Do the Math

How many eggs are in seven dozen? If ten people walk nine miles in six hours, what was their average speed?

When people say, "Do the math," these days, they usually mean do the simple calculation needed to understand the situation. However, many people now lack the ability to do the math because they never learned the basic math facts or simple methods of calculation in school. What's worse, the school taught them to believe that making those simple calculations was not necessary. The result is that millions of people today lack the fundamental skills needed for productive lives. They believe it is their own fault for not having basic skills and fundamental knowledge. Many do not even know how little they know, because if they don't master the basics, many doors of learning are closed to them.

We often hear the phrase, "Do the math." Unfortunately for far too many of today's public school graduates, they can't.

"Socialization"

When Horace Mann, the "father" of American government schooling, started the system, around 1850, his purpose was to turn a diverse population into a "workforce" of docile and predictable masses. Where did Mann look for his model system? In Prussia, where the rulers used state-run schools to turn out factory workers and soldiers to fight their ongoing wars against Napoleon. Well-schooled Prussia became Fascist Germany with its Socialist Governments, and brought us two world wars and the holocaust. Mann copied the Prussian factory system of schooling for this country. Little has changed since that time.

Never in history has government wanted its citizens to become truly educated and inquiring people who might question its authority or power. Government is only interested in indoctrinating us to whatever beliefs, attitudes and opinions are deemed by its leaders as correct for the time being. As yesterday's post attests, the state insists that its teachers offer a tightly scripted curriculum. Therefore, even during the time when public schools in America had a "hey-day," their purpose was to deliver a limited product of information and skills -- just enough to satisfy the army and business.

Did Mann have "socialization" in mind? No, he was, in fact, a puritan who wanted a religious-based society of "good people" and "good citizens." However, influenced by men such as John Dewey, the system was taken over early in the 20th century by those who wanted socialism, and that required a dumbing down of the population. The "Look-Say" method of reading (later called Whole Language) was popularized and Phonics was phased out. Math has been turned into "math appreciation" thanks to an endless series of fads, but leaves out the necessary component of basic knowledge of numbers and the ability to compute. As a result of those fundamental changes, children today are taught neither how to read nor how to calculate.

Today's public schools use the idea that the group is more important than the individual -- perhaps the most fundamental Socialist concept. In contrast, America was founded on the concept that the individual is sovereign.

In recent years, public school standards have been lowered to a point (in many states) of elimination, in favor of political correctness, group thinking and psychological conditioning. We hear their employees say, "We want the students to gain consensus on subjects." I remember a former superintendent in my town saying, "I don't care about test scores so much as how the children feel about themselves." To the schools, socialization means group thinking -- the opposite of critical thinking. Thus, "socialization" has replaced academic learning as the reason for the existence of government schools.

How do you feel about that?

A Former Teacher Writes

I received the following letter -- edited to protect the writer's identity:

"Ned,
"I went to ___University. It was very expensive but I needed something close since we didn't have a car. Previous to taking my Master in Education I had completed an Honors Bachelor in Chemistry at the University of ___. That program was academically very challenging and I was shocked to see how little was required of me during my Masters.

"Grades were a joke, everyone received an A as long as we showed up. Basically we were taught that we were little nothings who had to dress nice and suck up to the Principals at the schools where we student taught. It was never even suggested to question the government's decisions about content standards and standardized tests. We were simply told that if we ever wanted to find a job we had to make it extremely obvious that we knew the standards inside and out and would teach nothing but those standards to our future students.

"At the same time as preaching about the standards, the teachers emphasized the importance of "student centered and guided learning." The teachers conveniently forgot to mention how exactly you allow for student guided learning if you can only teach the standards. Basically "certification" means that you have agreed to teach what the government wants against your better judgement.

"At both my teacher's college and the school where I taught for one year, all my peers complained about the terrible state of the education system but did not do a single thing to make it better. I guess in reality they were all afraid of the government, afraid of rocking the boat, making too much of a fuss and losing their job. After all, keeping your job and being able to afford your oversized house, car, and life is all thats really important, right? If it wasn't fear that prevented one of my peers from making an attempt to improve the state of the education system it was the feeling of helplessness. One person can't do anything against such a huge buracracy so why bother, right?"

The writer lasted one year in public school teaching, proving that high-achieving people are not attracted to such jobs or, really, even the training for them. My wife, Luz, went through a Masters of Ed. and feels the same way -- that it was a waste of her time and money.

School is hell for the teachers, too. Are the administrators too dumb to notice?

Public Schools VS Public Libraries

"The State...has a vested interest in promoting attitudes that would tend to make us skeptical of our own abilities, fearful of the motives of others, and emotionally dependent upon external authorities for purpose and direction in our lives."
-- Butler D. Shaffer, from Americans for Limited Gov't. Mar 15, 06


When a US citizen enters a public library, the library employee's attitude is, "How can I help you? What are you interested in? How can I satisfy your curiosity? What information can I help you find? All of our resources are at your disposal," etc.

