Why I Don't Do Thomas Jefferson Education

Reason #6: The Promise is Sold, but Never Delivered

2008-09-11T20:51:00.032-06:00

Whether TJEd delivers on its promise to produce leaders is the final proof of it being "leadership education." Regardless of all the books, seminars, classes, certifications, organizations, blogs, and forums, if it doesn't produce leaders like it promises, then it's not something I would want to do for my children.

What is the promise of TJEd?
No doubt there are benefits to reading the classics, regardless of why a person reads them. But DeMille offers plain promises to parents that do TJEd and "Leadership Education."

"Parents, teachers and educators who choose to become and mentor leaders will construct the future. Our purpose in this book is to invite you to be one of these pivotal figures." Leadership Education, p.2

"The leaders of the future will come from schools, homes, colleges, universities and organizations where classics, mentors, and other elements of Thomas Jefferson Education are cherished and seriously pursued." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.113

"Where are the new American Founders of the Twenty-first Century? None of us know who those statesmen will be. But this I do know - the great statesmen and stateswomen of the future will be prepared through the Five Pillars of Statesmanship." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.133

"If you do these things well, your fourteen-year-olds will beg for a Leadership Education like Thomas Jefferson got and you will be ready to help attain it." Leadership Education, p.30

"Give yourself time to let the ideas for facilitating and providing an environment conducive to Leadership Education sink in...It may be a little painful and discomfiting, at first, but the tasty, delicious, soul satisfying fruit will be worth it. We promise." Leadership Education, p.124

"When the day comes that you are called upon for what the world calls "greater things," you will see clearly that they are no greater than the things you did at home. By the way, that call will come. If you have paid the price of greatness in the next phase of your education - the everyday-life phase - you will become great, and you will be called upon to change the world." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.112 (emphasis original)

The promise that DeMille sells is that TJEd, if you do it correctly, will produce the leaders of the future. Of course maybe not everyone who has a "Thomas Jefferson Education" will end up being a leader, but leaders will come out of parents doing TJEd. This will happen, DeMille promises, if you implement the Seven (now Eight) Keys of Great Teaching.

Who buys the promise of TJEd?
In my observation, those who are already familiar with the classics do not buy the promise. I don't mean "experts." I mean those who have actually done what DeMille talks about in becoming familiar with the great works. Rather, those who are unfamiliar with them and don't have much experience with the great ideas in the classics are the ones that believe DeMille. I think it's like a salesman selling a new exercise machine to the public. He gets an attractive and fit model who smiles and demonstrates how to use the machine, as if she became fit by using the machine. If anyone challenges the salesman, he just responds, "well, ma'am, how much do you weigh? What is your dress size?" as if your challenge was not valid unless you had already achieved the fitness that the salesman promised you would achieve by using his machine.

I believe this is what DeMille does when people challenge his "leadership education" methods.

"Plutarch, Gibbon, Toynbee, Durant. Have you heard of these authors? Have you read them? If not, they are a great start to your study of history. You must study if you plan to teach.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p8.2

"If you are wondering how to get students to read Newton, you are asking the wrong question. The question is: Have you read Newton? If you haven’t, you’ve got some homework.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.85

"In a seminar, right about now I would likely be hearing the question again: "But how do I actually do this?" Almost every time people ask this specific question, they are either happy with the process and just want to improve, or they are struggling with the process because they aren’t personally reading the classics. Consider a typical dialogue: "
"But how do I actually do it?"
"How are you doing it now?"
"Well, he reads lots of books, many of them classics."
"Do you read them too?"
"Well, some of them."
"Okay, which ones have you read this month?"
The question is usually followed by a nervous silence, then:
"Okay, I know the classics thing. But how do we really make this work?"
"You read the classic. Your student reads the classic. You discuss it. He writes a report on it and you discuss it together. He gives an oral report to the class or family and you discuss that. You get other classmates or family members to read it and you meet for a group discussion. But of course none or this works unless you read it."
"But what about things like math?"
"Exactly the same. I assume you are asking me because a student of yours is struggling with math, right?"
"Right. He reads classics and lots of things but I can’t get him to read math classics."
"What was the last math classic or textbook that you read?"
"Uh..."
Almost nobody has an answer for this. If you haven’t read math classics, it’s almost impossible to teach math through the classics." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.72

"If you don’t read math classics, how can inspire him to read them? You can’t? The answer to the question, “How do I actually do it?” is that you get started. You don’t have to be an expert to teach well, you don’t have to have a degree or years of experience teaching the subject, but you do have to read the classics, get excited about them, and pass your enthusiasm and new knowledge to the student.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.73

I wish someone would say, "I am familiar with the classics, and I have read many of them recently. When I try to discuss them with my child, he doesn't really seem to understand them very well, or seem very interested in them. What do I do now?"

That attractive and fit model demonstrating the exercise machine didn't get fit using that machine. If you ask her in private what she does to get and stay fit, you'll get a different story. In fact she may tell you that the machine is a total waste of time, or might actually be harmful to you. So then you have to make a decision to either trust the model who already has the results you want, or the salesman who is merely promising you the results you want.

Martin Cothran recently wrote an article about whether the Harry Potter books were dangerous for children to read because of all the witchcraft and wizardry. His response was, “Absolutely. In fact,...all literature is dangerous." And the way you deal with that is to be well-read. "Literature is dangerous except when taken in large doses," he says. I love that statement. We are more vulnerable to ideas that are new to us when we don't have much in us to evaluate the new idea against. Cothran writes,

"Many parents of my generation will remember the fellow students they ran into in college during the 1970s and 80s who were hijacked by the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. These were people who left home and came to college where they encountered Rand's novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and were captivated by Rand's egoistic ideology. Why were they so swept away? For one reason: they hadn't read anything else. By and large, these were people who were not well-read in the first place. They were ignorant of the great books, and so, in encountering Rand, they mistakenly concluded that they had come in contact with great thinking. They were not used to ideas, and so, to use G. K. Chesterton's words, Rand's one idea went to their heads like 'one glass of wine to a starving man.'" - Martin Cothran (source)

I believe this is what has happened to a lot of people that got swept into the TJEd movement. DeMille's ideas of reading classics and not pushing the student and returning to the old ways of educating leaders struck a chord with them and aroused a desire for the realization of the promise, but they weren't able to do a very careful evaluation of what DeMille was proposing because they really hadn't come across these ideas before. They bought the promise that TJEd would create leaders out of their children, and now they are doing everything they can to realize that promise, regardless of the results they are actually seeing.

But it's even worse than that. Even after people try to do TJEd, they are told there is yet more they need to do in order to do it right. The more you learn about TJEd, the more you learn that it is very complex and there are so many things you need to do in order to do it right. It's like you can never actually be successful at doing it. The goalposts keep moving, and new requirements keep getting added (like an "Eighth Key").

Now it takes a year or more to figure it out.

"We have found that in order to internalize, comprehend and successfully apply the Phases of Learning, a family must have been working on the process of getting off the conveyor belt for about a year or more." Leadership Education, p.38

If it's not working, you are probably doing it wrong.

"The Leadership model of education is counter-intuitive to the conveyor belt approach. Most parents educated on the conveyor belt try to apply it in precisely the wrong way. To apply Leadership Education successfully it is necessary to listen closely to those who have mastered the system and work hard to duplicate both the content and, especially, the methods of experienced leadership mentors." Leadership Education, p.30

"Also be aware that in most cases when the Scholar struggles or abandons Scholar Phase, it is because of obstacles placed by the very parents who were so anxious that this time should arrive." Leadership Education, p.182

It you struggle, just "trust the process." The "leaders" know this:

"Leaders will remember lessons of Core and 'trust the process,' knowing that its fruits are worth its labors." Leadership Education, p.266

"Give yourself time to let the ideas for facilitating and providing an environment conducive to Leadership Education sink in...It may be a little painful and discomfiting, at first, but the tasty, delicious, soul satisfying fruit will be worth it. We promise." Leadership Education, p.124

If you still struggle, maybe it's just parenting that's hard, not TJEd.

"It is easy to ascribe our feelings of inadequacy to the inherent challenges in our Leadership Education agenda. But could it just be that parenting is such a high stakes endeavor that we are constantly in awe of the magnitude of our responsibility?" Leadership Education, p.5

There's no way to disprove the effectiveness of TJEd with all this. "Leaders" know to "trust the process" (quitters don't I suppose). You may just have to wait longer (like a year). Remember this is how all great leaders were trained (not true). You are not doing the "essential" aspects of "Leadership Education" (like the FEC and bookshelf). You are inspirational enough (although that's probably because this isn't working). And any problems are with you, not TJEd.

What has happened is that the true goal of TJEd, creating leaders, has been supplanted with something else: doing TJEd well. Parents don't seem to be looking for children who are leaders as the models to follow, but rather who is doing TJEd the best. The standard is not how well does TJEd create leaders, but how well do parents do TJEd. This has led to the creation of all sorts of ways to measure and indicate "success" in doing TJEd, while putting the original promise of TJEd aside.

What's the point of "certification?"
As I go to homeschool conferences and browse seminars and courses online and talk to people involved in TJEd, I find a lot of "training" and "inspiration" about doing TJEd. I see moms "doing their 5 Pillars" which is a certification from George Wythe College that indicates that you know how to do "Leadership Education."

"Certification endorses an individual’s knowledge and ability in the Classics/Mentors approach to teaching leaders by incorporating all Five Pillars into an overall approach to education—the approach which has trained great leaders from Washington, Jefferson and Abigail Adams to Lincoln, Churchill and Gandhi." online page at George Wythe College

Now, why does anyone have to certify that a person is a mentor, or is proficient in their "knowledge and ability" in using the classics and mentors? Leaders have to be certified? Mentors too? I thought the whole point was on how to think. Are they certifying people that they know how to think? And why does George Wythe College think they are in any position to be certifying anyone? What are their achievements?

If you look over the "5 Pillar Certification" you will see that it is not free.

Level I Enrollment Fee - $45
Level II Enrollment Fee - $180*
Level III Enrollment Fee - $195

* Level II Enrollment Fee is $30 per month until completed, with
a six month minimum. - from online page at George Wythe College

I have to wonder why it costs money to be "certified" in Leadership Education, especially when GWC does so little in the process (does it really require $45 to fill out a form, and $30 a month for you to be studying on your own?). But not only do you have to pay money at each level, but you must attend their seminars.

In Level I,

Attend the seminar “Face to Face with Greatness: A Thomas Jefferson Education.”

In Level II

Attend the seminar “Face to Face with Greatness: The Power of Mentoring the Classics.”

In Level III

Attend either of the following seminars*:

Face to Face with Greatness: World Views and the Emerging State
Statesman Retreat: Rethinking Leadership

And how much do these seminars costs? Around $165 per person, depending on your situation and when you schedule a seat (see this page for an example).

But if you look over the requirements, you basically have to read some novels and a few books on education (including A Thomas Jefferson Education), submit book reports on these novels or talk about them with a friend, pay GWC money and attend some of their seminars. That's basically it. Then you are "certified." They don't even require you to read any "classics." (Hey wait, what are require-ments doing in Leadership Education?)

Oh, and by the way, your certification is only good for two years, then you have to recertify.

RECERTIFICATION
Educators must re-certify every two years by attending and completing any GWU seminar.

I really don't see any value in getting your "5 Pillar Certification." In fact, it's almost an insult to anyone trying to learn the classics, and it is inconsistent with what DeMille argues you should do with you own child. But people use this as some sort of indication of...something (I can tell you what it indicates to me). I see in the bio for Angela Baker who spoke at the Latter-day Saint Eastern Home Educator Conference that she is "5 Pillar certified" (source). I see moms discussing their "5 Pillar Certification" and how they are working towards it (source). Why are parents, who supposed are "off the conveyor belt" which teaches them "what to think," just shifting over to another system that teaches them what to think and how to educate their child?

George Wythe College is even pursuing accreditation (source, and here DeMille says in 1999 that they were trying to become accredited by 2002). I don't understand why a "Leadership Education" College wants to be accredited by the "conveyor belt" system.

All these organizations
To those unfamiliar with TJEd, you may notice all the kids' groups, mom's clubs, businesses, foundations, and even schools established to "promote leadership education in the home" or something similar.

Here is a quick list:

The Liber League
HomeFires
Leadership Education Mentoring Institute (LEMI)
Moor House Academy
Wings of Eagles Organization, Inc.
Art of Womanhood
Liberty Girls
Knights of Freedom
Young American Stateswomen Association
Statesmanship Club

...and on and on. DeMille says that in the Mission Phase,

"Leadership Education demands of the adult two new things, not just one. He is required to build two towers...The two towers that he is to build are a family and an organization (as entrepreneur or intrapreneur)." Leadership Education, p. 253 (emphasis original)

These organization are created in large part because of all these parents trying to work on their other "tower." All these moms are trying to be good TJEd moms by starting a club, or a group, or a business that somehow promotes the ideals of TJEd. Most of them appear with a bang and die out, while the successful ones grow and become franchised or chartered, with a fee (see the startup packet for "Knights of Freedom" which is part of the larger "American Youth Leadership Institute"). Now there 's nothing wrong with people trying different efforts to further causes they believe in, and failing to create a successful organization doesn't mean they shouldn't try. But if the motivation to do it is because you think you have to in order to be doing "Leadership Education" correctly, and if so many appear with the same goal and mission and so many fade out so fast, I think that's a pattern indicating a problem. And it seems that the people who started their organizations first are the ones that are the most successful. I would guess that the market for "youth leadership" clubs is probably mostly limited to people doing TJEd and the market is probably already saturated by now. Nevertheless, the ones with the successful clubs are held to be the models, or at least indicating that they are doing TJEd correctly, and supposedly will produce future leaders.

What is "success" in TJEd?
The goals stated in a Thomas Jefferson Education, and Leadership Education, and by George Wythe College are all basically the same: to create the leaders and statesmen of tomorrow. What I see in the TJEd movement, however, is a whole lot of energy and effort in "doing TJEd correctly." The seminars that people put on, the speeches that are given, the retreats, the audio courses, and the online forums seem to all be about doing TJEd and not about getting the results of TJEd. The "experts" and "masters" of TJEd will be happy to hold a seminar to explain what they are doing (for a fee), even if they aren't doing it perfectly. In fact, in my observation, length of time doing TJEd seems to qualify people in telling other people how to do TJEd. Is anyone asking how their kids turned out? About how effective all this really is? Are they asking about whether their kids are becoming leaders at all? That's the point, right?

Where are the leaders?
I did a web search for "George Wythe College alumni" and I didn't find hardly anything. There was a wikipedia entry that got deleted that listed four alumni from George Wythe College: one was Oliver DeMille, one was a woman whose expert testimony in court was discredited, one was the president of GWC, and one was a actually a U.S. Representative, but was recently indicted for funneling money to an Afghan warlord. There's got to be more than this, but I can't find them, and I don't know what they are doing. I only see seminars about doing TJEd and going to GWC. Where are all the leaders that DeMille promised would result from doing TJEd?

When I look to see what current students at GWC are doing, all I can find is that they are "studying" and "preparing to become leaders." But I see GWC setting up a company through which students can sell phone service. Where are all the student entrepreneurs? I'm not faulting students for not being financially successful as a student. I did unpleasant jobs in college. But DeMille promised that if we followed TJEd we would have leaders and children who would be successful in all sorts of fields. Where are the books and articles they publish? The humanitarian efforts they are doing? The public elections they are winning?

George Wythe College was founded in 1992. That's sixteen years ago. The first edition of A Thomas Jefferson Education came out in 2000, eight years ago. Where are the leaders from all this? Why aren't there members of congress, successful businessmen, authors, scholars, or leaders that are the result of this type of education? How much time should be given to people doing TJEd and going to George Wythe College before we can make a determination of whether this education really does produce leaders? The stated goal of TJEd and GWC is to produce leaders, so we should be seeing a higher percentage of GWC graduates as leaders than from other schools. Where are they?

I did not promise, nor do I expect, that TJEd and George Wythe College would produce highly successful people and leaders. But it is what DeMille promises, and what several people in the TJEd movement repeat. This is where the rubber meets the road. "By their fruits ye shall know them." The fruits are not how well someone does TJEd, but how well TJEd produces leaders. It does not.

When all is said and done, this is my final reason: it doesn't work. TJEd is built on a false understanding of the education of Thomas Jefferson, of how past leaders were trained, on what makes a leader, on how children develop, and how family members should interact. Of course the natural consequences of this, the fruits, is that it will not produce leaders at all. The lack of leaders from TJEd is the final proof for me.

And that's why I don't do TJEd.

Reason #5: Wrong Motivators Are Used on Parents to Do TJEd

2008-09-08T07:07:00.063-06:00

The Problem and the Promise
I think few would disagree with DeMille that public schools are not able to help children to deal with the challenges for today. A lot of kids seem to be emerging from the school system as passive and ignorant of many of the great ideas that are found in the great books that humanity has produced. What we need, says DeMille, are more men and women like Thomas Jefferson who have read the classics and have been fostered to lead. This is what resonates with many parents and is something I think most people want.

How you get that to be realized is what DeMille proposes in his Thomas Jefferson Education model that he also calls Leadership Education. He asserts that he has researched the great leaders throughout history, Thomas Jefferson being the ideal, and has discovered what it is that produces great leaders. This is where DeMille has come up with the Seven Keys of Great Teachings, the Phases of Learning, and everything else. If you follow what other great teachers and mentors have done in the past, you will create the needed leaders for our day. This is the promise of DeMille if you follow what he describes as Leadership Education.

In a nutshell
Two big problems I experienced with learning about TJEd is the elitism and fear of failing your responsibility to raise future leaders. There is this sense from DeMille and those that do TJEd (although not all of them) that they have this mission, and that mission involves the rescuing of the country, in fact the world, from ruin. Their children are the chosen generation to save humanity, but only if the parents step up to the plate and do what is required to train them to this calling. This Leadership Education is not for everyone, and in fact is only for the ones that can actually pull it off. If you are a believer, you may become one of the parents of the truly great leaders of the future, but only if you do exactly as they say. If you fail in your attempts, then obviously you are not one of the great parents and your child will not be a great leader. Conversely, you cannot be a great parent or mentor unless you believe in and practice the method's of TJEd, and their is no way your child will become a great leader without TJEd.

