Kris Jenner “Terrified” Kylie Will Get “Sucked Into” Scientology By Jaden Smith

[CommunicatorIC]

Sorry to interrupt all the friendly banter, but is the study tech stuff on the school's webpage that I quoted current, i.e. what the staff do with the students at present? Or is it some historical webpage that hasn't been updated?

Paul

Current as of this post.

http://www.nvlacademy.org/_bin/curriculum/educationPhilosophy.cfm

The NVLA Educational Philosophy - SPIRAL UP!


The New Village Leadership Academy continually researches best educational practices and consults with the top educational thinkers of the day so that our program is the best, the most current, the most educationally sound and the most foundationally relevant for our children. It is our philosophy that students need to understand why they are learning and what they are learning. What is the relevance of algebra, phonics or recycling to everyday life? How will these concepts be used and why are they important? What is the purpose and application of this knowledge? We make sure that children are given the opportunity to make connections, opening minds to using their full intelligences to make ever widening, “spiraling” connections to the complex world.

What students learn and how they act has an impact on their classmates, their school, and as they get older, on the world. NVLA students act as leaders and realize how their choices affect others around them. We make connections as to how small purposeful actions can have great effects. For example, a group of students has recycled plastic bottles at ten cents per bottle. Once they had $100 dollars (1,000 bottles) they had enough money to buy a goat for a village in Africa, which can ensure the survival of this village. Each day, we strive to make associations such as this knowing that our children are the ones who will need the mindset and intelligence to solve ever-expanding global problems while not losing sight of the local problems that need urgent attention as well.

The New Village Leadership Academy takes a unique approach to educating the total child. We look at each student as a unique individual with his or her own set of strengths, talents, skills, intelligences, challenges, likes and dislikes. For example, each student has their own Personal Leadership Plan developed with a teacher. The Personal Leadership Plan begins with our youngest students. Each year, students have a conversation with their homeroom teacher so that the school can understand what the students' passions, interests and dreams may be. The Personal Leadership Plans are worked on weekly, and projects from them are then housed in the students' Portfolio, which is used as an exit criterion.

Another important aspect of our program is that all of our learning experiences are taught using hands on materials and must have a real world application. Our goal for thorough conceptual understanding of ideas, concepts and principles. For example, if a student is learning how to make a robot, he or she needs to see or touch the materials and computer right in front of him or her rather than just imagining how to make it. By providing the Legos to construct the robot, the computer to program the robot and the competition to apply this knowledge in a real-world experience, the students conceptual understanding is deeper and more meaningful.

Our exceptional teachers are taught to teach sequentially, checking for prior understanding. When a student is required to perform a sequence of steps and he comes to a point where he doesn’t understand, the learning curve is too steep. If a teacher is showing a student how to make the robot and the student suddenly is confused, the teacher makes sure to go back to the place the student stopped understanding and re-teach that point. We teach older students to do this on their own – when studying learn to go back with no prompting to restudy their prior steps and the concepts they may not have grasped the first time around.

In addition, NVLA teachers make sure students understand the meanings of all of the words related to the subject, whether in math or in music, or as in the robot example – all of the words related to making the robot. What do the words, electro-mechanic, gears, and system mean? Often students (and adults as well) lose interest and stop paying attention when they get lost in explanations filled with words they do not understand. So many students think they are terrible in math; has the teacher ever defined words such as factor, geometry or exponent? Teachers therefore are trained to make sure they monitor the children for lack of understanding. Similarly, if the student is learning how to program the robot and comes across a word that he is unfamiliar with, the student must look it up in the dictionary or have the word explained by a teacher. Once the student understands the words related to a concept, there is greater understanding of the entire subject.

Because of our small class sizes and interdisciplinary approach, NVLA students have unlimited opportunities to discover their innate “genius” – some are wonderful public speakers and leaders, others have a passion for literature; some are artists, actors, singers, dancers, chess players, scientists or athletes. Some are really exceptional at playing! All are encouraged to shine through their own creativity and self-expression, while encouraged to remain focused and self-determined in all academic areas.

NVLA students move upward, outward, continue to add prior knowledge, reach for the sky, grow, explore, discover. In other words, NVLA students…. spiral up!

SPIRAL UP, NVLA!

The three paragraphs emphasized above address the Three Barriers to Study set forth in L. Ron Hubbard's Study Tech in the following order: (1) Absence of Mass; (2) Too Steep of Gradient; and (3) Misunderstood Word or Symbol.

