The Anti-School Movement - Page 3

fishbob · 7th June 2012, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Ah, so the problem is you don't trust kids.

“All I am saying ... can be summed up in two words: Trust Children. Nothing could be more simple, or more difficult. Difficult because to trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves, and most of us were taught as children that we could not be trusted.” ~ John Holt

Sounds lofty - and completely impractical.
Trust kids to do what? Develop a cirriculum? Show up? Do something they don't want to do? I guess not.

fishbob · 7th June 2012, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

And I love the fact that you think like this, but the minute you force people to learn these things is the first step in rebellion.

Oh no. You can lead a horse to water . . .
You can have a structured method of showing these things. No guarantees that anything will stick, but we have to try. And this teaching the test nonsense has to stop.

Scott Sommers · 7th June 2012, 03:35 AM

This is actually a good thread. Not like that other crap.

I can understand that many students now no longer feel there's much benefit in going to school and that, at times, school almost seems like an enemy or obstacle to a constructive like. This is probably true for many students. There is little benefit that attending the kind of classes taught to most grade 10-12 students, and attending school presents dangers of getting in to problems that might even have legal repercussions. The frightening thing is that I work in education and I feel this way.

I am less sure the alternative to this is the sort of thing you're talking. The pages you linked to addressing the academic achievement of homeschooled kids say more about public school failure than the success of more liberal forms of teaching. It's also slightly misleading. Most homeschooled kids are taught this way for religious reasons. It's very hard to get this from these figures, although they give a correct picture of average student achievement.

The problem is that the very best and surest way to a financially viable life remains through traditional schools. The problem is that the schools able to provide this kind of training are not open to everybody. They may call themselves "public" but they you live there to use them. Public schools in Massachusetts, and some other states, compete for top spots in international comparisons with places like China, Taiwan and Korea. But you have to be able to live in Massachusetts.

derchin · 7th June 2012, 04:37 AM

Perhaps we can all start over, because we're all over the place...

ponderingturtle · 7th June 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got.
I recall comparing courses with a neighbor who was a senior at the local public high school and she was taking only mandated US history and Physical education. She already had enough credits to graduate.
At our school, one took a full course load all four years, including four years of a language, sciences, etc. The optional courses were very few and included things like typing and art.

I listen to NPR all the time and have heard many discussions and debates over public schooling and it's problems. Seems we are still for the most part trying to turn out kids well-educated enough to take jobs in manufacturing and industry that no longer exist.

And yet it is hard to get many skilled trades in industry. There are many guaranteed good jobs in industry that companies are always looking for but we steer people to pointless office jobs and history degrees instead.

ponderingturtle · 7th June 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Depends. Homeschooling is broken into many subgroups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Methodology

And of course all the most important work done in creation science comes out of home schooled science fair projects.

ponderingturtle · 7th June 2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob

I am a product of public school, rural Texas, so last century.
Yeah, I don't care about Chaucer, but I know a little about the Canterbury Tales, I don't care much about organic chemistry, but I understand how it relates to both medicine and fossil fuels. I know a little about electricity and shipping and Spanish and German - none of which are particularly useful on any given day. But - the knowledge that has been accumulated over the last thousand years is the most valuable thing humanity has. Its not like 'less for you is more for me'. It is amazing to me that anybody would deliberately choose to be ignorant on any subject and avoid sharing in that wealth.

PS - willful ignorance is one definition of stupidity.

You read something as dirty as the Canterbury tales in highschool? I remember hearing about a professor trying to get on female student to say the c word. It was thought reasonable in a Chaucer class.

derchin · 7th June 2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And of course all the most important work done in creation science comes out of home schooled science fair projects.

There are non-religiously motivated H.S, you know.

ponderingturtle · 7th June 2012, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Famous authors like John Holt, John Taylor Gatto, Ray Bradbury, and filmmmaker George Lucas all renounced traditional education in some way.

And they offer the best medical advice too unlike elitist doctors.

mikeyx · 7th June 2012, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

There seems to be a growing interest in the "anti-school" movement, made both by students, parents and teachers alike.

Sites like School-Survival, the Educational Freedom Education, the National Youth Rights Association and authors like John Taylor Gatto, Alfie Kohn, and Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt argue that the educational system we have in place does more harm than good. Instead of pushing kids to fight for their dreams and to be creative and open-minded while doing so, many schools today demands obedience and only seeks to create thoughtless workers for the ones in charge (Whether that means the government, authorities, or corporate/business leaders.)

I consider myself to be an anti-schoolist. I'm a member of the three sites above and an avid read of all three authors mentioned above.

Thoughts Opinions?

You have a point, to a point. I might liken your logic to organized religion, without delving into any Atheism argument or derailing, but the point is similar. Modern day Evangelical Christianity as a comparison often seems a whole more interested in literal interpretation of the Bible than they are in the teachings of the Savior who spawned the religion.

By your logic, the School System has become more about indoctrination than education, and there I do much agree with you. But what is the replacement? I don't see Hoem Schooling as the answer, it is far from perfect in it's own right.

mikeyx · 7th June 2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Hmmm. I sing in a choir with a girl who was taught in a Steiner school. She has a distressingly superficial grasp of many matters, and the huge gaps in her knowledge are quite startling.

I imagine she's happy enough. But from where I'm standing she's missing so much. And if everyone was like her, huge swathes of human civilisation would simply vanish.

Rolfe.

pardon my own ignorance, A Steiner SChool is what, like a Magnent SChool in the US maybe?

ponderingturtle · 7th June 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

There are non-religiously motivated H.S, you know.

Sure but at what percentage? All I know is that when you google home school science you get christianity based learning instead of evidence.

As for homeschooling I wonder if my wife would know anything. Her mother took her out of honors math classes because she was worried about her getting a reputation as a nerd. Now she is getting a phds in educational psychology focusing on statistics and psychometrics. You know the ways to evaluate different approaches to teaching and comparing them scientifically for effectiveness and not which the students like more.

mikeyx · 7th June 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got.
I recall comparing courses with a neighbor who was a senior at the local public high school and she was taking only mandated US history and Physical education. She already had enough credits to graduate.
At our school, one took a full course load all four years, including four years of a language, sciences, etc. The optional courses were very few and included things like typing and art.

I listen to NPR all the time and have heard many discussions and debates over public schooling and it's problems. Seems we are still for the most part trying to turn out kids well-educated enough to take jobs in manufacturing and industry that no longer exist.

