Lew Rockwell had a great podcast with an author who talked about private schools.
They talked about the best private schools and how they all followed a basic formula…that teach students how to think and open up intellectually.
My question…where can I find this formula? Or anything about the secrets these top private schools use?
Do you have a link to that podcast?
It was John Taylor Gatto. Don’t have the podcast link, but check this out.
that is the link…sorry…
great podcast though…
They really got me thinking when they talked about the top handful of private schools all use about the same formula…
and the rest are more like public schools…setting the children up to not think and become drones…
Chomsky talks about this same thing in education here
A lot of the educational system is designed for that, if you think about it, it’s designed for obedience and passivity. From childhood, a lot of it is designed to prevent people from being independent and creative. If you’re independent-minded in school, you’re probably going to get into trouble very early on. That’s not the trait that’s being preferred or cultivated…
Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don’t think people didn’t know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we’re educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don’t educate them, what we call “education,” they’re going to take control – “they” being what Alexander Hamilton called the “great beast,” namely the people…
Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, two economists, in their work on the American educational system some years back… pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that’s directed toward working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can’t quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won’t be able to do their job of making money
There has to be something special that comes from private schooling. I don’t know what it is, but every student from private high schools in my area get into much better universities than those in public schools. The only thing that I can specifically think of is that public schools need to be politically correct. One private school had its students watch American History X to study racism instead of us having to memorize MLK Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” speech. Not that I think it’s important to learn about racism at all, but the private school method would have been much more effective in starting a discussion.
I don’t know what it is, but every student from private high schools in my area get into much better universities than those in public schools.
Its not like that in my area- well, comparing Duval County/Jacksonville and my area- all the students I knew in private needed tutoring in one way or another, and were getting in the same quality, for the most part (one school was different) as the public school. Of course, in Duval, the privates were better, but you head to Saitn Augustine area public is better
Well even our “private” schools today suffer from state-enforced curricula. So there’s no way around that one. My guess is on a free market in education, the schools would cater to our creativity because that is what will be demanded. Not 30 kids in a classroom with a teacher droning about on a topic the kids couldn’t care less about.
When I was in high school, I had to sit through a United States history class for entire year with a tenured teacher literally reading word-for-word from the textbook. Gooooo compulsory schooling!
I took my high school US history class at my city college the summer after my sophomore year. While there was the usual terrible history, I only had to sit through 6 weeks of it, it was only twice a week, and the reading load wasn’t terrible. I think I got lucky with high school. I mean sure most of the classes were boring and a waste of time, but I had a really good Latin teacher who was engaging and knew a lot about Greek and Roman culture which made the class interesting. I actually looked forward to that class.
I also had a robotics class which was really cool (We participated in the FIRST robotics competition if anyone knows about that). We got to use some machining tools and if I remember correctly, a lot of the funding for us came from private sources. At the time I was no ancap so I didn’t worry too much about where funding came from but I seem to remember a lot of fundraising, grant writing, and volunteer help from parents and businesses in the area. I think I just got lucky though.
I was fortunate enough to be homeschooled. Two words: the trivium.
If anyone is interested in homeschooling their kids either now or in the future, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
So, the top private schools are more efficient at teaching one-sided statist propaganda?
I was looking into rhetoric not long ago and happened across the concept of the trivium. Looks like a super cool curriculum. I assume you also studied math?
PS: I’m not interested for homeschooling purposes, I’m just curious.
edit: Perhaps math is included in logic (?).
Heh I’m interested in homeschooling myself not my kids (I don’t have any) 
If you have any blog or something that has some insights, lessons from your experience in that matter I’m sure many would be grateful - I know I would.
Mr Schnapps,
Could you please outline the way in which you were homeschooled? Was it sit down at a desk type with a fixed curricullum, left to your own devices or something in between? Also who did most of the teaching? Father, Mother, someone else or evenly spread? Was it co-op style with other local families?
FYI, I’m recently married and intend to have children soon. If it’s more appropriate just PM me.
Thanks.
I don’t know specifically the source Gatto was referencing but I’ve read his Underground History of Education (well, most of it, it’s damn long) so I can tell you a bit of his theory on learning.
The “you learn by doing” has become a platitude of sorts but looking deeper, “learn by doing” is a very powerful truth of human nature. Basically, if you want someone to be good at something, they should be doing it.
At some point in the system’s history there was an idea that subjects should be learned from the very basic truths, and learning should be built on these truths like a pyramid. Today’s geometry texts put heavy emphasis on writing proofs using the basic axioms. This might be an intersting side exercise for a math student, but for it’s ability to truly give a student to use math, it fails. This is the difference between “doing” math and having a practically useless understanding of designing a proof which gives one very little idea of the utility of math. The student just learned to connect simple geometry axioms but if after a semester learning these proofs, the student was asked to then use the proofs to solve a complex geometry problem, they’d be at a complete loss.