The Academy may or or may not utilize LRH or Applied Scholastics materials. The Academy may or may not be licensed by Applied Scholastics or another Church of Scientology entity. The Academy may or may not limit its theory of instruction to Study Tech. Indeed, the Academy may or may not cite, acknowledge or even refer to LRH, "Study Tech" as such, Applied Scholastics or any other COS entity.

But any Scientologist or ex-Scientologist who has taken the Student Hat course, the BSM, etc. will recognize, and have no doubt, that the educational philosophy of the Academy is at the very least heavily influenced by, and may indeed be based entirely on, Study Tech authored by L. Ron Hubbard. There is simply no doubt.

The re-wording is artful -- apparently purposefully so -- and the concepts well-disguised. But there is simply no way this educational philosophy is not heavily influenced by, if not based entirely on, Study Tech.

.

 

[FlunkYou]

the student must look it up in the dictionary OR HAVE THE WORD EXPLAINED BY A TEACHER.

As I stated earlier, I can totally see why someone would think that based on that description. However, realistically, doesn't it just make sense to know what you're studying by actually knowing the meanings of the words pertaining to the subject, and having some real-world experience with the subject? Wouldn't that normally be considered good common sense?

Besides, if a teacher ever gave a student a verbal explanation of a word in an scn group, they'd be RPF'd back to the stone age.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

the student must look it up in the dictionary OR HAVE THE WORD EXPLAINED BY A TEACHER.

As I stated earlier, I can totally see why someone would think that based on that description. However, realistically, doesn't it just make sense to know what you're studying by actually knowing the meanings of the words pertaining to the subject, and having some real-world experience with the subject? Wouldn't that normally be considered good common sense?

Besides, if a teacher ever gave a student a verbal explanation of a word in an scn group, they'd be RPF'd back to the stone age.

If it was just a matter of having students look words up in a dictionary, or have them explained, I might agree.

But as I laid out above, it is abundantly clear that the Academy addresses all three barriers to study as identified in Study Tech: (1) Absence of Mass; (2) Too Steep of Gradient; and (3) Misunderstood Word or Symbol.

As for giving a student a verbal explanation of a word, while that is not standard in a Church of Scientology Div. 2 Academy, or even in a Div. 6 Course room, it is a valid form of word clearing. It is Method 7 Word Clearing, which involves:

Method 7: Checking for misunderstood words by reading aloud. Unlike the other methods, when a word is found, the person working with the student actually defines the words for the student, explaining in his own words rather than having the student look up the words. This is done with people studying in a language not their original and for younger students or with someone who is brand new to the subject.

After all, how do Applied Scholastics and Scientology schools apply study tech to children who cannot read at all? At some point, there has to be a verbal component.

Finally, even if this Academy's course room were somehow not "standard," that would not mean that it wasn't heavily influenced by, or based entirely on, LRH Study Tech. It would just mean it was somehow not standard, and that there are limits to how much they can push the Smith family.

.

 

[TG1]

Flunk You,

Welcome to ESMB.

A few questions that you're in a unique position to answer, compared to (I assume) the rest of us:

1. Are you a Scientologist?

2. Are the Smiths Scientologists?

3. Do Scientologists send their kids to that school?

Thanks in advance,

TG1

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Flunk You,

Welcome to ESMB.

A few questions that you're in a unique position to answer, compared to (I assume) the rest of us:

1. Are you a Scientologist?

Given this statement -

Besides, if a teacher ever gave a student a verbal explanation of a word in an scn group, they'd be RPF'd back to the stone age.

-- my educated guess is that he is a corporate Scientologist, an Independent Scientologist, a Freezoner, or an ex-Scientologist. It is highly unlikely a member of the general public is going to know about how a COS Div. 2 Academy or Div. 6 course room is run, much less make the argument that somebody who used M7 in an Academy would be RPFed.

I think the likelihood that FlunkYou is one of the above is even higher given his statement -

I have a child that goes to school there. Besides being a parent that is actually involved with the school, I also know (outside of the school) a handful of people who work there who are NOT scientolgists.

What is the likelihood that a member of the general public who has no current or prior involvement in Scientology, who just happens to have a child who goes to the school, will: (a) find ESMB; (b) post on ESMB denying that the school is connected with Scientology; and, most importantly (c) make the sophisticated argument that a particular form of word clearing would be out-tech in a Church of Scientology Academy, and result in the teacher being "RPF'd back to the stone age?"

Like I said, just an educated guess. I could be wrong.