The wealthy can afford to send their kids to quality preparatory schools and then good colleges and universities. The poor can perhaps dream of a stint at some practical courses at the junior college level, if they can read and spell after graduating from their cash-strapped public schools.
So much of the problem is political. School boards are political, money-raising is political, and teaching agendas are political. Just as the country is deeply divided as to political philosophy we are deeply divided as to educational theory.
I don't have any answers, but from the various things I've heard it seems that kids are for the most part willing and able to absorb information and the most-successful schools are those that constantly challenge the kids instead of pushing them through dull "learn the facts" courses that "teach to the test".

I can counter with a friend who went to Catholic School and into adult life knows squat about Western Civilizationa nd related histories because they weren't to the Catholic agendaed ciriculum, which cites a good example.

mikeyx · 7th June 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Turns out that home-schoolers are more successful and happier than those who go to traditional school.

http://images.collegeathome.com.s3.a...domination.jpg

read the home school thread, results seem a bit more varied.

mikeyx · 7th June 2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

So we should retain a broken system?

why are you looking at it as only A or B?

A is broken.

B is wildly unreliable.

You need a C and a D wouldn't kill ya either

Quad4_72 · 7th June 2012, 08:04 AM

Let young kids who have not yet been educated decide what kind of education they should get....yes that sounds like a BRILLIANT idea

Kestrel · 7th June 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Sure but at what percentage? All I know is that when you google home school science you get christianity based learning instead of evidence.

I suspect you would find a similar bias in home school materials for teaching history. A conservative view of history similar to what was taught a half century ago.

Dessi · 7th June 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

And homeschooling wasn't my preferred method; people in this thread rolled with it. I actually prefer online schooling like sites such as Khan Academy.

Depends on how you do it.

[personal anecdote]
I avoided a lifetime of student loan debt by going to inexpensive university here in town, paying tuition out of pocket, and taking online classes to accommodate my work schedule. 90% of my college classes were online courses.

I'm glad I got my degree, but I never had a "college experience", felt like I lost out on so much for that reason. I do not remember a single person, name, face, or interaction I had with anyone from any online class -- like being totally socially isolated. By comparison, I got to know and enjoy the company of people I'd known from on-campus classes, and remember several of them very well.

One serious problem with online classes: mandatory participation. Usually that means posting to a classroom discussion X times per week for participation credit. Imagine the sort of contrived and shallow discussions students have just to meet the minimum requirements for participation.
[/personal anecdote]

I don't know anything about Khan Academy, but I hope its nothing like my experience.

swright777 · 7th June 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

School is not the driving force behind apathy in learning. Bad teachers are.

Bad parents too. Bad as in not encouraging their children or even caring about their education. Public schools aren't supposed to be just a baby sitting service.

Xulld · 7th June 2012, 09:12 AM

Quote:

That's sweet. Now let's fast forward to your 32 year old kid who never really had an interest in anything he could make a living at. Still trust him?

Incoming anecdote!

That was me, only not at 32. Back up a few years. At age 18 I had scraped by high-school due mostly to apathy, lots of C's, some D's an occasional B, A's where unheard of mostly due to failing to give 2 ***** about homework. Didn't learn CRAP from high-school, study for a test, and purge most of it a few months later couldn't even remember what the courses where about, didn't care. I went to community college for acting (I loved setting the bar LOW and having fun). Actors at arts colleges get lots of help to make sure they pass with high enough grades to not be removed from plays, otherwise I probably would have failed, I saw others who were less of a privileged class that did not get a third chance to review there paper 3 days after it was due fail, I even had a professor take my paper to his wife (she was also a professor at the college) and she marked up the paper for me to correct prior to turning it in, I would have failed comp III if not for that, non arts students did not get these second or third chances and professors proof reading papers to make sure you got good grades.

I graduated with a 3.0, but it would have been MUCH worse had I not been a privileged class of citizen, mostly due to my apathy in highschool, I really did try in college, the acting meant something to me and I really wanted to do well, but had NO skills, not some, NONE. I learned all of my English from Comp I to Comp III in college.

Nearly the same story for math, only an arts student didn't need much math to begin with so it was much easier to pass lib arts math lol.

Now fast forward a few years. I was in a terrible accident and hurt my back, nearly paralyzed. Nothing to do, cant act, cant work, cant walk really for more than a few minutes at a time.

I decided I wanted to study physics. WOW, culture shock. I went from a looser who barely understood how to spell science to someone who wanted to be the next Stephen Hawking.

I learned more math from coolmath.com in 6 weeks of remedial study, than all of my high school years. They used colors to separate out terms, they made math exciting and approachable. The site has a problem generator that allows you to continue to work on new problems and you are not stuck with a book which only has a tiny amount of problems for a section you have the most trouble with.

I flipped my degree in acting to a degree in physics within 2 years, 90% self study using websites as guides.

In high school the only courses I found interesting where the ones with no homework, all interactive class work, and or field studies. I do remember things from those classes. Environmental science was my favorite, but I think it was the teacher, not the material.

I really dont know what my story says about the problems with schools, but I think interest is a major issue for LOTS of kids today, and anyway you can build interest early is going to get them on the path a lot faster than what I had to go through.

Now a days I work as a supervisor for a radiology software development company, my background in physics AND my acting both come in hand. One for analytical thinking, the other for customer service calls that are escalated.

So as a highschool looser I turned around quickly, and not at all due to the schooling I received. Just an anecdote, maybe doesn't say anything about anyone other than myself, but I think there are more kids out there that were like me that struggle not becuase of a lack of potential, but becuase of a lack of interest in the grind oriented busy work system called public education. If my college professors did not care so much about keeping me in plays, and if I had never hurt my back and spent so much of my own time studying, id probably be still working as a laborer, or maybe at most a superintendent of a construction company, or surveying, all things I did to help pay for that arts college along the way . . . correlates to the ditch digger . . .

tyr_13 · 7th June 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

Depends on how you do it.

[personal anecdote]
I avoided a lifetime of student loan debt by going to inexpensive university here in town, paying tuition out of pocket, and taking online classes to accommodate my work schedule. 90% of my college classes were online courses.

I'm glad I got my degree, but I never had a "college experience", felt like I lost out on so much for that reason. I do not remember a single person, name, face, or interaction I had with anyone from any online class -- like being totally socially isolated. By comparison, I got to know and enjoy the company of people I'd known from on-campus classes, and remember several of them very well.

