Topic: Philosophy
New Academy Uses Scientology Styles Will Smith’s Academy and the Church of Scientology’s Study Technologyby Terryeo
(centrist libertarian)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Whether you believe the moon is made of green cheese, or that man is inherently evil, you can recognize some things common to civilizations.
1. Individuals in every culture can learn, indeed, this might be man's greatest asset. 2. Today's world has more information than ever before. It assaults the senses from birth to old age via spoken words, written words, school, advertisements, and more. 3. Literacy is therefore essential in today's world.
Historically a few well-to-do people have contributed to, or even established schools. Will Smith has joined those ranks. But rather than contribute to an existing ivory tower his academy addresses a less erudite student body. New Village Leadership Academy started teaching pre-kindergarten to 6th grade on September 3. . Essentially, Will expanded a home school environment by purchasing and renovating a building to create a village learning situation for youngsters. His approach follows the model of the historic Greek Academy.
Students are not taught en mass, but move through education at their own pace. A group of students does not sit and digest information from a teacher, but instead, a student assimilates information at his own pace. Then, before he (or she) can move on, he must demonstrate proficiency with that information. "Students are required to demonstrate 100% mastery of a skill before they move on," says the academy's web site. In addition to many day-to-day demonstrations, the students must fulfill state and national standards of education.
Field trips are common. Laptop computers are widely used. A sense of "village" or community is actively encouraged. The school day lasts a little longer than public school but less homework is assigned. And the Head of School is Dr. Jacqueline Olivier, who has substantial credentials.
Does this sound like the kind of environment you would like to have gone to school in? Smith's investment was in the neighborhood of a million dollars. The School's Vision Statement reads:
"NVLA will lead the world in identifying innovative learning styles and educational best practices. We are building an optimum learning environment - an ideal model to be shared with all people of the world."
In regards to sex, race, and religion, the academy's non-discrimination statement:
"It is our highest expectation that our students both respect individual and cultural differences and have a commitment towards enhancing our common humanity, as to prepare them to assume their responsibility to themselves, their families, communities, countries, and as citizens of the world."
Smith not only hopes to create a model school, but hopes to create good citizens of the world who are themselves, leaders. And he does this from the get-go, from pre-school to 6th grade.
But his academy uses "innovative learning styles" and this is where the Scientology controversy enters. Anonymous and non-anonymous people have objected to the academy using principles that appear in L. Ron Hubbard's writings. If you Google the subject, your page will fill with critic's information, critical to school using any principle found in the Church of Scientology's writings.
One such example is in regard to words. The academy says:
"We emphasize that children look up the words they don't know in the dictionary as opposed to looking for context clues right away. They then learn exactly what words mean as opposed to "sort of" what words mean."
That precise method of understanding words is found in Scientology writings under its heading, "the misunderstood word". In addition, some of the academy's staff are Scientology parishioners. Other parallels between Scientology and the academy appearing on its web pages include:
"Rather than all children at a given grade level reading the same material at once, our children move forward as quickly as they like."
"We teach children how to study and how to recognize in themselves when they aren't learning and how to get back on track."
"We teach children concepts whenever possible with the actual object right there to see and touch. If this is not possible we use other visuals."
These styles, these innovative learning styles, can be found in the Church of Scientology's publications about how to study, although under slightly different headings. Critics suggest these styles should not be used, that they be expurged from every school. And their reasoning is - those styles are found in the Scientology philosophy, written by L. Ron Hubbard, and used in Churches of Scientology. Therefore, those styles are a Church method of creeping into society. Critics have even suggested use of such styles will result in the Church of Scientology "taking over" society.
