, the child included a sibling that had passed away in accordance with our beliefs in eternal families. The teacher refused to accept this child's explanation and made him erase the name!"

"That's it!" Abby states jumping to her feet. "You guys are unbelievable. You pick out every example of bad teachers, or bad schools, or bad policies and try and say that those very rare events are how things are every day in every school."

"I most certainly did not say that. What I am saying is that no matter how rare or occasional these negative experiences are, the biggest problem is they were put upon the child by force! In the case my wife just described, the parents were required by law to keep that child with that teacher for the remainder of the year. By law, the child was forced to continue "learning" from that teacher lest his parents be sent to jail. The parents had little or no ability to have the teacher fired or even reprimanded.

"It doesn't matter that it was one nutty teacher in one school district. What matters is that the government has the power to force that child to be where they say, when they say and when the government has that kind of power, parents have little recourse if they find themselves on the business end of a nut-job. And it doesn't take too much living in too many places to find out that the nut jobs, whether teachers, curriculum, or policies, are not just occasional outliers, but increasingly common norms."

"But I actually like the teachers at my kids' school," Mary says sincerely. "And I generally do like the curriculum."

"But what if you didn't? What options would you have? Mr. Hayes who was here earlier at the party tonight lives across the county line and is in a different school district. He was describing to me the math education his children are getting. I was surprised because it was the first time in five states that I've been even remotely impressed with a public school math curriculum. But Mr. Hayes better hope and pray that the Powers that Be continue to use that curriculum. They did not consult with the parents when they hired those teachers, and they did not consider their feelings when they purchased the curriculum. As with the arbitrary and capricious sovereigns of old, the State giveth, and the State taketh away."

"Why would they take away a good curriculum?"

"Because good is subjective! Mr. Hayes tells me that during parent-teacher conferences he congratulated the math teacher for using such an amazing math program and the teacher said he was the only parent that approved! Because it is different, most other parents don't trust it. At some point in the future, the school may change its mind and go right back to teaching the crappy math that's characterized our schools for fifty years."

"Doesn't that kind of contradict your point that parents should control their children's educations?" Abby asks. "If it was up to these parents you're referring to, the children would be getting what you've described as 'crappy math.'"

"A very good point, Abby, but I'll begin to answer with a question. How well do your students learn what you teach if their parents are actively working against you at home?" The teacher refuses to answer but Seth continues anyway. "Not too well, do they? How well do you think this good math is going for these young children when their parents are openly hostile to it? And what if it was a crappy math program they were pushing down their throats instead? The fundamental problem is that the State can decide what your children learn and force you to accept their decision."

"But, if we didn't force children to go to school, some children wouldn't get educated." Mary proposes

"Your argument is that a child can be forced to be educated against his or her will? You think that forcibly putting a child in a desk for a certain number of hours in a day will somehow make them learn something? How many inner-city kids have you worked with? They've been stuck in desks from k-12 and can hardly read, so I have a hard time buying your argument."

"Fine," Abby responds, "but if they hadn't been in those desks, they would have been out getting into more trouble and we'd have an increase in gangs, vandalism, and drugs."

"At last!" Seth enthuses, "you're admitting that much of our school system isn't about education. Why don't we build some day prisons, call them that, and stop pussy-footing around. In the mean time, excuse me if I refuse to submit my child to those institutions. The public school system is fundamentally broken because it is built on a theory of dictating education and indoctrination to the parents and children."

Stay tuned for PART II...

Education Without Critical Thinking is Indoctrination

One of the biggest reasons we chose to homeschool our children was because of the phenomenally poor mathematics education provided in United States public schools. A close second was the equally dismal education of history, especially United States history. We refused to trust these two subjects to the whims of bureaucrats, teachers' unions, and (occasionally) less concerned parents. As a well-known action hero exclaims, "We have no time to discuss this in committee!"

Now with several years of experience under our belts, and with exposure to a wide array of teaching materials, I have altered my priorities. As important as mathematics and history are as subjects, they do not represent the core foundation of education. In fact, no subject does.

