From the Washington Post comes an uncharacteristically credulous piece about a soon-to-be launched private school built around a radically student-centered model. Harvard-educated lawyer Alan Shusterman’s 6-12 grade school will charge $25,000 a year in tuition, but the schedules and lessons will be different. “The model is inspired by the success of home-schoolers,” says Shusterman.
“Students will set their class schedules, enabling them to learn at their pace and in their styles. Teachers will act as advisers, not taskmasters,” reports the Post’s Jay Mathews. Yup, more “guide on the side” stuff.
As for homework, “the one-size-fits-all [model] mandated in today’s schools is largely counterproductive,” Shusterman says in a slide presentation he uses to sell his idea. School for Tomorrow will have a home reading requirement and “encourage and support individualized, student-initiated homework.”
Mainstream education can learn a thing or two from successful homeschoolers. But if this kind of radically student-centered model is what you’re after, why pay $25,000 for what you can get at home for free?
Surprise Update. Alan Shusterman responds in the comments section. He turns out to be quite well-versed on Core Knowledge–and his school will have a core curriculum after all.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
God help us… especially us who are low income minorities and who don’t have the political clout to prevent this nonsense from happening. No where in the WORLD is there a country that uses this method alone to great results. Structure, and being able to work within it is crucial. Once these kids graduate to get jobs, I hope they know no one will be bending over backward to let them do what they wish. Even entrepreneurs need to be able to create structured environments. Ugh.
In the home schooling community, this type of student-directed learning is known as “unschooling.” I am not an unschooler; in fact I followed the Core Knowledge Sequence for my children, and found it to be flexible enough. The gentleman is holding an interesting collection of books in his arms, including Bill Bennett’s The Educated Child, so I’m not going to write him off completely. The big difference between his school and actual home-schoolers is, of course, that parents are quite successfully home schooling their children for far less than $25,000 per year. In fact, the far upper end might be $2500 per year, and quite a few manage it for $250.
Ha! Good catch, Morgan. I hadn’t even looked at the stack o’ books. Now that I do, I see Strategies That Work, a standard text preaching comprehension strategies and “metacognition.” That alone would frighten me off. Do high school students at $25K schools still need to practice reading strategies?
With a $25,000 tuition, I don’t think we need to worry too much about its affect on low-income kids.
But as for the why pay $25K when you can home-school for free argument…
First, home-schooling is not “free.” It relies on the volunteer labor of a parent, usually a mother, and unless you have more than one child, the “opportunity cost” of homeschooling is likely to be at least $25K, and more if you consider the career disruption of taking a few years off to home-school your child.
Two, it addresses what is to me a significant educational argument against either home-schooling, or un-schooling, which is that I may not be the best teacher, or even guide-on-the-side for my child’s temperament, talents or interests. I *want* my child learning art from people who are better artists than I am, and literature from people with broader tastes.
That school is not a choice I would make for my child, but I’m not going to worry a whole lot if people with $25K a year to spend on tuition chose it for their children.
I certainly share Carol’s disdain for Schusterman’s school, but I don’t think it would be to anyone’s advantage to prevent the nonsense, political clout or not. The rich waste their money in many ways. This is certainly not the worst, probably not even close. I think it’s a safe bet that the kids will turn out okay. Advantaged kids tend to be bright and adaptable and can thrive in spite of a lot of nonsense. Schusterman would like his school to be a beacon for others. It won’t be, or course. It will be pretty much a repeat Dewey’s school of a century ago. Did we learn anything from that?
Actually that is a very good question. Did we learn anything from Dewey’s school of a century ago? Well, I didn’t, but I haven’t tried yet. I presume there is a ton of documentation of what went on in Dewey’s school, but I doubt that I will ever have the time to become familiar with it. It just doesn’t seem promising - not worth the effort. If there was anything to learn there, anything substantial and beneficial I mean, surely ed schools would have seized on it many decades ago (in a serious and substantial way I mean, not just rhetoric). I can’t see that this has happened. On my limited knowledge I seem forced to the conclusion that advantaged kids will do okay in an environment that would be ineffective and harmful to disadvantaged kids, but that proves nothing, so let Schusterman enjoy his adventure.
If Schusterman would like to really prove that his ideals and methods work for less advantaged kids, perhaps he could bring some unpromising kids to his school on scholarship. However to prove the general case, that his ideals and methods have widespread applicability, would still be difficult. There are lots of confounding factors.
But it would seem to me that we ought to have plenty of evidence already that Schusterman’s methods don’t work for disadvantaged kids. Haven’t there been legions of idealistic teachers trying his methods for over a century? Haven’t we learned anything for their experience? My guess is that all their experiences have never been collected, analyzed, and put together into meaningful research, and therefore are dismissed by the educational establishment. But isn’t Schusterman reinventing the wheel for about the zillionth time
It seems like a waste, a terrible waste. But that’s life. However, if you want to learn from an idealist who did learn from his own experience let me suggest http://garyrubinstein.teachfor.us/ . I just discovered this blog the other day and I think it is very promising.
Hello, fellow Core Knowledge fans.
This is THE Alan Shusterman you are talking about (or should it be, “about whom you are talking”?). Your comments are a painful reminder of the limitations of even a seemingly positive news article. Inevitably, at best, the reader only gets part of the story. This is in no way meant to be a criticism of Mr. Mathews. It’s just that, particularly given the limited space allotted, it goes with the territory — especially when the subject is one that doesn’t fit easily with people’s long-held assumptions.