Of course, if I am right then that somewhat strengthens the conclusion that the school uses Study Tech and is somehow associated with Applied Scholasitics and/or the Church of Scientology. After all, why else would AS or the COS send someone to handle us?

.

 

[TrevAnon]

That Wiki link is so outdated and misinformed as of 2009.
NVLA does not use "study tech" nor are there any "ethics officers" or ANY affiliation to applied skoolastics.
All of the teacher there hold college degrees, and, for the most part, (as far as I know) are NOT "scientologists". A couple may have done some courses back in the day, but that doesn't make them scientologists (unless you're the IAS).
Like Anonycat said, the Smiths are not scientologists.

I know for a FACT that it's not a scientologist school right now.

I know there were some scner's working there in the past...there may even be 1 or 2 there now, but the school it's self does not use "study tech", have an "ethics officer", they're not affiliated with applied scholastics, there are no "e-meters", there are no "demo kits", there is no rule about being quite when someone gets hurt, etc.

This is from someone who knows this firsthand...but, if you want to believe it's an scn front group, by all means.

There's nothing wrong with DOX.

Or STFU...

 

[degraded being]

the student must look it up in the dictionary OR HAVE THE WORD EXPLAINED BY A TEACHER.

As I stated earlier, I can totally see why someone would think that based on that description. However, realistically, doesn't it just make sense to know what you're studying by actually knowing the meanings of the words pertaining to the subject, and having some real-world experience with the subject? Wouldn't that normally be considered good common sense?

Besides, if a teacher ever gave a student a verbal explanation of a word in an scn group, they'd be RPF'd back to the stone age.

It makes sense to understand words. It makes sense to know that if a kid doesn't get something in a sequence then something prior may not be grasped. It is common sense for qualified teachers. That's why it is unusual to spend so much time going on about it in an outline of the educational philosophy. To a scientologist, this is supposedly a new discovery and must be laid out didacticly to those who are supposedly ignorant about how to study. It shows that somebody doesn't know something, but the someone is not who the writer of that blurb thinks it is.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Sorry to interrupt all the friendly banter, but is the study tech stuff on the school's webpage that I quoted current, i.e. what the staff do with the students at present? Or is it some historical webpage that hasn't been updated?

Paul

Old...no study tech (per study tech: demo kits, clearing all definitions and derivations of words, clay table etc).

Also, the teachers there all have degrees and are not course supervisors. What they've done there (mainly the faculty, not the Smiths) is nothing short of spectacular. The education these kids are getting is beyond most private schools in the area.

Hmmm. You no-answered the question, FU, by apparently redefining study tech as only using demo kits, clearing all definitions and derivation, clay table "etc".

I was a pro sup for many years, at Saint Hill and the International Training Org. There are some very good things in study tech: my favourite was Method 3 Word Clearing when used as a precision tool, as I have detailed on ESMB and elsewhere. Most people use M3 sloppily and miss finding THE thing to clear up. There is also a load of crap in study tech (Method 4, Method 2, almost all of the other WC methods, actually). There are other points but this post isn't intended to be a summary of the pros and cons, more a statement that the subject contains both very good and very bad procedures.

As I said, I know nothing about the school other than what's in this thread and on their website. It could be a truly excellent school, with caring teachers and winning students, that uses (among other study practices) only the useful parts of study tech cherry-picked out by sensible people who have done (among other training) Scn training and have maybe had Scn auditing in the past. Not everything in Scn is bad. However, your apparent misdirection on this thread makes it look like there is something there that needs hiding.

Paul

 

[Student of Trinity]

Some elements of "Study Tech" are potentially benign, but touting them as standout features of your school is very weird, because the only benign elements of "Study Tech" are complete no-brainers of education theory. One of the big stupid aspects of "Study Tech" is thinking that these platitudes are revolutionary breakthroughs in education. A school that thinks of such elementary concepts as magic bullets is not showing much awareness of the real challenges of good education. It's like proudly proclaiming that at your school, you teach students to read actual books! and try to think for themselves! Move over, Socrates!

 

[FlunkYou]

Hmmm. You no-answered the question, FU, by apparently redefining study tech as only using demo kits, clearing all definitions and derivation, clay table "etc".

I was a pro sup for many years, at Saint Hill and the International Training Org. There are some very good things in study tech: my favourite was Method 3 Word Clearing when used as a precision tool, as I have detailed on ESMB and elsewhere. Most people use M3 sloppily and miss finding THE thing to clear up. There is also a load of crap in study tech (Method 4, Method 2, almost all of the other WC methods, actually). There are other points but this post isn't intended to be a summary of the pros and cons, more a statement that the subject contains both very good and very bad procedures.