One serious problem with online classes: mandatory participation. Usually that means posting to a classroom discussion X times per week for participation credit. Imagine the sort of contrived and shallow discussions students have just to meet the minimum requirements for participation.
[/personal anecdote]

I don't know anything about Khan Academy, but I hope its nothing like my experience.

Similar here. I commuted to a college about thirty miles away so I could keep my job in a nearby city and help take care of my grandmother. I too feel like I missed out on the college experience.

Sure there are many pitfalls and risks to the socialization in high school and college. But there are pitfalls and risks to all socialization. There are benefits too. Many of the people whose homework I helped with are now in good jobs thanks to the networking they did in college.

Legend · 7th June 2012, 11:18 AM

I got out of school in 2009, and for me it was a great relief. I had no usual reason to hate it, though. I had plenty of mates, and while I didn't get along with all personalities, I had no enemies nor any need to kick nuts and sprint.

My problem with it was that it bored me.

The education system takes kids in almost the earliest twelve years of their lives and exposes them to learning through institutionalised sets of tired, esoteric subjects advertised as everything you should know and conquer. "School manufactures adults," I wrote, in my entry to a competition that would end up flying me over to Sydney, "Instead, it should find an individual's strength, and then make him stronger." It's part of the reason why "nerds" get teased and most teens would rather throw stones at someone's window than sit around discussing the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Can you blame them? We're stuck a few decades back. We'd rather spend a semester teaching young people how to do a maths equation with their eyes closed and mind switched off - an equation that Excel can solve for them - than help them understand the fractured goings-on of the world in which sit their nascent minds. There's no emphasis on the meaning behind the numbers, or the methodology, just the skeleton of a disposable equation which they won't remember longer than however many days pass before people stop haranguing them about it.

I still do want to be a teacher, and you'll have to excuse the inbound adolescent screw-the-systeming, but I'm afraid of becoming part of something I loathe. See, I'm not sure how compatible I'd be with school standards. I believe teachers shouldn't be authority figures, but that they should be mentors and friends. There's no need for uniforms, or rows of desks, or standing when I walk in, or no swearing, or calling me anything other than "Alex" or "Captain Brilliant Awesome", or ineffective stacks of homework that serve no other function than a sort of customary acknowledgement between complacent parents and detached teachers.

The friction between student and school arises out of the fact that not everyone wants to learn those exact things, about those exact subjects, in that exact way, at those exact times, by that exact prick. Humans are naturally curious creatures, and teenagers are actually human. Bombshell, right? It'd serve growing minds much better to nurture their inherent curiosity by teaching them valuable things that they'll appreciate in a way that comforts them.

Reflecting on the sort of potential we're too lazy to cultivate is deeply depressing to me, and if you care at all about the importance of education, truth, and the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr., so should it be to you.

marplots · 7th June 2012, 11:55 AM

I think there is a willful mischaracterization going on in this thread, although I can't call "straw man."

It seems as if the public education system is being painted as a process designed to grind down the natural flowering of children and to stifle creativity, inquisitiveness, motivation -- in a kind of "it's all about the children" framing. As if this were the purpose of an education.

I'd like to suggest something slightly different. In my view, the structure is designed to develop just those attributes which allow children to reach their full potential. To see this, I'd present as evidence someone we admire and whom we'd like our children to emulate. It can be anyone at all, even someone the kid picks himself. My contention is that this admirable person will describe a process of hard work and discipline, self-sacrifice and perseverance. And these things allow natural talents to thrive because they are necessary tools for engaging the world.

I strongly disagree with this idea:

Let the child follow their own star, in their own time, and blossom as their own mind guides them ---> and then a miracle happens ---> happy and successful adult.

I also reject the idea that schools somehow harm children by helping them turn into adults.

derchin · 7th June 2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

John Taylor Gatto, a retired school teacher and activist critical of compulsory schooling, asserts, “We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids into truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. But we don’t do that.” Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same. We are trained to ace every standardized test, and those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt.

http://www.edfreedom.org/391/valedic...nst-schooling/

Quad4_72 · 7th June 2012, 01:19 PM

I don't know, the whole "School just wasn't interesting to me and THAT'S why I failed." or similar excuse seems like a cop out for "I didn't have the discipline to do the right thing and study and get good grades and would rather have partied and not gave a damn and then blamed it on something else later."

marplots · 7th June 2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

John Taylor Gatto, a retired school teacher and activist critical of compulsory schooling, asserts, “We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids into truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. But we don’t do that.” Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same. We are trained to ace every standardized test, and those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt.

Good quote. I think it illustrates my point nicely. Notice that all the benefits/goods listed are listed as relative to an existing structure. This is an important point.

For example, "Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same." On the surface, that sounds horrendous. And it could be. But at some level, without the sameness, there is nothing at all to react to. Is the author advocating a complete chaotic free-for-all? Hardly. He is advocating adding some flexibility to a rigid system, not abandoning all standards and rigidity.

That's the only thing really in dispute -- how much is essential to have a solid structure and metrics to evaluate learning, and how much can be free-form? This isn't anything new. Chemistry, math, physics = solid structure where there is a set of facts we want to impart. Economics, social studies = more room for opinion and discussion. Art, music, theater = express yourself.

This is also important, "...those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt." Why? Because those who deviate so far from the norm shouldn't shape the whole enterprise. The outlier category may include the lauded future genius, but it would also include the gangbanger and the stoner.

fuelair · 7th June 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

Classes (IMO) like historical English literature, chemistry, etc

Now, I'm well aware that these classes are an interest to some, but these classes shouldn't be held responsible for those who have no interest in them.

What classes do you propose should be taught then?

Given things that voters /their reps must decide on - and be intelligent about: Chemistry, Physics, Biology: World and US History (at a much better level than now), Government (higher level than current), both practical and standard economics, Communication Arts (knowing, among other things, how people good at this can brainwash you and how, given that, to avoid letting them get away with it) (variant level per interest), Math, including geometry and algebra and Practical. At a minimum.

That would tend to help stem some of the current problems we have due to a lack of solid knowledge in most of these fields by a majority of the population. Note, some adjustments to education, behavior policies, etc. would be needed for these to be successful. I suspect you would not like them - does not change the fact that lack of interest does not change what people actually need to know to function as intelligent voters/citizens. And, to more extent than most realize, in getting and holding decent employment.

nOT JUST IN FACTORIES.........

derchin · 7th June 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Why? Because those who deviate so far from the norm shouldn't shape the whole enterprise. The outlier category may include the lauded future genius, but it would also include the gangbanger and the stoner.