The foundation of education is critical thinking. Without this foundation, education becomes nothing more than skills training in the best case. And in the worst case, it is indoctrination.

Consider the ongoing debates about teaching evolution or creation in schools. The parties engaged in this contest do not believe in critical thinking as evidenced by their fear of the other side. If each side had full confidence in the strength of their beliefs, they wouldn't fear the exposure of students to alternate points of view or interpretation of evidence. If one theory is so much stronger than the other, no one should fear seeing them side-by-side because the students will be able to see it for themselves. As a mentor taught me, "truth withstands scrutiny."

 What truly terrifies me in the evolution versus creationism debate is that the government can decide which one to throw its weight behind and enforce that view upon students.

Of course, homeschoolers are not immune to indoctrination of students. It's impossible to teach without bias even when aware of, and attempting to compensate for, one's personal slant. But in our homeschooling program, we are trying to give the students opportunities to learn the skills that will allow them to be effectively and appropriately critical of any principle, training, theory, or message including those of their parents.

One of these skills to watch out for "straw man" arguments. Consider our children's history book when discussing McCarthyism. The following quote is the only reason the author gives for why Americans were fearful of communism: "Some Americans disliked and feared communists because communists do not believe in God."

The book conveniently doesn't mention that the stated method of "change" in the communist manifesto is violence as I quote below (emphasis mine).

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. 

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

Even the religion angle is more frightening when you consider that religion was one of the social conditions communists looked to "forcibly overthrow."

None of this is to say that McCarthy wasn't a liar, a con-artist, and a power-hungry opportunist. Recognition of legitimate concerns about communism does not justify the infringement on civil liberties during the 50's.

But you don't get to the truth by artificially weakening the lies. The lesson I gave my children in response to this excerpt is that when you want to attack something, you build it up as strong as you can before you go after it. The older children are taking fencing lessons and I asked if they would become good at fencing by fighting a straw man? They immediately saw the connection.

Another skill we're working on with the kids is recognizing emotional cover-ups for poor logical reasoning. Our 10 year old child, Alex, is currently studying Geometry and has been learning foundation concepts of logical reasoning. We applied some of that thinking to another quote in this textbook (emphasis original):

Good times?

The Eisenhower years were prosperous. Jobs were plentiful, People had money to spend... Now you could buy... almost anything you wanted... 

These were good times.

But not for everybody. 

Let's look at the argument so far.

1. If jobs are plentiful, there is money to spend, and you can buy things, 
2. Then these are good times  

So, what do you think is coming next? What should follow is an assertion that some people couldn't get jobs, money, or make purchases. Instead, what we get is:

Some citizens were kept out of the good times. In the South, blacks couldn't eat in the same restaurants as whites, shop in the same stores, use the same bathrooms, drink from the same water fountains, or go to the same schools. It was humiliating - and unfair...

The logic here is extremely poor. She doesn't say that blacks couldn't get jobs, spend money, or buy things. Instead, she covers her bad logical reasoning with an emotional connection to "good times." She contrasts the positive feelings humans feel when spending money against the negative feelings they have being physically restrained from movement.

What's especially frustrating about this is that blacks couldn't get as many jobs, they didn't get paid the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if their were things they couldn't buy. She should have used these facts as her contrast or, alternatively, she could have have started with concepts of mobility. The 50's were also a time of travel, and other forms of movement previously unknown to the American public. If she had started with these examples of 50's lifestyle for whites, her comparison to the 50's lifestyle for blacks would have made more sense.

Sigh.

On the positive side, this poorly constructed argument served as a excellent lesson in reasoning and persuasive writing. The two older children are becoming aware that the things they are told and taught need to be evaluated, weighed, and considered. In these discussions, they were active participants and made thoughtful insights and observations. The seeds of real education are growing and their minds are expanding.

I used to think that Math and History were two subjects I couldn't trust to other people. But now I know that even more crucially, you should never trust the instruction of critical thinking to a committee.

