One of the first lessons students are often taught in a public high school is: "Keep an open mind." They are instructed to pay equal credence to every viewpoint, to avoid being judgmental or prejudiced. Students also might be assigned group projects to learn to cooperate and appreciate other perspectives.

But how conducive, really, is an "open mind" to learning?

In 1983, a panel of leading educators published "A Nation at Risk: An Open Letter to the American people." It addressed plummeting math and science scores, poor educational standards and widespread student apathy. Ever since, Americans have clamored for educational reform, but no amount of tax money or student testing seems to make much difference.

Dr. Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif., suggests looking to philosophy for a solution.

Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" was the 2nd most influential book of the 20th century after the Bible, according to a Library of Congress survey.

According to Rand, philosophy is essential to solving problems and making decisions. Her own philosophy, objectivism, is, in her words, "a philosophy for living on earth."

Epistemology, a branch of philosophy, studies how human beings learn to understand and deal with the world. And what one thinks is the correct way of acquiring knowledge, Ghate said, "would have obvious implications for what education should be and shouldn't be."

The cornerstone of objectivist epistemology is reason: It holds that reality is concrete and knowable and that human beings are endowed with a rational faculty that guides them in understanding the world. The purpose of education, therefore, is to "convey the body of knowledge in the form of principles and to teach (students) how to reason, how to think logically and objectively about every issue and every subject," Ghate says.

But Rand's objectivism is not the philosophy at work in most public schools today. Rather, a philosophy called progressivism has been at the forefront of molding America's public education since the beginning of the century. Progressivism was championed by John Dewey, who believed that reality is relative, and that children learn not by the independent use of their minds, but by being in tune with their feelings and by getting along with their peers.

As he stated in "School and Society" in 1899, "The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain."

In a famous declaration first published in "The School Journal" in 1897, Dewey proclaimed that "the school is primarily a social institution. . . . I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities."

This doctrine was accepted about the same time that public education became common and many states passed compulsory school attendance laws. Thus, with Dewey's guidance, schools began to emphasize "social interaction" and the importance of keeping a nonjudgmental, "open mind" -- even if, Ghate said, the cost is the attainment of knowledge.

Objectivists attribute the deterioration of our schools to the progressivist movement and government-run education in general. To improve schools, objectivists would gradually reduce tax funding and ultimately privatize education altogether.

As Ghate explains, "The ideal and proper solution is to have a free market in education, just like there's a free market in computers and groceries or what have you. . . . You wouldn't have just a statewide curriculum, but you would have various schools teaching a different way, emphasizing different subjects and so on. And parents are not idiots. They would be able to see what kinds of kids, what kinds of minds, are being turned out by the various schools. . . . They want the best for their child, so they would select the best schools."

This line of reasoning makes a lot of sense to Daniel Higginbotham, 17, of Lynchburg, Va., winner of the 2001 Ayn Rand Essay Contest. Daniel is a junior at the Central Virginia Governor's School for Science and Technology, a public high school.

In a recent phone interview he argued that "the government has an agenda, and the government naturally wants to perpetuate itself. So by taking control of schools, it's naturally going to indoctrinate kids the way it wants to. And naturally, going for a social adjustment, or just not thinking for yourself, is in line with the government's desire for self-perpetuation."

But what would happen to those kids whose parents could not afford the schools of their choice?

"Education is not that expensive a proposition," Ghate said. "People were educated 50, 100 years ago, and they didn't have computers. You need a few textbooks, and you need a good teacher, and that is not that expensive."

For those who truly could not afford an education, Ghate said, there would be scholarships and other financial aid. And since citizens would no longer be taxed for education, they could use that money to send their children to the school of their choice.

But Ghate does not expect such a drastic step to be taken right away. After all, the U.S. courts have maintained for decades that all Americans have the right to a public education.

As a first step, objectivists advocate tax credits for education.

"Because everyone is forced to contribute to the public schools, it's very hard now for parents to be able to afford to send their child to a private school. And it's very difficult for a private school to compete with a public school, who is getting tax dollars to fund the school, whereas (the private school) has to raise all the money through tuition and donations and so on," Ghate explains.

That idea appeals to Rebecca Knapp, 17, of Teaneck, N.J., a finalist in the 2001 Ayn Rand contest. "I think vouchers are a really good idea in the form of tax refunds. Get your taxes back for education, use it for a private school. I think that would probably be the best way," she said.

A senior at the Academy for the Advancement of Science and Technology, a public magnet school, Rebecca said, "I've always liked to do work myself because I don't know, I just feel like if it's a group project, I end up doing it all anyway."

Rebecca is ready for a move to objectivist instruction.

"Ultimately, I think you could phase out public schools completely," she said. "Until then, all these ideas with school choice, I think that's a good way to do it."

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Stephanie Smith, 14.