Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education

Here is a paper That Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote. I am going to paste it in it's entirety because I was having a hard time trying to decide which points to include.

As I engage in the so-called "bull sessions" around and about the school, I too often find that most college men have a misconception of the purpose of education. Most of the "brethren" think that education should equip them with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses. Still others think that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end.
It seems to me that education has a two-fold function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is culture. Education must enable a man to become more efficient, to achieve with increasing facility the ligitimate goals of his life.
Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one's self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.
The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.
The late Eugene Talmadge, in my opinion, possessed one of the better minds of Georgia, or even America. Moreover, he wore the Phi Beta Kappa key. By all measuring rods, Mr. Talmadge could think critically and intensively; yet he contends that I am an inferior being. Are those the types of men we call educated?
We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living.
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, "brethren!" Be careful, teachers!
PD. Maroon Tiger (January-February 1947): 10. Copy in GD.

Makes me think how sad he and some of the other great minds from history must be to see how our education system is working now and the students that it is turning out.

I tend to get on my soapbox on this issue and those close to me often get tired of me wanting to discuss it. But here I am free to talk at length, so if you get bored or irritated navigate elsewhere.
We as a country have different children emerging from our Public schools. There are the "Jack of all trades", those who have been taught via the philosophy that to expose children to every thing will make them more rounded. In the end they know alot about everything but nothing substantial enough about anything. A good analogy is that of a tree. The roots can go broad and cover a lot of area but at the first sign of trouble it will fall over. Versus the tree whose roots don't go nearly as broad but reach down deep, way deep beneath the surface level. The people who I really respect intellectually are those who are very passionate and knowledgeable about an area. Their knowledge runs so deep that they could spend days talking about it, and their passion usually runs just as deep so they often do. They are succesful at what they do, because they don't try to do everything. As I heard one mom say sometimes it is good to work with obsessions. Imagine the possibilities if we would let our children learn and work in compatibilitie with their passions and obsessions instead of being so concerned that "everything" is covered. Besides, as any educated person will tell you, there is not enough time in this life to cover everything anyways (which is an overwhelming thought in itself).
You also have those who are missing pieces. They have great intellect but no moral ground stabilizing them. They have trouble figuring out right from wrong or deciphering what may appear gray. Give them a question involving academics, they'll peg it. But as far as anything else.....well, I guesse we just hope they can make it through life on their knowledge.
There are so many things that fall through the cracks because parents don't have enough time to teach them when they are at school all day and assume the school will teach it, but the school doesn't have enough man power, time, or desire to teach them and wishes the parents would. Each side feels the other side will pick up the slack, you can see where this is going.
Thus, the child falls through the proverbial crack and is left with no idea of what he really learned anyways. Usually those subjects include responsibilitie, work-ethic, symathy, initiative, and others; not math, science, history and reading. We must decide which is more important. Or find a way for both to be taught. But I will guarantee this, it will not come from the Public Schools!

WALDSFE

One of the support groups I belong to (Washington Latter Day Saint Family Educators) had their annual conference on Saturday.
The Keynote speaker was great!! I got so much from what she said. I took four classes and didn't really feel like I walked away with very much. The classes were all good, it's just that I guesse I am finally in a comfortable place with homeschooling and am not looking for or needing that much advice or support now.
There were a few things the keynote speaker touched on that really got me thinking. The first was that we should never instill fear. Fear of us, fear of not meeting expectations, fear of failure.... I realize that with my children, especially Seri I do tend to do this. When she has done an assignment and gotten some wrong you can physically see her preparing for the wrath of mom. "Were you not paying attention?", "What happened? You knew this stuff yesterday?", "why would you make such a silly mistake?" and the infamous "haven't you learned anything I have taught you?". Yes, I have said all of these things and many more. Persumably as a tactic of fear to make her want to do better next time. But it really does not have the desired effect. Instead, I am making my child fear me..........
In another workshop entitled "Your mother doesn't work here.... instilling work ethic in your child" she asked us what this phrase entails. We all said it meant "do it yourself, noone will do it for you". this was right however it implies so much more. It implies that you shoud do it yourself because your mother is not here, but if she were, she would do it for you. Wow! That is true with me in many ways. As much as I think I am teaching my children to be responsible when I really look at it I have done a lot for them that they could do for themselves and have in the process trained them to know and expect me to do those things.
On another note, we have all heard the saying that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". It always seems to have a ngeative conotation, like a slap in the face to those who do teach. In our coop I teach math. Now if anyone knows me they will likely have the same reaction that my mother had when I told her, to laugh out loud. I am self-proclaimed, math illeterate. However, I teach math well. Why? because I had to struggle and learn it. In the process of learning I became able to teach. Those who are natural at things often have a hard time teaching others. Just think of a time when someone who was really good and natural at something tried to teach you. "It's easy, just...." Because it is natural for them they have not struglled to learn it and therefor have a more difficult time trying to teach others that skill. It works for everything I think, knitting, computers, math, guitar......... So the next time someone uses this saying in a negative manner, you can show them how true it actually is.
The keynote speaker explained that she once talked to youth and told them that they should listen to their parents who truly do love them, the youth replied "when they respect me, I will start respecting them". Later she talked to the parents and told them to try to listen to their children who were really reaching out to them. their reply? "When they can show us respect, we will show them respect". Well, you can see where this was going. Noone was willing to do it first, so the cycle would continue. I have taken on the challenge to always be first. First to respect, love, understand, forgive, and smile. Imagine the possibilities.
The thing that really got me is when the speaker told a story of a boy watching an artist carve a figure in stone. He watched him every day and when the statue was finally finished he asked the artist, "how did you know he was in there?" So often I think of my children as people to be molded, crafted, shaped into what I desire them to be. This made me realize that who they are is already there. It is my job to help them find that. Thus I am reminded that when my child is old I want others to look at them and ask me "how did you know he was in there".