Reading: Reason to Celebrate

Every now and then, I see articles on new sources that headline: "How to get your children to read." I've never read these articles because the only problem we seem to have at our house is getting our children NOT to read (i.e., when they're supposed to be going to bed or doing something else). Alex (age 10), in particular, has been blasting through books faster than he can check them out from the library, and Drystan (age 8), although reading fewer books, has been digesting literary works far beyond his age and experience level.

We've done a lot of things wrong in our home-schooling, but (thankfully) a love of books was one thing we managed to do right. I thought it would be fun to list here the books that the boys have are reading or have completed in the last few months (* indicates currently reading, Amazon links included where possible).

Drystan's Recent Books:

1. The Odyssey, Fagles translation (http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Robert-Fagles/dp/0140268863)
2. On Wings of Faith (http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Faith-Frederick-Babbel/dp/1555173543)
3. The Lost Hero (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Hero-Heroes-Olympus-Book/dp/142311339X)
4. The Son of Neptune (http://www.amazon.com/Son-Neptune-Heroes-Olympus-Book/dp/1423140591)
5. High Tide in Hawaii (http://www.amazon.com/High-Tide-Hawaii-Magic-House/dp/0375806164)
6. Some random Scooby-Doo chapter books checked out from the library
7. *To Kill a Mockingbird (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Mockingbird-Harper-Lee/dp/0446310786)
8. *Halo: Ghosts of Onyx (http://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Onyx-Halo-Eric-Nylund/dp/0765315688)
9. *Animorphs: The Invasion ( http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Animorphs-1-K-Applegate/dp/0590629778)
10. *Naya Nuki: Shoshoni Girl Who Ran (http://www.amazon.com/Naya-Nuki-Shoshoni-Girl-Who/dp/0801088682)

Alex's Recent Books:

1. The Book of Three (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Three-Prydain-Chronicles/dp/0440407028)
2. The Black Cauldron (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Cauldron-Prydain-Chronicles/dp/0440406498)
3. The Castle of Llyr (http://www.amazon.com/Castle-Llyr-Pyrdain-Chronicles/dp/0440411254)
4. Animorphs: The Invasion ( http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Animorphs-1-K-Applegate/dp/0590629778)
5. Animorphs: The Visitor (http://www.amazon.com/Animorphs-02-Visitor-K-Applegate/dp/0590629786)
6. Animorphs: The Encounter (http://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Animorphs-3-K-Applegate/dp/0590629794)
7. [RE-READ] Ranger's Apprentice Book 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Ruins-Gorlan-Rangers-Apprentice-Book/dp/0142406635)
8. [RE-READ] Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief ( http://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Thief-Percy-Jackson-Olympians/dp/0786856297)
9. Last Apprentice: Revenge of the Witch (http://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Witch-Apprentice-Joseph-Delaney/dp/0060766182)
10. Last Apprentice: Curse of the Bane ( http://www.amazon.com/Curse-Bane-Apprentice-Joseph-Delaney/dp/0060766212)
11. Last Apprentice: A Coven of Witches (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Apprentice-Coven-Witches/dp/0061960381)
12. Halo: Ghosts of Onyx (http://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Onyx-Halo-Eric-Nylund/dp/0765315688)
13. Leviathan (http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Scott-Westerfeld/dp/B005OHSDXA)
14. Naya Nuki: Shoshoni Girl Who Ran (http://www.amazon.com/Naya-Nuki-Shoshoni-Girl-Who/dp/0801088682)
15. The Odyssey, Fagles translation (http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Robert-Fagles/dp/0140268863)
16. On Wings of Faith (http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Faith-Frederick-Babbel/dp/1555173543)
17. To Kill a Mockingbird (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Mockingbird-Harper-Lee/dp/0446310786)
18. Fahrenheit 451 (http://www.amazon.com/Fahrenheit-451-Ray-Bradbury/dp/0345342968)
19. Day of Infamy (http://www.amazon.com/Day-Infamy-60th-Anniversary-Classic/dp/0805068031)
20. *Soviet Babyboomers (http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Baby-Boomers-History-Generation/dp/0199744343)
21. * [RE-READ] The Sea of Monsters (http://www.amazon.com/Monsters-Percy-Jackson-Olympians-Book/dp/1423103343)

Miracles in Government-managed Education

I am constantly reminded by Real Life (tm) that it requires a lot of work to understand my children's goals, needs, desires, strengths, and weaknesses. It isn't easy, especially because of the language barrier. For example, we gave Alex (age 10) the opportunity to add some "elective studies" into his history class this semester. We're studying American History from 1945-1990 but we told him that he could choose books from the library on subjects from that time period and write his assigned papers from those. He indicated he was interested in "economics" under the different forms of government (e.g., Communist, Free-market, etc.).

