Monday, November 27, 2006
Fixing the education system
How bad is it for kids today? Seems like all we hear about is how the American Education System is failing. Theoretically a program like No Child Left Behind is supposed to solve this, right?
First, let's define "failure". American students consistently test among the worse among their peers in the world. Other countries (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, etc.) are consistetly among the best. People tend to blame urban schools. More on that later. Well, can we be the best? Why not?
Instead of "band-aid" solutions such as No Child Left Behind, we should aim to be the best in the world. Why can't we? Give our students every chance to succeed. And show them why, not rule by fear. So we start with a mission statement: American students will be the best in the world. Period.
Tell our kids that they can do it. That's what Asian kids are taught - I certainly was! Now, let's look at some of these countries. Why do their students do so well? Is it racial? Cultural? Fact is, in many asian schools, there is school 12 months out of the year. In many cases, you are in school 6 days a week. Specialization (schools for science, arts, humanities, etc.) start in high school.
In addition, my Indian and Pakistani friends tell me in their country they start school at 3. You don't have to be a math major to figure this out: you can't compete when your kids are only in school for 9 months vs 12. And starting at 3 as opposed to 5 already gives children a head start. Summer school shouldn't be punishment or remedial. Instead it should be mandatory. And if done right, fun.
Another by product of this is that teachers will be working more. So should they get paid more? Of course! Our economic system is such that talent goes where the money is. And that should also help to draw a better pool of teachers. From a business persective if we invest in our future, we should make sure that talent is nurtured properly.
Many of these teachers have masters degrees - they should start at higher salaries for this, as opposed to being asked to waive that to start at the same level as those with bachelor degrees only. Culturally education is placed highly in asian societies.
Certainly schools can't replace family reinforcement. But I am proposing very fixable solutions - if we are serious about making changes. Instead of threatening them, let's challenge our kids, and give them the tools they need to succeed. Thoughts?
Posted by zip_blog at 9:16 PM
Labels: Fixing the education system
15 comments:
dmack said...
As the husband of a 3rd and 4th grade teacher I would agree with much of what you said.
School should be year round. There is no need to let the kid off for 2months in the summer to help with cropping or farming in 2006. Another way to combat the problem of daycare and teenage pregnancy is to extend the school day to 5:30 or even 6. It has been found that kids who participate in extracurricular activities no matter if it's band, the football team or the chess club, perform better in the classroom and on standardized tests.
Give the teachers freedom to be creative in their teaching style and methods. I've heard too many times from teachers that 20 or 30 minutes into a lesson they finally get though to the students, the light bulb has gone off in kids head, they are getting it 20 to 25 minutes off build up to get to this pinnacle point then RING the students are off to the next class where the teacher beings this frustrating cycle again. This is frustrating for both student and teacher. Extend the classes. Take out the bell.
The other problem with the Ed system is that the goal for many schools is to prepare the students for a traditional four-year college or university. In my eyes this is short sightedness on the schools part. Why not prepare students for the work force sooner than four or five years? What about Tech schools or schools where you can get an Associates in 18 months. Why are these seen as failing options? Plumbers, Electricians, Health care workers on and on and on. If the teachers, principles and guidance counselors are willing, or have the time and or resources to uncover the natural giftedness of their students, why not groom students toward this option? 2 years work experience can look pretty impressive as a 20 year old on a resume.
Finally we must find a way to get the parents involved in their kids’ education. Education must been seen as important and of high priority in the home after school. Parent and teacher should work closely together. It’s a team effort!
Lovin ya Derrick
December 5, 2006 8:29:00 PM PST
A D Bachman said...
Sorry, wicked late comment.
I wanted to point briefly to an author who has a slightly different point of view.
John Taylor Gatto - We Need Less School, Not More
If performance in these [arbitrary networks, such as schools] is conceived to be the supreme measure of success, if, for instance, an "A" average is accounted the central purpose of adolescent life - the requirements for which take most of the time and attention of the aspirant - and the worth of the individual is reckoned by victory or defeat in this abstract pursuit, then a social machine has been constructed which, by attaching purpose and meaning to essentially meaningless and fantastic behavior, will certainly dehumanize the student, alienate him from his own human nature, and break the natural connection between him and his parents, to whom he would otherwise look for significant affirmations.
Welcome to the world of mass-schooling which sets this goal as its supreme achievement. Are you sure we want more of it ?