They do not care whether outsiders agree with them or not, because if outsiders disagree, that just shows that the outsiders will not be the next great leaders. And since only some will be the next great leaders, then this is not really a problem. TJEd is not for everyone. Only those that recognize the need, the truth of it, and have the will to do it even when it is hard and other people don't understand. In fact, only believers will understand so don't bother listening to non-believers. You should limit your association with non-believers so they don't make you question what you are doing and possibly jeopardize the great mission you were born on earth to do, which includes raising your kids according to the TJEd method that DeMille describes.

They say: Do not screw up your opportunity to raise the leaders of the future. They deserve this education, and all the struggles you experience doing it will be worth it. If there are problems along the way, the problem is with you. You are not being inspirational enough or are deviating from what DeMille says you must do in order for it to work. Your conditioning from public schools is messing up your thinking. Follow what others are doing who claim to be successful doing TJEd and do what they say. Go to seminars if you are having problems. Get your Five Pillar Certification from George Wythe College. And never doubt that this is what all the great leaders throughout history have done. You don't want to screw up your child's destiny, even the world's destiny, do you?

Some might think that I am being harsh or reading too much into what is being said. This is why I include all the quotes below that I think prove my point. Some may also think that I make TJEd sound like it is a religion, and I would agree. I think TJEd is something of a pseudo-religion that is based on a subset of LDS ideas. But what makes it pseudo-religious is not that is is based on anything religious, but that it has religious elements itself: faith that this is the one and only true way, a promise of salvation and a destiny to fulfill, a necessary conversion to the truth and continued allegiance, leaders that are the only ones that can point out the way, and a separation of the chosen people from the profane. Now, for a true religion, this is not a problem. For anything else, it is a problem. However, based on my experience, most people that do TJEd are not really deeply into it and I wouldn't say that they are "true believers" (they usually just like the classics and don't like public schools, so they say they are doing TJEd). But that says nothing about what DeMille says TJEd is and how you should do it, but rather how far people have actually adopted what DeMille has said.

I also realize that some people will think that my criticism of TJEd is like anti-Mormon literature. They might point out about how the LDS church and Joseph Smith received similar criticism from people ever since the church was restored. If that accusation were even true, that would just reinforce my notion that TJEd is pseudo-religious. I am trying to use arguments and logic in my reasons for not doing TJEd. I am not appealing to the authority of the scriptures or declaring TJEd to be some deviation from the "true faith." It's not the newness or difference of TJEd from what I am used to that cause me to not do TJEd. TJEd is an educational approach that has taken on religious aspects. I am criticizing those educational aspects. It's not religious to me. Alma criticized the actions of the people on the Rameumptom, and other times people "reasoned" with others using the scriptures. I am not saying that I am like Alma and people doing TJEd are in need of some redemption. I am just saying that just because someone claims to have the truth and someone else challenges that does not mean it is like anti-Mormon literature. In a free world with free exchange and debate of ideas, you can expect challenges to claims. Feel free to comment here and elsewhere on the claims I make. It's exactly what TJEd needs: more discussion and evaluation of its merits, rather than just its methods.

This blog is about why I don't do TJEd so I am going to explain what I think are the wrong motivators DeMille and others doing TJEd use on parents to get them started in TJEd and staying in TJEd. Obviously some people will disagree, but I think that this will resonate with a lot of other parents who are doing TJEd or considering doing TJEd.

I have grouped many quotes into topics that I feel are wrong motivators. Many quotes could probably go under multiple topics, but I still only put each quote in one topic.

Appealing to pride and elitism
DeMille writes how we should want to be "great."

"Greatness is the second indispensable trait of true leaders; goodness is the first. Both are the function of education." Leadership Education, p.2

"Neither of us remembers much of what we said as we talked there in that parking lot for over an hour about life...paying the price of greatness, much more." Leadership Education, p.150

"Never fear your own greatness" (DeMille quoting Dobson) Leadership Education, p.156

"It isn't a certain set of talents, but rather a choice to develop your own talents, to use classics, mentors, hard work and faith to become great." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.117 (emphasis original)

DeMille also says that we all have a "mission" to perform and that it is our purpose in life.

"Our purpose in life is to find out our genius, the mission God gave us, and to accomplish it...Nothing will have more impact on the future of the world than for each of us to find out why we were born and to do it." Leadership Education, p.282

He says that you will be called on to lead hundreds to millions and that you will affect the world.

"'At some point in your life,' I said, 'you will face a situation where you are in a leadership positions and dozens - maybe thousands or millions - look to you to lead.'" A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.3

"When the day comes that you are called upon for what the world calls "greater things," you will see clearly that they are no greater than the things you did at home. By the way, that call will come. If you have paid the price of greatness in the next phase of your education - the everyday-life phase - you will become great, and you will be called upon to change the world." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.112 (emphasis original)

"Scholar Phase is certainly a personal choice, but the consequences are literally global." Leadership Education, p.223

But those leaders will come only through a Thomas Jefferson Education.

"The leaders of the future will come from schools, homes, colleges, universities and organizations where classics, mentors, and other elements of Thomas Jefferson Education are cherished and seriously pursued." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.113

"Where are the new American Founders of the Twenty-first Century? None of us know who those statesmen will be. But his I do know - the great statesmen and stateswomen of the future will be prepared through the Five Pillars of Statesmanship." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.133

You as a parent could be one of the great mentors of these great leaders.

"Parents, teachers and educators who choose to become and mentor leaders will construct the future. Our purpose in this book is to invite you to be one of these pivotal figures." Leadership Education, p.2

But you should not be swayed by those who do not understand your great destiny.

"There may also be those who discount or undermine your attempts to improve the world, who laugh at your educational or career choices. Let them. And while you let them, quietly set out to serve them." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.111

"Because of this fundamental shift in your paradigm, you may feel the tendency to downplay the process that brought you to this place. And because of your personal power as a leader in Mission Phase, others may feel confused when you try to communicate your vision to them." Leadership Education, p.258

DeMille also relates his dream that some time in the future there will be some bill being voted on in Congress that would drastically change the United States as we know it. No one can believe that such a bill would ever be proposed, but it looks like it will be passed. Some young representative will stand and say, "No," and speak in a convincing way to stop passage of the bill. By the way DeMille describes this in the end of A Thomas Jefferson Education, I think he really believes this will happen and the reason this young man would be in that position and speak to convincingly is because he had an education, like TJEd, that enabled him to do so. While I would hope that this could be the case, the feeling I got when I read that in DeMille's book (A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.139). was more that "you wouldn't want that to be your child and you didn't provide him the necessary education for that, would you?" It's almost a fear that I better do TJEd because that may be my kid's destiny and I don't want to mess it up, especially if it involved saving the country like that.

"Greatness" is definitely not a goal or desire I have for me or my kids. "Goodness," yes, but "greatness," no. I believe that good people will rise and meet the challenges that appear. I think training to be great is putting the cart before the horse. Try to be good and you will do great things if necessary. Cincinnatus and George Washington were both good examples of men who were good, but responded to the call and did great things. Then they both went back to their private lives. They did not train to become great, or even want to be great. Even the Lord said that he accomplishes his ends through small and simple means. I question why DeMille and others in TJEd want to be great.

You are already stupid
If you haven't already had a TJEd education for yourself, you really don't know anything.

"Without a high-quality Scholar and Depth experience, a person is not really educated." Leadership Education, p. 47 (emphasis original)

You must do TJEd for yourself first before you can give your kid a TJEd education.

"If you have not done Scholar Phase (or are not progressing toward it) you simply cannot pass on what you do not have; you cannot inspire principles that you are not living. You can try - you can even teach them - but the inspiration will be fatally lacking." Leadership Education, p.60

You public schooling will cause you to be frustrated with TJEd.

"However, in your efforts to engage in Leadership Education you may have experienced something like this: the power and authenticity of the principles resonated with your core, and you felt inspired that this is the right things for your family. But when you began putting the Legos together you came face-to-face with the Conveyor Belt circuiting of your brain...the mantra of "yeah, but how do I do this?" pounds in your head, and a whirlpool of overwhelm and frustration grows. The Conveyor Belt circuits in your brain begin to spark and short." Leadership Education, p.290

"Some of you may be thinking: "My Mary is just not a leader. she is a good girl, yes, but not a leader." Don't give in to that mindset. It comes from our public socialization..." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.117

I think Mary can just be a nice girl if she wants. She doesn't have to be a leader. She won't be any less valuable to her family, or God, or the community. This reminds me of the speech by Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, that he gave shortly before dying of pancreatic cancer at a fairly young age. He was considered in the top 100 most influential people of 2008 by Time magazine. If you haven't watched his speech, I highly recommend it. He was just a nice guy, living a good life. His example affected people way more than any other "scholar" of the classics. It was because of who he was: just a really good guy. Not a leader.

Education determines whether the students chooses right or wrong
DeMille argues that the way to produce good people is to teach them correctly.

"First, societies are successful when people choose to be good."
...
"Second, people choose to be good when they are taught and believe in good."
...
"Third, the thing which determines how well they are taught is their national books." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.58

There is some truth to this but it is not the whole story, and the part that he leaves out is troubling. It is true that teaching truth has a positive effect on the student. He has more knowledge to be able to determine and understand right and wrong, but his character will decide what to do with that. A national book does not supply the character of an individual. There are many examples of people, even nations, that are taught truth only to disregard it. My major concern with these three observations of DeMille is that if it is true that people choose good if they are taught to be good, then all you have to do to make them good is teach them to be good. If you want good kids, just teach them to be good. And it would then also be true that if a child is not choosing good then that means he was not taught to be good. I think this reduces the responsibility of choice of the child too much and shifts it to his environment.

I think often people will teach children what they think is good with the expectation that the children will result with those adopted ideas. That's getting more into indoctrination than education. A lot of people throughout time thought that people were the result of their environment a little too much, and all that was necessary was correct education. I don't like where that road goes.

If it were as simple as this, that teaching children to be good results in them being good, I think we would have seen the results of that. But we don't. I agree that the odds of children (adults too) choosing good are increased by being taught what is true, but the child at some time will need to decide for himself, and will face critical moments of doubt and decision. So many other factors are involved that no one can claim to have it figured out. People will choose what they will do often regardless of what is taught. God understood that. So I would be real cautious in taking these three ideas that DeMille lists very far. Unfortunately, I see them as part of the foundation of all the other principles that TJEd is built on.

DeMille states that the Conveyor Belt Education (public schools usually) teach a child what to think but a Leadership Education teaching him how to think. It seems contradictory to then state that a Leadership Education will teach the child how to think and then they will choose good. Actually, looking at some of the books in the 100 Classics list in the back of A Thomas Jefferson Education (3 books by Skousen, 3 by C.S. Lewis, 1 by von Mises), I think that is what DeMille would like: that we have students who could to the right conclusions and become leaders of the country. Now, I happen to be a pretty big fan of the three writers that I just mentioned. I think DeMille and I have similar opinions regarding politics and economics, but we have very different ways of getting there, and very different ways of educating children to arrive there, if they choose to at all. And while I like Skousen, Lewis, and von Mises, I realize that they are just men and that truth is independent of them, so I may not have it exactly right and neither might they.

We are doomed without TJEd
It is our only hope.

"Without Leadership Education, no nation maintains its liberty or its prosperity. Without Leadership Education, the two other traditions of education ultimately decline, creating a "dark age" of learning." Leadership Education, p.3

"Eventually without Leadership Education, great and powerful nations decline and lose their influence for good in the world. Without Leadership Education, the future is bleak." Leadership Education, p.3

"The only historically proven solution capable of averting this danger is high quality Leadership Education. The liberty, prosperity and stability of future civilizations are dependent upon the leaders of tomorrow getting a Leadership Education today." Leadership Education, p.4

"America is in desperate need of families and schools that do Scholar Phase." Leadership Education, p.223

I think we have already demonstrated that no one has ever received a TJEd like DeMille describes it, so how could there ever had been freedom anywhere? Regardless, I don't think that a bunch of people with TJEd backgrounds are what guarantees freedom. I think it is good people willing to fight and defend their rights to be free. You can't be totally ignorant it is true, but I don't think TJEd is the magic ingredient. Repeatedly DeMille paints the picture that without TJEd we will lose our freedom. He has the one true path to prevent this.

Leaders determine destiny
DeMille states that the leaders are what has shaped history, not the regular people. If you want to shape history, you must be a leader.

"The education of tomorrow's leaders determines the future. Throughout history, this pattern has been repeated again and again." Leadership Education, p.1

"The education of tomorrow's leaders will determine the future, rather than the education of the masses. Leadership determines destiny." Leadership Education, p.1 (emphasis original)

"To know the leaders of the past is to know the past." Leadership Education, p.1

Of course leaders are influential in history, but I don't think it's correct that the masses don't matter. This creates a division between those "in charge" and those living quiet humble lives, and the line that divides them is pride. It's lowly, then, to not be a leader. You're not doing anything worthwhile or worthy of changing the world. Being a good private person is not enough.

Parents, don't screw this up
As I read Leadership Education, I kept on coming across passages about how the parents always screw up the Leadership Education of their children. The parents were basically responsible to provide a Leadership Education for their children and if they don't do it right, their children won't become leaders. And our children have been entrusted to us so that they can fulfill their destiny. Don't screw that up. If they have a problem, it is because of you. Even feeling like a failure is your problem. You should just be more inspirational.

"Which one do you want for your children? If you want to be in low-income, production, service, government jobs, you ought to be in a conveyor belt school; because that's what it will prepare you for, and it will do it effectively...But if you want more, you'd better get into another system." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.117

"What if youth worked very hard and put in long hours getting a real education and preparing for their life mission? What amazing results could come of making such a reversal in our society? So what is a parent to do?...It is this: be inspirational. Be inspirational. BE INSPIRATIONAL. So much is encompassed in this mandate, and it is the answer to almost every insecurity and complication that arises in the process of having a great classroom or a great home. Be inspirational." Leadership Education, p.23 (emphasis original)

"It is also for the rest of us who want to be up to the task, who worry that we are not, but who try anyway because we know our children were born to make a positive difference in the world." Leadership Education, p.2

"Picture the face of each of your children or grandchildren. Look into their eyes and see what potential is there. If you are like most parents, you will see and feel that they were born to be special, to make a difference. This is not just because you love them; it is because it is true...They deserve the highest quality of education, and it is our responsibility to help them get it." Leadership Education, p.4 (emphasis original)

"Today's children were born to serve and make a huge positive difference in the world, to really lead. We simply must get the them the best possible education." Leadership Education, p.6

"Parents often find it easier to apply the content portions of the Seven Keys of Great Teaching (classics, mentors, structure time) but ignore the leadership methods (simplicity, quality, inspire, YOU). This keeps parents and children stuck on the conveyor belt." Leadership Education, p.38

"There is no need for someone just now learning of these ideas to fell like a failure, or worry that it is too late to make a difference." Leadership Education, p.38

Those darn kids get in the way of you being able to get to the higher phases before you have to start taking care of them.

"It is unfortunate that out society has so few contemporary examples of the true and natural progression of the phases, at least as corresponding to the ages. The result is that very remote few ever reach Depth Phase before having to take on the responsibilities of homemaking and breadwinning. These consuming and primary responsibilities have precluded all but the most determined from achieving the full extent of their mission and reaching their leadership potential while in their prime." Leadership Education, p.55

You wouldn't dare to not give your child this education, would you?

"Even more, they know that their children vitally needed them to have it [their parents to have a true Scholar Phase with 5,000 to 8,000 hours of mentored study]. There are many things vital to your children's well-being that you would not dream of foregoing in the name of finances. You would simply find a way to make it happen...We are spending so much time on this because after fifteen years of promoting Leadership Education or the Thomas Jefferson model, the only people we have seen do it really well are those who get mentors and do the full Scholar Phase study. Remembers, it is "You, not Them." the fact that getting great mentors takes some commitment and that getting a superb education is hard should not deter you from achieving excellence." Leadership Education, p.138

Your child is already broken and only through the right education can you fix him.

"As James Dobson taught, every twelve-year-old boy is a wounded soul, desperate for healing. If and how he heals literally makes the man who will marry your daughter and become the father of your grandchildren. How can you help?" Leadership Education, p.180

You must do it the right way or you'll mess it all up.

"There are Three Indispensable Choices parents should make during each child's Transition Phase. If any of the three is forgotten, or ignored, Transition is slowed down or impacted negatively. And while it may be hard to do all three as well as you would like, understand that good parenting is hard and that doing all three will be worth it." Leadership Education, p.181

Don't fail your child, and the world.

"To be honest, this [The Six Month Inventory] will not do much good unless you are willing to do The Six Month Purge and The Six Month "No" and you will not use it much if you do not have Sunday FECs and interviews. But if you combine these most basic of ingredients, you have the makings of a powerful recipe for superb Leadership Education. Your children deserve it - they were born with important, world-shaping and universe-shifting missions. What a tragedy when their parents fail them by not situating family life so family members can pursue an education that is up to the tasks they have at hand." Leadership Education, p.80

This is a great way to instill some fear and uncertainty in the minds of the parents. They might have thought that they were doing an ok job parenting, but no. In fact, unless they understand the phases and transitions that DeMille's modern educators came up with, and unless the parents have the FECs, arrange the bookshelf and closet correctly, have the yard right, the Annual Ball, etc., etc., they are going to mess it all up. And you wouldn't want to do that, would you? Look into your child's face and tell him that the time and effort and frustrations aren't worth it. And tell that to all the other people your child would have influenced for good, had you given him a Leadership Education.

You can't argue with principles

"Each of the Seven Keys of Great Teaching is based on principle, rather than expediency. When they are applied, learning occurs. When they are ignored or rejected, the quantity and quality of education decreases. "Leadership Education, p. 34 (emphasis original)

"Some things are best taught during a particular phase; it not only goes against nature to work on a different schedule, but very important opportunities might be missed, and this can impact the development of the individual." Leadership Education, p.38

History says so. You can't argue with that
Say it enough times and it must be true.

"This model is based solidly on the experience of great leaders of history and how they were educated - the great statesmen, thinkers, artists, businessmen, generals, historians, philosophers, mathematicians, prophets, sages, composers, and entrepreneurs. 'Success' may be possible without a superb Leadership Eduction, but lasting freedom is not." Leadership Education, p.207

"Leadership Education has a long and successful history as an essential part of any successful nation's educational offerings." Leadership Education, p.5

"What Leadership Education presents is nothing less than an educational and cultural shift, through principles and methods employed by great men and women throughout history. But the transformation experienced through these pages will not be without some pain. It will feel much like traveling through a new country...However the path we walk through this country is tried and true. Great leaders and countless great citizens have been invited by trusted mentors to walk this way." Leadership Education, p.289

One thing that I suggest people ask themselves is, "If this were not the education that Thomas Jefferson or other leaders received, would you still do it?" If you answer, no, then you probably are only doing it because DeMille says this is how the other leaders were trained. You are just going on DeMille's word. People, especially conservatives, are pretty reluctant to try anything that seems to deviate from tradition or what they are convinced is the "right" way to do things. That is often a shortcoming that should be overcome and can stand in the way of true progress (or restoration), but it also can be a way to remain steadfast in true principles. It all depends on what the issue at hand is. But sometimes people will merely state that what they are professing is in fact the old way, and that what you think is the old way, really isn't. Sometimes people will only believe "new doctrines" if they are told they are the "old doctrines."