No problem, right?

Except that every time we found an economics book, he was completely uninterested and became increasingly frustrated. Only after a lot of listening and discussing were we able to figure out that what he was actually interested in was personal stories about individuals living under those different types of governments. We found a book about individual stories from the Soviet Union (http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Baby-Boomers-History-Generation/dp/0199744343) at the library, and he is hungrily devouring it.

Now, I don't know why or how Alex came to associate these kinds of personal stories with the word "economics," but he did. And that little misunderstanding was no small source of consternation.

With that story as a backdrop, consider the amazing and miraculous experience my friends (blogs here and here) are having in Europe. They just moved from Pittsburgh in the USA to Zurich, Switzerland. They also home-school their children and have decided to continue to do so while they live abroad. The Swiss canton they live in allows homeschooling with Government approval.

The mother has been preparing her curriculum for the Government's review with another woman helping her to translate it into German, and also giving her advice on content. I quote from the mother's email:

 It's kind of funny, I sent [the woman helping us] our schedule and she

said I'd need to amend it because otherwise they will consider it to

be too much work [for my 8 year old]... I guess they don't really consider

history or geography necessary, and science is pretty weak, until they

get to HS. So when I had strong curriculums for those they feel it's

too hard/too much, and if they think your school curriculum is too

rigorous, they won't approve you... but she should be

doing crafts every day, and they want to make sure she knows all her

colors and shapes...

When I read this email, I was overwhelmed in amazement and wonder! Just think, it took me weeks to understand the type of History book my 10 year old was interested in. And yet, in Switzerland, one or more appointed officials, through some extraordinary power, know what is too much work for a specific 8-year old girl. Keep in mind that they have never met this girl, know nothing about her previous studies, nothing about her parents' educations, nothing about her interests, and nothing about her personality.

How incredible! To know exactly what someone needs without knowing anything about them! To know it so well, that they can enforce it with all the weight and power of the Government over the objections or concerns of the mere-mortal parents! My friends' children should be grateful they moved to a country where telepathy, crystal balls, and tea leaves are requirements for civil service.

But I'm not being fair to the good ol' USA, I guess. Our own education departments here in the States sometimes exhibit these super-human powers as well. For example, some committee in the Maryland state Government knows that my child needs both an art class and a music class every semester. Let me emphasize that they know this. It is not a suggestion, a guideline, or a starting point. If I do not give my children both an art class and a music class every semester, the state will prohibit me from educating them at home. And they will make that prohibition regardless of the school district I live in. They know that both an art and music class are so vital to my children they've never met, that they would rather send them to a Baltimore city school (for fun, look that up on the Internet sometime) than they experience the tragedy of a semester with just one class or the other. Thank goodness they have those superpowers to help them make such a decision!

There is even more good news! These powers seem to be expanding to other groups! In a recent NEA document, this teacher's union asserts that home schooling cannot give children a comprehensive education, but that public schooling can. Note, they do not assert this for "many," "some," or "most," children. They assert this for every child in the entire United States. They know, without any reservations or conditions, that an elementary teacher that they've never met and whose motives, academic achievements, scholastic interests, and talents are unknown to them, can give my children a "comprehensive" education. They similarly know that my wife and I cannot educate our children with an equal lack of personal exposure.

Maybe if I joined the NEA I could understand what my 10-year old meant by "economics!"

Truly, we live in wondrous times. How blind I have been to the miracles happening all around me! My heart swells with gratitude for being able to have knowledgeable people running our country. Can you imagine what other visions these bureaucrats in the Government are having right now? I'm sure that with such oracular knowledge, it won't be long before they expand their benevolence out into other areas of our lives.

