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.

Jim Johnson

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

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.

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.