No I wouldn't go that far. Even something as trivial as complaining about the work or asking why the material learned is taught to students warrants an quick attitude or severe punishment by teachers or staff.

fuelair · 7th June 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

Sounds like by meaning "some", means that it can easily be looked up at a local library or internet site.

Sure it can - and I learned much of mine that way - because I was interested in all those areas. Works great for those who are. Problem is it is not just those who are interested who need to know all those things or become fodder for the republickers. I do not want fodder for the republickers, I want intelligent voters who know enough not to fall for their lies and how to tell when they are being lied to. That requires knowledge that some are willing, even happy to get on their own - but most aren't.

fuelair · 7th June 2012, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Things depend on if we are talking about from a personal or global perspective. Many differences people think they see in the data is often attributable to biased sampling (certain schools or home schoolers tend to be made into environment for certain students with certain backgrounds). When I was looking at studies on the different "alternative" schooling methods, what surprised me was how uniform the results tended to be (I'll try to look some old stuff up). American schools have undergone a number of "revolutions", but it really doesn't show up.

You have got that right. Grade/learning breakdown at most shifts two groups of students around (the generally low C/D student types in one method will often become high C mid B with another - BUT they simply exchange places depending on"teaching philosophy" (procedures, eval. techniques, type of activities,etc.)in use during a given app. seven year period). The solid A, C and F students do not fluctuate based on these changes but by ignoring all but the ones specifically moving up, it is made to appear for app. 7 years the method of current approval is effective.

Then somebody remembers the method that had worked on the new c/D group and begins pushing the "New, Improved Technique!!" which, of course............ This is endless fun, and fools a lot of people (even among teachers who should have a long enough memory). Admins tend to hate teachers who have that long memory. My wife and I have that long memory.

fuelair · 7th June 2012, 01:59 PM

A friendly note: noting that kids are not equipped to decide reasonably on what is actually needed for them to be properly educated is not equivalent to saying they are not important. As a matter of fact it is saying their education and they, themselves, are too important to allow them to decide that because they find something boring/uninteresting they should not have to bother learning it.

Summerhill was cute and fun, but............

marplots · 7th June 2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

No I wouldn't go that far. Even something as trivial as complaining about the work or asking why the material learned is taught to students warrants an quick attitude or severe punishment by teachers or staff.

Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this.

Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this?
"Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?"
"Because I said so."

Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else?

derchin · 7th June 2012, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this.

Cool. I'll try to get their emails.

Originally Posted by marplots

Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this?
"Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?"
"Because I said so."

Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else?

In some cases it boils down to something as simple as that, but if you keep asking that question to get a legit response the "Don't question me. I'm the authority" deal usually shows it's head.

Modified · 7th June 2012, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got.

I had the same experience in Catholic elementary and junior high school in the 70s and early 80s. With a few exceptions, the Catholic school teachers were less educated and less knowledgeable than the public school teachers, yet much more was expected of the students. Of my class of 20, 4 of those finished in the top 10 at the public high school with 350 or so students in the class (I think it started closer to 450, with 100 or so dropping out).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 7th June 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

That's sweet. Now let's fast forward to your 32 year old kid who never really had an interest in anything he could make a living at. Still trust him?¹

Practically, what happens is that an employer becomes the de facto educator when the kid is finally ready to get a job. They get a graduate degree in how to put a door on this year's Ford Escape -- you might say they become an expert on it. I cannot say how satisfied they are with their degree though.²

Education³ does a lot of things, but one important thing it does is broaden horizons and present opportunities. I think that's a fine thing. The question is whether or not a kid will discover this bountiful menu on their own, through their innate curiosity and a smouldering inner fire, or whether they will spend that time on World of Warcraft instead.

1. Why suppose that that will occur more often than it occurs in the current system? Einstein opposed compulsory attendance at school. Gandhi opposed compulsory attendance at school.
2. Thomas Edison's mom homeschooled him and he went to work at 13. Hiram Maxim left school at 14 and apprenticed. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15.
3. Do not equate "education" and "school". Becker (Human Capital) defines "school" as a institution whose primary product is education. Many of the buildings we call "schools" do not qualify, as they destroy the motivation on which education critically depends.
On-the-job training qualifies as "education". I don't take any position on whether or not schools benefit society at large. I'm pretty confident that compulsory attendance laws, tax support of schools, policies which restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-PhD subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, State operation of schools (K-PhD), minimum wage laws, and child labor laws impose costs that far outweigh their benefits.

fuelair · 7th June 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this.

Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this?
"Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?"
"Because I said so."

Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else?

I can accept that a (very) few teachers might say that and get away with it - especially in a private religious school _ BUT not in any public school I am aware of - or not for long anyway........

derchin · 7th June 2012, 03:25 PM

Hmm. I've been thinking about what you've guys have been saying. I don't know whether I was in a bad mood or just naive, but it's all starting to make sense in a way...

dafydd · 7th June 2012, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Hmmm. I sing in a choir with a girl who was taught in a Steiner school. She has a distressingly superficial grasp of many matters, and the huge gaps in her knowledge are quite startling.

I imagine she's happy enough. But from where I'm standing she's missing so much. And if everyone was like her, huge swathes of human civilisation would simply vanish.

Rolfe.

If you want to give your kids a bad start in life, send them to a Steiner school. I know two high school teachers who told me that when they get pupils from a junior Steiner school ( Steiner high schools do not exist here, for very good reasons) they are two years behind their peers in maths and language. There is a Steiner school near me and all the kids seems to do is make bread and soup, go for nature rambles, there is some kind of party once a week that the parents attend, but the kids can all play the recorder!. I've known Steiner school kids who could hardly read when they were eight. One of my neighbours came to her senses and took her daughter out of the Steiner school and sent her to a real school. After a few weeks the daughter said to her mother, ''Mum, I'm learning how to learn''. If everyone could earn a crust as a musician or an artist then Steiner schools would be an idea preparation, but these unfortunate kids have to live in the real world.

SezMe · 7th June 2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

pardon my own ignorance, A Steiner SChool is what, like a Magnent SChool in the US maybe?

Worse. It is a pedagogy based on woo.

AlBell · 7th June 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

School is not the driving force behind apathy in learning. Bad teachers are.