"Trust the process"
After repeatedly hammering the point that DeMille's Leadership Education is what all great leaders throughout history have had (which is not true at all), he then tells you to just "trust the process." It will produce leaders. Don't question the process.

"Trust the process..." Leadership Education, p.195

"Leaders will remember lessons of Core and 'trust the process,' knowing that its fruits are worth its labors." Leadership Education, p.266

If it get's difficult and you wonder if it is really what you should do, it's probably just the difficulty of parenting, not the process, that you are experiencing.

"It is easy to ascribe our feelings of inadequacy to the inherent challenges in our Leadership Education agenda. But could it just be that parenting is such a high stakes endeavor that we are constantly in awe of the magnitude of our responsibility?" Leadership Education, p.5

Don't worry if this isn't working for you. It may take a year or more. Have you been doing it at least a year? If not, then that's your problem.

"We have found that in order to internalize, comprehend and successfully apply the Phases of Learning, a family must have been working on the process of getting off the conveyor belt for about a year or more." Leadership Education, p.38

"Give yourself time to let the ideas for facilitating and providing an environment conducive to Leadership Education sink in...It may be a little painful and discomfiting, at first, but the tasty, delicious, soul satisfying fruit will be worth it. We promise." Leadership Education, p.124

If it all seems too hard, that's not because there is anything wrong with the process. That's a normal condition of doing the process. Consider that as evidence that the process is working.

"At the same time, in our society, we seem to be perfectly comfortable with torturing our little kids with stress and tears in the name of "what is best for their education," yet we somehow reject the notion that crying real tears in the process of getting a Scholar-level education for ourselves might be worth it. IT IS!" Leadership Education, p.131

"The transition between each phase is marked with disorientation, confusion, discontent, yearning for change, and feelings of disconnection from past phases and frustrations with life." Leadership Education, p.254

Why would you "trust the process?" Do you believe the process will produce leaders? If you do, you are going on faith, since there is no evidence anywhere ever that DeMille's Leadership Education produces leaders (where are they?). I might trust the process if I observed a whole bunch of leaders coming out of the process. Without that, no way would I trust the process (I might try it out, though). DeMille telling the reader to "trust the process" I think is just an attempt to prevent people questioning whether there is any merit to the process at all.

Do as we say
You can't read A Thomas Jefferson Education and know how to do TJEd. That book states the problem with public schools and the presents the promise of DeMille's TJEd to create leaders. In order to actually create the leaders through TJEd, you will have to follow what the TJEd experts say to do. You cannot figure it out on your own. Don't deviate from what the TJEd experts say, or it won't work.

"The Leadership model of education is counter-intuitive to the conveyor belt approach. Most parents educated on the conveyor belt try to apply it in precisely the wrong way. To apply Leadership Education successfully it it necessary to listen closely to those who have mastered the system and work hard to duplicate both the content and, especially, the methods of experienced leadership mentors." Leadership Education, p.30

"First, you can just keep trying for years, learning from trial and error what works and what doesn't. We have seen this work for dozens of families, but it takes a long time - and it is stressful. The second way is to learn from those who have already done it successfully - in the classics, in books such as this one, in seminars and conferences specific to Leadership Education, or directly from friends or acquaintances who have successfully applied Leadership Education for some time." Leadership Education, p.39

"One cannot modify the details of Leadership Education without also modifying the outcome. The principles we enumerate below do not pretend to be everything to everyone, but they are what they are - A Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.59

It's even better to follow other people new to TJEd than others not in TJEd even if they are successful.

"In fact, if in the selection of a mentor one had to choose between someone very knowledgeable but low in vision or passion, and one who is just getting started on an aggressive learning curve with a mentor of his own, we would personally prefer the individual who is exemplifying self-education over the one who seems dormant, if accomplished." Leadership Education, p.37

Don't listen to other people who might lead you astray or cause you to waver.

"Trusting [your feelings] means applying principles according to the vision and counsel of the FEC and not allowing other voices to incite you to second guess your hard won inspiration." Leadership Education, p.181

"Be cautious when you become aware that your feelings can be characterized as "fear," "guilt," "pride," or some other self-centered, basically negative emotion or motivation. If these elements enter in, your feelings and impressions need to be double checked with FEC so that you do not subconsciously apply your past experience in place of your new vision." Leadership Education, p.182

For something sold as a "leadership" education, there sure seems to be a lot of emphasis on doing what DeMille and other TJEd experts say (and I thought you weren't supposed to listen to "so-called experts"). Apparently no one can really figure all this out without DeMille and a few other parents who have "mastered" this. Again, how we ever had any leaders in history is a mystery to me if this is what they had to do and not screw it all up.

If there is a problem, it is with you (You're doing it wrong)
It seems that parents are the biggest roadblock to the success of TJEd. They are always doing it wrong, not being inspirational enough, letting the conveyor-belt conditioning cause them to question what they are doing, or they are too lazy to put in the necessary work to create the great leaders of tomorrow, or they are just not doing what DeMille says they need to do. If you have any problems, it is you. Focus on you. If your kid is not learning, you are the problem. Look at all the other parents who are "successful" in doing TJEd. They are optimistic. They are exciting. Their children are motivated. They do interesting things. They will be the leaders. Be like them. Just be happy!

"Your success here depends so much on your vision and your expectations...If you expect every day to fit a mold, you will be disappointed and frustrated. If you expect the process to work, you will be richly rewarded. Immerse yourself in the principles, live a life that is inspirational in its simplicity and commitment, and have a vision of what you are trying to accomplish that informs your choices along the way. Be confident and joyful!" Leadership Education, p.61 (emphasis original)

"This is what teaching means; it is what teaching is. When teachers inspire, students study." Leadership Education, p.86

"The answer to the question, 'How do I actually do it?' is that you get started." A Thomas Jefferson Education p.73 (emphasis original)

"Plutarch, Gibbon, Toynbee, Durant. Have you heard of these authors? Have you read them? If not, they are a great start to your study of history. You must study if you plan to teach." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.82

"If you are wondering how to get students to read Newton, you are asking the wrong question. The question is: Have you read Newton? If you haven't, you've got some homework." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.85

"The sad reason that people think that Love of Learning is 'easy' is that they have been brainwashed by the conveyor belt. When they hear 'Inspire, not Require,' their brains are so conditioned against combining 'inspire' with 'education' that they actually go home remembering something very much like 'ignore, not require.'" Leadership Education, p.86

"[If you don't separate entertainment and family rooms] you will be one of those wondering why this system did not work instead of those who know it works through repeated successful experiences." Leadership Education, p.111

"Nothing hurts Foundational and Educational phases like extra stuff around the house which consistently and very silently robs energy and focus from your education and your time with the kids." Leadership Education, p.113

"The basic source of inspiration for achieving a Leadership Education is mission. Those who know they have a mission desire to prepare for it - to do the hard work necessary to get the needed education." Leadership Education, p.143

"There is a growing number of families whose parents have gotten ahead of the game (actually, who did things in a more convenient time and season) and are ready for Depth Phase when the children come. In any case, a child in Transition needs to see her parents setting the example. Your children need to see you actively progressing in your current phase during Transition." Leadership Education, p.181 (emphasis original)

"Leadership Education comes naturally in homes where the parents are on the Leadership Path...Remember that you are the expert on your home and your children; trust your feelings and impressions more than the views of the so-called experts, neighbors or extended family members." Leadership Education, p.181

"Also be aware that in most cases when the Scholar struggles or abandons Scholar Phase, it is because of obstacles placed by the very parents who were so anxious that this time should arrive." Leadership Education, p.182

"'Look,' he says, 'my dad won't let me study all the that time, okay! just back off. I'm doing the best I can. I have to mow the lawn, help with the dishes. My dad says he's sick of me just sitting around reading all the time. He says I'm old enough to help, to get my lazy butt off the couch and do something constructive. He wonders what's gotten into me anyway, just sitting around reading, not even hanging with my friends anymore. He's sick of it. So, if you gotta problem, you talk to my dad. Not me, okay?!' He stalks out...The story speaks for itself. We have taken license with some of the details, but we heard the story repeated over and over. When we ask homeschooled youth, they tell the same story. It might be true in your home. They cannot get a Scholar education if you will not let them." Leadership Education, p.215

"The true test of leadership is grandparenting. Everything else falls short...All of us need to start grandparenting as soon as we are in Scholar Phase. Puberty is the call to grandparenting, to begin preparing a better world for your future grandchildren." Leadership Education, p.283

"I can do this! And so can any other dad. I especially love the section that teaches me how to help my kids through the scholar phase. It will take effort, but it's worth it!" -Andrew Goft, Leadership Education, back cover

Exaggerated claims and promises

"If you do these things well, your fourteen-year-olds will beg for a Leadership Education like Thomas Jefferson got and you will be ready to help them attain it." Leadership Education, p.30

They will, huh?

"Thousands of parents, in numbers growing larger each day, have fourteen-year-olds who beg to study ten-hour days and follow through. These parents are full of testimonials about Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.55

Thousands? There are thousands of parents who have fourteen-year-olds who "beg" to study ten-hour days? And they can testify about this education? Will 100 of them please post a comment stating that you have a fourteen-year-old who begs to study ten-hour days? And will you "testify" that this education is actually producing results, that is, producing leaders in the community? Thanks.

Fake examples
Several times DeMille talks about the importance of example. I think everyone agrees that good examples make a huge difference, but only when people are not trying to be an example. When someone is being a good example to you for example's sake, then you see it as fake, disingenuous. You would think that the person is only doing that to convince you of something, but it isn't something they would do otherwise.

Imagine saying to a child, "Now sit here and watch me be a good example of being nice to this person. Did you see that?" The child is not going to observe an example of helping those in need, but rather of pretending to be a good example to impress on people things you want them to do. So much for not letting your right hand know what your left hand is doing. It's much more powerful if you just are a good person and you do good things regardless of what your kid will observe. Your kid will catch on that you should do good things regardless of whether anyone knows or is watching, maybe especially if they aren't. Setting up "times for examples" is not setting a good example at all in my opinion.

"[In the afternoons] Mom now has time to set the example of Scholar, Depth or Mission Phase, depending on where she is at...when fingers get too cold from the snow or pants too full of sand, little feet trudge back into the house to find Mom reading from a current bestseller or with a worn classic on her lap, following up on family duties, studying Hebrew or French, researching current events online or corresponding with one of her many friends, or on the phone arranging a service opportunity. In such examples, lessons are taught. Afternoons are for setting the example, and interruptions from little people are welcome." Leadership Education, p.84

"In the heat of the afternoon, Scholars read while Core and Love of Learners watch the example of Scholar and Depth parents and older siblings." Leadership Education, p.94

In a similar vein, DeMille states how kids are impressed with showy things, excitement, and hype. I think they are more impressed when they observe true character in action.

"When our children see other young people who really love learning, who share what they are studying, who excitedly tell stories about the things they are reading, who amaze them with their imagination, wit, vocabulary and prowess, something happens inside them." Leadership Education, p.101

Don't deny the faith

"The pull of the conveyor belt is very strong for parents who were schooled in that system—which is most parents today. When the temptation to return to requiring, textbooks, canned curriculum, and even public school arises, we as parents must go back to those feelings present when we first felt that TJEd was right for our family. We can trust that desire to give our children a chance to become truly educated, great men and women of character who will someday change the world. Our children have important missions to fulfill, And parents are equipped to help them live up to those missions. But we have to trust our hearts, our feelings, those whisperings from God.
Trusting the process yields the best results for a true Leadership Education. Just keep moving forward on the path you have chosen." The Thomas Jefferson Consortium
"A young mother told Rachel, 'I keep feeling like I should sit down on the floor with my five-year-old and read him books a lot more, but that would ruin my scholar phase.' By all means, 'ruin' your scholar phase - if that is the right thing to do. If not, then do not." Leadership Education, p.263

"Trusting [your feelings] means applying principles according to the vision and counsel of the FEC and not allowing other voices to incite you to second guess your hard won inspiration." Leadership Education, p.181

"Be cautious when you become aware that your feelings can be characterized as "fear," "guilt," "pride," or some other self-centered, basically negative emotion or motivation. If these elements enter in, your feelings and impressions need to be double checked with FEC so that you do not subconsciously apply your past experience in place of your new vision." Leadership Education, p.182

I don't think that it's only "conveyor belt conditioning" that causes people to question TJEd. It's not just that a mom might be tempted to do something else and cause her to forgo her destiny of training leaders. Those feelings of "fear" or "guilt" and those "other voices" might be telling you to re-evaluate what you are doing. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those feelings.

DeMille seems to have recognized that moms were getting discouraged and stressed trying to do all this. That's why a new "Key of Learning" (Number 8) was added to the original "Seven Keys."

"An important Eighth Key of Great Teaching is 'Secure, not Stressed.'
...
"Being secured instead of stressed about whether Leadership Education is right for you and knowing that you are doing it effectively will not remove all stress from your life, but it will immediately and significantly bring you peace and focus in your educational endeavors." Leadership Education, p.39

Somehow I don't think just adding a new "Key" will change the way people feel. And this Key in particular is not something you do, but is the result of everything else you are doing. You cannot do things that make you stressed and then just "decide" not to be stressed. You have to do something different. I wonder why a new key had to be added if DeMille had already studied the great leaders of history and "codified" the first Seven Keys. I think it's because the natural result of trying to do TJEd as DeMille describes will produce stress, feelings of guilt and disappointment. This is due to defects in the TJEd process itself, not the moms.

A pattern
There is a pattern here of making promises, saying it is simple, and then when people actually try to do it, the goalposts keeping moving, and the challenges and failures are due to the parents, not the TJEd process. And if the parents are thinking about giving up on TJEd, they are told about how their children were born with a special mission and if the parents don't do TJEd the right way, they are going to mess that mission up, and that TJEd is the only way there can leaders that the country needs. All the while, they the parents are bombarded with promises that this will work, and if it doesn't you are doing something wrong. This was a big turn-off to me as I learned about TJEd. It's in the books, and in the seminars, and I've seen some of its effects in people I know that do TJEd. I don't think TJEd is the only way, even the best way, even a good way, to train leaders so right off the bat I question the promise that is being sold. I also can't imagine why the parents have to get "training" or have to find a "mentor" to do TJEd in their own family. I don't think a parent has to go through a "true Scholar Phase" (I also don't believe that there are "Phases" that DeMille describes). I definitely would think that after a year of this if I didn't like the results, I'd try something different, and if I were to experience problems doing this, I'd blame the process, not me. And I think that we need good people more than we need great people, and that I will help my children be good and they will do great things if called upon.

After noticing and these patterns in the TJEd movement, my trust for them is very low. They do not use "motivating" or "inspiring" methods, but rather fear, guilt, and shame after making exaggerated promises. Fear that you are going to mess up creating needed leaders, guilt that you are not putting forth enough effort for your child, and shame for thinking about returning back to the evil "conveyor belt." And one other emotion comes in to play: pride. Pride that your child is going to be truly great, that if you are a parent that can pull this off, you are better than almost all other parents, even those who are trying to do TJEd. If you can pull this off, you will be a great parent and mentor to the great leaders. You will be the example of all other parents struggling to do what you have been able to do. I do sense this pride of those who have "mastered" this (or at least claim to). And I have also sense that other parents feel discouragement that they just can't seem to get it to work for them, even though it does work for others. These parents just keep trying because they believe in the promise, and they don't want to let their children down. So they keep doing TJEd. This is not for me.

Maybe I am just a hateful little man ragging on TJEd
Maybe this is all just my opinion and I'm just some guy that doesn't like TJEd for some strange reason. Maybe TJEd is just "like the gospel" and is full of truth. After all my reasons I have posted and the effort I have gone through to explain them, there is still one reason left that just might trump all the others: Where are the results? Where are the fruits? Where are these leaders that should be coming out of TJEd? DeMille has given us the promise that if we do what he says we will produce leaders. Where are they?

This is actually my Reason #6...

Reason #4: Doing TJEd as DeMille Describes Would Be Harmful to My Family

2008-09-06T20:00:00.040-06:00

DeMille states that to do "Leadership Education" effectively, you need to listen to the advice of those who have been successful at it and if you stray from what they say, you may not end up with the results you want. He argues that if you went to public school (the conveyor belt), most likely you will face difficulty in abandoning incorrect ideas and adopting correct ideas about education.

"The Leadership model of education is counter-intuitive to the conveyor belt approach. Most parents on the conveyor belt try to apply it in precisely the wrong way. To apply Leadership Education successfully it is necessary to listen closely to those who have mastered the system and work hard to duplicate both the content and, especially, the methods of experienced leadership mentors.
...
If you do these things well, your fourteen-year-olds will beg for a Leadership Education like Thomas Jefferson got and you will be ready to help attain it." Leadership Education, p.30

"One cannot modify the details of Leadership Education without also modifying the outcome. The principles we enumerate below do not pretend to be everything to everyone, but they are what they are - A Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.59

There are several ingredients to a Leadership Education that DeMille describes. Each Phase of Learning will have different ingredients, although there are some ingredients that span all phases. First though, if you are a parent and want to help you child through all the phases correctly, you first must have gone through all the phases correctly yourself. If you haven't, you need to make yourself go through them before trying to give your child a Leadership Education.

"If you have not done Scholar Phase (or are not progressing toward it) you simply cannot pass on what you do not have; you cannot inspire principles that you are not living. You can try - you can even teach - but the inspiration will be fatally lacking." Leadership Education, p.60

Once you have gone through the phases (or are least progressing ahead of your children), then you can implement the necessary ingredients. I will discuss some of them. These ingredients, DeMille claims, have been used successfully by many families throughout history. You be the judge if this is true.

"These ingredients have been used by many of the great parents of history, but unfortunately are too infrequently discussed in our day." Leadership Education, p.62

The Family Executive Committee (FEC)
I believe of course that Sundays are important days to rest and worship. These are days to spend with the family or doing service and going to church. I don't have any problem with DeMille declaring "Sundays" to be the first ingredient. It's what you are supposed to do on Sunday that I have a problem with, and the organizations you are supposed to have. DeMille calls the first ingredient "Sundays" but all he talks about in this ingredient is the FEC.