As I said, I know nothing about the school other than what's in this thread and on their website. It could be a truly excellent school, with caring teachers and winning students, that uses (among other study practices) only the useful parts of study tech cherry-picked out by sensible people who have done (among other training) Scn training and have maybe had Scn auditing in the past. Not everything in Scn is bad. However, your apparent misdirection on this thread makes it look like there is something there that needs hiding.

Paul

I thought the "no study tech" was my answer, but I guess I didn't expound on it properly to satisfy your question so let metry it again...

My understanding of "study tech" involves looking up any words you don't understand, finding the definition that applies to what you're reading, clearing that definition and then clearing any other definitions the word may have as well as the derivation. You may also need to demonstrate concepts or definitions by using inanimate objects (or clay) to show understanding and to give you "mass".

That aspect of "study tech" is NOT used at the school. However, if a child doesn't know the meaning of a word, they are encouraged to look it up (honestly, I'm not really sure how often this even happens as I don't recall seeing any dictionaries readily available in the classroom, but I'm sure they exist) or ask its meaning. They are not required to study all of its definitions, nor are they required to demo it out. There are no e-meters for exams (or AT ALL), no word clearers, no check sheets, no checkouts by other students, no spot-checks, no point system with graphs and conditions, none of the things that are indicative of "study tech" per El Ron.

But, if you wish to believe it's some form of "study tech", then that's cool wif me. I am of the mindset that it's just common sense to look up a word you don't know if it helps you understand what you're reading. Or that you learn on a gradient...which is why you study algebra before trigonometry. Or that you learn a subject by using objects relating to what you're studying, or, even better, the real thing. I mean there are "technical" colleges on TV showing their students working in "classrooms" that look like a service department at a dealership.

I understand the school was exposed to Scn. But to what degree? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. In my estimation, the faculty there are top-notch educators, and the parents are truly involved in their child's education and well being. It good group of people sharing a common goal.

I'm not here to "sell" anyone on the school. The odds of anyone on ESMB sending their child to NVLA based on what I've written here is 0. I know this for a FACT. I just happen to know what goes on there, and was trying to give accurate information from someone who was actually involved with the place....should anyone care.

I see the scn paranoia runs deep with some here, and again, that's cool with me. I laugh at all without discrimination.

My background is: (and as stated here before) I was raised in scn, and along MY spiritual path I found out for myself that auditing doesn't work. I think the church is grossly out exchange and doesn't deliver what's promised. THAT IS MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF. I have friends that are scn'ers, and that's fine with me. I have friends that are not, and that's fine with me.

Again, I was just trying to provide some information about the subject at hand as someone who knew what was actually going on there. Take it or leave it...it's all good.

 

[Anonycat]

I don't talk zoophile, so I have no clue what your "greased pig" comment means.

You're the one telling us your "theories" on the Smiths and the school based on Wikipedia and Google results. "It's on the internet, it has to be true."

Wow, I'm feeling so invalidated. A witless poster attributed a quote to me that I never made. I do stand by my greased pig remark. So far, you have fit the role. Let me handle your MU. Imagine a pig. Thank you. Create a pig, but this time make it greasy. Thank you.

Sigh. This won't become a battle of logic, since you seem to be unarmed. I'll request that it's moved to an appropriate place.

 

[FlunkYou]

Wow, I'm feeling so invalidated. A witless poster attributed a quote to me that I never made. I do stand by my greased pig remark. So far, you have fit the role. Let me handle your MU. Imagine a pig. Thank you. Create a pig, but this time make it greasy. Thank you.

Sigh. This won't become a battle of logic, since you seem to be unarmed. I'll request that it's moved to an appropriate place.

I believe this was your quote:
"For starters, although Will Smith has been vocal about his acceptance of Scientology, he and his family do NOT actively practice the religion." But, I guess you were just quoting an article? I don't know, your post made it look like you said it.

However, now knowing your douchiness (as confirmed by someone else trolling you here the other night in the chatbox) that's not possible.

I'm happy to exchange insults anytime. I actually find it funny....most of the time.

So while you go Google some more "evidence" of the Smiths putting $$ into the school that they OWN...I mean this SCN front group, I'll go Google what a greased pig means. Deal?