Quotations are respectfully duplicated from New Village Leadership Academy's web site: http://www.nvlackacadamy.org
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Terryeo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Terryeo is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Lilly von Marcab
Date: 2008-09-14 11:23:19
Terryeo, it's a good piece, though I find it amusing that you have not followed the advice you gave me yesterday in another article's comments, to spare Nolan Chart from Scientology-related articles for a few days. ;)
Innovation in teaching methodologies can be a very good thing, if the new methods prove to be efficacious. If they are not, however, it is a waste of everyone's time, at best. I'm sure that Will Smith, the educators at New Village Academy, and the childrens' parents, all are acting with the best intentions, toward the goal of raising happy, well-rounded, highly intelligent children. It seems that the school will use a variety of teaching methods, of which Scientology's "Study Tech" will be one component, or, more accurately, will form the "skeleton" of the curriculum. At a first glance, one may not see anything objectionable in Study Tech; "Learn on a gradient"; "Don't skip over a word you don't know, but immediately look it up in the dictionary"; and so on. These ideas may seem to make sense, or at least seem worth trying. But a closer look at Study Tech reveals some very serious problems inherent to it.
Professor David Touretzky of Carnegie-Mellon University has done a serious analysis of Study Tech. It is absolutely esssential reading for anyone interested in the question of Study Tech. Beyond the fact that there has never been an objective assessment of Study Tech's efficacy (just assessments made by Scientology-related organisations, with extremely incomplete data reported in each case), and the fact that it is entirely derived from Scientology concepts, with its Basic Study Manual containing great chunks of Scientology religious doctrine, word for word, Study Tech also teaches elements of Scientology doctrine that are not just obviously false, but are also simply bizarre.
"For example, if one is studying tractors, the printed page and the spoken word are no substitute for an actual tractor. Lacking a tractor to associate with the written word, or at least pictures of a tractor, can close off a person’s understanding of the subject. Definite physiological reactions occur when trying to educate a person in a subject without the thing actually present or available. A student who encounters this barrier will tend to feel squashed, bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored and exasperated. He can wind up with his face feeling squashed, with headaches, and with his stomach feeling funny. He can feel dizzy from time to time and very often his eyes can hurt. These reactions are quite common but wrongly attributed to poor lighting, or studying too late at night, or any number of other incorrect reasons. The real cause is a lack of mass on the subject one is studying."
Too steep a gradient?
"When one hits too steep a gradient, a sort of confusion or reelingness is experienced."
The dreaded "misunderstood word":
"Going past a word or symbol for which one does not have a proper definition gives one a distinctly blank or washed-out feeling. The person will get a "not there" feeling and will begin to feel a nervous hysteria. These are manifestations distinct from either of the other two barriers."
I've gone too long already here, but I do want to emphasize that Study Tech is enormously problematic, which one can easily see when looking at it objectively. I recommend Professor Touretzky's essay, linked above, for those who are interested.
I have a question. Why hasn't anyone objectively evaluated study tech, or the value of dianetics (or the benefits of quiet birth or the psychological implications of fetal pain/discomfort)? I mean, here we are with the Church arguably practicing medicine and psychology without a license, and the APA condemning it as unproven 50 years ago, and to this day its unproven (but not disproven). Was Hubbard so incredible that his ideas are not even worth investigating? If so, why does Hollywood like it (well OK, Hollywood is brainwashed--except no one has proven that there is such a thing as brainwashing).
Hello again R. Hill, nice of you to address me again. Yes, I did state your first sentence in the article. Your second sentence, however, doesn't concern what I wrote, but echos Lilly's sentiments and is misleading because it suggests an education is a word for word memorization,. This is certainly not the case, for how can memorized knowledge be used unless comprehended? And how can comprehened knowledge be used in createing unless its applications are understood?
Technology is a word that means "ways of doing" There would be a technology to planting a crop, felling a tree or building a home. There would be a best method to do those things. Likewise, there would be ways to study, more effective than other ways to study. Such methods of study (should they ever be widely agreed on) would be called "study technology". Will Smith is attempting to define that area with his academy. L. Ron Hubbard wrote his opinion of how to effectively study and called it "study technology". D. Touretzky's site, which you link to, does not propose how to effectively study. But he does criticize Hubbard's method. His sites do talk about a technology without criticism, but that technology (last I looked) is about how to effectively build and deploy a bomb, and get away with it.