Perhaps. I'd go with bad parents, crummy friends, and useless pastimes.

ETA: apologies to post #99.

7th June 2012, 12:10 AM	#81
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Originally Posted by derchin Ah, so the problem is you don't trust kids. “All I am saying ... can be summed up in two words: Trust Children. Nothing could be more simple, or more difficult. Difficult because to trust children we must first learn to trust ourselves, and most of us were taught as children that we could not be trusted.” ~ John Holt Sounds lofty - and completely impractical. Trust kids to do what? Develop a cirriculum? Show up? Do something they don't want to do? I guess not.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

7th June 2012, 12:13 AM	#82
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Originally Posted by derchin And I love the fact that you think like this, but the minute you force people to learn these things is the first step in rebellion. Oh no. You can lead a horse to water . . . You can have a structured method of showing these things. No guarantees that anything will stick, but we have to try. And this teaching the test nonsense has to stop.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

7th June 2012, 03:35 AM	#83
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,643	This is actually a good thread. Not like that other crap. I can understand that many students now no longer feel there's much benefit in going to school and that, at times, school almost seems like an enemy or obstacle to a constructive like. This is probably true for many students. There is little benefit that attending the kind of classes taught to most grade 10-12 students, and attending school presents dangers of getting in to problems that might even have legal repercussions. The frightening thing is that I work in education and I feel this way. I am less sure the alternative to this is the sort of thing you're talking. The pages you linked to addressing the academic achievement of homeschooled kids say more about public school failure than the success of more liberal forms of teaching. It's also slightly misleading. Most homeschooled kids are taught this way for religious reasons. It's very hard to get this from these figures, although they give a correct picture of average student achievement. The problem is that the very best and surest way to a financially viable life remains through traditional schools. The problem is that the schools able to provide this kind of training are not open to everybody. They may call themselves "public" but they you live there to use them. Public schools in Massachusetts, and some other states, compete for top spots in international comparisons with places like China, Taiwan and Korea. But you have to be able to live in Massachusetts.
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy

7th June 2012, 04:37 AM	#84
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Perhaps we can all start over, because we're all over the place...
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks Last edited by derchin; 7th June 2012 at 04:44 AM.

7th June 2012, 04:37 AM	#85
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by Bikewer I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got. I recall comparing courses with a neighbor who was a senior at the local public high school and she was taking only mandated US history and Physical education. She already had enough credits to graduate. At our school, one took a full course load all four years, including four years of a language, sciences, etc. The optional courses were very few and included things like typing and art. I listen to NPR all the time and have heard many discussions and debates over public schooling and it's problems. Seems we are still for the most part trying to turn out kids well-educated enough to take jobs in manufacturing and industry that no longer exist. And yet it is hard to get many skilled trades in industry. There are many guaranteed good jobs in industry that companies are always looking for but we steer people to pointless office jobs and history degrees instead.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th June 2012, 04:41 AM	#86
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by derchin Depends. Homeschooling is broken into many subgroups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Methodology And of course all the most important work done in creation science comes out of home schooled science fair projects.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th June 2012, 04:45 AM	#87
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by fishbob I am a product of public school, rural Texas, so last century. Yeah, I don't care about Chaucer, but I know a little about the Canterbury Tales, I don't care much about organic chemistry, but I understand how it relates to both medicine and fossil fuels. I know a little about electricity and shipping and Spanish and German - none of which are particularly useful on any given day. But - the knowledge that has been accumulated over the last thousand years is the most valuable thing humanity has. Its not like 'less for you is more for me'. It is amazing to me that anybody would deliberately choose to be ignorant on any subject and avoid sharing in that wealth. PS - willful ignorance is one definition of stupidity. You read something as dirty as the Canterbury tales in highschool? I remember hearing about a professor trying to get on female student to say the c word. It was thought reasonable in a Chaucer class.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th June 2012, 05:05 AM	#89
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by derchin Famous authors like John Holt, John Taylor Gatto, Ray Bradbury, and filmmmaker George Lucas all renounced traditional education in some way. And they offer the best medical advice too unlike elitist doctors.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th June 2012, 05:10 AM	#90
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by derchin There seems to be a growing interest in the "anti-school" movement, made both by students, parents and teachers alike. Sites like School-Survival, the Educational Freedom Education, the National Youth Rights Association and authors like John Taylor Gatto, Alfie Kohn, and Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt argue that the educational system we have in place does more harm than good. Instead of pushing kids to fight for their dreams and to be creative and open-minded while doing so, many schools today demands obedience and only seeks to create thoughtless workers for the ones in charge (Whether that means the government, authorities, or corporate/business leaders.) I consider myself to be an anti-schoolist. I'm a member of the three sites above and an avid read of all three authors mentioned above. Thoughts Opinions? You have a point, to a point. I might liken your logic to organized religion, without delving into any Atheism argument or derailing, but the point is similar. Modern day Evangelical Christianity as a comparison often seems a whole more interested in literal interpretation of the Bible than they are in the teachings of the Savior who spawned the religion. By your logic, the School System has become more about indoctrination than education, and there I do much agree with you. But what is the replacement? I don't see Hoem Schooling as the answer, it is far from perfect in it's own right.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th June 2012, 05:11 AM	#91
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by Rolfe Hmmm. I sing in a choir with a girl who was taught in a Steiner school. She has a distressingly superficial grasp of many matters, and the huge gaps in her knowledge are quite startling. I imagine she's happy enough. But from where I'm standing she's missing so much. And if everyone was like her, huge swathes of human civilisation would simply vanish. Rolfe. pardon my own ignorance, A Steiner SChool is what, like a Magnent SChool in the US maybe?
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th June 2012, 05:21 AM	#92
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by derchin There are non-religiously motivated H.S, you know. Sure but at what percentage? All I know is that when you google home school science you get christianity based learning instead of evidence. As for homeschooling I wonder if my wife would know anything. Her mother took her out of honors math classes because she was worried about her getting a reputation as a nerd. Now she is getting a phds in educational psychology focusing on statistics and psychometrics. You know the ways to evaluate different approaches to teaching and comparing them scientifically for effectiveness and not which the students like more.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th June 2012, 07:10 AM	#93
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by Bikewer I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got. I recall comparing courses with a neighbor who was a senior at the local public high school and she was taking only mandated US history and Physical education. She already had enough credits to graduate. At our school, one took a full course load all four years, including four years of a language, sciences, etc. The optional courses were very few and included things like typing and art. I listen to NPR all the time and have heard many discussions and debates over public schooling and it's problems. Seems we are still for the most part trying to turn out kids well-educated enough to take jobs in manufacturing and industry that no longer exist. The wealthy can afford to send their kids to quality preparatory schools and then good colleges and universities. The poor can perhaps dream of a stint at some practical courses at the junior college level, if they can read and spell after graduating from their cash-strapped public schools. So much of the problem is political. School boards are political, money-raising is political, and teaching agendas are political. Just as the country is deeply divided as to political philosophy we are deeply divided as to educational theory. I don't have any answers, but from the various things I've heard it seems that kids are for the most part willing and able to absorb information and the most-successful schools are those that constantly challenge the kids instead of pushing them through dull "learn the facts" courses that "teach to the test". I can counter with a friend who went to Catholic School and into adult life knows squat about Western Civilizationa nd related histories because they weren't to the Catholic agendaed ciriculum, which cites a good example.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th June 2012, 07:19 AM	#94
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by derchin Turns out that home-schoolers are more successful and happier than those who go to traditional school. http://images.collegeathome.com.s3.a...domination.jpg read the home school thread, results seem a bit more varied.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th June 2012, 07:41 AM	#95
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by derchin So we should retain a broken system? why are you looking at it as only A or B? A is broken. B is wildly unreliable. You need a C and a D wouldn't kill ya either
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th June 2012, 08:04 AM	#96
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Let young kids who have not yet been educated decide what kind of education they should get....yes that sounds like a BRILLIANT idea
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th June 2012, 08:22 AM	#97
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Sure but at what percentage? All I know is that when you google home school science you get christianity based learning instead of evidence. I suspect you would find a similar bias in home school materials for teaching history. A conservative view of history similar to what was taught a half century ago.