"Sunday is the day that makes it all work. Each Sunday we hold out Family Executive Committee (FEC) meeting. The family members who attend this meeting are Mom and Dad. Both are full voting partners, and we consider our unanimity in prayerful decisions to constitute a vote from God.
...
The FEC establishes long-term family policy including assignments and rules, and it the highest authority in the family. By assignment of our FEC, Dad presides at the meeting. He is responsible for announcing and convening it, preparing the agenda, and keeping the meeting running smoothly." Leadership Education, p.62

This does not sound right to me. Setting aside time to meet with your wife and discuss the calendar and talking about the kids is great. Referring to it as the "FEC" and having an agenda seems a little overboard to me. But it gets worse...

"Rachel tries to limit her entries on the agenda to issues specifically within her stewardship. It may refer to Dad's stewardship, but only as it affects her ability to do hers...Any concerns that she has that actually fall under Oliver's stewardship she prefers to take to God in prayer, and He and Oliver tend to work it out." Leadership Education, p.63

This is disturbing to me. Not only are they calling their marriage the "FEC" but the wife can't even bring up anything her husband is responsible for! This is a great recipe for manipulation.

The FEC is referred as "the FEC" by the DeMilles as if it were really something separate from them, or something that "some committee out there" does. All through the Leadership Education book, there are references to "taking this to the FEC," or not challenging something after it has been "decided by the FEC." For example,

"FEC has been also been helpful in conflict resolution. If a disagreement arises during the week that could lead to an argument, either of us has the prerogative to "refer it to committee," meaning the Family Executive Committee. This means that further discussion must wait a minimum of 24 hours and must take place in the context of an FEC which can be convened especially for this issue, if necessary." Leadership Education, p. 64

I don't know why they can't talk it out when the issue arises, or later that night. But they have to wait 24 hours? Doesn't really sound like a loving close relationship to me. It's not what I would want. I've been married for more than a couple weeks and we don't have any problems talking things out.

It's concerning to me to see how DeMille uses the FEC with his wife:

"After another pregnancy we were thrilled to welcome America Esther...[Rachel's] health continued to decline to the point that for several weeks the children were in other people's care as much as they were in our own. At this point she [Rachel] was humbled enough to accept what Oliver had been urging her to understand: she had to say 'no.'
...
When she was faced with literal exhaustion, she happily allowed Oliver to take her through an exercise - a list of commitments followed by a Six Month "No" - which resulted in meaningful changes in her schedule over several weeks time.
...
Often in a family, one spouse thinks she can do everything, and one is savvy to limitations. Be trusting to the counsel of the savvy one, and utilize the FEC to set limits and make decisions." Leadership Education, p.78, 79

Apparently Rachel should have just listened to the FEC.

It should be noted that the FEC is not a meeting, but an actual committee that does things including meetings. DeMille often refers to what the FEC does:

"This can turn Mom into a minivan chauffeur and leave the home fires untended. It is very important that the FEC set boundaries to curb this trend." Leadership Education, p.100

"But their sister Eliza started piano lessons at the age of 7 while still in Core Phase because the FEC decided in one of our Sunday meetings and after much discussion that this would be best for her." Leadership Education, p.115

"The FEC spent hours and hours putting the details together." Leadership Education, p.118

"Under FEC advisement, set up an educational plan and demand follow through from yourself." Leadership Education, p.126 (emphasis original)

"An Inventory will most likely reveal the issue at hand, and the FEC can prescribe the solution." Leadership Education, p.141

"Of course, this requires communication so that gifts are not given that do not meet FEC approval." Leadership Education, p.147

"We know of many good books and mentors that can assist a family who feels like they need to emphasize improved health habits and principles as a part of their family culture and education plan. If this applies to you, seek one out and use the FEC to apply the advice you receive.'" Leadership Education, p.176

"It means applying principles according to the vision and counsel of the FEC and not allowing other voices to incite you to second guess your hard won inspiration." Leadership Education, p.181

"If these elements enter in, your feelings and impression need to be double checked with the FEC so that you do not subconsciously apply your past experience in place of your new vision." Leadership Education, p.182

"In other words, the FEC (Family Executive Council) should consider these issues and set policy for them." Leadership Education, p.195

"Employ the FEC to choose what is right for your family." Leadership Education, p.197

"Then quit worrying about a timeline that is not inspired and FEC-endorsed and go in search of one that is." Leadership Education, p.198

"Danger lurks not because the recommendations are necessarily ill-considered or patently wrong, but because they threaten to unseat the Family Executive Council and thus imperil all decisions and roles." Leadership Education, p.261 (emphasis original)

The FEC even decides on the morning activities and deviations are not allowed.

"Any deviation from the routine [family morning activities] should be considered carefully and almost without exception should receive prior approval from the FEC." Leadership Education, p.70

Mom is half of the FEC, right? She can't make changes to the morning activities without the approval of...her husband, since he's the other person in the FEC.

Parents planning the week, talking about each child, even calling it a committee meeting if they want is ok to me, but extending the use of such a meeting and referring to it beyond this use as if it were some external thing seems unnecessary to me. It sounds more like a way for the parents to distance themselves from the decisions they make, as if some of these things were out of their hands. Imploring God's help is good too, but I don't think I would consider a unanimous decision by the father and mother to necessarily constitute endorsement from God. That's a little presumptuous, and suggests that whatever Mom and Dad agree on is what God wants. Referring to decisions made by "the FEC" that have the approval of God because both parents were in agreement and that can't be changed without approval of the FEC makes it pretty hard to challenge anything the parents decide, even for the parents, but especially the wife, since she can only address things under her stewardship.

Maybe this is all just something the DeMilles do and it works for them? That would be fine, except:

"The first ingredient - truly the most important ingredient - of successful Core and Love of Learning environments is the weekly FEC followed by quality interviews." Leadership Education, p.66

So, if you don't have an FEC with you husband or wife, and if you don't have your weekly meetings, you're not doing Leadership Education, at least not doing it correctly. I have no idea why anyone would think this is what Thomas Jefferson's parents did or George Wythe, but there it is.

Family "callings"
The FEC calls children to specific assignments and duties. DeMille talks about how one of his daughters was "called" to a specific task in the home.

"We select such callings in FEC and meet with the youth in a personal Sunday interview to "call" them to the responsibility. We make it voluntary. But they understand what the FEC is and how it works, so they virtually always say "yes" and they do their best (with some inspiring and encouragement of course). They may bring up concerns for the FEC to consider, but they consider the decision on the FEC binding. Parents may readily see the importance of earning that sacred trust and being careful not to manipulate things in the name of the FEC.

Following their acceptance of the duty, the family votes their support of the family member's calling in full Family Council. So far we have never had a calling rejected or voted down. When we make a change, we vote to release them from a previous calling in Family Council so everyone always knows who is called to what." Leadership Education, p.122

They don't live in a "family." They live in a "ward." LDS people will immediately recognize that this is how LDS wards operate. But this is a family, not a group of families getting together to make the ward work.

The other day I was telling my kids that they get their allowance because I get paid for the work I do. We are a team. They do some things more than me, like put the dishes away from the dishwasher, and Mommy does some things more than anyone else, like cook, and Daddy does some things more than anyone else, like take out the trash and make money so we have a place to live and can buy food. But we do it for all of us. We are not exclusive in our responsibilities. I do the dishes, just not as often as the kids. Mommy takes out the trash sometimes, just not as often as Daddy. Since I make money for the family, and they are just kids, I give them some of what I make so they can spend it on some things they like, just like I do. I spend money on things like the house and car, but I also get things I want for me. I told them that I am sharing some of what I make with them. I give them their allowance when I get paid. I think they understand better now that when I go to work, I go to work for the whole family, because we are a team. When they put the dishes away, they do it for the whole family. It's not that some people do some things, other people do others; it's that we work out what how we can do things for the family, and some people may do some things more often than others.

Now this is just what we do in my family. I don't claim it to be based on any principle for anything. But it makes way more sense to me, and I think it helps us be more kind and willing to do chores and things than we would otherwise. DeMille's methods make me shudder. I would hate to be in a family that operates like a corporation or a ward. I want a Mom and a Dad, not an FEC. I want to just help Mom, not be "called" to do something.

The Bookshelf and the Closet
DeMille says that two very important aspects in the home doing Leadership Education is the bookshelf and the closet. Not just having a bookshelf, but arranging it in a certain way.

'The bookshelf should stand in the family room, the room where the family gathers each morning to study together.
...
Strangely enough, even something as simple as a bookshelf can, by the way it is organized, either reinforce the conveyor belt or leverage a leadership-style education.
...
The Leadership Education bookshelf is very distinct...At the very top of this bookshelf, the books are arranged neatly on the shelves, organized by topic and arranged by subject, size and\or color. In short, Scholar shelves would look good in an attorney's office.
...
Scholar shelves are high and can only be reached by youth and adults...Core Phasers cannot even reach the Scholar shelves without climbing on something.
...
Below the Scholar shelves are the Love of Learning shelves, eclectically sporting books of all size, shapes and subjects, arranged haphazardly but neatly through the middle section of the shelf." Leadership Education, p.107

The Love of Learning shelf is supposed to be kind of messy, and if Grandma straightens the shelf, you should mess it back up.

"In fact, if a well-meaning grandparent or housekeeper does arrange them in order, an early afternoon activity is made of dumping them all out on the floor and re-shelving them by random delight. This is very important." Leadership Education, p. 107

The physical arrangement and height of the shelves is of utmost importance:

"It is very important for Core Phasers to look up and wish they could reach the books above, and for Love of Learners to feel the reach as they peek into one of the top shelves. The bookshelf should be in the room where everyone sits and studies." Leadership Education, p.108

This is just another suggestion by DeMille, right? Something that works well in his family? No:

"This ingredient is essential for the Core and Love of Learning success and for ensuring a Leadership Education learning environment." Leadership Education, p.108

The closet must have things in there that the children can get to. It should be arranged like the bookshelf with the things for the Core Phasers at the bottom, Love of Learning things on the shelf above that, and Scholar Phase things at the top. It should be open during the day, and closed and locked up at night. Is this just another suggestion by DeMille?

"The closet is a vital ingredient of success in Core and Love of Learning Phases, and without a quality, well-stocked closet, the Foundational Phases might be lacking." Leadership Education, p.109

What does the arrangement of a bookshelf and a closet have anything to do with the great leaders in history? Did they all have these? Is there a "Leadership Education closet" at Thomas Jefferson's boyhood home? Any why are so many things "essential" and "vital" that have nothing to with leadership?

Every piece of minutia is "essential"
The bookshelf and the closet are just two examples of the minutia that DeMille claims is essential for the "proper" environment in the home for Leadership Education. DeMille lists over and over things that you must do in your home that are "vital," or "essential," or "important" for Leadership Education.

"The morning routine is very important for Core and Love of Learning students." Leadership Education, p.67

"The Six Month Purge is essential, even for those who do not struggle at all with keeping the house clean." Leadership Education, p.76

"We teach the Six Month Purge and The Six Month 'No' so that The Six Month Inventory will happen, because when it does, a great education will occur and a leader will be trained." Leadership Education, p.80

"The Annual Break is a key ingredient to any off-the-conveyor-belt family." Leadership Education, p.83

"The binder is a very important part of Love of Learning Phase..." Leadership Education, p.102

"Field trips are very important in Core and Love of Learning..." Leadership Education, p.103

"Separation of entertainment and family rooms is vital to successful Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.111

"Leadership Education homes need a donation box..." Leadership Education, p.111

"It may seem like we are overstating the case, but this ingredient [the Storage Box] is very important." Leadership Education, p.113

"In short, your yard matters when you are raising and educating leaders." Leadership Education, p.128

"As we have said several times in this article, real work is the key to training leaders, and it must start at an early age...And real chores that require hard work and are truly necessary to the family are a vital ingredient in a Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.130, 131

"It is essential to teach the young person the entire educational model over and over." Leadership Education, p.132

"Whatever your family's national book, making it a central part of daily education is vital to Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.134

"Finally, it is essential that you clarify what your mission is and align your life to be actively pursuing it." Leadership Education, p.144

"At least one such friend is invaluable to a Leadership home." Leadership Education, p.144

"If you truly want your child to succeed in his mission, to be happy and fulfilled in life, be sure to give him full parental focus in the Core Phase curriculum during these vital years." Leadership Education, p.146

"During the Sixth Month Inventory it is essential to say "Yes" to your own education..."Leadership Education, p.148

How many things can be "essential?"

The Scholar Phase is really messed up
You may have forgotten that this all started with DeMille giving accolades to the education of Thomas Jefferson and how we need children study the classics so they will become the great leaders of the future. We've gone way off course it seems when we get in to FECs, bookshelves, and closets, but the Scholar Phase will make it all come rushing back.

Remember that the first two Phases of Learning are Core, where you learn right from wrong, and Love of Learning, where you just adopt such a love to learn that you can hardly contain yourself. You are not supposed to give the child any formal instruction before the Scholar Phase, because like Piaget said, it will be wasted, and it might prevent the child from becoming a self-learner and have that thirst for knowledge.

First, DeMille states that there are actually four levels within the Scholar Phase itself. The child is not supposed to go into the Scholar Phase until she is dying to do it. You the parent are supposed to set up a special meeting with the student to discuss the "transition" to this new phase. The meeting is supposed to be exciting, maybe a picnic or something. You tell the child that she soon will be going into "The Scholar Phase" but she gets to choose when she gets to go. Then you are supposed to drop the subject for awhile.

"For the child who is ready to progress into Scholar, your restraint and reassurance will server only to light the fire under her and challenge her to take on the commitments that await her...Tell her how exciting, fun and wonderful it will be." Leadership Education, p.199

Then you go back to treating her as before in the Love of Learning Phase. However, you do give her some "practice days" doing the Scholar Phase. She may not like it, so you just keep her in the Love of Learning Phase until she is really ready to commit. Once she is ready to do Scholar Phase full bore, then you make the transition.

"When he decides to go into Project Level [second level of Scholar Phase, the full-time level], sit down with him and write out a formal agreement." Leadership Education, p.204

The formal agreement includes "Responsibilities" in one column, and "Benefits" on the other. The "Responsibilities" include study schedule and when she will turn in reports. One of the benefits of being in the Scholar Phase is that you don't have to do hardly anything but study. All the chores the student did in the Love of Learning Phase get transferred to someone else.

"As our good friend Cherie Logan put it, 'If you're still doing the housework, you missed your promotion!'" Leadership Education, p.97

"Remember the Scholars are no longer errand-runners and can not be interrupted during Scholar hours - basically 9-5 - unless it is an emergency" Leadership Education, p.201

The Scholar also goes through a sort of bar mitzvah (my description) where the child is announced to be in the Scholar Phase and won't be doing hardly any more chores and will be treated as a young adult instead of a child at home (and this is something that DeMille says should be written in the "Benefits" column in the formal agreement).

"Note that to be treated as a Young Adult in the home might be to include the youth in certain discussions, or when other adults are visiting; outside the home includes finding opportunities to give perks, like - do an adults-only activity (a certain movie, or going to dinner with Mom, Dad and Scholars)." Leadership Education, p.205

Scholars study a lot. That's pretty much all they do.

"The Self-Directed Scholar studies eight to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, ten to twelve months a year for three to four years. This 5,000 to 8,000 hours of intense study builds a huge base of knowledge and skill which can be applied to whatever mission the later adult embarks. This model is based solidly on the experience of great leaders of history and how they were educated." Leadership Education, p.207

"At the time of this writing, young Oliver is almost 17, Emma is 15 and Sara is 14. They study almost all day long. They literally must be interrupted from their studies to eat or to help out when necessary. All day, they study." Leadership Education, p.127

First, notice how DeMille say you should treat your child based on the "Phases of Learning" that he devised that are based on Piaget's, Erikson's, and originally Freud's theories of human development. These "Phases of Learning" are dictating how the parent treats and interacts with the child. Not only does DeMille not show any evidence that these Phases are correct, but there also is no evidence that this is what leaders in history went through (see the blog post on Reason #3).

Second, while many societies have some sort of "coming of age" ritual or acknowledgment, to DeMille this happens when the child begs to be able to study all day. Until they reach that point, they are not allowed to go into the Scholar Phase and they are not treated as a young adult, but rather still as a child. DeMille has a intellectual or academic view of the transformation into adulthood. I'm not sure that's the right place to draw the line.

Third, writing up a formal agreement is unnecessary to me. A formal agreement with a twelve-year-old? Why is that necessary? How exactly is that enforced? Who arbitrates? Obviously the parent has the finally say, so why draw it up with your kid? Can't you just talk to him about it? This is not my idea of a loving parent helping a child through the transformation of puberty. They've got enough to worry about besides whether they are going to break a contract that they made with their parents - excuse me - the FEC.

Fourth, this transition is build up by the parent to the child as being "exciting," like teenage years usually are, but again it's only in academic terms. Aren't there other changes that are part of the development into a young man or woman? Physical, emotional, hormonal, social, etc.? I don't think that the parent should say to the child that it will be "exciting" because they will get to read all day, but because of all the other aspects of developing into adulthood.

Fifth, "graduating" from having to do a lot of chores to no chores doesn't make sense to me. Ever since I've left home someone's had to do the chores. I didn't "graduate" from them in college, or on my mission, or as a bachelor, or as a married man. It's hard to balance everything else you've got to do with doing chores, but they must get done. Sometimes you have to prioritize doing chores or doing homework, or going on a date, or whatever. I don't see how it really gives the child a realistic worldview to say he has "graduated" from doing them.

Sixth, why not include the child in adult discussion regardless of the age? I think judgment should be used with each topic and each child, but an artificial delineation that now he gets to be with the adults and the other "Scholars" again is just built on those phases of learning from psychologists.