I think the question asked far too rarely is, are we going in the right direction at all? What if it's school and the way we do it that's contributing to "problems with society."
I liked dmack's point about getting rid of the bell, but I was thrown off when they suggested both that we put kids in school 12 hours a day, 45+ weeks a year AND that parents should be more involved.
As a new parent I would say that if a government agency forces my wife and I to relinquish our children for more than 10 minutes a day, we're already losing time and already too uninvolved. The fact that government schools already do it for 8 hours should set off major alarms.
This isn't an argument about homeschooling, though that's the option I would suggest. It's an argument over whether it's appropriate for so much time to be taken from children and their families with very little substance to show for it. What scientist learned to become a scientist in school?
I think an extremely interesting solution to schooling would be to stop all federal funding and make every school privately owned and operated. Essentially, make every school a daycare and let parents choose the facilities and teachers they approve of. If you as a teacher do well, you will gain students and make money, if you do poorly, you lose students and go out of a business. There is very little competition in education these days, more might be a good thing.
C'mon, as a libertarian you ought to know this... ;)
December 30, 2006 8:07:00 AM PST
zip_blog said...
Alright, since you brought up home schooling, here are my questions:
First, questions with parents:
1.) This model assumes you have one parent at home and one at work. Who stays at home? And this assumes the parent is equipped to do it (both my parents were engineers for example). And what about single parent households?
2.) Accountability. Who keeps the parent accountable? There's no principal or school board. Can we assume that there will be no prejudice or bias? Or what if the parent is not skilled in certain areas (my mom for example would not be a good english teacher.)? And related to the first question, how do we know if the parent is a good teacher?
3.) Qualifications. What are the qualifications needed for a parent to be a home school teacher? Fo PA, I don't think it's really that much. Whereas if you want to be a teacher in PA, you need a minimum of a bachelors degree PLUS certification (At Pitt, this is a 4 1/2 to 5 year program). At least in PA, the lack of requirements should raise some sort of a red flag, don't you think?
4.) What about the possibility that the environment can be too controlled? How does a child learn about lessons in life that can't be taught in a school?
Children questions:
1.) How do you account for the social factor? Relationships with peers start with relationships in school. How I get along with friends, coworkers, even my wife - these were based on forming relationships at school, and if these relationships were later broken, the lessons learned from them.
2.) Like it or not, school teaches how to handle or be around people who aren't like you. In school you are forced to deal with people who you are not going to ordinarily get along with. Hohw do you replace this? Being forced out of that comfort zone is priceless.
3.) Along those lines, you are also putting them in an environment where they may be with other non christians. That's a pretty valuable lesson in their own right. How can they relate to non christians - again the social factor. Better yet, what about the possibility of them "losing" their faith in college, or at work - in other words the first time they are out of that "comfort" zone, when that faith is put to the test? Espeicially in college where they are facing people, classes, and professors who think differently, speak differently, and - get this - look differently?
4.) How do you deal with the temptation for the children that the world revolves around them? This is a pretty common problem with only children (particulalry in China after the One Child per family policy). School gives them a sense of where they stack among their peers.
5.) Going back to the whole "how kids learn in asia". If your children choose to go to an asian country - or any other country where home schooling doesn't exist - how would they as adults be able to exist in that society? Or do we just say that they shouldn't be part of that society anyway? And if more schooling has the potential to damage kdis further, how screwed up are asian kids?
As for how more schooling would jibe with being Libertarian - I never said the school had to be completely government run. If done right, private schooling can work just as well. I went to Kaplan when I was in high School to help study for the SATs, for example. Of course the private system would have to be an economic option for everyone. I don't know if a complete abandonment is going to work (though Philadelphia may be a good test) but we'll see...
January 4, 2007 2:00:00 PM PST
A D Bachman said...
I'll post some answers (out of order) as I have time to write them down. This is getting my brain juices flowing. Here it goes, out of order and in chunks, feel free to continue challenging and questioning.
QUESTION This model assumes you have one parent at home and one at work. Who stays at home? And this assumes the parent is equipped to do it (both my parents were engineers for example). And what about single parent households?
ANSWER Homeschooling does not depend on any one person. It cannot because no one person knows enough to fill the hungry mind of an unquenched child. The truly exciting thing about homeschooling is that you are not limited to any one person or small group of people. You have a freedom of time and geography that is completely foreign to a "well schooled" child. The only requirement from the parent is that the truly enjoy spending time with their child and want the best for them. If those requirements are not met or meetable, I think we would agree that there are problems beyond how learning will happen.