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them".
Albert Einstein

Testing

When we signed the children up to go through IA we were told that voided our homeschooling status and they would be considered publicly enrolled even though they never set foot in a PS. We weren't thrilled about that, mostly because that required Seri to take the WASL, the standardized test in this area.
Well, we recieved a call last week stating that she was the only fifth grader from IA taking it and would we mind if they just tested her with the fourth graders. I asked why she was the only one as I know there must be more fifth graders participating in IA. They replied that the others had a letter of intent filed and so could not be made to take the test, hold up! Waite, she is not required to be tested? "technically no, but it would be beneficial if she was, then you could see how she ranks with other fifth graders in the state and in what areas she may be weak." Now let's put aside what the Govt. and PS schools would like us to believe and see if this makes any sense.
First of all, we could see how she ranks against other fifth graders in the state. What would that benefit? Do I really care? I have seen a lot of those PS fifth grade kids and could tell you right off the bat where my daughter ranks! Especially since I know from teaching third grade in a PS that they teach to the test, no matter how they try to cover it up by saying they don't. Ranks in what, ability to regurgitate information? Information that has been forced fed? Will it show me what I really want for my daughter to accomplish? That being, having a work ethic, how to properly communicate with others, empathy, responsibility, loyalty, pride in the knowledge that she has succeeded, a passion about learning and discovering, logical thinking, problem solving in real life situations, how to contribute towards a common good.....the list goes on. No, the test does not cover any of this, therefore they do not teach any of this.
For a little background info. I started teaching a third grade class in early Jan of 2003. One of the first things they did was hand me a list that contained all of the subjects and areas that would be on the standardized test. When I questioned whether this was teaching to the test they told me "no, because we do not have the exact questions that will be asked". However, in addition to this list that tells me exactly what to teach them so they will get the scores, is a practice test booklet which does contain a lot of the questions that will "probably be on the test". I am told to skip parts of the curriculum that do not relate to these topics in order to have time to teach all those that will be covered. But, nope we don't teach to the test, definetly not. We cover test taking strategies such as eliminating answers you know can not be possible and then choosing the one that looks probable, trying to figure out how the question is tricking you in it's wording. I even know of a few teachers that told their kids, "remember, the people who write these tests are trying to trick you".
Before testing I am told to supply the school with a list of those children whom I do not think are prepared for the test. Some get excluded from test taking because they are ESL, others becasue they supposedly have issues documented in their IEP's (individualized education plan) that will prevent an accurate assessment even if they took the test, the others have parents that recieve notes asking them to exclude their children on the basis that it is war time and they have parents who are deployed so they are under unusual stress and taking the test would not benefit them. Allrighty, well now that you have eliminated all of those children whom we know probably wont score well, let me rejoice with you when the test comes in and we have one of the highest scores in the school district.
Come test time a huge deal is made. Among other preperations turning this whole thing into a circus, notes are sent home telling parents to make sure their children get enough rest, eat decent meals and how to help them deal with the stress of test taking. the counselor een comes in and gives them a pep talk.
When the actual testing commences, these children are placed in their rooms with one or two teachers overseeing and have to reamin quiet and still while they endure an average of three hours a day for one week of filling in little dots. Oh, but it is OK because we let them have snack breaks every forty-five minutes. Why is this whole scenario accepted and even encouraged? Some will say they need it to teach them test taking skills in college, that's all fine and dandy but they start on kids who are about 8-9! Who thinks that at this age they are going to get an accurate assessment in this situation?
Secondly, if my daughter is weak in an area, I probably already know this and do not need a test to tell me. See, I spend enough time with my child to know how she best learns information, what she wants to learn and what she has trouble with. I am her parent. There is probably nothing that an outsider "professional" or a contrived test could tell me about her that I do not already know.
Yes, the test would show she is behind in Social studies (at least the parts they would test her on). She can not name all the states or their capitals, she can not name all the presidents, I don't think she even knows very much about the thirteen original colonies, but you know what, neither can I and I went through school with a B average. What does that tell you? However, she knows a ton about World War 1 and World war II. She knows about incidents that really tell you about our history, that tend to be watered down or not mentioned in text books. She knows intimately about the USS Indianapolis, the greatest Naval disaster ever, she knows about the depression and immigrants and the Orphan train. She knows what she wants to know about history and I truly think that matters more than whether she can name the states and their capitals, or whether she knows about ancient civilizations when she has no desire to learn about them.
It would reveal that she is behind in writing. So, she can't write worth a dang. She is not a writer. No matter how much they want to force writing on her, she will not enjoy it unless she discovers the joy of writing on her own. That could be tommorrow, that could be ten years from now. I could force her so that it would look good on a test, would she want to write for enjoyment later, odds are probably not. So, let's force her to write so that she "passes" in this area and in the process give up any chance she may ever have of writing for the sheer enjoyment of it. Yes, that would be so much better..... What kind of convoluted crud is that?
The test would also tell me that she is a great reader with good comprehension skills, it would reveal that she has a mathmatical mind and is excelling in science.
But, you see, the joke is on them. I already know all of this information and much more. More than that test would ever be able to tell me about the beautiful girl I am raising.