In short, the elite private school student learn by doing. In math, they’re doing difficult, challenging problems. In language, they’re reading classic works and writing high level papers. In doing so, they learn not just the math, but how to do math. There’s no other way to teach someone how to think about math then to let them do it themselves. Public school classes think they’re preparing them for the future by holding their hands on easy problems, but all it teaches is how to have your hand held on easy problems.
Gatto’s argument is massive and wide-ranging. It’s not just about what’s being taught but also the relationship’s the student develops with peers, their self and authority. There’s much more to be said about it.
bcyclwutztht,
The trivium makes up the core of what is usually called (or used to be called) a liberal arts education. Many universities have moved away from that model.
I studied math, science, and history separately.
These two books by Susan Bauer provide a good foundation for classical education. After a bit of reading you get used to terms like ‘trivium’ and ‘classical’ education. They’re very similar.
There are some other books on Amazon about the trivium as well.
Physiocrat,
Of all the homeschool families I’ve ever met, I have yet to find one that stuck to a very strict curriculum. What ends up happening is this thing called ‘life’. For me, there wasn’t really a set schedule; we would just purchase curriculum of the various subjects and work through the book in a year or in the allotted time, since our day to day schedule would often times upset the normal public school timeframe.
My mother did most of my teaching and my father works. In the end, I finished up my high school education with online private school courses which I did find to be quite lacking. It was unfortunate, but that’s just how it turned out.
If i were to give you some practical tips, I’d say to leave out electronics in any form with the exception of the computer. The last thing you need is for your kids to be hooked on the TV or computer from when they’re young. The same goes for consoles as well.
Next, I’d say for you to get them started early reading difficult material. Don’t teach them how to read with ‘Dick and Jane’ books. That’s just insulting compared with how children used to read–usually from the Bible or other classical works. A second language is also mandatory.
I think the most important thing, though, is to assess from the beginning what your child is capable of. If they’re predisposed towards music, don’t put them through rigorous academics. Don’t leave out the academics, of course, but let your kids build up on what they’re best at. Whichever parent decides to teach make sure that you are dedicated because it does get difficult sometimes.
As well, I’ve been apart of a lot of what you would call ‘homeschool’ groups, but have found that they’re generally useless unless you use them strictly for socialization. The families that belong to these groups tend to go about their education in many different ways, so these groups aren’t really meant to be times to study or learn, mainly for parents to meet other parents and for kids to hang out with kids.
So, I’ll put it in a list:
Get the kids reading difficult works early on. Set the bar high.
Get rid of distractions and have a dedicated school room or place.
At least one extra language. Latin and/or greek are important as well.
Find out what your child is good at.
The trivium or ‘classical’ education.
History, science, math, and anything else that you would like.
Teach with a variety of methods–auditory, visual, etc.
Also, John Taylor Gatto’s books are excellent.
Mr. Schnapps,
Thank you very much. Now that I’m getting towards my ‘adult’ life, I’ve really been thinking lately about what I’m going to do as far as education for my children. I’ve been thinking a lot about homeschooling somehow, so this helps a lot. If I weren’t married (just asking as a hypothetical), do they have private teachers basically that could provide the same type of education that your mother - I believe you said your mother taught you - provided you, or do you find that it was more important to have a parent homeschooling you?
"
I don’t know specifically the source Gatto was referencing but I’ve read his Underground History of Education (well, most of it, it’s damn long) so I can tell you a bit of his theory on learning.
The “you learn by doing” has become a platitude of sorts but looking deeper, “learn by doing” is a very powerful truth of human nature. Basically, if you want someone to be good at something, they should be doing it.
At some point in the system’s history there was an idea that subjects should be learned from the very basic truths, and learning should be built on these truths like a pyramid. Today’s geometry texts put heavy emphasis on writing proofs using the basic axioms. This might be an intersting side exercise for a math student, but for it’s ability to truly give a student to use math, it fails. This is the difference between “doing” math and having a practically useless understanding of designing a proof which gives one very little idea of the utility of math. The student just learned to connect simple geometry axioms but if after a semester learning these proofs, the student was asked to then use the proofs to solve a complex geometry problem, they’d be at a complete loss.
In short, the elite private school student learn by doing. In math, they’re doing difficult, challenging problems. In language, they’re reading classic works and writing high level papers. In doing so, they learn not just the math, but how to do math. There’s no other way to teach someone how to think about math then to let them do it themselves. Public school classes think they’re preparing them for the future by holding their hands on easy problems, but all it teaches is how to have your hand held on easy problems.
Gatto’s argument is massive and wide-ranging. It’s not just about what’s being taught but also the relationship’s the student develops with peers, their self and authority. There’s much more to be said about it."
Thank you…great post…
I’m a teacher…and I’m very interested in this topic…
of course…you have to realize…the reason public schools will always fail is simple…
very simple…
the state forces bad, disruptive students (who don’t want to be there) to remain in the classroom…
in the free market, the teacher would simply ask the disrutpive person to leave their property…
it’d be like if McDonalds had a really disrutpive person in line…holding up the line…and perhaps causing even more damage…
and instead of asking the person to leave…they forced him (any any others like him) to stay there…