I am going to spare you my usual bullshit and give you a window into a world not many of us get to see. One of my projects is the study of elite prep schools here in New York City. I have done a lot of reading, spoken with experts, visited many schools, met with teachers, administrators, students, and parents, and sat in on classes. These are the schools that feed the Ivy Leagues, the schools attended by the children of the most wealthy and talented. Tonight I got to go to a group 2nd grade teacher meeting.
One of my areas of interest to compare and contrast the teaching methods and results of the city’s gifted and talented programs with the elite prep schools. New York City has at least three of four high schools that are up there with the best prep schools in terms of test results and admissions to the best colleges, yet the way they achieve those results is radically different. Although the public school kids learn to read and do advanced math and take tests, intellectually the prep school kids are many years ahead of them by 7th grade. I’ve been looking into the lower grades to see how this occurs. The answer, of course, is primarily money and the teaching skills that money can buy.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dissing the top public school teachers. They are very good at what they do. It’s just that in addition to hiring more than twice as many teachers that do more or less what the public school teachers do, the elite schools also hire other teachers that do a whole lot more.
Tonight, for example, we started out with the primary teachers in the main classroom. They explained what the children were doing and how those things were necessary building blocks for more advanced activities. Then we went to the music class where the music teacher explained what the children were doing and how those things were necessary building blocks for advanced activities, and how the music knowledge and exercises were integrated with the rest of the curriculum. Then we went to the Dance class where the instructor explained what the children were doing, how those things were necessary building blocks for advanced activities, and how the dance practice was integrated with the rest of the curriculum. Then we went to the art class where the instructor explained what the children were doing, how those things were necessary building blocks for advanced activities, and how art was integrated with the rest of the curriculum. Then we went to the Library where the librarians explained the same thing, then the Gym class where the Gym teachers went from individual details to the big, integrated picture.
And finally we met the Poetry teacher who very eloquently explained his subject the same way. The children were learning all kinds of different forms short of iambic pentameter, but clearly paving the road in that direction. I don’t remember all the names of the names of the forms. I spent maybe 2 hours on poetry through 7th grade and it never go much beyond, "roses are red, and ready for plucking. Betty's sixteen, and ready for high school," or the like.
I'm not making the arguemnt that the teaching of the various arts are good because they may help with reading, writing, and math. Apparently there are no definitive studies in that regard. I agree with the arguent in the previous link, that they are good in and of themselves. As they say, no one argues that history is a worthy subject only to the extent that it helps an increase in students' proficiency in other subjects.
Anyway, this poetry teacher had a bit more to say and it tells you a lot about the difference between these very elite schools and every place else.
"Some of your children will go on to study poetry all the way through high school," he said, "but most will concentrate on other things. Some will write plays, some will write novels, others will become physicists, mathematicians, doctors, actors, or film directors. But they will all come out of the lower school understanding poetry. They will get it. And when they are in high school or college, they will be able to read a poem, discuss it intelligently and write about it if called to do so."
They really will go on to do those things and I will tell you something. I went into this project with a bad attitude towards these schools. The Ivy League and other top universities have produced the majority of the scum that are fucking up our country so badly and I expected to find the seeds of that in the lower grades of the elite prep schools. But that has not been the case.
Of course I have not been to all of them. I have not been to Exeter, which produced George W. Bush, but nothing I have seen in other top schools even begins to explain how a person could come out of them as such a twisted, pathetic, genuinely stupid human being. The only lesson I can draw in that regard is that the blame falls falls on the parents, not the schools.
I guess there will always be worthless assholes, no matter where they go to school, but that's a different issue.
The larger problem is not that the elite schools can buy such great education, it is that the other 99.5 percent of the schools cannot. Please excuse me for dragging out the old warhorse of all education related complaints, but we are literally spending trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to make the world a more stupid, violent, and dangerous place. And how many trillions more for the defense budget? For a “defense” that endangers us all?
Why can’t we spend that money to give all schools, or as many as possible, the resources of the elite schools? That would do more for national security, and religious values for that matter, than 99 percent of all the missile systems and nuclear bombs in the world.
Okay, okay, enough with the rhetorical questions. The reasons for the distribution of resources in our society is not a mystery and I gotta go to work in the morning. Good night.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_the_prep.html
How is your study of elite prep schools going? I find this an interesting subject as well. Just an FYI: you can't compare private elite prep schools to public schools. They are not designed to do the same thing. The government schools were designed from the beginning to produce obedient, conforming employees and a manageable ignorant citizenry. They have done an excellent job at this task. This information is very well documented by John Taylor Gatto, Charlotte Iserbyt, Samuel Blumenfeld, and others. The elite prep schools were designed to educate, to produce leaders of the masses, people who can actually THINK. The prep schools ARE currently being infected with the religion of multiculturalism as the above link describes. You are wrong in your premise that the difference is funding. It really costs little to educate in the classics, teach logic, etc. The books are public domain, the classical method time tested and proven. In fact it is John Taylor Gatto's contention that it is much CHEAPER to really educate than to indoctrinate as the government schools do.
Did you do a comparison on wage scales between the two sectors of teachers, including benefits?
Thanks for the great links. I remember reading Gatto's article in Harper's awhile back and will make an effort to find and read his new book.
ReplyDeleteThe article about the diversity police mentality in prep schools is scary. My personal experience (for what little that's worth in the grand scheme of things) is that race is not an issue among the kids and I hate to see it pressed on them from the perspective the article describes. My kids' school has nothing like that and the cafeteria tables are not at all segregated.
My daughter did, however, in a different program, go through a year of intensive studies that emphasized black history. As far as I can tell, it had no effect on her whatsoever beyond the positive effect one would get from any well-taught inquiry. But it was all Frederick Douglas, William Wright and Ralph Ellison-type stuff, not contemporary academic work pushing identity politics,
I whole-heartedly agree with the premise that the identity politics described in the article are insanely destructive on every level, save perhaps the employability of the people who push them. I hate to equate that with what you call the religion of multiculturalism however. I've traveled a lot and lived and studied abroad and continue to live a somewhat multicultural existence. I see nothing but good in gaining some understanding of cultural differences and recommend it for everybody. Is what I see as such a great thing what the multiculturalists are teaching in school? Probably not, but it would be nice to have a terminology that distinguishes between something that's genuinely beneficial and the destructive identity politics of which I think you speak.
Regarding my contention that money matters in education, I'm afraid I'll have to ask your pardon. Most of my articles on chuckling on-line magazine are essentially first drafts that would benefit immensely from more work and (oh how I wish) a professional editor. I am aware that public school teachers make a lot more than private school teachers on average, both in salary and benefits. I also understand that teaching logic, algebra, English lit, and other classic liberal arts does not require a lot of money. In the article above, I was mainly thinking of the various arts facilities and science labs. The elite schools have incredible theaters with professional sound and lighting, provide real canvas and oils for their painting classes, they provide violins, cellos, guitars or whatever for their music classes and the science labs lack nothing. The extent to which those perks actually benefit students is debatable, but those are areas where money unquestionably makes a huge difference.
But yes, any school with the wherewithal could, and should, teach logic, critical thought, the classics, etc., as do the elite schools. I don't doubt that Gatto pretty much has it pegged.