The "what will they do all day" question would have me ask, why are you willing to send your child to school if the school's role is to be free (or free-with-your-taxes) day care? That doesn't seem like it would foster an inspiring learning environment.
QUESTION What about the possibility that the environment can be too controlled? How does a child learn about lessons in life that can't be taught in a school?
ANSWER By learning in the real world, outside of school. Outside of school exclusively. I think we agree on this point, I would aim this question at proponents of public schools. The goal of scientific education (modern government schooling in the USA) is to completely control the environment. To so mold the minds of children that they will be unwilling and --frighteningly-- unable to question what they are being given. Can you imagine a classroom where all 30+ students questioned the teacher regularly?
The first rule of government schools is that you don't have a choice. You must be here when I say, you must do what I say, you must think what I say. This is the enemy of humanity, creativity, liberty, freedom, you name it.
January 17, 2007 6:55:00 AM PST
zip_blog said...
If the argument is such that the school system should be more than just free/"tax" day care, I can see that. But since we ARE paying taxes wouldn't it make more sense to work to improve the system? As opposed to simply abandoning it alltogether? And what proof do you have that school is just day care? Are all schools like that? Does that include charter schools, magnet schools?
Here's an idea: you say a class of 30 challenging 1 teacher. How about a class of 15? I think a smaller student-teacher ratio would definitely help.
Your model also assumes a highly motivated child or one who is readily willing to step out of his/her comfort zone. I don't think that's nec the case. If that motivation is coming from a parent - well, don't you think that child would be motivated to learn in school anyway? That's what happened with me. My parents were on my proverbial butt. Children don't just have a work ethic, they have to pick it up from someone.
And back to your question of "Can you imagine a classroom where all 30+ students questioned the teacher regularly?" Yes - it's called college. Most decent college classes that I took had this happen. And frankly most of my professers would take you more seriously if your questioning was thought out, mature, reasoned - skills you learn in school.
I'm going to assume you have answers for the other questions...
January 23, 2007 3:31:00 PM PST
A D Bachman said...
Some quotes and responses:
But since we ARE paying taxes wouldn't it make more sense to work to improve the system?
ANSWER I agree, I would love to see the system improved. I don't think, "we're already paying for it, so we might as well" is a good reason, however. I have no interest in abandoning children, schools--as far as money is concerned--are not about children at all. Big school is big business. Until the free ride is stopped altogether, the only motivation for improvement is keeping one's job and keeping heat off of one's self. No Child Left Behind tried in part to solve the problem of school administrator motivation by connecting "performance" to finance, but it's not working.
And what proof do you have that school is just day care?
ANSWER The proof I would present is, ask any school-age, public school attending 6 to 18 year old how much time they spend learning. Specifically, how much time during the day are they presented with new material? Now ask them how much of that time is spent in personal communication?
Your model also assumes a highly motivated child or one who is readily willing to step out of his/her comfort zone. I don't think that's nec the case. If that motivation is coming from a parent - well, don't you think that child would be motivated to learn in school anyway? That's what happened with me. My parents were on my proverbial butt. Children don't just have a work ethic, they have to pick it up from someone.
ANSWER I think anyone with children under the age of 2 can quickly refute this statement. Children are motivated from birth, to a very high degree. Additionally, they have an incredible work ethic. My son will do dishes for two hours if we let him. He will play all day every day. He will ask to have us read books to him, up to five times in a row. He wants to learn about his world more than any adult I have ever met, certianly more than my wife and I.
Conversely, I would imagine anyone with children older than 6 who paid close attention as their children started school would say they saw a part of their child die. The spark, the internal, intrinsic motivation to do things they love went away as their world became consumed by the purely external.
And back to your question of "Can you imagine a classroom where all 30+ students questioned the teacher regularly?" Yes - it's called college. Most decent college classes that I took had this happen. And frankly most of my professers would take you more seriously if your questioning was thought out, mature, reasoned - skills you learn in school.
ANSWER Well certianly, I did mean a K-12 public school classroom, though. College is different, and my problems with colleges and universities are of a different sort. Their goals are different, so their methods are different.
To suggest though, that mature, reasoned thought can only be taught in schools is ridiculous. Modern government schooling as we know it in this country is less than 150 years old. Mature, reasoned thinkers existed before schools, and they will continue to exist after them.
