Let's refer to these things as "the fatal four." These items make the public schools an unpleasant place for the vast majority of us.

But what about…

Private Schools

I've known several people who went to private schools. And in each case, "private" reads "parochial." I've personally never known anyone who's gone to a private, non-religious school.

One of these people was someone I knew quite well. And her recollections of private school weren't any more pleasant than my recollections of public school. She hated it. Her parents, on the other hand, were thrilled with private schooling.

Their reasoning is a common one. They claim that private (parochial) schools provide a better education. The proof is in the pudding, they say, and refer to the statistics showing a higher percentage of kids who go on to college, higher GPAs, higher SAT scores, etc.

What this girl's parents, and many others, don't seem to take into account is this: A private school has total control over who they admit and who they don't. They can reject whomever they wish. A public school cannot. So it's easy for a private school to tailor their student body so that the underachievers simply don't attend their school. A public school, as I've said, can't do that.

Do private schools attract better teachers? It's possible. In many cases, they can afford the better teachers. But many of the best teachers avoid private schools on principle. Had I gone into the field of education, I know I would never have taught in a private school.

And the "fatal four" exist here in private schools, too. Sometimes not to the degree as in public schools, but it's generally not a significant difference. And with parochial schools, there are often additional problems. Kids seldom go to religious schools by their own choice, but by the choice of their parents. And the lessons taught in such settings aren't always in agreement with the student. Creationism, for example, wouldn't sit well with the scientifically inclined student.

Another potential problem with a private school is arrogance. Many children in private schools are the children of wealthy families. And sometimes, that wealth causes snobbery.

For whatever reason, many people see faults with both public and private schools and choose to reject both. Instead, they engage in the practice of…

Home Schooling

As one might expect, home schooling has advantages and disadvantages when compared to more standard methods of schooling.

The advantages are plain to see. A more relaxed learning environment, less competition, and so on. But the disadvantages are just as plain. Very limited interaction with peers, for example. And often, teaching being done by those not well qualified to do so.

A lot is heard of the really negative aspects of home schooling. Typically, these are situations where ultra-conservative parents wish to teach their children in a deeply religious setting. Creationism is taught instead of evolution. Science is grossly downplayed. What results isn't much of an education.

On the other hand, many home schooled children do very well indeed. A friend of mine left public school at a young age and was schooled at home by her mother for several years. At one point, she decided she wanted to return to public school. She would have been a junior, had she stayed in school. But after re-admissions testing, they put her in with the senior class. And I can attest that this is one bright, well-educated girl.

So, all things considered, home schooling doesn't appear to be much better than "traditional" schooling. It's simply different, with its own pros and cons.

But what about…

Alternative Learning

There are quite a handful of alternative learning styles. There are certainly too many to easily list here, and each of them is too complex to adequately sum up, as well. You've certainly heard of some of them. The Montessori Method, the Waldorf Method, and others.

Some of these schools probably have more going for them than traditional education or home schooling. (And some don't. The Waldorf Schools, for example, are nothing more than indoctrination centers for anthroposophy.) Many alternative schools focus on well-rounded individualism and are far more nurturing than traditional education. The drawbacks? Well, the drawback that leaps out to me is one that is shared by all the others already listed, though I've not named it before. That drawback is this: being taught.

If I've lost you, that's okay. I'll explain.

The one thing that all educational methods seem to have in common is that the students are taught information by an instructor of some sort. And though this may seem like the most sensible thing in the world, it really isn't.

Think back for a moment, if you will. Though you may not remember much, if anything, from your earliest years (meaning before you started school), you learned quite a bit then. By the time you entered school, of whatever sort, you already had a whole lot of information in your tiny head. How did you learn it?

You taught yourself.

And what about after school? Once you got out of high school or college, or even if you dropped out of school. Once you were outside of those halls of education, did you stop learning? I doubt it. I know I didn't. In fact, the things I've learned since getting out of school have been astounding in their intensity and variety.

And I learned them myself.

Self-education is the best education. Why? Because when you're learning something that you want to learn, you pay more attention to it. You have a passion for it. It means more to you.

Wouldn't it be great if there were an educational method that was based on that? Well, there is.

The Sudbury Model

Thirty years ago, a group of people started a school in Massachusetts, The Sudbury Valley School. These were people who knew the drawbacks of all the "normal" models of education, and most of the "alternative" models, as well.

They knew that to learn best, you had to want to learn. You had to have an environment that was as natural as possible. You had to learn what you wanted to learn, and do it at your own pace. You needed to be free of the fatal four, and lots of other things, too.

The result was an experiment that has been wildly successful, spawning many other schools based on its philosophies all over the world. But it's amazing how few people know about it.

And many who hear of it think it's a joke, that it's ridiculous and possibly dangerous. And if I were to have only looked at the surface, I might have felt that way, too. Why?

Well, because Sudbury model schools don't have any classes. They don't have any curriculum. In fact, they don't have any teachers. They have few rules, and most of those are just regarding things such as the school budget, health and safety concerns, and so on. The kids run the school.

That's right. The kids run it. SVS is known as a "democratic school," where the kids and the staff have equal say in what is done. And since the kids far outnumber the staff, they effectively run the place.

What else does SVS have? It has kids who are engaging in that which comes naturally to all of us: satisfying their own curiosities.

Kids are insatiably curious, astoundingly creative. But by the time we're in our teens, most of us have had our curiosity maimed and our creativity stomped to death. Most of this is the fault of our school systems, where such things aren't nurtured, but repressed.

Left to their own devices, kids will do incredible things. Sure, they'll horse around a lot. But they'll learn a lot, too. Way more than you might think.

Learning at democratic schools like Sudbury Valley is based on cooperation, not competition. Whatever a kid wants to learn, he or she learns, whether it's Geography, Genealogy, or Gin Rummy. As most of us have learned as we've aged, knowledge of one thing leads to interest in another.

Many kids, for example, take an interest in dinosaurs at some point. I know I sure did. Study of dinosaurs will show the theory that their extinction was caused by the impact of a comet or meteor on earth, which produced enough dust in the atmosphere that it blocked out sunlight. Plants died, therefore animals died, including dinosaurs. This knowledge now may spark a child's interest in astronomy, or possibly meteorology. Astronomy may lead to a greater interest in mathematics, for better understanding of astronomy. Meteorology similarly may inspire offshoots of interest.

The whole thing is a snowball effect. One thing leads to another, and the next thing you know, you've got a kid with a wide variety of interests and a large amount of knowledge. Just what you want from a school.

It would take me several times the space I've already used to really explain how this type of school works, and why. But it does. SVS graduates are very well-rounded people. Those who choose to go on to college almost always get into their first school of choice, even if that college is Harvard or Yale or other ivy league schools.

I urge you to visit their web site and those of the many schools based on SVS (they provide a list for you). Read the many articles found there and see for yourself how a natural, nurturing environment free from artificial structures and external coercion succeeds in making well-educated, happy, productive kids.

Unschooling

Unschooling is a sort of "home version" of the Sudbury model. It, too, has no set structure, no lesson plans, and so on. The kids are free to learn what they wish to learn. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but I feel there are advantages to doing this outside of the home. Interaction with people outside one's family, in a learning environment, is a very positive thing. Also, the schools will more likely be able to procure more learning tools than the typical family or unschooling network. In short, it's probably the next-best-thing to the Sudbury model.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out the obvious: I care a lot about education... certainly more now than when I was in school. I'd have given a lot to have been able to attend a school such as Sudbury Valley. And I would never let my future kids attend any school other than one based on SVS.