To answer your question, R.Hill, I published the article. Will's academy doesn't precisely and exactly, word for word, echo Hubbard's words about education. Will Smith has, I would venture, read and understood Hubbard's writing, assimilated it and combined it with other widely used methods toward educating children effectively. His academy presents many unique features, unusual features, and many of those are "exposed" on the website. Have a good one.
Posted By: Lilly von Marcab
Date: 2008-09-14 20:23:59
Hi Terryeo,
My post wasn't "sentiment"; it was fact. The bizarre quotations came directly from Scientology's Study Tech page. I don't know about you, but never in my life have I had a "nervous hysteria" from skipping over a word. If this indeed happens to Scientologists or other people who have tried to learn using Study Tech, that would pretty clearly be a psychosomatic disorder, as it would be if someone felt his "face feeling squashed, with headaches, and with his stomach feeling funny," because a tractor wasn't available, etc. etc.
What on earth do Scientologists do when reading Shakespeare, or, God forbid, Chaucer? It must take you trillions of years. So much of reading older literature involves comprehension by assessing an unfamiliar word's context in a passage, or a page, and then perhaps relating it to a similar word in our contemporary English. With Study Tech, this kind of analysis is never done, this kind of skill is never learned, yet it has been demonstrated repeatedly that kids who push the limits of their reading levels usually perform at superior levels. Sure, break out the dictionary if you like, but first see if you can put it together in your mind. Aristotle said: "Swift perception of relations is a sign of genius" (Poetics).
Your response to R. Hill about "memorization" was disingenuous; no-one said anything about memorization. It was about Study Tech's very close adherence, often word for word, to Scientology religious text. If I taught children with concepts and language from a text that adhered so closely to the Qur'an, or to the Bible, or to the Confessions of Saint Augustine, or to ibn 'Arabi's Sufis of Andalusia, or to the Prajnaparamita Sutra, or any other text generally understood to be religious in nature; if I used such material to create a teaching methodology, don't you think it would be a problem in a supposedly secular school?
I reckon your mention of Touretzky having "bomb instructions" on his site is just a passing bit of libel on your part .And what is wrong with a rigorous critique of Study Tech, or of any teaching methodology? You disparage Touretzky because he doesn't propose some other method? That's silly. That wasn't his intention in his analysis, but you already knew that. Scientology's failure to submit Study Tech to rigorous, objective scrutiny by academic experts is just one of many reasons it will never get off the ground. Sorry to break the news to you!
I guess I better reply to you Lilly von Marcab. I'll work backwards through your comment. Googling - Touretzky bomb - brings up 4000+ hits, the top hit when I googled was Target 11 News, videotaped and placed on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR_DoZu2ke4 Touretzky's university web site pages appear on the televised news. That was videotaped and put on youtube. The news reporters present Touretzky's bomb instructions that appear on his pages and question whether it is appropriate information for a university web site.
Raymond Hill emphasized the phrase "Word for Word" by linking to Touretzky's webpage that criticizes Hubbard's Study Technology. I attempted to point out the idea that "word for word" implies a memorized sort of knowledge. And that memorized (but not understood) knowledge lies fallow in the mind of the student.
I do understand that you did quote portions of Study Technology, including physical symptoms. I further understand that you don't believe a word of that, have never seen nor experienced any element of that, and consider Hubbard's observations to be untrue. Did I miss anything and not reply to you about an issue?
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-14 21:56:50
I think the "word for word" refers to the fact that the study tech book is at many points verbatim, and uses the same words used is scientology scriptures. When its not verbatim, it is still usually very close. Nothing to do with memorization. Also about the symptoms, there is something called the "laugh test." It means that a statement is so implausible that most people can't refrain from laughing. I wonder if any non scientologists evre experience these symptoms when trying to learn. Show of hands? hahaha
Yeah, but isn't that an 11 second excerpt from a piece on Scientology? I wonder why the Scientology internet handlers would only want to post 11 seconds of an interview that would make them look bad if viewed in it's entirety. Maybe it's only the top google link
because Gloria Idda and the Internet handling department at Scientology have spent much time and effort to get it a top ranking.