Librarians don’t ask probing questions of their patrons, whatever their age; they do not judge their patrons' abilities or qualifications. They are there to help them in their interests, whatever they might be. Librarians never look at a child and say, "You're too young to want to learn about that" or, "You should wear proper clothes to come here" or, "You are not qualified to read that book." etc

But when a child enters a public school, the attitude of the employees is entirely different. The teachers typically demand that children "Sit down; be quiet, think only what I tell you to think. Never mind your personal interests, never mind your curiosity, do not ask questions...we will ask the questions for you to answer." etc.

The school employees see children as "resources" that can be used for the school's purposes. Thus, they see the children as a commodity to be exploited -- used for the benefit of the school, not as patrons to be served. Their attitude is, "How can I use this child (and his/her parents) to make me look good; to enlarge the school budget; hire more teachers; increase state funding," etc.

The state, too, sees public school children as economic units, cogs in the social machinery, in short: slaves to the state. Remember that the public school system is a politically controlled arm of the state.

The schools have a similar approach to parents, seeing them as willing or potential participants in the teacher union’s plans to raise teacher pay, increase budgets, hire more union employees, spend more tax money, saying that it’s "all for the children," of course. Meanwhile, the employees almost never accede to the wishes of parents regarding school programs or policies.

Thus, libraries exist to serve the patrons -- whoever they are, whatever their age or politics or circumstances, however they are dressed. But the government schools exist to exploit citizens and their children for the benefit and convenience of their employees. By their actions and intentions, we can see that schools exist also for the state education bureaucracy, and assorted politicians at all levels – not for children, parents or the community.

Who would use a library that treated patrons the way schools do? Wouldn’t it be better if schools were more like libraries?

As Homeschooling Grows, What Is at Stake?

Columbia Teachers College -- launching pad for many public school teachers, administrators, programs and policies -- recently asked for public comment on the question, "What is at stake when more and more of America's students are being homeschooled?" I sent the following:

That the government school system is failing to educate America's children is no longer in doubt. So, by asking that question, Columbia seeks to blame homeschooling for putting the public schools at risk. The premise is patently absurd, first, because the main reason for the growth of homeschooling is the failure of the public schools; and second, it is those schools that put millions of children's education at risk. The presumption -- really, the hope -- that the public school system is providing what America's students need and want is simply false. The failure is massive, and the public school system has the habit of blaming others -- movies, television, even "society" -- for problems that it creates for itself.

If anything is "at stake" (def: "at risk" or "in question") it is the coercive monopoly system itself, and the reason is its poor performance. Its problems have not been imposed from outside; the system is not a victim of forces beyond its control. It has only itself to blame.

The public school establishment has noticed that the canary in its gold mine has died because of its own dishonesty, corruption and wrong-headedness. Instead of cleaning up, the system continues mining for all the gains its employees, unions, and special interests can acquire while denying the problems and, worse, seeking to blame others for the death. Its normal response to the suffering of its students is to make them suffer even more and to force the taxpayers to give it more money. One problem is that the system never admits to its failures. Therefore, it has no self-correcting mechanisms, no way of clearing its own air. It has too many conflicting interests, failing programs and bad practices to get back to its true purpose of education. Some have even suggested that it never had that purpose.

The government school employees and supporters see any and all alternatives as threats to their monopoly, since they view children as their source of revenue. The primary goal of most bureaucratic institutions, especially government controlled ones, is growth. The public schools follow that objective fiercely, seeking ever higher budgets, larger payrolls and wasteful construction contracts while viewing efficiency and thrift as counter to their interests.

Standardized tests that show the dismal failure of America's students are routinely ignored. International tests of basic skills show increasingly worse comparisons between the US and other countries' schools and/or students. Yet, year after year, the schools portray their failure as "success" and incredibly, they get away with it. What is at stake is the credibility of the US education establishment and ultimately, the productivity, even the viability, of our society and our country. At stake also are the public school teachers along with their unions. The pubic, more and more, are discovering that just because someone is "certified" by a state, or is a union member, does not mean that s/he is a good teacher, especially when we find that the best private schools do not seek state-certified teachers nor do they have unions. Meanwhile, teacher unions are obstacles in most efforts to reform the public schools. Today, people are simply too well informed to tolerate an invalid system of education.

At stake for Columbia is that it will need to change how it selects and trains teachers. The system clings to methods, practices and beliefs about learning and teaching that have long been proven wrong. There is no change in sight. By creating so much of what is wrong with the public schools, Columbia is one reason for the growth of homeschooling.

Homeschooling is not part of the failure; it is one of the frontiers of national recovery. More and more parents would turn the original question around to read as follows: "What is at stake if we don't take our children out of the failing government schools?" The answer, of course, is our children's lives, our families, and the future of this country.