Seventh, studying 8 to 12 hours a day is not healthy, especially for teenagers. I don't think it's balanced at all. They need to be able to spend time reading, and pondering, and experimenting, and building, and exploring, and getting out into nature, and working in groups, and being on teams, and practicing musical instruments, and learning home and garden skills, and engaging in debates, etc. I realize that DeMille says that Scholar in fact do these things, but I don't see how they can do that much if they are studying 8 to 12 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week! When do they do extracurriculars? When do they interact with the opposite sex? When do they build things and work on projects? This seems entirely unbalanced to me and focused on academics way too much. But DeMille has a response to this:

"Young people who read all day are not lazy. They are students. And it is tempting to want to help them 'balance' their lives. But compared to the non-scholar generation they are living in, and the level of leadership that will be required to face upcoming generational challenges, these few youth are the 'balance.'" Leadership Education, p. 216 (emphasis original)

So wait, the way to counteract unbalanced youth that are lazy and ignorant and play too much is to have unbalanced youth that don't do anything but read? The answer to unbalanced youth in one extreme is to create unbalanced youth on the opposite extreme? I think the goal is to have each youth be balanced, not try to balance all youthdom by squishing extra amounts of "knowledge" in some youths to the point that there is no room for anything else in them. It's not a cumulative balance across all youth we want, but balance within each youth.

Boy Scouts vs Scholar Phase
Of course kids in the Scholar Phase could do Boy Scouts. What I want to point out are the differences between the philosophies and methods that the Boy Scouts use and what DeMille's Scholar Phase uses. I realizes that this is not exactly comparing apples to apples, but DeMille is promoting a "Leadership Education" which is part of the purpose of Boy Scouts also, so it is relevant I think to compare them.

	Boy Scouts	Scholar Phase
Purpose	The Aims of Scouting: character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. The Purpose is "to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." The Scout Oath is: On my honor, I will do my best To do my duty To God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The Scout Law is: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.	"Tiffany Earl explained the goal of mentoring youth in the Scholar Phase this way: 'I know what this looks like, but I want them to taste it, to feel it, see it, breathe it, smell it. I want them to be with Reuben in the library studying Freud, I want them to be with Newton in the loft of his barn building and calculating. I want the youth to be with Lincoln and a book by the fireplace. They need to feel it!'" Leadership Education, p.197 Transition to Scholar skills include: Take smart risks Don't put yourself down Inner Approval: Don't Emphasize external measures of success Don't complain or whine Don't be judgmental Never get "bored" Learn from mistakes Learn to lose and win well Practice smart self-reliance Choose to feel at peace and serene Realize that life is about smiling Never fear your own greatness Leadership Education, p.156
Method	Camping, hiking, first aid, merit badges, service projects, troop leadership positions, organizing	Studying classics
Leadership Opportunities	Opportunity to be Patrol Leader, Assistant Patrol Leaders, Senior Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Den Chief, Quartermaster, Historian, proposing\planning\organizing\executing Eagle Scout Project	Reading about leaders
Mentoring	At the troop level there is a Scout Committee, Scoutmaster, Assistance Scoutmasters, and Eagle Scouts. Boys are supposed to run the troop with adult shadow leadership overseeing.	A mentor who has gone through the Scholar Phase himself and receives the reports of the Scholar Phase student he mentors. The mentor helps guide the student in areas to study but does not dictate to the student what to learn, how to learn, or how fast to learn. The students discusses what he learns with the mentor.
Advancement	Scouts advance after fulfilling requirements at each Rank. Requirements usually include being active in the organization and activities, demonstrating knowledge and skill of camping and other areas, service project hours, and leadership position in the troop.	Transition Phase is the period when the student moves from Love of Learning to Scholar. The Practice Scholar is when the students gets to try having Scholar Phase days periodically. The Project Scholar is permanently in the Scholar Phase, turning in daily reports on what he has learned. The Self-Directed Scholar studies 8 to 10 hours a day. The Mentored Scholar receives mentoring from outside the home.
Skills learned	camping, swimming, fire-building, cooking, hiking, knot-tying, first aid, orienteering, campfire presentation, scheduling, teaching younger scouts, delegating, responsibility, recruiting, teamwork, reverence, Indian lore, animal and reptile study, conservation, crafts, archery, rifle shooting, wilderness survival, service project organization and execution.	Story acting, task accomplishment, short/long term Perceiving, sequencing, patterns, remembering, creating, organizing - managing time and materials Relationships, popularity, interpersonal politics Intuitive thinking Conceptual, problem-solving, rule-guided, creative from Leadership Education, p.157-158 Reading classics, discussion, oral reports, written reports, field trips

Knowledge is important for leadership development, but I think more important is character development and experience following and leading. We want leaders to be good people, not have read about good people. In order to be a good person, I think it is necessary that one must have followed up their beliefs by action, so helping the child be in situations where he is able to practice and interact with others is absolutely necessary for good character development. Reading about leaders isn't enough. You can't be "book smart" about leadership. I don't know where DeMille gets the notion that the great leaders will come from those who have read about great leaders, but have done little or nothing themselves.

Royalty almost always has sent the princes to the military and have them start at the bottom. They need to know what it's like to be ordered around, to be the subject, and to do the grunt work. They need to know how to work as a team, how to get along with different types of people, how to organize, how to implement backup plans when things go wrong, how to deal with insubordination, how not to be too wimpy or timid or too shy or too obnoxious or too complacent or too boring and unmotivating. I don't see any of this with TJEd or DeMille's "Leadership Education." I see kids reading for way too long, not doing enough activities, not practicing leading and being lead, and merely "discussing" what they learn. I don't think fosters good character development at all. I would not want to follow someone like that. I would much rather follow a Boy Scout that knows how to lead others than a kid that has read in his room for 5,000 hours.

Of course nothing precludes a boy from doing Boy Scouts under DeMille's Leadership Education, but DeMille does not list Boy Scouts as an ingredient to Leadership Education so to him it is not essential but only optional. And DeMille has stated that what he outlines will give your child a Leadership Education, and but deviations might not.

"One cannot modify the details of Leadership Education without also modifying the outcome. The principles we enumerate below do not pretend to be everything to everyone, but they are what they are - A Leadership Education." Leadership Education, p.59

Perhaps Boy Scouts is not an essential part of fostering leaders, but I believe there's got to be something like it, something where the boys and girls practice leading and following, learning skills, organizing, planning, doing things, not just reading about them.

Labels, Labels, Labels
In the Leadership Education book, and in the internet sites, the TJEd classes, and in the speech of parents doing TJEd, there is lots of use of labels for their kids.

Just from flipping through the book I see these over and over and over again:

"our Core Phasers"

"Lover of Learners"

"Scholars"

"Scholar Phase scouts"

"Core and Love of Learning kids"

This is the typical way the kids are referred to. Again, taking those unproven, artificial "Phases of Learning" that DeMille created and using them to define how you refer to your child and how he sees himself.

"When people ask our children what grade they are in, they answer, "Love of Learning," or "Scholar Phase." Then, when questioned, they explain what that means and what they are studying. They do not see themselves as children or teenagers, but as Core Phasers, Love of Learners and Scholars." Leadership Education, p.133

This defines how you see your child. I think it's a shame to refer to your kid as a "Core Phaser." I would never do that. They are who they are and what they are, and using labels is a dangerous for preconceived, and incorrect, notions to affect you and your child's view of who they are. It affect the self-identity of the child and the identity the parent has of the child. Do other people constantly refer to their kids as "their second-grader," "my Tenderfoot Scout," the "deacons in in our family?" Maybe once in awhile if the context suits, but often and repeatedly and as the usual way? But see the reason people who are really doing TJEd use these labels is because they see the kids so fundamentally different in each of these phases that they think their kids are in, that they use these labels to communicate to others what they think their kid is like. Using the names of the phases to describe the phase you think your kid is in would be one thing, but referring to your kid based on the label you think he's in can confine the kid to something that is not accurate. Toss the labels. Your kid is not a "Phase."

Violation of their own principle of "Simplicity, No Complexity"
DeMille has 55 ingredients that he covers in his book Leadership Education. "Some are helpful, others vital" he says. And some of these are fairly involved and complex, like setting up a Mom's School, a Formal Ball, and the Weekly Club. You've got to set up an FEC and have weekly meetings. You've got to know what morning are for, what afternoons are for, what evenings are for. You've got to know what summer is for and what winter is for and what dinner is for. You've got to know how to arrange your house, assign chores, and create committees. You've got to make sure you don't push your kid to ZPD and thwart their desire to learn. You've got to be working on your "Two Towers" which includes creating an organization to promotes these ideas. You've got to know the Phases of Learning (there are sub-Phases too), and you've got to know when you child should be transitioning from one phase to another, and you better not do it wrong or you'll mess them up. Because remember:

"One cannot modify the details of Leadership Education without modifying the outcome." Leadership Education, p.59

Oh, and you need to be going through your own Scholar Phase which takes at least 5000 hours of study, if you haven't already:

"If you already have a college degree, ask yourself whether or not you actually had a true Scholar Phase - 5,000 to 8,000 hours of mentored study of the great classics." Leadership Education, p.136

"If you have not done Scholar Phase (or are not progressing toward it) you simply cannot pass on what you have not done." Leadership Education, p.60

"Without a high-quality Scholar and Depth experience, a person is not really educated." Leadership Education, p.47 (emphasis original)

After doing all this, you will create the leaders of the future. Good Luck! I don't know how we got any leaders in the past, because I don't think anyone can do this (nor do I think they should).

"The Leadership model of education is counter-intuitive to the conveyor belt approach." Leadership Education, p.29

I should say so! And this is supposed to be "self-learning" by the child? No wonder Rachel's health declined "to the point that for several weeks the children were in other people's care as much as they were in her own." Leadership Education, p.78.

But you better do it because:

"'Success' maybe be possible without a superb Leadership Education, but lasting freedom is not." Leadership Education, p.207

"Without Leadership Education, the future is bleak." Leadership Education, p.3

Why would I want to do this to my family?
Enough said.

Reason #3: The Learning Phases are from Modern Child Development Theory

2008-09-04T18:21:00.081-06:00

If you are doing TJEd or thinking about doing TJEd, you really ought to get Leadership Education: the Phases of Learning by Oliver and Rachel van DeMille. You can get it from George Wythe College (gwc.edu) by going to the online Bookstore, then to "GWC Publications." This book goes in depth on the "Leadership Education" that DeMille promotes like no other book or speech or course has before. It is fairly new (published 2008). Tiffany Earl, who is on the Board of Entrepreneurs of George Wythe College, and who is also quoted a few times in the book, has an endorsement on the back of the book:

"I thought I already knew some of this information from articles and seminars, but there is so much new material in this book that I know I'll read it over and over. It is a manual for great education, at every age and stage of life!"-Tiffany Earl, back cover of Leadership Education

Now, if she is surprised at all the new material in this book, then you probably will be too. I would think that learning about the Phases of Learning that DeMille says are integral to Leadership Education is of high importance to the parent doing TJEd. These Phases of Learning are also in the book A Thomas Jefferson Education, but the Leadership Education book goes into much more detail on them.

DeMille claims that there are six Phases of Learning

Core
Love of Learning
Scholar
Depth
Mission
Impact

"With a better understanding of what children need and how they learn and gain optimal development and education in childhood, we are ready to press forward in understanding how to raise the leaders of tomorrow with a Leadership Education. We have examined and hopefully challenged some faulty assumptions about the educational process. This will allows us to see and apply education in a new way." Leadership Education, p.31

Apply education in a "new way?" I thought this was the old way of how leaders were taught throughout history? That turns out not to be the case. These Phases of Learning actually are new. DeMille adopted them from modern theories of childhood development.

"Dewey, Vygotsky, Erikson and Piaget could be called "the four Gospels of modern education." These could be followed up by a collection of essays from other great thinkers, educators and teachers. We think all parents and teachers should read Francis Bacon, John Holt, Maria Montessori, Charlotte Mason, Jacques Barzun, Thomas Jefferson, Mortimer Adler, E.G. West, Glenn Kimber, Howard Gardner, George Wythe, Robert Hutchins and Josiah Bunting.

What is needed is a printing of an educational "bible" (or library) that contains both the original writings of the four gospels of modern education and essays from other authors in a format everyone can read. A "Reformation" will certainly follow. We are not arguing that Dewey's writings are akin to Matthew's or Luke's of the bible, but to consider it in this manner certainly makes a poignant analogy...We believe the educational world will likewise be transformed as the unfiltered wisdom of these great educators is recognized and implemented." Leadership Education, p.29

So who are the writers of these "four gospels of modern education?" Wouldn't that be important to know if you are teaching your child according to their philosophies? You probably have heard of John Dewey, but probably not Lev Vygotsky, Erik Erikson, or Jean Piaget unless you have taken some classes on cognitive development or child psychology. DeMille devotes several pages to these four men and their theories in Chapter 1 of Leadership Education. As part of the due diligence I felt I needed to do in order to really understand TJEd, I read the works of these men and I went through a course of Theories of Human Development from the Teaching Company which covers three of the four men and their ideas. Many of the works of these men are available online and I include links to them as I discuss them below.

1. John Dewey
Dewey has taken a lot of the blame for the failure of modern schools in the United States. His ideas of progressive education have been used as the model in modern education. So why is DeMille promoting him? DeMille claims that there are the real teachings of Dewey on the one hand, and "Deweyism" on the other which is basically mischaracterization and misunderstanding of what Dewey really said and incomplete implementation of his ideas (where have I heard that before).

"Dewey promoted national systemization of education at all levels so that each person would have the opportunity to get the education she needed for her part in society. He differs in various specifics from Washington and Jefferson, but generally agrees with them on this point." Leadership Education, p.15

First, where did Jefferson or Washington say they wanted a national education system that would give each child an education for "her part" in society? Someone please enlighten me on this.

Second, why is this a good thing? I thought we were talking about teaching in the home, not national education systems.

"He [Dewey] said that learning is more influenced by the structure, environment, and the model of education than by its actual curriculum." Leadership Education, p. 15

Well that would be because Dewey didn't care much for academics at all. He felt that the student should just learn to react properly to his environment so that he could function in his proper place in society. Here is Dewey's notions of education in his own words:

"I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.
...
I believe that all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help.
...
I believe that the study of science is educational in so far as it brings out the materials and processes which make social life what it is.
...
I believe that this conception has due regard for both the individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is duly individual because it recognizes the formation of a certain character as the only genuine basis of right living. It is socialistic because it recognizes that this right character is not to be formed by merely individual precept, example, or exhortation, but rather by the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual, and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.
...
I believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and feeling and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs. Through the responses which others make to his own activities he comes to know what these mean in social terms. The value which they have is reflected back into them.
...
I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task.
...
I believe, finally, that the teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life.
I believe that every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling; that he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.
I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God."

- Excerpts from My Pedagogic Creed by John Dewey.

It's not hard to see that Dewey has no concern about individual growth, or reading classics, or mastering anything academic. He states that we need to use schools to train kids how to behave and through this we can change the course of society. How this has any resemblance to "Leadership Education" that "almost all leaders throughout history had" is beyond me.

"Dewey is great reading for teachers from any educational model...Dewey's ideas on good teaching and personalized curriculum were not adopted or applied as much as his structural mode; and the application of the structural elements was perhaps not exactly as he intended." Leadership Education, p. 16,17

The individualized approach to Dewey was only so that you get get the child to more correctly fill his part in society. It was more efficient, not a superior method to train leaders.

2. Lev Vygotsky
DeMille argues that Vygotsky endorsed play:

"Vygotsky was a Russian educational and psychological theorist who came to the United States in the early twentieth century...Vygotsky taught that learning occurs when people play - period." Leadership Education, p.19

Then DeMille goes on to talk about how not allowing the younger kids to have playtime is unhealthy. I'll agree with that, but I'm not sure Vygotsky is really saying that. He was saying that as part of the cognitive development of children, at a very early age they go through a stage where they use play as a stepping stone to further symbol processing and abstract thought. I didn't read anywhere where he said to let the children play so they don't get stressed out. He was studying the normal psychological development in children that happens on its own.

"In speaking of play and its role in the preschooler’s development, we are concerned with two fundamental questions: first, how play itself arises in development – its origin and genesis; second, the role of this developmental activity, which we call play, as a form of development in the child of preschool age.
...
I should like to say that the creation of an imaginary situation is not a fortuitous fact in a child’s life; it is the first effect of the child’s emancipation from situational constraints. The first paradox of play is that the child operates with an alienated meaning in a real situation. The second is that in play he adopts the line of least resistance, i.e., he does what he feels like most because play is connected with pleasure. At the same time, he learns to follow the line of greatest resistance; for by subordinating themselves to rules, children renounce what they want, since subjection to rule and renunciation of spontaneous impulsive action constitute the path to maximum pleasure in play.
...
From the point of view of development, the fact of creating an imaginary situation can be regarded as a means of developing abstract thought. I think that the corresponding development of rules leads to actions on the basis of which the division between work and play becomes possible, a division encountered as a fundamental fact at school age.
...
At school age play does not die away, but permeates the attitude toward reality. It has its own inner continuation in school instruction and work (compulsory activity based on rules). All examinations of the essence of play have shown that in play a new relationship is created between the semantic and the visible – that is, between situations in thought and real situations."

- from Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child by Lev Vygotsky

Vygotsky had another theory called the "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD) which means that there is a level of difficulty for a person that is just beyond their ability do the task themselves, but within their ability if they have assistance. This is the best place to have the student learn, he argued. DeMille argues that this is appropriate for adults, but not for children.

"Vygotsky taught that teachers should observe students playing and intervene at a sign of interest to push them beyond their comfort level. We think Vygotsy was right on - for adults...This model is wrong for young children...In short, the application of ZPD learning in the early years is a disaster." Leadership Education, p.20,21

DeMille then lists things that young children would learn if you used the ZPD method on them:

"1. Learning is what I am forced to do by others when I'd rather be enjoying what I discover myself.
...
5. I am probably wrong about a lot of the stuff I know.
6. I have to master stuff now or I will be behind for the rest of my life."
Leadership Education, p.21

Furthermore, DeMille argues that the child can experience detrimental effects from this:

1. I am really great because I know how to read...
...
3. I'm cooler than _______ because I am reading before him/her.
...
7. Once I am a Mom/Dad I will not have time to study anymore.

Leadership Education, p.21-22

I don't know how DeMille gets those concerns and problem from helping a child do something that stretches them a little. Those concerns just sound like typical concerns homsechoolers have, or any kid. I don't think it really has anything to do with Zygotsky's ZPD theory. Regardless, DeMille's stance on Zygotsy is:

Read Vygotsky and let the kids play. Read him and apply the ZPD concepts in youth and adulthood, not childhood. Leadership Education, p.23

You can read Zygotsky's works on this site. I agree with DeMille that you should read his works, not so much so you read one of the "four gospels of modern education" but so that you understand where DeMille's ideas came from.