 

[FinallyMe]

Ah, now I get where the dispute comes from -- I believe that FU fully explained his position by admitting that he does not know what "study tech" is. He thinks it is ONLY word clearing administered by someone else. So he is talking about something entirely different from what the rest of us are talking about.

I would suggest that FU double-check with whoever forwarded that definition of "study tech" to him, perhaps find out what it really is from someone who has nothing to lose by providing a full description.

FU, I'd be interested to know the basis for your statement that the school is a much better school than other private schools? Did your kid(s) go to a few other private schools?

 

[FlunkYou]

Ah, now I get where the dispute comes from -- I believe that FU fully explained his position by admitting that he does not know what "study tech" is. He thinks it is ONLY word clearing administered by someone else. So he is talking about something entirely different from what the rest of us are talking about.

I would suggest that FU double-check with whoever forwarded that definition of "study tech" to him, perhaps find out what it really is from someone who has nothing to lose by providing a full description.

FU, I'd be interested to know the basis for your statement that the school is a much better school than other private schools? Did your kid(s) go to a few other private schools?

Sweet sarcasm!

Why don't you enlighten me? As far as I know there are 3 barriers to study....the misunderstood word, lack of mass, and too steep of gradient. Are there more?

I really don't think you give 2 shits about my basis of opinion, but to oblige your question, yes, my child did go to another private school. I also checked out Muse, Sierra Canyon and Viewpoint.

 

[FinallyMe]

Okay, you know what the three barriers to learning are. And do you know how those barriers are purportedly handled at that school, and where the instructions came from regarding how to handle those barriers?

I don't question whether your child is doing well at the school, or even whether you agree with the way teaching is occurring, or that you trust that there are only three barriers to learning, or that you trust that no "ethics handling" is applied. The issue in this thread is whether the school uses Scientology "tech" without acknowledging that fact to parents and other donors. It's easier to answer that question if you personally know what the "tech" looks like, and many of the people posting here have many, many years of personal knowledge.

However, there is probably some merit to not caring what philosophy the teaching methods are based on as along as you are happy with the results. Unfortunately, the results may not show up immediately. I wish your child a lot of luck.

 

[FlunkYou]

Okay, you know what the three barriers to learning are. And do you know how those barriers are purportedly handled at that school, and where the instructions came from regarding how to handle those barriers?

I don't question whether your child is doing well at the school, or even whether you agree with the way teaching is occurring, or that you trust that there are only three barriers to learning, or that you trust that no "ethics handling" is applied. The issue in this thread is whether the school uses Scientology "tech" without acknowledging that fact to parents and other donors. It's easier to answer that question if you personally know what the "tech" looks like, and many of the people posting here have many, many years of personal knowledge.

However, there is probably some merit to not caring what philosophy the teaching methods are based on as along as you are happy with the results. Unfortunately, the results may not show up immediately. I wish your child a lot of luck.

From what I've experienced and seen, there is no word clearing AS I WAS TAUGHT PER LRH'S TEK. With that being said, I don't know how anyone is supposed to find out the meaning of a word without using a dictionary or having someone explain it to them.

I will say my child will ask ME what a word means when we read the kindle together or when something is said that he doesn't understand, but a verbal explanation or the dictionary in the kindle works fine. It's just a young child wanting to know what a word means. That's it. None of the other BS that goes into word clearing per LRH.

Sorry to say there is no "hidden" agenda or some sly way of administering scientology tech under a dark cloak of secrecy to any of the kids going to school there. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to recognize it if it where.

It's painfully obvious the scientology paranoia factor is high with some here, but it's just not that case with that school. Perhaps some of the most basic and obvious education tools are outlined in a scientological way on the website, but, as many of you here also know from being on course, staff or whatever, it is not per LRH's TEK. And if it's not done per LRH's TEK, then you're damned to hell, fail, explode...or some shit like that.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

From what I've experienced and seen, there is no word clearing AS I WAS TAUGHT PER LRH'S TEK.

As I explained above, M7.

Sorry to say there is no "hidden" agenda or some sly way of administering scientology tech under a dark cloak of secrecy to any of the kids going to school there.

As I also explained above, and others have repeatedly noted, the fact that the "Educational Philosophy" of the school is heavily influenced by, if not entirely based upon, Study Tech, and clearly addresses the Three Barriers to Study is painfully obvious and irrefutable. You had certainly said nothing to refute it.

I'm pretty sure I'd be able to recognize it if it where.