7th June 2012, 08:37 AM	#98
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,924	Originally Posted by derchin And homeschooling wasn't my preferred method; people in this thread rolled with it. I actually prefer online schooling like sites such as Khan Academy. Depends on how you do it. [personal anecdote] I avoided a lifetime of student loan debt by going to inexpensive university here in town, paying tuition out of pocket, and taking online classes to accommodate my work schedule. 90% of my college classes were online courses. I'm glad I got my degree, but I never had a "college experience", felt like I lost out on so much for that reason. I do not remember a single person, name, face, or interaction I had with anyone from any online class -- like being totally socially isolated. By comparison, I got to know and enjoy the company of people I'd known from on-campus classes, and remember several of them very well. One serious problem with online classes: mandatory participation. Usually that means posting to a classroom discussion X times per week for participation credit. Imagine the sort of contrived and shallow discussions students have just to meet the minimum requirements for participation. [/personal anecdote] I don't know anything about Khan Academy, but I hope its nothing like my experience.
	__________________ >^.^< Last edited by Dessi; 7th June 2012 at 08:40 AM.

7th June 2012, 08:59 AM	#99
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by truethat School is not the driving force behind apathy in learning. Bad teachers are. Bad parents too. Bad as in not encouraging their children or even caring about their education. Public schools aren't supposed to be just a baby sitting service.

7th June 2012, 09:12 AM	#100
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,127	Quote: That's sweet. Now let's fast forward to your 32 year old kid who never really had an interest in anything he could make a living at. Still trust him? Incoming anecdote! That was me, only not at 32. Back up a few years. At age 18 I had scraped by high-school due mostly to apathy, lots of C's, some D's an occasional B, A's where unheard of mostly due to failing to give 2 ***** about homework. Didn't learn CRAP from high-school, study for a test, and purge most of it a few months later couldn't even remember what the courses where about, didn't care. I went to community college for acting (I loved setting the bar LOW and having fun). Actors at arts colleges get lots of help to make sure they pass with high enough grades to not be removed from plays, otherwise I probably would have failed, I saw others who were less of a privileged class that did not get a third chance to review there paper 3 days after it was due fail, I even had a professor take my paper to his wife (she was also a professor at the college) and she marked up the paper for me to correct prior to turning it in, I would have failed comp III if not for that, non arts students did not get these second or third chances and professors proof reading papers to make sure you got good grades. I graduated with a 3.0, but it would have been MUCH worse had I not been a privileged class of citizen, mostly due to my apathy in highschool, I really did try in college, the acting meant something to me and I really wanted to do well, but had NO skills, not some, NONE. I learned all of my English from Comp I to Comp III in college. Nearly the same story for math, only an arts student didn't need much math to begin with so it was much easier to pass lib arts math lol. Now fast forward a few years. I was in a terrible accident and hurt my back, nearly paralyzed. Nothing to do, cant act, cant work, cant walk really for more than a few minutes at a time. I decided I wanted to study physics. WOW, culture shock. I went from a looser who barely understood how to spell science to someone who wanted to be the next Stephen Hawking. I learned more math from coolmath.com in 6 weeks of remedial study, than all of my high school years. They used colors to separate out terms, they made math exciting and approachable. The site has a problem generator that allows you to continue to work on new problems and you are not stuck with a book which only has a tiny amount of problems for a section you have the most trouble with. I flipped my degree in acting to a degree in physics within 2 years, 90% self study using websites as guides. In high school the only courses I found interesting where the ones with no homework, all interactive class work, and or field studies. I do remember things from those classes. Environmental science was my favorite, but I think it was the teacher, not the material. I really dont know what my story says about the problems with schools, but I think interest is a major issue for LOTS of kids today, and anyway you can build interest early is going to get them on the path a lot faster than what I had to go through. Now a days I work as a supervisor for a radiology software development company, my background in physics AND my acting both come in hand. One for analytical thinking, the other for customer service calls that are escalated. So as a highschool looser I turned around quickly, and not at all due to the schooling I received. Just an anecdote, maybe doesn't say anything about anyone other than myself, but I think there are more kids out there that were like me that struggle not becuase of a lack of potential, but becuase of a lack of interest in the grind oriented busy work system called public education. If my college professors did not care so much about keeping me in plays, and if I had never hurt my back and spent so much of my own time studying, id probably be still working as a laborer, or maybe at most a superintendent of a construction company, or surveying, all things I did to help pay for that arts college along the way . . . correlates to the ditch digger . . .
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus Last edited by Xulld; 7th June 2012 at 09:14 AM.