3. Erik Erikson
Erik Erikson was a man with Danish ancestry that was adopted by his Jewish stepfather. Erikson had a difficult time trying to figure out where he fit in when he was growing up. He didn't look Jewish with his blond hair so he didn't really fit in there, but he did live with Jewish people so he didn't quite fit in with the Germans either. This shaped his development of the theory of the stages that humans go through in their development. He based his theories largely on Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development.

Freud's theory argued that all humans go through several stages in their development:

The Oral Stage
The Anal Stage
The Phallic Stage
The Latent Period
The Genital Stage

Freud's stages did not go past childhood. Erikson's stages expanded and modified Freud's stages. Erikson's phases go into adulthood, and Erikson transformed Freud's sexual stages in social stages. At each stage the individual is forced to learn and deal with two competing issues. The first five stages corresponded with Freud's five stages:

Trust versus mistrust
Autonomy versus shame and doubt
Initiative versus guilt
Industry versus inferiority
Identity versus role confusion
Intimacy versus isolation
Generativity versus stagnation
Ego integrity versus despair

(see this site for a comparison of Freud's and Erikson's stages)

These are the stages that DeMille lists in Leadership Education and which he recommends that the reader ponder:

"Please take some time to study and ponder Erikson's teachings...As you spend time reflecting on each stage, you should consider some very profound ideas...You may be inclined to just keep reading instead of taking time to study, ponder and personalize the charts. After all, really putting in the effort to think about these two charts and how they apply to our children and to ourselves is hard work. But it is worth it." Leadership Education, p.23, 24, 25

DeMille argues that a person must correctly and successfully negotiate each phase. If there is a problem at one stage then he must at some point go back to that stage, regardless of whatever subsequent stage he may be in, and re-do that earlier phase correctly. This comes straight from Erikson.

"Getting the positive lessons at each stage of development is very important for each student. Erikson says that a person who makes a bad choice during a particular stage can go back later and renegotiate it. But he also taught that that once a person choose the negative in any stage, he will not be able to choose the positives in later stages without first backing up and renegotiating his earlier choice. " Leadership Education, p.25

"Without healthy Foundational Phases [young child years], "cancer" inevitably sets in during the Application Phases [adult years], as even those few who achieve a quality education put it to use on things other than the central purpose of their lives. Sometimes a mid-life crisis during this period sends such people reeling back to Core Phase [first phase for very small children]. Re-starting and creating positive life change will only occur by getting in touch with what religion calls "truth," popular psychology calls "the inner child" and Leadership Education calls Core Phase." Leadership Education, p.33

"Sometimes the normal progression between the phases is compromised due to traumatic experiences, interrupted progress (such as protracted drug use or chronic illness during a period of life), or abuse and neglect. In such cases it may be helpful to carry out an enlightened rescripting of the traumatic events." Leadership Education, p.33

You are starting to see where these "Learning Phases" have come from. It starts with Freud and get modified along the way. DeMille has adopted a model of what healthy mental development is, not education, but psychological and cognitive development. DeMille is using these theories to create a foundation of the optimal way to educate and child.

But there's one more left to discuss...

4. Jean Piaget
Jean Piaget was a Swiss philosopher and development theorist. From a young age he was fascinated by Darwin's Theory of Evolution that explained how species had to adapt:

"Even as a child, Piaget had a strong interest in biology, particularly Darwinian evolution. He was interested in how various species change through adaptation to varied environmental conditions." Theories of Human Development from the Teaching Company, Course Outline, p.18

He also thought that children should learn through self-discovery:

"Piaget’s answer to the American obsession with speeding up development was the following: “Anything you tell a child, you prevent him from discovering for himself.” He believed that if a child developed more slowly, thinking things through on his own, in the long run, he would develop more adaptive, scientific, and logical abilities." Theories of Human Development from the Teaching Company, Course Outline, p.19

So to Piaget, children develop as they come in contact with new information and have to then assimilate this new information and adapt their mental processes to effectively use it. They will most likely face a dilemma of alternatives between different ways to deal with the new information, so the child must work out on their own which alternative is the most beneficial to him.

DeMille endorse these ideas:

"Piaget taught that children only learn when their curiosity is not satisfied. Parents and teachers of young children should spark curiosity and then back - this is their whole role." Leadership Education, p.26

DeMille is arguing that the best way for children to learn is to be placed in an environment that leads to children coming across new information which they then must assimilate. That is the parents' "whole role." This is what DeMille means by "Inspire, Not Require:"

"Piaget warns the parent and teacher not to instruct in a forcefeeding way, but rather to incite interest and then leave the child to the wonder of experimentation and self-discovery. we can not think of a more apt description of one of the Seven Keys of Great Teaching: "Inspire, Not Require." Leadership Education, p.26

DeMille argues Piaget's point that children learn best by figuring out things on their own, and that you as a parent are there to just facilitate them coming across new information and encourage them to keep up the process. (Looking at the new Nursery Manual from the church, I would say that have a different idea).

DeMille also agrees with Piaget to not bother teaching younger children:

"If you spark interest, on the other hand, children will "construct" their own learning and retain the lessons learned throughout their lives. Piaget says expressly that academic instruction is wasted until the child is twelve years old." Leadership Education, p.27

I disagree. I have found much benefit in instructing my kids at young ages. That are capable of learning at their own rate. I don't believe that I should just facilitate them coming across new information and figuring it out themselves. Obviously I don't think you should "push" them to learn things. You need to use wisdom. I teach my kids things I think they should know, which includes some facts and some methods for figuring things out on their own. I was helping some of them with multiplication tables the other day and showing them all the different ways they could figure out the answers if they didn't know it off the tops of their heads. So now if you ask them a multiplication question, if they have it memorized they give you the answer quickly, if not, there will be a pause while they choose from the different ways to figure out the answer in their head, and then they will give you the answer. I taught them how to do that. They might have figured that out for themselves at some point, but I don't think they would then have a superior understanding of those methods. I don't think this prevents them from being able to figure things out on their own, now or in future. I just showed them some ways to figure some things out. Now they can spend their time and effort figuring out how to learn other things on their own. What if we never passed on things we learned, but rather just had everyone figure everything out on their own? I think we'd waste a lot of cycles unnecessarily.

Permit me to make one scriptural reference on the issue of instructing children:

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.
...
28 And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 68: 25, 28

We are not talking about forcefeeding the children data. Piaget says not to waste time instructing children under twelve and DeMille agrees. DeMille does however say that the crucial date of when academic instruction could begin may not be exactly at age twelve:

"We would editorialize here that chronological age is not as important as developmental age. 'Developmentally twelve' might be defined as the onset of puberty." Leadership Education, p.27

Now you may be thinking that Piaget has some good points that we should not push our children and we should let them explore and let them figure out things for themselves, at least some times. That sounds healthy to me and I suspect practically all normal parents would agree. But that's not what Piaget is saying. He is saying that you shouldn't give any instruction and that if you do you deny the child something she would learn. And this is because the child needs to be able to assimilate and adapt new information without interference. DeMille wholeheartedly endorses this, and you will see in the next post how DeMille describes in detail how to implement this to the extreme in while the child is young.

Piaget's stages are:
1. Sensorimotor: (birth to about age 2)

During this stage, the child learns about himself and his environment through motor and reflex actions. Thought derives from sensation and movement. The child learns that he is separate from his environment and that aspects of his environment -- his parents or favorite toy -- continue to exist even though they may be outside the reach of his senses. Teaching for a child in this stage should be geared to the sensorimotor system. You can modify behavior by using the senses: a frown, a stern or soothing voice -- all serve as appropriate techniques.

2. Preoperational: (begins about the time the child starts to talk to about age 7)

Applying his new knowledge of language, the child begins to use symbols to represent objects. Early in this stage he also personifies objects. He is now better able to think about things and events that aren't immediately present. Oriented to the present, the child has difficulty conceptualizing time. His thinking is influenced by fantasy -- the way he'd like things to be -- and he assumes that others see situations from his viewpoint. He takes in information and then changes it in his mind to fit his ideas. Teaching must take into account the child's vivid fantasies and undeveloped sense of time. Using neutral words, body outlines and equipment a child can touch gives him an active role in learning.

3. Concrete: (about first grade to early adolescence)

During this stage, accommodation increases. The child develops an ability to think abstractly and to make rational judgments about concrete or observable phenomena, which in the past he needed to manipulate physically to understand. In teaching this child, giving him the opportunity to ask questions and to explain things back to you allows him to mentally manipulate information.

4. Formal Operations: (adolescence)

This stage brings cognition to its final form. This person no longer requires concrete objects to make rational judgments. At his point, he is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. Teaching for the adolescent may be wide ranging because he'll be able to consider many possibilities from several perspectives.

-from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/piaget.htm

These are the foundational theories of DeMille's Phases of Learning
These are the "four gospels" that every parent should read, according to DeMille. Those of you who are doing TJEd, did you know this? In all your classes and seminars, did you learn this? Are you spending any time at all learning about these theories? Because they are the foundation of what you are doing in your home. DeMille say that he discovered these Phases after studying Thomas Jefferson and after years of research of other leaders.

"These Phases [of Learning] were first noted and identified in our research of the education of Thomas Jefferson, and were later seen to be a pattern of many luminaries in history who lived exemplary lives and changed the world for good.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 31

"A number of years ago I helped found George Wythe College, and one of my first responsibilities was researching just how Wythe mentored Jefferson. From that intensive research, and years of additional reading and studying, I found Seven Keys of Great Teaching which form the core of great mentoring." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 39

I think it's more accurate to say that he discovered these phases after years of intensive research and study of the theories of human development, not Jefferson or Wythe or leaders in history.

Freud	Erikson	Piaget	DeMille
Oral Stage - Feeding, crying, teething, biting, thumb-sucking, weaning - the mouth and the breast are the center of all experience. Through this stage have a fundamental effect on the unconscious mind and thereby on deeply rooted feelings, which along with the next two stages affect all sorts of behaviours and (sexually powered) drives and aims - Freud's 'libido' - and preferences in later life.	Trust v Mistrust (ages 0-1½, baby, birth to walking)	Sensorimotor (birth to about age 2) - the child learns about himself and his environment through motor and reflex actions. Thought derives from sensation and movement.	Core (ages 0 - 8) - "lessons of good\bad, right\wrong, true\false and is accomplished through work\play"
Anal Stage - Sensation of defecation - 'holding on' or 'letting go' - the pleasure and control - is poop good or bad?.	Autonomy v Shame and Doubt (ages 1-3, toddler) toilet training
Phallic Stage - Interest in the reproductive ares of the body - differences between boys and girls - purpose of the differences	Initiative v Guilt (ages 3-6 yrs, pre-school, nursery)	Preoperational (begins about the time the child starts to talk to about age 7) - Applying his new knowledge of language, the child begins to use symbols to represent objects. Early in this stage he also personifies objects.
Latency Stage - Acceptance that reproductive ares of the body are special and need to be left alone for children. The time when school and learning take priority	Industry v Inferiority (ages 5-12 yrs, early school)	Concrete (about first grade to early adolescence) - The child develops an ability to think abstractly and to make rational judgments about concrete or observable phenomena, which in the past he needed to manipulate physically to understand.	Love of Learning (ages 8 - 12) - "continues on to form his assumptions of identity and community."
Genital stage - Puberty in other words. Glandular, hormonal, and physical changes in the adolescent child's body cause a resurgence of sexual thoughts, feelings and behaviors	Identity v Role Confusion (ages 11-18 yrs, puberty, teens)	Formal Operations (adolescence) - This person no longer requires concrete objects to make rational judgments. At this point, he is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. Teaching for the adolescent may be wide ranging because he'll be able to consider many possibilities from several perspectives.	Scholar (ages 12 - 16) - "typically ensures with the onset of puberty and is marked by a change in the student's physical, emotional and social expression...a time to study everything under the sun."
	Intimacy v Isolation - 18-40, courting, early parenthood		Depth (ages 16 - 22) - "characterized by a profound hunger to prepare for oncoming responsibilities and future contributions in society"
	Generativity v Stagnation - 30-65, middle age, parenting		Mission (early adulthood) - "He is required to be something very different - not a student, but an adult"
	Integrity v Despair - 50+, old age, grandparents		Impact (late adulthood) "you have entered a new era of your life in which the valuable wisdom and experience you have gained must be shared and communicated to those who follow you. You are now in Impact Phase."

Note that I borrowed heavily from several sources to make the above chart (specifically here and here) as well as quotes from DeMille's two books. I borrow material from those sources not because I thought they were authoritative or that's where I learned all this from, but I found them to be good summaries of what I wanted to include, so I lifted some material straight from them.

DeMille makes the connection to these theories himself
I am not merely trying to persuade people that this is where DeMille's Phases of Learning come from, as if it is some secret I am exposing. He states that every parent should read these (excluding Freud) and that they are the "gospels" of modern education that he endorses. It's not a question of whether these theories started with Freud and built upon each until DeMille. The only question left is are they correct? Or are these just "philosophies of men?" Does this describe what great leaders including Thomas Jefferson experienced? Is this what "Leadership Education" is all about? Are you comfortable raising your kids using a theory derived from the theories of all these social scientists, child psychologists, and cognitive development theorists? If TJEd is built on the same educational approach that all the leaders throughout history had, why do we need to have modern psychologists explain it to us? Why do we need them? Aren't there classics that would describe this process if it is what was used to teach all the great leaders?

There's a disconnect here, a jump, from "training great leaders using the classics" to "phases of child cognitive development." I see no evidence that this has anything to do with teaching leaders or Thomas Jefferson. For some reason, people heard DeMille talk about the problems of the public school systems and said we need to train leaders using the classics, and then people just believed whatever else he said. Seven Keys of Great Teaching? Sure why not. Phases of Learning? Must be true. Is it that easy to convince people?

These Phases are not suggestions or observations by DeMille. They are fundamental to his theory of education. If you are not doing this, you are not doing TJEd or proper Leadership Education. And if you try to teaching your child in a way incompatible with the "phase" he is in, you can really mess up your child.

"More time is wasted by limping along out of phase with little hope of happening upon a magical cure." Leadership Education, p. 32

"Some things are best taught during a particular phase; it not only goes against nature to work on a different schedule, but very important opportunities might be missed, and this can impact the development of the individual." Leadership Education, p38

These Phases, as DeMille writes in his book which I will review in the next post, define how you should behave towards your spouse, your child, other people. They affect how you provide learning and social opportunities for your child. They even affect how you should plan out the rest of your life. This is a whole-life philosophy, and anyone who is considering it should be comfortable with it. It is a change is perspective of life and human beings, and it comes not from classics or great leaders, but great modern social scientists, child psychologists, and cognitive development theorists.

In the next post, I will cover what DeMille says are crucial things the parent must do in the home, in each of the Phases of Learning, in order to be doing a "Leadership Education."

Reason #2: The "Seven Keys of Great Teaching" Are Wrong

2008-09-04T16:46:00.015-06:00

DeMille claims that he has found "Seven Keys of Great Teaching:"

"A number of years ago I helped found George Wythe College, and one of my first responsibilities was researching just how Wythe mentored Jefferson. From that intensive research, and years of additional reading and studying, I found Seven Keys of Great Teaching which form the core of great mentoring." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 39

Below are those Seven Keys and why I think they are wrong:

1. Classics, Not Textbooks.
It's not the classics I have a problem with, but rather the exclusion of textbooks. Textbooks are like a long tutorial, a course for helping the student gain mastery in a particular field or body of knowledge. Good textbooks build on concepts one after another in progression. They help the thinking process. Classics usually are not methodical or focus on one body of knowledge. They are broader than that. Both Textbooks and classics serve their different purposes. Just as textbooks should not be used in place of classics, neither should classics be used in place of textbooks.

"Virtually every subject is most effectively learned directly from the greatest thinkers, historians, artists, philosophers, scientists, prophets and their original works." Leadership Education, p.34

Why isn't it true that the most effective way to learn is from the greatest teacher, the one that can explain the concept the best? Newton may have been the first to write about calculus, but that doesn't mean he is the best person to learn it from. We've had hundred of years to reflect on what Newton wrote and to refine our ways to explain it. We have lots of methods and approaches to choose from, and there's no reason to think that reading Newton is the best way to learn calculus.

Also, isn't the knowledge what we want to learn? If calculus is just "true," does it matter how you learn it? If the laws of chemistry just "are" then it doesn't really matter which book you read on it, or who taught you, or really even how you learned it, as long as you learned it. Someone who masters chemistry through Cliffs Notes I think is better off than someone who reads a chemistry "classic" and ends up learn very little chemistry. It's interesting and perhaps inspiring to read the pioneers of their fields to see how they made discovers and developed theories, but that does not mean they explain them in the best way.

I think you should use both: classics for great ideas and inspiration, textbooks for mastering bodies of knowledge.

2. Mentors, Not Professors.
Most leaders in history did not have mentors for the great things they did (see previous post). This is a little bit of a quandary. The great men and women were not mentored to become great. They did not follow other people's footsteps. They blazed their own trails, went against the current, and did what they believed they should do. How do you foster that? How do you "mentor" independence and greatness? You may be able to instruct and train the individual in different aspects, but then the individual will be responsible for synergizing everything he has learned and do something great with it all. Maybe you can set the example of trying your best, believing in yourself, etc., but still the individual must go their own way, without a mentor.

Mentoring cannot take the mentee all the way he needs to go. It can only take him as far as the mentor has gone. And looking at history, the great leaders seem to all have gone way beyond any mentoring they had, if any. So I would actually not emphasize mentoring but actually foster independence, skills and knowledge that the individual could then draw on to make their own path. This is where professors help. They are experts in specific fields. They offer their expertise, and like textbooks, present the information in the optimal way in their estimation so that they can convey that expertise to the student.

I would rather encourage my student to rely on his own internal compass and go his own way, while I provide for him knowledge, skills, and experience with the help of experts in their fields. I would provide examples and exposure to great people, but I would not encourage too much mentoring.

3. Inspire, Not Require.
I've been to Basic Training. There's not a lot of "inspiring" that goes on in Basic Training. When you first get there, there are several large, angry, yelling men ordering you what to do and how to do it. When you do it wrong (and they purposefully create contradictions so that there is no way you can do it right), then they punish you. This has got to be nearly the exact opposite of the TJEd approach as there could be, and probably is not what most people would recommend for teaching children, which I would tend to agree with. But, aside from my two-year-mission, this was probably the greatest experience of my life. Let me explain.