Sorry, that was'nt the 11 second clip, but at the end of that WPXI story it gives contact information and tells people to call in other stories that concern them, WPXI did'nt originate that story, somebody called it in, is this an example of Scientology trying to fair-game Dr Touretsky by picking on some small detail that obvioulsy no law enforcement agency felt was a threat, otherwise they would act on it?
As my name suggests this topic has confused me. You state that understood knowledge is important, and yet also state that using context clues to understand a word is inferior to immediately looking that word up in a dictionary. That method could ONLY produce a rote memorization of vocabulary, not to mention the obvious pitfalls of connotation versus denotation. Words derive a portion of their meaning through context. On another article that posted L Ron Hubbard quotes, you stated that they were taken out of context and thus invalid (very likely so having not read the source material myself), but your apparent views on this technology directly contradict that view?
Posted By: Carl Weathers
Date: 2008-09-15 17:53:16
"Whether you believe the moon is made of green cheese, or that man is inherently evil, you can recognize some things common to civilizations.
1. Individuals in every culture can learn, indeed, this might be man's greatest asset. 2. Today's world has more information than ever before. It assaults the senses from birth to old age via spoken words, written words, school, advertisements, and more. 3. Literacy is therefore essential in today's world."
So in other words...one of the things that one can recognise is common to civilizations is that literacy is essential in today's world? I'm afraid that doesn't make sense.
Quotes taken out of context are more easily misunderstood than a quote in context. Can we agree on that?
The context around a single word should fulfill one definition or another, found in a good dictionary. So then, an author has used that particular meaning. For example, consider the pharse: "The bat is broken and dangerous"; which might mean:
The baseball bat is cracked, if used, it could break, fly apart, and hurt someone.
the baseball bat has been broken in two, both pieces have a sharp end, handle them with care.
As another example, the phrase, "Look up the words in a dictionary" can be taken to mean different things.
If you come to a word you have not seen before, look into a dictionary and find out if it is a real word.
While reading, if you come to a word you don't know the meaning of, find the word in a dictionary and scan through those definitions to see if one applies.
Find the word, scan through its meanings to find one that applies. Understand that meaning throughly by making up sentences to yourself which use that word, in that meaning. Then begin with the first meaning of that word and do the same for every meaning (except specialized meanings like medical or historical). Continue by reading the word's derivation and any synonym study available. After all of that, then go on with what you were reading.
If you hear the phrase "look up words in a dictionary", it might mean the first or second. If a teacher said it, probably the second. And the third idea - spending the time to understand a word, is rarely used in day - to - day life, but is a possible meaning of the phrase.
Honestly, I'm not trying to preach here, but there are so many possible different meanings to almost any single phrase, y'know? We hardly think of it in speech, because we have contextual clues from the voice and bodily position and so on.
Of course we can agree that quotes taken out of context are more easily misunderstood I doubt anyone would argue that.
I'm not sure which of your three "Look up in the dictionary" definitions you're advocating.
The first seems pointless in that checking whether a word is real is entirely unnecessary, if an author has made up a word they'll put it in context to make the meaning obvious or define it on their own, as L ron did.
The second could be necessary but any child that has been taught to think for themselves should be able to understand the meaning of the whole without it.
The third, I can't think of a single reason to do this, literally ever.
From your description of this study technology it seems to be another in the long line of educational method that uses pointless work to break down children into indoctrinable shells. Look that one up in your dictionary.
Utterly Confused. Heh, I appreciate your sneeze of humor. The phrase, "Look it up in a dictionary" could mean several things. I tried to make the point that a phrase can mean one thing, or can mean another thing. Even a simple, well known phrase, can mean different things.