I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait!

Pop Quiz: What is the Value of Testing?

Remember what your mother said about the two topics not to discuss in company? Religion and politics, right? If you're a tech geek, you might also be aware of other "ideological" wars like emacs versus vi, C++ versus Java, and so on.

In my experience, many teachers have similarly explosive reactions to testing. And that goes double for homeschooling parents.

I, myself, am very neutral on the topic. Perhaps a better description is to say that I have very mixed feelings. I am not blind to the extreme insanity that drives "standardized" testing. Nor am I ignorant of "teaching to the test" problems since NCLB.

On the other hand, I believe that I benefited from some of the testing I experienced in college. While I had some teachers that created very poor tests, I felt that many classes had effective tests that required consistent attention to classroom instruction, reduction of broad swaths of information to core principles, and disciplined preparation for the test itself. I have no idea how valuable those tests were to the other students, but they were valuable to me.

One of the common complaints about testing is that you cram your head full of information you will forget the next day. Such a charge could be easily leveled at me. Despite my proclamation that tests were valuable for me, I doubt I remember even 20% of the material that I was tested on.

The problem with that criticism, of course, is that it assumes that the test was purely memorization based. In other words, the test was simple gauge of one's ability to remember facts and was devoid of any critical thinking. Such a description is simply not true for most of the testing I experienced in college. Memorization was often required, but the facts brought into the testing room were simply tools used to build more intricate mental productions.

A second reason I do not find the "test-it-and-forget-it" criticism to be valid is that it assumes that there is no practical value in "learning-and-forgetting." In my current work I often assist lawyers on the technical issues in their (generally copyright or patent) cases. Gearing up for writing a report, or someone's deposition, I am cramming information into my brain as quickly as I can that I will forget most of the moment my task is over. Given that I often have multiple cases overlapping, I have to be able to quickly absorb significant quantities of information on different and unrelated topics in rapid succession. Information is going in and out of my mind at very high speeds.

Of course, not everyone is the same. Some individuals might not be well-served by test taking. Moreover, testing is most often used to evaluate, and when a test does not accurately evaluate someone, they resent the unfair categorization of their ability and/or hard work. I honestly do not know how to solve this problem generally. I am not convinced that testing can be eliminated completely.

But within the walls of our own home schooling program, I do know how to make testing useful and positive. The reason is, I already know how the children are doing and that means I can eliminate testing for evaluation. Instead, I can use testing as both a pedagogical tool and for diagnostics on the classroom instruction.

During the last semester, our older two children were given a spelling test every Friday and for these tests, we required 100%. Our children have good memories, and we knew they were capable of getting every single word correct. In this case, the testing was a tool for teaching precision, discipline, and early preparation. The two boys learned those principles and, by the end of the semester, they were both getting 100% regularly.

On the other hand, Alex (age 10) got an 85% on his History mid-term, and Drystan (age 8) got a 55%. We weren't concerned at all about the actual scores because we knew that both boys know and understand history really well and had studied very hard. Because of this, the tests revealed things we might not otherwise have seen about our teaching and their learning. 

For example, both boys missed almost every question about religious conflict on the test, despite repeated discussion of the topic in class. This was really interesting to us and we spent some time trying to figure out what happened. Our current guess is that the boys struggle to relate to religious persecution (something they haven't experienced) and can't connect it to conflicts in history. On the other hand, they do understand food, and got questions right about conflicts related to hunger (e.g., the Irish Potato Famine). Of course there might be other reasons they struggled with these questions, but the point is we now know that they struggle with them. Now we are prepared to pay more attention to those issues in class.

Drystan expressed concerns to me about his "low" score on the test.

"Do you know what you learn when you don't prepare for a test and you do poorly on it?" I asked him.

"What?"

"That you didn't prepare for the test. And because you already knew that, you haven't learned anything new. When you have worked hard to prepare for a test and you still don't do well, you can learn something from it." Then, I pointed out to him all the things that his mother and I were learning from the test. I explained that the test was diagnostic for us precisely because he had worked very hard to be prepare for it. 