7th June 2012, 09:27 AM	#101
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,688	Originally Posted by Dessi Depends on how you do it. [personal anecdote] I avoided a lifetime of student loan debt by going to inexpensive university here in town, paying tuition out of pocket, and taking online classes to accommodate my work schedule. 90% of my college classes were online courses. I'm glad I got my degree, but I never had a "college experience", felt like I lost out on so much for that reason. I do not remember a single person, name, face, or interaction I had with anyone from any online class -- like being totally socially isolated. By comparison, I got to know and enjoy the company of people I'd known from on-campus classes, and remember several of them very well. One serious problem with online classes: mandatory participation. Usually that means posting to a classroom discussion X times per week for participation credit. Imagine the sort of contrived and shallow discussions students have just to meet the minimum requirements for participation. [/personal anecdote] I don't know anything about Khan Academy, but I hope its nothing like my experience. Similar here. I commuted to a college about thirty miles away so I could keep my job in a nearby city and help take care of my grandmother. I too feel like I missed out on the college experience. Sure there are many pitfalls and risks to the socialization in high school and college. But there are pitfalls and risks to all socialization. There are benefits too. Many of the people whose homework I helped with are now in good jobs thanks to the networking they did in college.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

7th June 2012, 11:18 AM	#102
Legend Focu Meu! Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 10,319	I got out of school in 2009, and for me it was a great relief. I had no usual reason to hate it, though. I had plenty of mates, and while I didn't get along with all personalities, I had no enemies nor any need to kick nuts and sprint. My problem with it was that it bored me. The education system takes kids in almost the earliest twelve years of their lives and exposes them to learning through institutionalised sets of tired, esoteric subjects advertised as everything you should know and conquer. "School manufactures adults," I wrote, in my entry to a competition that would end up flying me over to Sydney, "Instead, it should find an individual's strength, and then make him stronger." It's part of the reason why "nerds" get teased and most teens would rather throw stones at someone's window than sit around discussing the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr. Can you blame them? We're stuck a few decades back. We'd rather spend a semester teaching young people how to do a maths equation with their eyes closed and mind switched off - an equation that Excel can solve for them - than help them understand the fractured goings-on of the world in which sit their nascent minds. There's no emphasis on the meaning behind the numbers, or the methodology, just the skeleton of a disposable equation which they won't remember longer than however many days pass before people stop haranguing them about it. I still do want to be a teacher, and you'll have to excuse the inbound adolescent screw-the-systeming, but I'm afraid of becoming part of something I loathe. See, I'm not sure how compatible I'd be with school standards. I believe teachers shouldn't be authority figures, but that they should be mentors and friends. There's no need for uniforms, or rows of desks, or standing when I walk in, or no swearing, or calling me anything other than "Alex" or "Captain Brilliant Awesome", or ineffective stacks of homework that serve no other function than a sort of customary acknowledgement between complacent parents and detached teachers. The friction between student and school arises out of the fact that not everyone wants to learn those exact things, about those exact subjects, in that exact way, at those exact times, by that exact prick. Humans are naturally curious creatures, and teenagers are actually human. Bombshell, right? It'd serve growing minds much better to nurture their inherent curiosity by teaching them valuable things that they'll appreciate in a way that comforts them. Reflecting on the sort of potential we're too lazy to cultivate is deeply depressing to me, and if you care at all about the importance of education, truth, and the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr., so should it be to you.
	__________________ Am I the only one who thinks that Legend actually does look something like a young Leonardo DiCaprio? ~ EeneyMinnieMoe ♦ Eat a potato, kid. ~ RoboTimbo ♦ Last edited by Legend; 7th June 2012 at 11:20 AM.

7th June 2012, 11:55 AM	#103
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	I think there is a willful mischaracterization going on in this thread, although I can't call "straw man." It seems as if the public education system is being painted as a process designed to grind down the natural flowering of children and to stifle creativity, inquisitiveness, motivation -- in a kind of "it's all about the children" framing. As if this were the purpose of an education. I'd like to suggest something slightly different. In my view, the structure is designed to develop just those attributes which allow children to reach their full potential. To see this, I'd present as evidence someone we admire and whom we'd like our children to emulate. It can be anyone at all, even someone the kid picks himself. My contention is that this admirable person will describe a process of hard work and discipline, self-sacrifice and perseverance. And these things allow natural talents to thrive because they are necessary tools for engaging the world. I strongly disagree with this idea: Let the child follow their own star, in their own time, and blossom as their own mind guides them ---> and then a miracle happens ---> happy and successful adult. I also reject the idea that schools somehow harm children by helping them turn into adults.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

7th June 2012, 12:14 PM	#104
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Quote: John Taylor Gatto, a retired school teacher and activist critical of compulsory schooling, asserts, “We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids into truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. But we don’t do that.” Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same. We are trained to ace every standardized test, and those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt. http://www.edfreedom.org/391/valedic...nst-schooling/
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

7th June 2012, 01:19 PM	#105
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	I don't know, the whole "School just wasn't interesting to me and THAT'S why I failed." or similar excuse seems like a cop out for "I didn't have the discipline to do the right thing and study and get good grades and would rather have partied and not gave a damn and then blamed it on something else later."
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th June 2012, 01:25 PM	#106
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Quote: John Taylor Gatto, a retired school teacher and activist critical of compulsory schooling, asserts, “We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids into truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. But we don’t do that.” Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same. We are trained to ace every standardized test, and those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt. Good quote. I think it illustrates my point nicely. Notice that all the benefits/goods listed are listed as relative to an existing structure. This is an important point. For example, "Between these cinderblock walls, we are all expected to be the same." On the surface, that sounds horrendous. And it could be. But at some level, without the sameness, there is nothing at all to react to. Is the author advocating a complete chaotic free-for-all? Hardly. He is advocating adding some flexibility to a rigid system, not abandoning all standards and rigidity. That's the only thing really in dispute -- how much is essential to have a solid structure and metrics to evaluate learning, and how much can be free-form? This isn't anything new. Chemistry, math, physics = solid structure where there is a set of facts we want to impart. Economics, social studies = more room for opinion and discussion. Art, music, theater = express yourself. This is also important, "...those who deviate and see light through a different lens are worthless to the scheme of public education, and therefore viewed with contempt." Why? Because those who deviate so far from the norm shouldn't shape the whole enterprise. The outlier category may include the lauded future genius, but it would also include the gangbanger and the stoner.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