No, I'm surely not telling you what to do. No, I'm not attempting to tell you to look things up in a dictionary. I just used a common, well known phrase, to illustrate the idea that the exact same words might mean different things. Different people might understand the exact same words, differently. Because that seems to be part of the discussion.
There has been some critical point of view attempting to insist that Will's academy is but an echo of Scientology's study technology. I know Scientology's study technology. Some of its ideas are vaguely present at the academy's website. Lilly copied and pasted some quotes from Scientology's study technology. The academy's website quotes are also on this page. There might be some similarity between the two, but not word for word.(my opinion.
From what I understand, Mr. Smith evaulated study technology and found it wanting. Rather than pay to license the technology and lose control of the curriculum, he decided to borrow some of the "good points" and integrate it into full-bodied coursework. Really, study-tech itself might benefit from doing the same.
Do you have a link verifying what you say about Mr. Smith's evaluation?
Study tech addresses itself to the subject "effective learning". An able adult might learn the whole subject in a couple of weeks, perhaps less. Whereas children attend school for 10 years or more. http://www.studytechnology.org/sh1_1.htm
No, no link. As I mentioned, it was my understanding based on a black box analysis of the results.
Mr. Smith clearly evaluated the study tech (please tell me if you feel that's debatable). He chose not to use it. Instead, he chose to use some elements, and add his own elements to improve on it. What else could you call it, if he added to it, rather than use the tech as is?
There are many good, common sense and long standing techniques that were used when Hubbard created study tech. A montessori school that I used to work with used many of the same techniques, although we had never heard of hubbard at that time.
Please consider this quote from LA Weekly:
Magee confirms the increase in overall scores, but says that just one of the second-grade teachers received the study technology training. The scores of the students in that class did go up 17 percent, while in the other two classes the scores went up 13 percent and 2 percent. Magee says she was initially enthusiastic about expanding the use of study technology, but when several other teachers at the school were later trained, the outcome was disappointing. "I did not see the same results," she says. "I think you have to have a certain kind of teacher to make it work." (Catania, 1997)
In other words, it's the teacher, not study tech, that improves student scores. It would seem that Mr Smith is only equipping fine teachers, and has also found a way to fix study tech. He's a good man.
I don’t know Mr. Smith, I don’t know his thinking, reasoning, experiences or evaluations. I created the article because I know study tech and saw a news article about Mr. Smith’s donations leading to a working academy for children. Then I visited that website to compare what is there, with what I know. On that basis alone, I wrote the article. I can hardly debate with you about an evaluation Mr. Smith made.
Mark, you bring up an idea that elements of Study Tech might be useable in contexts larger than a Scientology classroom. I do think that is what Mr. Smith’s academy does. Myself, I would love to eventually find the study, “How to Study”, in every school excepting perhaps, kindergartens, because it underlies and undercuts study actions. I’m not saying first and second graders should be required to read Ron Hubbard’s words, which words were written for an adult audience. While I see many ways to unfold Study Tech into an easier to learn, larger study, you view ways it might be assimilated?
Actually, Terryeo, you and I agree on this point, that the tech is sound. Parts of it anyways.
All of the study tech methods were around long before Hubbard- he just changed the words and the name. The techniques themselves are what one would call "common sense", although some of the specific additions are questionable.
Specifics:
The Three barriers to learning:
1. misunderstood word- if you don't understand a word, you can't understand the words that depend on that word. Look it up. The first dictionary was published in 1806 for this reason.
2. Lack of mass- students should be able to touch the objects that they are learning about. This was popularized in the 70's by the learning styles research, but the concept of "touch" to assist learning is as old as education itself. Modern research has proven that many students learn best by kinetics, while others learn by sight or hearing. While study tech does not address these learners, it does work well for kinetic learners.