Perhaps not, given your refusal to address the points that have been repeated above. Further, even if you were able to recognize it, that doesn't mean you would necessarily admit it.

It's painfully obvious the scientology paranoia factor is high with some here

Name calling and circumstantial ad hominem. Always effective.

.

 

[Anonycat]

I believe this was your quote:
"For starters, although Will Smith has been vocal about his acceptance of Scientology, he and his family do NOT actively practice the religion." But, I guess you were just quoting an article? I don't know, your post made it look like you said it.

However, now knowing your douchiness (as confirmed by someone else trolling you here the other night in the chatbox) that's not possible.

I'm happy to exchange insults anytime. I actually find it funny....most of the time.

So while you go Google some more "evidence" of the Smiths putting $$ into the school that they OWN...I mean this SCN front group, I'll go Google what a greased pig means. Deal?

I Googled the quote you just provided, and I got the article in the OP: http://www.gossipcop.com/kris-jenne...jaden-smith-scientologist-will-jada-religion/

I can't believe I got trolled! In the chatbox?! I don't recall that ever happening here. Maybe you have me confused for someone else.

I have been following the school since before it opened, so my research on that has passed. Most of my personal interest in it, is that culties run and hide when you expose them - and the school behaved as expected. Nothing much more of interest there, but some various stages of culties remain, from what you've said. That's about what I would expect. I see what kind of "spiral" the school creates, and I appreciate your posts. If just one parent considering the school reads your posts, they'll probably avoid you and the school.

 

[TG1]

Oh, there are WAY more than three barriers to study and, more importantly, to learning. Here are just a few:

1. Thinking you already know everything that's important.
Some personality disorders manifest themselves in this way. Also, Clears, OT 3s, 5s, and 8s act this way, until they hit the wall. Many Sea Org, staff and OT Committee jerkoffs also act this way, whether they really believe it's true or not.

2. Thinking the subject itself is evil.
For example, psychiatry, homosexuality, journalism, other religions, other practices, other fish to fry.

3. Agreeing to trust or consult only specific sources as qualified authorities.
Some very devout persons are constantly asking themselves and consulting their sacred texts to learn What Would Jesus / Jeshiva / Ron do?

4. A deep commitment to remaining comfortable, rather than exploring topics that you know will make you very uncomfortable.
Some might feel this way when thinking about googling combinations of these words - Hubbard / Scientology / Vistaril / Bluebird / affirmations / war medals / psychotic break / Lisa McPherson / Truth Rundown.

5. Fearing what one will then be compelled by one's conscience to do, once one has acquired that new knowledge.
Like asking a Sea Org staff member how much sleep they've had in the last week.

6. Being terrified you'll reveal to others that you don't possess that knowledge already.
This one reminds me of a story I heard one time about a young nuclear physics student.

7. Being physically threatened by others who do not want you to study and learn.
Afghanistani girls come to mind.

8. Poor diets, insufficient sleep, little or no or bad medical care.
Overworked Sea Org and staff members suffer from all of these.

9. Pretending / imagining you know how to do something -- when all you can do is move pieces of clay and pebbles around a table top while muttering sentences that contain words about the subject.
Skills that require much practice, like horseriding, typing, creative writing, original research, etc., aren't really helped much by those particular study habits.

10. Believing that all knowledge is found in words someone else wrote.

TG1

 

[FlunkYou]

, and others have repeatedly noted, the fact that the "Educational Philosophy" of the school is heavily influenced by, if not entirely based upon, Study Tech, and clearly addresses the Three Barriers to Study is painfully obvious and irrefutable. You had certainly said nothing to refute it.Perhaps not, given your refusal to address the points that have been repeated above. Further, even if you were able to recognize it, that doesn't mean you would necessarily admit it.

How would YOU learn the meanings of words?
Did YOU walk before you crawled, or was it the other way around?
When programming a VCR, would YOU prefer to do that in your head while reading the manual, or would you rather have the VCR there in front of you? ( I know, no one uses VCR's anymore)

If someone uses pennies to show a 5 yr old how to add 3+2, is that giving them mass and therefore they're using study tech?
If a child asks what "superfluous" means because it's in his book, and you give them a verbal explanation of the word, is that M7 word clearing?
If a child from 1st grade can't do algebra, do you think maybe they should go back to what they can do and work up from there?

Quit being so paranoid. Not everyone is out to slip one by you.

I'm actually dumbfounded that I have had to explain this in as many ways as I have. Are you guys punking me? Is this some sort of initiation?