I’m unfortunately too tired to address all of the criticisms that have been brought up so far. Furthermore, I have been flooded with e-mails and telephone messages that I’m still in the middle of responding to. But I couldn’t resist taking the time and energy to at least say hello and throw a few thoughts out there.
I wasn’t kidding when I referred to myself above as a Core Knowledge fan. I very much relied on Dr. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Series when I homeschooled my daughter, and regularly recommend it to others. I very much believe in the core knowledge concept. At School for Tomorrow, there will be a required core knowledge curriculum — albeit perhaps not the same as yours. Where the student choice and guide-on-the-side teaching aspects come in are with respect to learning means. Just as critics stereotypically equate Hirsch’s core knowledge approach with rigid, rote memorization (as well as some sort of right wing political agenda), it is easy for people to assume that my approach equates with an “anything goes” education. From what I’ve read, it seems that Dr. Hirsch is open to alternative, innovative learning means. Please correct me if I am wrong.
With respect to your analysis of the books I’m holding in the Washington Post picture, I have to laugh. Indeed, those are all books that I own — about ten out of hundreds. However, I rather randomly pulled them off my shelf at the request of the Post photographer. And just because I own a book doesn’t mean I believe in it — or, for that matter, that I’ve even read it. Of the two books mentioned in this blog, I have skimmed An Educated Child and consider it a valuable resource; I have not yet read Strategies That Work. That’s not to say I won’t find something valuable in the latter when I finally do get to it; I just don’t know yet. As for being pictured holding a Bill Bennett book, I can only imagine that certain other groups out there will suspect me of being some sort of closet right winger out to do who knows what. (Imagine if I had also grabbed some Hirsch and Ravitch off my shelves.)
Finally (it seems I have more energy left in me than I thought), let me address the $25,000 tuition, which is market rate in the D.C. area for private day schools (some now even exceed $30,000). For the reasons stated in the article (as well as others), I chose not to make School for Tomorrow a charter school. I did, however, choose to make it a nonprofit. The reason is that it is my sincere goal to raise enough money to have by far the largest private school financial aid program in the D.C. area. After raising enough funds to cover our start-up costs (which most significantly stem from the cost of leasing space), I intend to raise millions not for a fancy new building (or the like), but to build a huge endowment for financial aid. I truly believe that all students, from all socioeconomic backgrounds, can benefit from School for Tomorrow’s model of secondary education.
Okay. Now I’m starting to fade. Let me end by saying that I respect the passion and commitment that I sense in all of you. If you ever want to reach me directly, the best way is by e-mailing AShusterman.SFT@gmail.com.
Good night. And be well!
Alan
Alan Shusterman
Founder, School for Tomorrow
Another product in a flooded market. A risk for a financial investment let alone a child’s future.
I want to recommend an excellent book which addresses the problems faced by our educational systems, public and private. It also speaks to so-called student-directed learning and the negative results that that have been obtained using that approach. The book is “The Dumbest Generation” by Mark Bauerlein. As a teacher of many years, I have observed the changes taking place in my students in succeeding years (few positive) and have found that my fellow teachers have made the same observations. Mr. Bauerlein lays the problem out very nicely.
Jim Johnson
As a first year homeschooler I applaud Alan Schustersman. He is the type of “THINKER” I want my children to model after. I would gladly pay $25,000 in tuition. Any plans for a School for Tomorrow in Oklahoma City? What are people so afraid of? Our traditional, outdated education system is failing- miserably.
We have been homeschooling for 6 years, and I have four children. We have tried various approaches over the years to find what works.
While I can say the Dewey school has some points,such as child let learning, it also cannot do what unschoolers do well. Children do indeed learn better when following their interests and passions just as adults do. Children learn better when the learning is not arbitrary, but makes sense to them. It can then be applied to real life.
The problem is that you cannot achieve this kind of real life learning in an artificial environment which school of any kind is. Also the ratio of teacher to child must be very small for the teacher to be tuned in and properly respond the the child. It is not a free or cheap way to teach, even at home.
What if your child ,like mine, has suddenly developed an interest in steam engines? A book is only a secondhand way of learning and surely not the best. The best way is to go to see steam engines. This includes a field trip to and old steam train, and shops or tourism attractions that still use steam engines, museums and also for about $80 you can purchase a model steam engine to build. The end result is a 9 year old who completely understands the workings , uses and history. He has read way above his reading level,used math, physics and mechanics. How many 9 year olds that go to school know how to repair and clean the boiler that heats your home?
These things were not learned in a school building, but from many places in the real world. This kind of interest based ,hands on learning can never take place within instututional walls.
Bravo, Kelly! Most of us have spent our lives crippled by limitations placed on us by society. So our brains would rather shut down than to think that sending our children to a place with four walls,with adults telling them what, when, and how to spend their day (sounds like prison) is not whats best.
We have been homeschooling for 8 years. Our 7 children have the opportunity on a daily basis to pursue life,liberty and happiness. Their interest are of most importance to me. I believe that their interest are God given directly related to their talents. So, I don’t waste their time cluttering their minds with uselessness.
God-directed learning has allowed me to see my oldest son fully explore his passions business and computers. At the age of 16 he has an online business and a computer tech business. My 12 year old wants to be in the NBA. At 6′0 260 we recognize the potential. So, we explore with him his possibilities. Private mentoring, research reports involving those he emulates, You would be surprised how much math you can learn teaching a sport. Our younger children are submerged in the world through reading, museums, conversation. And what they want to learn we explore. Rush Limbaugh said it best” he hated school, it was painful! It was prison, nothing inside made me think.”