7th June 2012, 01:34 PM	#107
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by derchin Classes (IMO) like historical English literature, chemistry, etc Now, I'm well aware that these classes are an interest to some, but these classes shouldn't be held responsible for those who have no interest in them. What classes do you propose should be taught then? Given things that voters /their reps must decide on - and be intelligent about: Chemistry, Physics, Biology: World and US History (at a much better level than now), Government (higher level than current), both practical and standard economics, Communication Arts (knowing, among other things, how people good at this can brainwash you and how, given that, to avoid letting them get away with it) (variant level per interest), Math, including geometry and algebra and Practical. At a minimum. That would tend to help stem some of the current problems we have due to a lack of solid knowledge in most of these fields by a majority of the population. Note, some adjustments to education, behavior policies, etc. would be needed for these to be successful. I suspect you would not like them - does not change the fact that lack of interest does not change what people actually need to know to function as intelligent voters/citizens. And, to more extent than most realize, in getting and holding decent employment. nOT JUST IN FACTORIES.........
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th June 2012, 01:39 PM	#108
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Originally Posted by marplots Why? Because those who deviate so far from the norm shouldn't shape the whole enterprise. The outlier category may include the lauded future genius, but it would also include the gangbanger and the stoner. No I wouldn't go that far. Even something as trivial as complaining about the work or asking why the material learned is taught to students warrants an quick attitude or severe punishment by teachers or staff.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks Last edited by derchin; 7th June 2012 at 01:41 PM.

7th June 2012, 01:41 PM	#109
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by derchin Sounds like by meaning "some", means that it can easily be looked up at a local library or internet site. Sure it can - and I learned much of mine that way - because I was interested in all those areas. Works great for those who are. Problem is it is not just those who are interested who need to know all those things or become fodder for the republickers. I do not want fodder for the republickers, I want intelligent voters who know enough not to fall for their lies and how to tell when they are being lied to. That requires knowledge that some are willing, even happy to get on their own - but most aren't.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th June 2012, 01:52 PM	#110
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Things depend on if we are talking about from a personal or global perspective. Many differences people think they see in the data is often attributable to biased sampling (certain schools or home schoolers tend to be made into environment for certain students with certain backgrounds). When I was looking at studies on the different "alternative" schooling methods, what surprised me was how uniform the results tended to be (I'll try to look some old stuff up). American schools have undergone a number of "revolutions", but it really doesn't show up. You have got that right. Grade/learning breakdown at most shifts two groups of students around (the generally low C/D student types in one method will often become high C mid B with another - BUT they simply exchange places depending on"teaching philosophy" (procedures, eval. techniques, type of activities,etc.)in use during a given app. seven year period). The solid A, C and F students do not fluctuate based on these changes but by ignoring all but the ones specifically moving up, it is made to appear for app. 7 years the method of current approval is effective. Then somebody remembers the method that had worked on the new c/D group and begins pushing the "New, Improved Technique!!" which, of course............ This is endless fun, and fools a lot of people (even among teachers who should have a long enough memory). Admins tend to hate teachers who have that long memory. My wife and I have that long memory.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th June 2012, 01:59 PM	#111
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	A friendly note: noting that kids are not equipped to decide reasonably on what is actually needed for them to be properly educated is not equivalent to saying they are not important. As a matter of fact it is saying their education and they, themselves, are too important to allow them to decide that because they find something boring/uninteresting they should not have to bother learning it. Summerhill was cute and fun, but............
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th June 2012, 02:06 PM	#112
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by derchin No I wouldn't go that far. Even something as trivial as complaining about the work or asking why the material learned is taught to students warrants an quick attitude or severe punishment by teachers or staff. Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this. Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this? "Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?" "Because I said so." Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

7th June 2012, 02:23 PM	#113
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Originally Posted by marplots Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this. Cool. I'll try to get their emails. Originally Posted by marplots Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this? "Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?" "Because I said so." Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else? In some cases it boils down to something as simple as that, but if you keep asking that question to get a legit response the "Don't question me. I'm the authority" deal usually shows it's head.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

7th June 2012, 02:33 PM	#114
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by Bikewer I went through a Catholic school system (elementary and high school) back in the 50s and 60s and was quite shocked at the difference between the education I got and the education my friends that had gone to public schools got. I had the same experience in Catholic elementary and junior high school in the 70s and early 80s. With a few exceptions, the Catholic school teachers were less educated and less knowledgeable than the public school teachers, yet much more was expected of the students. Of my class of 20, 4 of those finished in the top 10 at the public high school with 350 or so students in the class (I think it started closer to 450, with 100 or so dropping out).

7th June 2012, 03:11 PM	#115
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by marplots That's sweet. Now let's fast forward to your 32 year old kid who never really had an interest in anything he could make a living at. Still trust him?¹ Practically, what happens is that an employer becomes the de facto educator when the kid is finally ready to get a job. They get a graduate degree in how to put a door on this year's Ford Escape -- you might say they become an expert on it. I cannot say how satisfied they are with their degree though.² Education³ does a lot of things, but one important thing it does is broaden horizons and present opportunities. I think that's a fine thing. The question is whether or not a kid will discover this bountiful menu on their own, through their innate curiosity and a smouldering inner fire, or whether they will spend that time on World of Warcraft instead. 1. Why suppose that that will occur more often than it occurs in the current system? Einstein opposed compulsory attendance at school. Gandhi opposed compulsory attendance at school. 2. Thomas Edison's mom homeschooled him and he went to work at 13. Hiram Maxim left school at 14 and apprenticed. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. 3. Do not equate "education" and "school". Becker (Human Capital) defines "school" as a institution whose primary product is education. Many of the buildings we call "schools" do not qualify, as they destroy the motivation on which education critically depends. On-the-job training qualifies as "education". I don't take any position on whether or not schools benefit society at large. I'm pretty confident that compulsory attendance laws, tax support of schools, policies which restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-PhD subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, State operation of schools (K-PhD), minimum wage laws, and child labor laws impose costs that far outweigh their benefits.

7th June 2012, 03:19 PM	#116
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by marplots Is that true? I'm not connected enough to what's going on in the classroom to evaluate this statement. I'd like to hear from actual teachers on this. Perhaps you could give an example of what "attitude" and "severe punishment" looks like in practice. Are we just talking about an exchange like this? "Why do I have to learn algebra anyhow?" "Because I said so." Is that representative of what you mean or is it something else? I can accept that a (very) few teachers might say that and get away with it - especially in a private religious school _ BUT not in any public school I am aware of - or not for long anyway........
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!