I had a desire to serve my country. I signed up to do so knowing full well what I was getting myself into. I had talked to several people about what to expect at Basic Training. I was going on my own volition with sufficient understanding. That's important. I was not forced. I had been inspired, now I was going to be seriously required. You cannot fully appreciate many things without experiencing them yourself. Knowing something intellectually is just not the same as knowing it emotionally, or experiencing it yourself. We constantly ran to places, constantly were doing push-ups for several minutes continuously, constantly having to stand at attention and not move (sometimes for hours), marching in formation, and getting only a few hours of sleep every night. Basic Training lasted about 9 weeks and by about the end of week 2, any kind of fun being "in the Army" was over. We were convinced that they only treated us this way in the beginning, and that now that we kind of "get it," they will back off. We didn't really expect that we could last 7 more more weeks of this daily, non-stop abuse.

Well, that's not how Basic Training works. They never did let up on us. I believe that there are two main reasons why the Army treats recruits so harshly for so long, and they both have to do with ensuring the men are prepared to be effective soldiers:

1) They need to show you your weaknesses and limits. People can control their emotions and hide deficiencies if they are able to avoid having to face them. Ever know anyone who was a jerk or ignorant but because he had enough money he didn't care or maybe even acknowledge that he had any shortcomings? Well, what would happen if he lost all his money? His buffer to hide behind his faults would disappear and he would be faced with his true self, and all his shortcomings would affect him much more than before. This is one reason why they don't let you sleep in Basic Training, why they put you in such hard situations that cause you to fail, and why they make you do push ups until you hurt, bad. At that breaking point, that point where your buffer is gone, where you can't do it no matter what you try, that's when you have to decide what you are made of. You can't read that in a book. That's not someone else's experience. It's yours. And you don't know for sure what you'll do, until you are at that point. You don't know what it feels like, until you feel it. The Army brings you to that point, repeatedly, and you understand what your deficiencies are, and you know yourself much better.

2) The other main reason I think is that the Drill Sergeant needs to give you new boundaries and expectations. Whenever you go anywhere in Basic Training, you march, or run in formation. Before you march you have to form up. The men will not form up correctly, or fast enough, so the Drill Sergeant will require them to do push-ups, or some other equally difficult physical exercise, in cadence, with the proper vocalization from all participants, in the proper manner, or else you get in deeper trouble and have to do it for longer or in a more difficult way. This is constant for everything in Basic Training. It gets really old when you haven't slept in days and the Drill Sergeant won't let you go to the Mess Hall because all 60 men formed up in 20 seconds instead of 19 seconds, and one guy was a half-inch out of line (this is really how it is). You are constantly "getting smoked." Terrible, right? Mean Drill Sergeants, right? Let me describe a turning point for me and the other guys in Basic Training.

Periodically you have physical fitness testing in Basic Training which for us was push-ups, sit-ups and a 2-mile run. Most athletes probably would say that you shouldn't over-exert yourself too soon before your race or meet or whatever. Not so in Basic Training. About 2/3 of the way through Basic Training, we were in the barracks and the Drill Sergeant came bursting in yelling and telling us how we'd screwed up something. We knew what was going to happen. We were going to have to stand at attention by our bunks and then we were going to get "smoked." and this was the night before a big physical fitness test. The Drill Sergeant had often said, "I want to see the walls sweat," and that usually meant we were going to get smoked for awhile.

But a remarkable thing happened. The Drill Sergeant made us do push-ups, then sit-ups, then jumping-jacks "in cadence" over and over and over, like usual. But this time we were keeping up with him. As it went on we got louder and louder, did more and more push-ups, etc. We started chanting "you can't smoke a rock." This went on so long that the Drill Sergeant got tired and stopped barking commands and we did them ourselves, to ourselves. He left and went into his office and we just kept on going doing push-ups, and sit-ups, in the cadence that had been going on. We did this for 3 hours with no break. Near the end the Drill Sergeant came back out of his office and told us to look at the walls. They were wet and dripping with condensation from the heat of our bodies. The walls were sweating. We had always thought this was some colorful and exaggerated expression that Drill Sergeants liked to use for emphasis about how hard they were going to smoke us. But it actually happened. He ordered us to stop and go to bed, and we all cheered in defiance that we didn't want to. But we did comply and we went to bed. The next day at the physical fitness test, we were all bursting with confidence. It was noticed by other Drill Sergeants and trainees. I don't remember the scores, but I think they were pretty good.

The Drill Sergeants were not allowed to physically touch us. Everything they required us to do was through non-physically-forced means. They always said the quickest way out of Basic Training was to graduate, because if you wanted to quit, they would just send you over to the "Quitter's Barracks" to await out-processing, which of course took months, longer than Basic Training itself, and you spent your time doing nearly the same thing as you did before you quit, or else you got thrown into a hard-labor military prison. So, we were all highly-motivated to get through it all. There really was no other way out. So all those push-ups, and all those times we got "smoked" they never touched us. In fact, I think the only physical contact I had with my Drill Sergeant was when I shook his hand when I got my completion certificate at graduation. And you can imagine what it felt like for him and me to shake hands at this moment. He didn't care about any of our whining and he totally ignored our views on what we thought our limits were. So I thank my Drill Sergeant for inspiring me and molding me. All he did was require me to do things. But through being compressed and put through the refiners fire, I came out a much better man. Lots of trainees wanted to be Drill Sergeants after this experience, myself included.

How far should these lessons from Basic Training be carried over to education? Children are not at the same level of maturity or emotional stability as recruits so definitely a Basic Training atmosphere would be in appropriate for children. We were of age, had been checked by doctors and cleared to participate in Basic Training, and we all volunteered. However, I think there's still something to be said of the benefit of requiring students to perform and achieve at certain levels. This requires judgment and wisdom of course, as every child and situation is different, but that's not a refutation of the principle of requiring, just that you need to be wise in doing it. I gained huge amounts of inspiration to push myself and achieve from the requirements of Basic Training that still affect me today. Doing your best, then blowing through that and excelling even farther is exhilarating. Often a person cannot simply inspire themselves to get to that point. They need help from outside. That's what coaches do. They observe the athlete and require them to perform better.

I think you need to both inspire and require the student. Inspire them to be required by you to achieve, in wisdom and being sensitive to the specific attributes of the child. I didn't like my Drill Sergeant initially, but quickly I began to trust him. I trusted that he would never make me do anything dangerous and I trusted him that he knew how to train me to become and effective soldier. I think this is important for children. They need to trust that you know what you are doing in requiring them to do things. If they believe that it will result in success or achievement, they will do it. And after a few times of this pattern with you (you require, they do it and observe the progress), they will be much more likely to accept requirements from you in the future. If you say, "now if you do this course, you will be able to do this other thing" and they try it and see that you were right, they will be inspired to have you give them requirements to do things, in wisdom and not going overboard of course.

We are required to do lots of things in life, aren't we? I'm required to make money for my family. I am required to do some boring, non-inspiring things as part of that. We are required to clean up after ourselves. We are required to get along with others. We have obligations. I think there is some value in knowing how to deal with being required to do things, including things you don't want to do. Like anything else this can be taken to the extreme, but on both ends: of always requiring the child to do things, and never requiring the child to do things.

One last point on this. Doesn't Heavenly Father require things of His children? Has He not set requirements for being able to return and live with Him? There are requirements to be baptized and certain conditions must be met before you can do that. There are requirements for a young man to be able to bless and pass the sacrament, and for members to partake of the sacrament. There are requirements that have to be met before you go to the temple. All commandments could be seen as requirements. But the Lord's pattern seems to be to an establish standards and requirements, but not force us to do them, yet we are blessed by complying, We have to work out our own salvation which includes satisfying those requirements and being obedient. It's up to us, yet the Lord doesn't leave us alone to figure it out. He provides scriptures and inspiration and revelation, teachers, programs, and leaders. He establishes the requirements, explains them to us, doesn't force us to comply, and provides all sorts of help along the way. I think this is a model to emulate when it comes to requiring our children to do things.

4. Structure Time, Not Content.
I think the exact reverse is the way to go. Don't public schools just structure the day with bells every hour, where you have to be in class regardless of whether you are learning anything? What if it took you 3 days to learn your times tables? Do it, master it, move on or take a break. I think it's better to explain to the child what things she should read or learn and then set a goal of when she will have it done. Then let her figure out when to do it. And if she finishes early, then she can play around for awhile. (The next time, though, shorten the goal time). This will not quash any curiosity to learn. By structuring content, you are not saying that this is all there is to learn, just that this thing is required. Leave unstructured time for her to explore and think about things, tinker and experiment with things, but make sure she has some things that she needs to learn. If this is coupled with what I describe in the "Require" section above, she will trust you when she sees improvement and progress.

I think it's helpful to have a sort of roadmap of the body of knowledge being learned. For example, for math, go over the different topics, like fractions, and graphs, and equations. Expose her to the things she will be learning and explain how she needs to master certain concepts before she can do those later exercises. Help her see where she is on the map, where she's been and where she's going. Haven't you ever looked at a university course catalog and thought, "that class looks, great. What are the prerequisites?" And then you consider taking the prerequisites so that you can take that great class? That's the same kind of idea I am describing for showing kinds a roadmap of things to learn within a certain body of knowledge.

This is easier to do for some topics, like math, but harder for others, like history or literature. I think it's not a bad idea to make up a roadmap with your child and for your child for the year or longer. Wanna to learn about Chaos Theory? Gotta get that Newtonian Physics down first. Wanna learn to paint life-like scenes? Gotta learn some color theory first, and perspective, and shading. In fact, just the other day I told my kids that if they finish a certain piano book to the satisfaction of their mother, then they can play whatever other instrument they want and I'll get them the instrument and the lessons. That's is not to say they would never be allowed play another instrument unless they finish that book. Just that if they did finish that book it would demonstrate a level of proficiency of reading music and playing the piano so I would be convinced that they would be ready to try something else. And they can do this whenever and as early as they want. It's a standing offer. I'd love my five-year-old to tell me she finished the book and wants to try the flute or whatever. (One exception: the harp is out of the picture. Daddy doesn't make that much money). So in a sense I structured the content by requiring things to must be learned in order to be on the fasttrack to do something else, and they are working towards it. But note that I am not requiring them to finish the piano book, but if they do, they automatically get to try another instrument, whereas they might have to wait longer otherwise. I don't think that's harsh or a punishment at all, but in fact motivating.

5. Quality, Not Conformity.
DeMille only give two levels of evaluation of work by the student:

"When Scholars do an assignment, either say 'great work' or 'do it again.'... "For homeschoolers, don't give them grades. Just 'great work' or 'do it again.' A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.46

And DeMille is not being figurative, he really means you either give a "GW" or "DA." I don't think this gives enough feedback or measurable evaluation. One thing a teacher or mentor does for the student is help give perspective on how well the student did on the assignment. I think it's good to have some sort of grading scheme that is known to the student so that they can really gauge how well they did. This will help both with the students tracking his own improvement over time, and with comparing his work to the work of others. I am not saying that the point is to compare his work to others, but there is benefit in knowing how well it compares. That's what happens in the real world, isn't it? People's works are evaluated and compared and usually the one with the highest rating wins.

I'm not a big fan of competition, but I do recognize that the Olympic athletes probably would not excel as much as they do if they didn't know that the guy in Lane 4 runs it in under 52, or the tall girl from Sweden can clear 6 foot (or whatever). The focus for the child is not competing against others, but a measure of excellency and improvement. People say you can't improve if you don't measure and track performance over time, and you can't measure very well with a "GW" or "DA." I think every parent should figure out what measure is appropriate for their child, but I do think there should be some form of grading and measurement.

6. Simplicity, Not Complexity.
I agree that there should be simplicity in curriculum and schedule, but some topics are complex. Since DeMille just uses terms in the "Seven Keys" and not statements, it's hard to comment on this because it is vague. There's not really an assertion here. I guess my only comment is that this only refers to the structure around the schooling of the child, not what the child is actually learning.

7. You, Not Them.
This is totally backwards. No, it is all about them. DeMille says to "set the example." Well of course, but that's way different then only focusing on yourself. Those of you unfamiliar with TJEd will probably be surprised to find to what extent DeMille argues this point. He really means that you should not spend time actively helping your child to learn. You only focus on your own education. He argues that what will happen is that the child will observe you studying and then will want to study himself at which point you can converse with the child on what he has read. It is absolutely passive in the extreme, and the child decides what, when, and how he wants to study, if at anything, because you should not make the child study if he doesn't want to.

"In fact, education is very, very simple. Teachers set the example by reading, pondering, writing about and discussion classics, and sharing their loves, interests and ideas with students. And students get inspired, go to work, find the study difficult, and go back to the teacher for encouragement. When they get it, they return to the difficult process of learning. Learning is difficult, but the process is not complex." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 72

"If you are wondering how to get students to read Newton, you are asking the wrong question. The question is: Have you read Newton? If you haven’t, you’ve got some homework.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.85

"Focus on your education, and invite them along for the ride." Leadership Education, p.37 (emphasis original)

"Afternoons are for setting the example...When fingers get too cold from the snow or pants too fund of sand, little feet trudge back into the house to find Mom reading a current bestseller or with a worn classic in her lap, following up on family duties, studying Hebrew or French, researching current events online or corresponding with one of her many friends, or on the phone arranging a service opportunity. In such examples, lessons are taught." Leadership Education, p.84 ,85

"Teachers are to educate themselves, and to inspire others. This is what teaching means; it is what teaching is. When teachers inspire, students study." Leadership Education, p. 85-86

"If you don’t read math classics, how can inspire him to read them? You can’t? The answer to the question, “How do I actually do it?” is that you get started. You don’t have to be an expert to teach well, you don’t have to have a degree or years of experience teaching the subject, but you do have to read the classics, get excited about them, and pass your enthusiasm and new knowledge to the student.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.73

"Don’t permit the student to attempt to write about something that doesn’t interest her. This is a dead end of frustration and bad habits." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.79

"Plutarch, Gibbon, Toynbee, Durant. Have you heard of these authors? Have you read them? If not, they are a great start to your study of history. You must study if you plan to teach.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p8.2

"In a seminar, right about now I would likely be hearing the question again: "But how do I actually do this?" Almost every time people ask this specific question, they are either happy with the process and just want to improve, or they are struggling with the process because they aren’t personally reading the classics. Consider a typical dialogue: "
"But how do I actually do it?"
"How are you doing it now?"
"Well, he reads lots of books, many of them classics."
"Do you read them too?"
"Well, some of them."
"Okay, which ones have you read this month?"
The question is usually followed by a nervous silence, then:
"Okay, I know the classics thing. But how do we really make this work?"
"You read the classic. Your student reads the classic. You discuss it. He writes a report on it and you discuss it together. He gives an oral report to the class or family and you discuss that. You get other classmates or family members to read it and you meet for a group discussion. But of course none or this works unless you read it."
"But what about things like math?"
"Exactly the same. I assume you are asking me because a student of yours is struggling with math, right?"
"Right. He reads classics and lots of things but I can’t get him to read math classics."
"What was the last math classic or textbook that you read?"
"Uh..."
Almost nobody has an answer for this. If you haven’t read math classics, it’s almost impossible to teach math through the classics." A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.72

This is way different that "don't push the kid too far" or "don't ignore your own education" or even "the child will be more likely to want to study if you like to study." This pendulum has swung far to the other side. You are the adult. You are the parent. You are in charge of the curriculum for your child. Of course you don't want to impose some terrible, arbitrary course of study and make your child hate you and schoolwork. But the answer is not to abandon it completely. With DeMille's approach, somehow the child will just be inspired to study by seeing you study (especially in the afternoon, when you cleverly read a bestseller in eyesight). Somehow this is supposed to be an "individualized" approach for the child, but it really just leaves the education up to the child entirely. The child will somehow have the ability to judge all the things that are important for him to learn now, how he should learn them, and at what pace. I think that is the job of the parent or teacher.

There is a terrible side effect of this "You, Not Them" principle. It does often end up as ignoring the child's learning. I have observed this from people I know. DeMille even addresses this:

"The sad reason that people think Love of Learning [elementary school-age learning level] is "easy" is that they have been brainwashed by the conveyor belt [public education]. When they hear "Inspire, Not Require," their brains are so conditioned against combining "inspire" with "education" that they actually go home remembering something very much like "ignore, not require." Leadership Education, p. 86

If you go look around at the internet discussion boards for TJEd (like here, here, here, and here) and look at the TJEd seminar classes, you will see that many parents doing TJEd are concerned that their kids just aren't doing anything. Often the time the advice they get is to just keep focusing on yourself and the child will eventually come around.

I think it is a shame that these little spirits come down from Heavenly Father to these loving homes that have the Gospel, and whose parents have the courage to teach them at home...and the parents don't do anything! What a waste! Can you imagine Joseph Smith staying with you for a month and he just reads the Book of Mormon in front of you? Wouldn't you want him to teach you at least some things he had learned? I don't know if I would know what to discuss with him. I would hope he would expound on some things I had never considered. I see parents in a similar way. You have grown up and gone through childhood, puberty, dating, marriage, possibly college, and child-rearing. You have so many more life experiences and you have seen what works and what doesn't, and you have opinions and ideas about the best way to do some things. Share them with your child, even if he doesn't ask you. He's a kid, and is trying to figure out the world. I don't think he needs to figure out his own education too, when he's only 9.

Your child is your opportunity to help them be better than you, to not make the same mistakes you did, to take those chances that you didn't take. This requires lots of active effort and instruction by you. You are not there just to inspire or wait for questions. You think about what you want your child to know, what is the best way to learn it (your best guess), what you can do to inspire the child to do the necessary work, and then you either give the instruction, or find someone or something else to provide the instruction. That's your obligation as a parent. If your child can do a lot of self-directed instruction than that's fine, but it's not a superior principle of education. When I want to learn something, sometimes I figured it out on my own, sometimes I buy a book on it, sometimes I take a course on it, sometimes I find someone to teach me. It's still self-directed by me. However, I've been around longer than my child, and I am in a much better position to make an evaluation of what to learn and how to learn it. Not only do I need to help my child to know what to learn, but also how to learn it. The child has say in all this of course, but I must offer and explain what I think will be the most beneficial and the most effective. I need to be continually evaluating what I am encouraging my child to learn and how he is learning. That is true mentoring, and parenting, to me.

Don't waste the opportunity to teach your child what you know. You can figure out how to keep alive the interest of learning without abandoning him to work it all out himself. Teach him what you know, and find ways for him to learn the things you don't know. Don't have him say in twenty years that you never taught him anything, or that he never knew you thought that way, or that he wishes you had taught him something earlier so he would have avoided repeating some mistake you had also made. It's all about him.