He came away from the experience with the lesson that hard-earned "failures" can be just another valuable opportunity to learn.

So what is the value of testing? For me, it is simply another tool in my "teaching toolbox" and one that I believe was used to good effect in instructing my children over the last semester.

And if that answer isn't worth full credit, I'll probably still do well when graded on the curve.

Drystan Demands a Math Test! Or, Pedagogical Engineering: Separation of Concerns

In Computer Science and Software Engineering, there is a concept of "separation of concerns." Computer programs these days are often enormous. The only way a software engineering team (or even a single software engineer) can handle the overwhelming amount of information is to break the program into pieces. The concept of "separation of concerns" is that a module should only do its job, and not the job of any other modules. It seems obvious, but in practice is is very difficult. Still, once a software engineer is aware that the principle even exists, it generally improves his or her software development even if (s)he is imperfect at applying the same.

It has occurred to me that "separation of concerns" has a lot of applications to "Real Life," and today I was thinking about a particular application to education. It seems to me that in education many people make the inappropriate connection between how talented one is with a subject with how much one enjoys that subject. While I am certain that some of this connection is natural to mankind, I do believe that some of it is created and reinforced by society.

I was elated today to hear Drystan demand a final exam in math. Demand! I told both of my older children that I was pleased with their mid-term tests and the work over the semester, so there would be no math final. Drystan, who is just 8, pleaded and begged me to change my mind. I finally agreed to come up with a math exam for him and he cheered! Why was I elated? Because Drystan is the child that has struggled the most with math since he was just three years old. I am elated that he has not associated enjoying a subject to his corresponding talents.

Consider that in my college career, I had to take a number of math classes. Some of them were more "pure" math classes from the math department, while others were more "computational science." The point is, they all relied on the "mathy" part of my brain.

I literally had to take each one of these mathematics classes twice because I either failed or nearly-failed the first time.


This fact often surprises people. They are shocked that I, with a Ph.D. in Computer Science, performed poorly in my mathematics classes. I understand that. What I don't understand is when I see their surprise increase as they hear how much I loved and love these classes that I failed.

To repeat, I am certain that some connection between talent and enjoyment is natural. I am sure that people generally are happy to perform well at a task independent of everyone else.

But I also assume that human beings crave validation and positive reinforcement. Given that assumption, it worries me to hear parents (and sometimes teachers!) tell me they are helping their child "find what they are good at." I'm sure this is fine to a reasonable extent, but my worry matures into full-blown horror when I see this attitude coupled with assertions that the children shouldn't spend much time or energy on subjects that aren't talents. Why is there so little emphasis on loving to learn about everything?

Of all the subjects where the false-coupling of talent and enjoyment occurs, I think that mathematics is one of the worst. In my conversations with parents across the country I hear over and over that elementary math teachers "bucket" children into the "good-at-math" and "bad-at-math" groups. Not only are the so-called "bad-at-math" children probably just in need of decent instruction, but in many cases they are encouraged to focus on other school subjects. Sometimes the encouragement is just in the form of hints, but other times they are told so explicitly!

It seems to me that in most schools, Drystan would have been bucketed into the "bad-at-math" category. From a very, very young age, he viewed the world around him very literally. He has plenty of imagination, but he cannot move from literal to abstract easily. So, for him, "11" should be "2". See? there are two 1's, and he knew that 1 and 1 is 2.

This first showed up when he was three years old, and I assumed he would just grow out of it. I didn't think too much about it.

Then he was four...

and five...

and six...

and seven...!

And just this past summer we had a situation where he still struggled to understand the difference between a number in the ten's column, and a number in the one's column. He was able to figure it out eventually and he could do it because he has had a lot of practice with dad, but it isn't natural. He still has to be very careful when adding and subtracting multiple-digit numbers because it is so non-intuitive.

To make matters worse, his older brother was practically born thinking abstractly. Numbers are easy for Alex and he's pretty quick on the mathematics uptake. I have always worried that Drystan would develop some kind of complex about Alex being the "good-at-math" kid, and he being the "bad-at-math" kid.