3. Too steep a gradient- students must learn prerequisites before learning advanced material, also referred to as "walk before you can run". This is the core of all educational programs, although some do it well, and some don't. This is the "learning curve" described by Herman Ebbinghaus in in 1885.
The procedures of study tech:
1. Word clearing- related to "misunderstood word", if the student encounters a word that they do not understand, they look it up and consider each defintion of the word and try to put it in context, as well as understanding factors relating to the word. Again, this is the reason for dictionaries, and is a long-established tradition in education. While this is a great way to build vocabulary, it can also be time consuming and interfere with traditional education. Personally, I believe that, in most cases, it is better if the teacher or parent teaches the child, while encouraging vocabulary when appropriate.
spot check- the instructor spot checks the student in order to check understanding and word definition awareness. This is similar to a "pop quiz", but is more frequent. Any decent teacher would check understanding as the lessons progress.
Clay demo- using clay dolls to increase understanding. This is a common psychological tool, and is best used for kinetic learners. Again, this technique ignores the other learning styles, but is effective for kinetic learners. It sounds fun, too; makes me think of Mr. Bill.
Course Supervisor- this is a teacher.
Much of Hubbard's tech is based on the work of Maria Montessori (originator of the Montessori Method) in the late 19th to early 20th century. You'll see many similarities at [link edited for length].
So, yes, I highly agree with many of the methods used in Study tech, as does Mr. Smith. However, the parts that I find most valuable have been around for many years. I would imagine that Mr Hubbard was a kinetic learner, which explains his assumption that all students learn the same way.
Sure Mark, I think you are saying that study technology's points are similar or even precisely the same, as other widely used methods. But a closer examination, I think, exposes differences. I can not tell how, precisely, Will's academny teaches. But I do know study tech and see differences that you seem to easily dismiss, although I might be misunderstanding what you say.
For example, on clearing a new word, or a misunderstood word, this is Scientology's method: http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/CHAPTER1.HTM
As you see, it is a bit more extensive than "look it up in a dictionary". And yes, that is actually how scientologists (beyond beginning courses) clear their words. And yes, it does take a few moments, sometimes more than a few moments because here and there one word's definition has another word within it that you don't fully understand, either. And you sometimes get into chains of words and it might take a few minutes. However, in the long run I've found that method helpful, scientologists universally use it, and no professional auditor would study without using that full method.
Hubbard's view was something like: You see your field of study before you and you can conquer it it all. However, as barriers arise, they must be singularly and individually overcome. If they are not overcome when they arise, you will have put data into recall without understanding it. Which means that you will not be able to create freely with your hard-earned education.
No Scientology academy instructor would tell you what a word means, nor what a concept means, nor what a sentence means. There is no "teaching" in an academy, there is learning, but not from the mouth of the instructor, who is an expert about how to study. Do differences begin to emerge for you?
And then the "manipulatives", those are used as a student goes along, to demonstrate concepts to his satisfaction. Also to demonstrate concepts to an instructor when spot checked. For example. a student has 15 assorted items, he wants to demonstrate 3 +2 = 5. He takes 3 items from over here and 2 items from over there and puts them in a pile and counts them to find 5 items, thus demonstrating the idea. But this is only one possible demonstration of that idea. A student might demonstrate with "manipulatives" in any way that communiates to his instructor, so his instructor can see that he understands the idea. Call it a sketch, a clay demonstration, manipulatives, or whatever you like. But if you can demonstrate it, you have confidence that you can do it. Again, I don't know precisely how Will uses Scientology styles
My own view is this; education is a concatination of certainties. If a student is confident he can add quantities of objects, he can learn multiplication. To the degree he is confident with his ability to multiply quantities of objects (and other operations) he can learn algebra, then calculus, and so on. His ability to learn another idea rests on his confidence, his certainty, that he can create with the preceeding idea. Since answering fixed tests only requires fixed responses, those don't necessarily test his understanding. Those test his ability to recall data, which is a tightly limited subset of what you want a student to obtain.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