The burden of proof is on DeMille and George Wythe College
DeMille repeatedly makes the claim that these Seven Keys are what has fostered great leaders and what will foster great leaders. But there is no evidence that this is the case. I've read two books and several other publications from DeMille and George Wythe College on the Thomas Jefferson Education and they make no effort to actually show that these really are the Seven Keys of Education. It's an assumption that never is proved. All DeMille says is that he discovered these principles after "intensive research, and years of additional reading and studying." Well, let's see the research.

I am not arguing with history when I challenge the Seven Keys. History agrees with me. And I think people ought to first check out DeMille's claims that the Seven Keys are really even true, let alone used by Jefferson or anyone else in history. The burden is on them. Lots of ink has been spilled and speeches and classes given on all this, yet not even an attempt to convince, let alone prove. Just assertions.

Reason #1: Classics and Mentors Have Not Been Key Elements in Developing Most Great Leaders

2008-09-03T21:45:00.035-06:00

DeMille argues that throughout history, the great leaders followed a similar educational process that helped lead to their greatness.

"Find a great leader in history, and you will nearly always find two central elements of their education – classics and mentors. From Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington to Ghandi, Newton and John Locke, to Abigail Adams, Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc – great men and women of history studied other great men and women.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 37

DeMille is claiming that virtually all great leaders in history had classics and mentors that were central to their development. This is an important claim, because he uses this claim as evidence that TJEd works to foster leaders. We ought to find out if this is true.

I wanted to make a chart of leaders and see whether there is evidence that study of classics and mentoring were instrumental in helping them become great. But first, I had to decide: what is a classic, and what is a mentor?

What is a classic?
Here's the definition of "classic" from Merriam-Webster

1: a literary work of ancient Greece or Rome
a: a work of enduring excellence; also : its author
b: an authoritative source
3: a typical or perfect example
4: a traditional event "a football classic"

A "classic" is more than a good book. It is a book whose value has been proven over time. Definition 1a says that is a work of "enduring excellence." Time really is necessary for something to be declared a classic. If one of the greatest works ever created by man was published this year, it cannot be a classic, not yet at least. It may become a classic, but it is not a classic until it has endured, and that takes time. This is the difference between a great book and a classic: time. Great works that remain great works over time are classics. Classics are the works that people have declared to be a special category of recognition, a category that indicates that several generations have considered it to be of the highest value. Several generations. That may be a high standard, and it is. That's the point. And when people say that they love the "classics" and that so-and-so was trained in the classics, they are not talking about New York Times Bestsellers.

DeMille doesn't ever define what a classic is in A Thomas Jefferson Education, although he does include an appendix that contains a list of 100 classics for adults. I'd say about 80 of them match what I think of as a classic (I sure wouldn't have included 7 Habits by Steven Covey, 3 books by Cleon Skousen, Human Action by von Mises, The Chosen by Potok, or Frank's Alas Babylon). I will have more to say on this subject, but for now I just want to be able to have a working definition of a classic so that I can check leaders of the past and see if they really did study classics. I think my definition above is appropriate for this effort.

What is a mentor?
According to Merriam-Webster, a mentor is:

1 capitalized : a friend of Odysseus entrusted with the education of Odysseus' son Telemachus
2 a: a trusted counselor or guide b: tutor, coach

But DeMille makes a distinction between mentors, and teachers or anyone else.

A good mentor is someone of high moral character who is more advanced than the student and can guide his or her learning. A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.39

So when DeMille uses the term mentor, he means something other than just someone that influenced the person. A supportive person is not necessarily a mentor unless he is guiding the student. And there is a sense that the mentor is on higher ground or has advanced and gone before the student. This is the working definition I will be using as I look at leaders in history to see if they had mentors.

So, if the individual studied classics (works whose value has endured over time) I put an 'x' in the column for classics, and if the individual had a mentor (a person more advanced that then individual who is guiding the individual) then I put an 'x' in the mentor column. I put a line in between DeMille's list of leaders from the quote at the beginning of this post, and others that I added. I also added links to each person's name which will take you to the Wikipedia entry for that person.

	Studied Classics	Had Mentor
Thomas Jefferson	x	x	Read many classics. Was mentored by George Wythe, although this was after Jefferson graduated college and it was part of his training in law, which was the common method of the day for training lawyers
Abraham Lincoln	x		Read a lot as a child on the frontier. Also spent much time reading in the Library of Congress
George Washington			Was not well read, and was a little self-conscious about it. No indication that there was any significant mentoring for him
Ghandi			Studied some at a university, but no indication that he studied the classics to a large degree. Ended up renouncing western ideas anyway.
Isaac Newton	x		Bright as child, and well-read. Went to some of the better schools
John Locke	x		Read many classics
Abigail Adams	x		No indication that she had any specific mentoring worthy of note
Mother Theresa		x	No indication she studied classics, other than the lives of missionaries. She did have some nuns that greatly influenced her
Joan of Arc			Almost certainly could not read. Was killed at 19. Did not have any mentors (in fact, it's hard to imagine how she could have a mentor)

Joseph Smith			Little education. No particular mentor (I did not count his father as a mentor because I think he just supported and encouraged him but not necessarily was more advanced than him or guided him in his religious duties).
Cincinnatus			Most likely had no access to classics, because there weren't many at the time (500 B.C.), and they would have been scarce, and he may not have even been literate since he was a small farmer. No indication that he had any mentoring.
Michelangelo		x	He had been an apprentice to several artists that affected him
Dwight D. Eisenhower		x	No indication of studying classics
Galileo Galilei	x		Most likely was familiar with classics, especially the Greek writers on science
Dante	x		Was well versed in Roman classics
Socrates			No indication of studying classics. He most likely was familiar with Greek epics at the time, as was everyone else. No indication of any mentor.
(Saint) Peter		x	Was a fisherman so it's unlikely he knew any classics. Jesus was definitely his mentor that influenced him
William Bradford			No indications of studying the classics or having a mentor
Martin Luther	x	x	Devoted much time to the classics and had influential mentors

I don't think I've been unfair determining whether there is evidence for these leaders studying classics or having mentors. Obviously people could argue changing a few here or there, but the overall pattern would not change. There really is no indication that studying classics or having mentors are the key to fostering leaders, or even necessary. For those leaders that lived long ago, we don't know exactly what their education was. But that just further makes my point, that there is no evidence to support DeMille's claims that "nearly always" great leaders throughout history studied classics and had mentors. There is no evidence to back that up. But it's not just a lack of evidence. We have several examples of leaders whose education we do know that didn't study the classics or have mentors or both.

This is not nit-picking. DeMille's whole argument for "leadership education" as he describes it is built on his assertion that this is the predominant educational approach that nearly all leaders have had throughout history. If that's not correct, then he would only being assert his own ideas about what kind of education leaders should have, with little or no evidence that this actually would result in developing leaders at all.

DeMille is very clear that he has discovered the principles of what makes great leaders and what was common in their education.

"We did not invent Leadership Education; we codified it." Leadership Education, p.224 (emphasis original)

"These Phases [of Learning] were first noted and identified in our research of the education of Thomas Jefferson, and were later seen to be a pattern of many luminaries in history who lived exemplary lives and changed the world for good.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 31

"Find a great leader in history, and you will nearly always find two central elements of their education – classics and mentors. From Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington to Ghandi, Newton and John Locke, to Abigail Adams, Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc – great men and women of history studied other great men and women. ” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 37

"This is how the great leaders of history learned. They read classics and had these sorts of discussions and were really pushed (by inspiration and internal drive, not forced requirements) by mentors.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p. 47

"The greatest leaders in history used a very simple curriculum. They read the classics, they discussed them with a mentor who accepted only quality work, and they applied what they learned to real life.” A Thomas Jefferson Education, p.55

"Leadership Education is more than just a collection of ideas. It is a recounting of a process by which scholars such as Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Marie Curie and Winston Churchill achieved excellence in scholarship and personal development. And we do not consider ourselves the authors of this process as much as its biographers." Leadership Education, p.59

"We cannot expect to enter this new country and suppose that it will be tamed for us, or that we will master it upon our first arrival. However, the path we walk through this country is tried and true. Great leaders and countless great citizens have been invited by trusted mentors to walk this way." Leadership Education, Appendix

However, looking at the backgrounds of many leaders throughout history, few of them had studied the classics and had mentors which DeMille claims to be the two key ingredients of virtually all great leaders through history. So all the claims that classics and mentors are necessary for developing great leaders is false. This does not mean that studying the classics or using mentors is bad. Quite the contrary. But it does mean that there are other reasons why men and women become great and it does mean that studying the classics and having mentors are not necessary to for great leaders to arise. There is tremendous value in studying the classics. It's what I do and what I try to help my kids do. But not to create leaders, especially since there is no historical indication that it would.

If great men and women become leaders for some other reasons besides studying the classics and having mentors, then that means that DeMille cannot claim that a "Thomas Jefferson Education" will have any bearing on developing future leaders, and conversely that those not having a "Thomas Jefferson Education" will not become leaders. If there is no pattern of classics and mentors and if most leaders throughout history did not receive the type of education that DeMille claims they did, then the "leadership education" is not a leadership education at all, but merely one educational approach that DeMille favors.

Perhaps someone (like Thomas Jefferson) did have the education that DeMille argues for but no one else did, or maybe no one had the type of education DeMille argues for. Either way, the assertion that this education is what most likely will foster leaders is false. If we accept DeMille's arguments that his educational approach is the best way to foster leaders, we can only do so on faith because there is no support in history for what he claims.

Thomas Jefferson's education
I think it would be worthwhile to point out some things about Thomas Jefferson's education, since DeMille uses his education as the model. Thomas Jefferson was taught in a local school. At age 9 he started learning Latin, Greek, and French. When he was 14 he boarded with a minister would was also his teacher that taught him some of the classics. At age 16 he went to college and graduated two years later. After graduating college he worked under George Wythe
as a law clerk. This was the common approach for young men to learn law and eventually be able practice law themselves. Jefferson and Wythe became very close and Jefferson referred to Wythe as "his second father."

What aspects of Thomas Jefferson's education should we model? Learning Latin at age 9? Living away from home? Going to college at age 16? Clerking in a law office? How much of Jefferson's success can be attributed to his education, and how much to his natural intellect and abilities? Probably a little of each, but how much? It's important to understand this to make a wise decision about how to try to emulate him. Wouldn't it be absurd to claim that boarding with a minister for two years is the key to fostering great leaders and that this would be a "Thomas Jefferson Education?" What if learning Latin at age 9 is the key? What if it trains the mind like nothing else can? How many great Roman leaders knew Latin at age 9? (Probably all of them). Maybe that's the key to leadership: learning Latin at a young age. The point is that we need to make sure we don't get carried away in determining not only what made Thomas Jefferson great, but also extrapolating that and determining what made almost all other men great.

DeMille has taken some aspects of Jefferson's life and declared that those were the necessary elements of fostering Jefferson's leadership, but ignored so many other factors. But not only that, DeMille then claims that almost all leaders in history had these same necessary elements, but history says that hardly any leaders in history had those so-called necessary elements.

Why is Thomas Jefferson the model?
What about the education of George Washington? He felt that dancing and horseback riding were very important in the development of a man. He felt they helped foster strength and grace. Washington was known for his physical presence and the dignity for which he carried himself. It contributed greatly to the amount of respect and loyalty he received from those he led. He didn't know the classics and didn't know Latin or Greek, yet he is the "Father of Our Country" and perhaps one of the greatest men that lived, maybe even greater than Jefferson. Why should we favor Jefferson's education over Washington's? What about Joseph Smith? Why isn't his education the model? For some reason, DeMille picks Jefferson to be the model of how we should educate children for greatness, but there are plenty of other great men, maybe even greater, who could be the model.

Summary of Reason #1
DeMille for some reason picks Jefferson to be the model, picks certain aspects of his life to be the key elements that led to his greatness while discounting other aspects, and discounting the aspects of the lives of other great leaders. Then he extrapolates these selective aspects to apply to all leaders in history, even though history does not support these claims.

You'd Think I'd be a TJEd Dad

2008-09-02T13:44:00.020-06:00

I should probably be a dad that would really be excited to do TJEd. On the bookshelf I have The Founder's Constitution, which is a five volume compilation of writings of the Founders. I have two copies of Cleon Skousen's The Making of America (one to loan out and one to always have at home). I have the Great Books series, which my wife and I read out of (she more than I). I have over 60 Loeb classic books, which are classics with the original language (Latin or Greek) on one side, and an English translation on the other. I have more Great Courses from the Teaching Company than I care to mention, and have gone through a large number of them. And I have a problem of acquiring books and reading them, of all different types and genres although only a few are fiction. I say all this not to impress but only to indicate my heavy interest in the classics, in constitutional studies, in great literature. I don't claim to be an expert or be particularly gifted in any of those fields, but it is where I spend a lot of my time and effort. Based on an introductory exposure to TJEd, I should be a prime candidate. It should be right up my alley. So what's the problem?

Actually, the reason I don't like TJEd may be because of the things I listed above. I was already convinced of the importance of knowing the classics and I already new something about the Founders and the Constitution. I was already converted on these issues, so to speak. But not only that, I already had some knowledge of them. So when I read 'A Thomas Jefferson Education' a lot of red flags went up and many things disturbed me. Something was fundamentally wrong I could tell. When I read 'Leadership Education' by Oliver Demille and his wife, I was really disturbed. I have hesitated writing this blog because I often thought that perhaps it didn't really matter, that some things may be off but on the whole it's ok. Whenever I thought that, I just read over some things I had highlighted in those two books and I become highly motivated to give my opinion.

When I was learning about firearms - how to shoot, how to care for firearms, and how to do all this safely - I appreciated the guys that would tell me what I was doing wrong, or if there were things I could do better. I was glad they would tell me not to use that kind of ammunition, or handle the firearm that way, or clear a malfunction like that. I was also glad they just told me what they thought about certain calibers and certain models, because trial and error is often not the best approach to learn about firearms, especially safety, and you can learn from anyone, not just experts. With firearms, it's different than giving advice on hiking boots or paddle strokes in a canoe. Opinions carry more weight because the activity is more serious. At the range, you expect guys to speak up if they see something they think might be harmful. The range is not a place to take offense or be overly-sensitive, because the stakes are high and no one is going to correct you just because they have anything against you. They'd rather shoot. In fact, if you or anyone else does something potentially dangerous, it may affect their ability to practice their shooting. And that's why everyone is there: they want to improve their marksmanship, safely and effectively.

This is how I feel about this blog. I feel like a shooter on the range, and I look down the line and see these other people doing something that doesn't look real safe to me. I want to spend my time helping my kids learn and to learn myself, not be a shooting line officer. But if I see something I think may be harmful I need to say something. I know that in the homeschooling world, and also the LDS world, we need to support each other and not create contention. This is why I think there's been so little written on TJEd outside TJEd. People just want to be nice and let people do their own things. To me, this would be comparable to being at the range and observing people not shooting well because of bad technique. But what I observe now is more than just bad technique. The TJEd movement is starting to affect me and there are some things that look harmful to me, so like a good shooter on the range, I am going to speak up. Obviously people will judge whether my concern is real, or large, but I am going to give my reasons and make my case. But this is also not a time to be overly-sensitive. The fact that someone says there is something to be concerned about does not mean that person is trying to be mean, or has nothing better to do. Obviously this is concerning enough to me that I am spending time reading the books and writing this blog. I'd much rather be reading Caesar or doing math flashcards with my kids. But I have a duty.

I have boiled it down to a few reasons why I don't do TJEd. It takes a little bit to explain each reason, though. I can't do it in a few statements and have them be very convincing. I also need to back up what I say with quotes from the TJEd books and other sources. If Oliver Demille had to take a whole book (actually more) to state his case, then I shouldn't be expected to write my ideas in a few short statements.

Enough with the introduction...on to my reasons...

Some Background

2008-06-04T12:34:00.010-06:00

My wife and I decided to homeschool our kids from the beginning and we have been doing it for several years. The most important factor in our decision, I'd say, was that we didn't think the public education that our kids would receive was good enough and wasted too much time. My wife was the one who first brought up the idea, and I think I was not really on board with the idea, but not really opposed to it. It mattered to her so I was willing to look into it.

We read several books on homeschooling approaches and my wife attended many seminars. We agreed with many of the complaints about public schools. My wife and I had both attended public schools and didn't have many bad experiences with our own educations. But around the time we were looking into homeschooling we were also start to read the "better" books and we realized how our impression of what "educated" meant and how to be successful in life was largely due to the ideas we had adopted in public school. I thought it was a shame that Latin and Greek and the classics were almost nowhere taught anymore. There were several things we really wanted our kids to learn, and decided that we should homeschool them in order for them to learn them.

We went through the process of figuring out what to teach, and how to teach, before our oldest was even school age, so we had time to investigate and come up with our own plans and expectations. We checked out lots of different philosophies of education and different teaching methods. Our philosophy and our approach is partly the best out of all approaches, and partly our own ideas.

Learning classical languages, and learning about the ancient world, and the classical works from that time are part of the education we are trying to provide for our kids. Periodically, when other homeschoolers learn this they have asked us why we aren't doing Thomas Jefferson Education. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Homeschooler: "Why don't you Thomas Jefferson Education?"
Us: "What do you do as part of Thomas Jefferson Education?"
Homeschooler: "You read the classics."
Us: "Ok. We do that. I guess we do Thomas Jefferson Education, then"

We had read the Thomas Jefferson Education book, but it doesn't really have much on methods at all, just philosophy. So, we thought, we include the classics in our homeschooling and we understand the points about the "conveyor-belt education" in most public schools. but we wondered what exactly people thought we should be doing differently in order to say that we are doing Thomas Jefferson Education. We never said we were doing Thomas Jefferson Education, but people always seemed confused that we were reading classics and learning ancient languages and history, but weren't "doing TJEd."

Over time, we started to see more and more Thomas Jefferson Education groups, and more people asking us about whether we do it. We would go to homeschooling conferences and see that classes were being held on it. At some point it reached critical mass that we knew we weren't doing Thomas Jefferson Education like other people were that were really doing it, and we also felt no desire to. We had some friends and some family go to some Thomas Jefferson Education seminars and were involved with it in different degrees, and it seemed that most of the LDS homeschoolers were "getting into TJEd."

So, finally, I took a formal approach and said, 'Let me see what this is all about." I bought the new version of "A Thomas Jefferson Education" by Oliver Van DeMille, and the Companion book, and a book on the Phases of Learning by the same author. I went to the Intro to TJEd class at a recent homeschooling conference. I read information on the website of George Wythe College. Now I am writing this blog to explain to people why I don't do TJEd.