Yet, somewhere, somehow, I managed to do something right because Drystan still enjoys math. He enjoys math enough to beg me for a final exam! I am certain that part of it is that he wants to make his dad proud of him. But even if that is true, at least he knows that I am proud of him in math for enjoying it and working hard rather than being naturally talented at it!

None of this is to say that Drystan doesn't work hard to increase his mathematical abilities. To the contrary, we require him to continually improve. But that is the point of separating the concerns; they can be evaluated and improved individually. One can approach learning to love a subject differently from improving one's performance thereof. These two components are individually strengthened, but subsequently reinforce each other. At the same time, mistakes made in one of the two areas has a more limited impact on the other. The system is more stable and resilient for appropriately separating concerns!

In conclusion, loving learning should be an independent component of an educational system. It should be distinct from identifying talents and increasing capabilities. As with software engineering, though, the hard part is figuring out how to put such separation into practice. In the tradition of those who can neither do, nor teach, I have criticized without providing a lot of constructive counter-examples. But in the tradition of those who do teach, I will leave such banal matters as an exercise to the reader.

In the mean time, I have an unexpected math final to write...

Lush Vegetation of the Mind: Math Edition

It will come as no shock to anyone that I am extremely opinionated. Good heavens, my twitter handle is "SethHasOpinions." And one of the topics that I am most extremely opinionated about is that of mathematics education.

In yesterday's blog post, I mentioned some of the struggles we have had over the last year. Today, I want to talk about one of our successes.

Alex and Drystan enjoy a mathematical world full of ideas.


I realized long ago that the way mathematics is often taught is devoid of any ideas. Think about it this way. When a child comes home from school and you ask them what they did in class today, you very rarely get a response about mathematics. They can tell you about the Greeks and Romans from their history class, the different types of rocks they learned about in science, and the new book they're reading in English.

But what are they going to say about math?

"Math? Oh... um... not much. We did long division. Again."

I am not saying that one doesn't benefit from learning to divide numbers, but I am pointing out that it was only the first day or two that division was taught that there was probably any discussion in the class room about the ideas. And truthfully, in a lot of schools, the ideas are never taught. The emphasis is on a skill devoid of imaginative thinking and wonder.

This was brought home to me earlier this week when I was teaching a ten-year old boy about the inner-workings of a computer for a scouting requirement. He is a bright kid who attends a Magnet School and is, I believe, in the gifted and talented program. I decided to give him a quick introduction to binary numbers. He picked up very quickly the concepts, but what absolutely shocked me was how little this very intelligent child had ever thought about any mathematical ideas. Oh, he knew all the formulas of addition, subtraction, and so forth. But he didn't know anything about how or why any of it worked. He told me he had never even thought about it.

For example, I asked him to think about the number "11" and why the two 1's were of different values. He stared at the board like I was speaking parseltongue. Even when I asked him about the differences between the ten's column and the one's column he seemed completely lost. I think he finally connected it to carrying in addition and subtraction and understood. But the idea that the 1 in the 10's column was worth more than the 1 in the 1's column seemed novel to him. And he was actually excited about it!

Can you imagine? Ten years old before someone tells him about the ideas that underlie our base-10 number system?

For the last four months, Alex has been working through a "Introduction to Algebra" book I found on our shelf. To be completely honest, it is one of the most boring and dry algebra books I have ever seen. But because Alex is only 9 (turning 10 this month) it seemed really interesting to him. I tried out a few lessons with him and he was doing alright, but I was worried maybe he needed something easier. When I asked him if he wanted to stop doing Algebra and go back to other arithmetic work, he vehemently stated his opinion that he did NOT want to go back to that "boring" stuff. So, while it looks like he is "ahead" in math, all we are really working for is keeping his brain buzzing.

On the flip side, Drystan is "behind" in computation according to most curriculum standards. We consider him in fourth grade, but he has never done multiple-digit multiplication. He's done very little with division, and certainly nothing with long division.