A Bit More about Calligraphy

From Pamela LaRegina:
“Would you like your child to learn how to think and do? Would you like your child to experience the stimulation, challenge, and order that are the three basic requirements needed for right teaching?
Would you like your child to learn to be aware of his own ability to be creative, to coordinate the thought in the mind with the movement of the body? To not only see beauty but to be able to understand it and create it without having to employ complex or expensive tools? Would you like your child to learn to communicate well, to learn the nature of practice and the path to achievement?
THEN MIND WELL HOW YOUR CHILD LEARNS TO WRITE.

“Now the questions in your own mind may be surfacing: What are you saying and why is this news to me? I do not recall anything about my learning how to write, I do not care for my own handwriting and I do not see what relevance hand writing has to do with this computer-based world, anyway.
What is the big deal?

“When you were a child you were not taught to write in the manner that is being proposed here. Nobody was! Whereas a child can apprehend the learning process by learning to play a musical instrument, not all children have to learn to play one, but all children must learn to write. (This is not to imply that a child who does not wish to write should be forced to do so, for that is not teaching, it is coercion, which never works. However, the desire to learn how to write comes naturally most of the time.)

“Because learning to write teaches the learning process, all other learning that comes after will happen more easily. The brain has been ordered, neuronaly, so to speak, so that the grid work is in place and there is now something for the next learning to connect to.

“The process of learning how to write involves the apprehension of a particular form, the ability to imagine that form, and then the ability to use the mind as builder, and the hand, along with a simple tool, to create that form into something that is visible and tangible -- something that can be seen and understood by others. In brief, it teaches Communication, Language, Drawing, and Self-expression.

“Perhaps you may say that your child can learn similarly by learning how to use hammer, wood, and nails to build a bird house. Well this is very true, and it is also true that learning how to write is an excellent primer for the carpentry experience!”

Ned adds: It’s never too late, or early, to learn how to write; therefore, I recommend calligraphy for adults and children. It truly does lead to learning beyond the making of legible letters.

Tomorrow: As Homeschooling Grows, What Is at Stake?

Calligraphy: Beautiful Writing

Pamela LaRegina, a calligrapher www.supercalligraphics.com , says that her practice of calligraphy provides benefits for her life that are beyond financial, like teachers of dance and music who see their arts as providing character, confidence and joy. Some of her thoughts about her practice are as follows:

The capital I is drawn with a single vertical stroke. Graphically, it represents the "minimum" stroke in our writing system. This means that it carries a lot of responsibility. It is the stroke that is most repeated and therefore deserves to be treated with a lot of attention to detail. If you can imagine it as a "real" letter, that is, with its skin on, it has some messages to relay. It tells how thick and thin the quality of line should be, and where exactly those thick and thin places should occur. Then, when drawing the A, the B, the D, the E, the F, the beard on the G, the H, the J, the K, the L, the M, the N, the P, the R, the T, the U, the V and W, the X, the Y, and the Z, you know what the quality of their strokes will be also. Actually, the more you practice these graceful strokes, the more you can feel the rounded parts of the letters as being in harmony with the movements that it takes to create the capital I, also.

In order for all this to be understood, it really needs to be experienced. This is an idea that you have undoubtedly encountered in other activities, such as playing golf, or a musical instrument.

Of course it goes without saying that the height of the capital I is an indictor of the height the other letters. There are some slight exceptions to this. Although the A comes first, it is actually drawn slightly taller than the I to compensate for an optical principle. Because it comes to a point on top, it needs this extra height to appear the same height. The same alteration is necessary for other letters that have points on top or bottom, and the O, also, is a tad taller.

What is perhaps more important than the height is the quality of verticality and straightness that the I lends to the alphabet. It becomes a sensual experience that reaches down to your toes and inside to your deep-breath belly. A capital I that leans backwards even slightly is going to look like it is falling over. You get to see that you drew it incorrectly, however, and this gives you a chance to deal with your mistake.

This is the way to learn to do anything. The process of learning to draw a vertical stroke takes body awareness. My personal experience, though difficult to verbalize entirely, goes something like this:

Simply put, I become the letter. I must be sitting with a straight back to make the letter straight. I must use a movement that incorporates a relaxed, downward stroke that uses the whole arm. The pressure will vary according to the tool and the surface I am writing on, but generally speaking, it will be an even pressure that may ease up slightly in the middle of the stroke.

You must stay conscious of the whole process. This requires use of mind and body working together with no margin for drift. Thus, it becomes a kind of meditation. As the attention focuses, the letter becomes. There are other considerations, also. For example, as the letter must be placed somewhere, how and exactly where it gets placed must be deliberate. The space around the letter- the negative space, must be designed. Here is where a calligrapher has to make conscious choices based on his sense of space and balance. The space itself has a shape, and becoming aware of and orchestrating this space is part of the game.

When I stated that I become the letter, I was reiterating a dictum that I learned while taking a course in Chinese brush painting. The teacher told us that you have to become the flower or the bamboo.