Instead, I have been giving him lessons I made up for a course I called, "An Introduction to Sets, Geometry, and Algebra." To my surprise, sets have really excited him. In particular, he was thrilled when he began to grasp the ideas of union and intersection. He just loved being able to take sets in his head and arrange and re-arrange them. Sets have also given us a way to discuss mathematical properties outside of their application to numbers. For example, in most elementary math books, children are taught:

Commutative property: 3 + 4 = 4 + 3
Associative property: (3 + 4) + 1 = 3 + (4 + 1)
Distributive property of multiplication over addition: (3 + 4) X 2 = (3 X 2) + (4 X 2)

In our work we have also shown that union and intersection of sets have the commutative and associative properties and that union distributes over intersection and vice versa. Seeing these properties apply to other ideas makes them more conceptual rather than computational.

What is funny is that Drystan has a really good grasp, now, on the distributive property. He understands how to distribute intersection over union, union over intersection, and multiplication over addition. Why is this funny? Because distributing multiplication over addition is how one often does multiple-digit multiplication. In fact, that was the lesson that Drystan and I had yesterday.

I showed Drystan a rectangle. In previous classes, we have been computing area of small rectangles like 3x4 and so forth, but now I had him look at one that was 16 x 5. I asked him if he knew what the area was, and I expected him to say no. He surprised me by correctly stating the area was "80."

"How did you know that?"

"Well, I knew that 5 times 10 was 50, and 6 times 5 was 30."

He had used the distributive property in his head! I had him work out on paper a couple of problems showing him that for a single digit times a double digit it was really easy to make into solvable problems:

42 x 7 = (40+2) x 7 = (40 x 7) + (2 x 7)
29 x 4 = (20+9) x 4 = (20 x 4) + (9 x 4)
63 x 5 = (60+3) x 5 = (60 x 5) + (3 x 5)

And he thought this was all really neat and exciting. And then I showed him how we can make this a shorter process for convenience:

 42
x 7

In this format, you multiply the 7 x 2 (just like in the longer version a few lines ago), but you only write the one's value and carry the tens:

 1
 42
x  7
    4

Then, you multiply the 7 x 4, but that's really a lie, right? What you're really doing is multiplying the 7 x 40, just like before in the longer version. 7 x 40 = 280. We add the "4" already in the ones column, and carry the "1" in the tens column and get:

 1
 42
x 7
294

My point to him was that we're still doing the (2 x 7) + (40 x 7) based on the distributive property. "It's the same thing," I said.

Drystan looked at this all for a moment and replied, "Ah... but less fun." That's right, he would rather do 42 x 7 = (40 + 2) x 7 = (40 x 7) + (2 x 7) even though it is longer and takes more time because he understands the ideas of distributing the multiplication and thinks it is more fun to show it!

Math for Drystan isn't just about getting the right answer. It's about getting the right answer and having fun. Ideas do that for people. You plant them, and they grow up into into trees you can play in, shade you can sit under, provide space for animals, and produce fruit you can eat. Trees spread the seeds and more trees grow until, after time, a lush forest and a complete ecosystem fills the formerly empty space.

As I was laying in bed this morning, ignoring the alarm clock, I meditated on these ideas. It occurred to me that teaching math as just a bunch of formulas to crunch was like giving kids plastic plants and trees instead of seeds. Plastic plants are much easier to grade because the kids can line them up or move them around in whatever format demanded. Parents, journalists, and politicians can be shown how "effective" the teachers are in having the children line up the plants into a faux forest.

Seeds are so much harder to evaluate. They grow under ground for a long time so it isn't always obvious what is happening. Once the seed starts to grow out of the ground, it cannot be easily moved and it doesn't always take the expected or desired shape (I am well aware of the over-simplifications I have made on some of these points, but I think the core analogy is sound). But it becomes a magical world that is full of unexpected experiences, fantastic exploration, and wondrous discoveries.

In the spirit of that analogy, here are the last few words from the last Calvin and Hobbes comic strip: "It's a magical world," Calvin says to Hobbes before darting off on a sled. "Let's go exploring!"