I'm still working through the other questions. I am currently consulting with a panel of experts and will get to them soon ;)
January 24, 2007 12:47:00 PM PST
zip_blog said...
Certainly your 2 year old shows drive and ambition. Now what happens when he turns 3? 4? How is it by age 6 they suddenly lose it?
In India, schooling starts at that age. Most Indians I've met are pretty ambitious!
You also mentioned that modern schooling is 150 years old. That again is why I mentioned schooling in Asia. Countries like China have had their system for close to 4,000 years. And given the history of chinese governments falling (let alone Mao constantly blaming intellectuals) there's no proof of government effectively controlling the schools.
Now as for the college vs K-12 issue. I'm glad you brought that up.
One of my friends used to teach HS history in Seattle. She would mention that the classes were similar to a day at the UN.
In particular were the arguments between the Japanese and the Chinese/Korean students.
What were they debating about?
Merely the fact that the Japanese were never taught about what actually happened in WW2. The atrocities that were commited to Chinese and Korean POWs were as bad as the Nazis (I don't know if you know that). Yet, this was never taught to the Japanese. What's MORE - the parents, usually shamed by the truth perpetuated the lie.
I had somewhat similar experiences in discussing chinese history in high school. My teachers would usually just let me speak as I was the only chinese student in my home town. More often then not, most of my classmates would tell me later that what I had to say helped them understand a lot. Without the opportunity to meet me, how would they have known?
So in the home schooling model, how do you break out of that cycle without some sort of "check"? When the only education you know is what your parents put in front of you? Either by what they teach or what environment they allow the child to be in?
An even more striking example is what Jewish and Muslim children learn about Isreal. I can't even bring up the topic of Isreal or Jews to my Muslim friends.
Am I to believe that there is a way to prevent parental bias?
Believe me, if I were even to suggest to my Muslim friends that they allow a Jewish history teacher to spend even 5 minutes with their kids I would never hear from them again!
And yes, you can learn mature reasoned thought outside of school. But how do you know it IS mature and reasoned? You can get the basic mechanics but what about the "flavor" of the thought? And who develops this thought? What peers are available to test it?
I'm very curious to see what your experts have to say! And feel free to forward them this post.
January 24, 2007 3:41:00 PM PST
A D Bachman said...
QUESTION Accountability. Who keeps the parent accountable? There's no principal or school board.
ANSWER Well who keeps them accountable now? Is it a bad thing that we already allow parents to be the most influential teachers in their children's lives? Of course not.
Can we assume that there will be no prejudice or bias?
There is already tons of prejudice and bias in the government school system, I don't think I understand that part of the question.
Or what if the parent is not skilled in certain areas (my mom for example would not be a good english teacher.)? And related to the first question, how do we know if the parent is a good teacher?
What if a given teacher is unskilled in certain areas? You find another teacher and you ask them to answer the questions. I have adult friends who know things and an internet connection. The world is pretty open for a child who doesn't have the middle 9 hours of their day rigidly controlled.
- - -
I think it's time to get back to basics. I'm probably not the best source to provide answers in defense of unschooling. If you'd like to read from some folks who know more (and you're feeling rather open minded) I would suggest John Taylor Gatto or John Holt. I have a copy of the Holt book, if you'd like to read it. Some other pages: general homeschooling info, one parent's perspective, and an unschooling FAQ. There are lots more like this. My preferences lean towards unschooling, a Google search should bring you a few thousand hits.
I also suggest you check out some statistics on homeschool rated against traditional measures of performance. To pick a few quotes: homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects, there is no positive correlation between state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students' performance, homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores, and the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Something must be working for those millions of kids (and growing).
I would ask that you consider just what it is you think a child needs to have to survive in this world. I'm not talking about needs to become a doctor, or needs to make a million dollars, I'm just talking about living, life, real life. Now, consider whether or not it should take 13+ years @ (180 * 8) hours a year to help children acquire that information and skill set. Imagine we're completely ignorant of the way it's done today. Would you truly argue that the most effective method of brining up children (because that's what this is about) is to put them away with a lot of other children for the better portion of their lives? I'm not talking about preparing them to be professionals or even preparing them for work at all. If we didn't think that we could give people the skills they need to do a job in a short period of time, why would we have trade schools? But that's all kind of besides the point.
I think the reason I feel so strongly about keeping my children out of schools is that I do not value the same things government schools value. I'm not talking about academics, I like academics. If my kids want to pursue academic subjects, they will be perfectly free to do so. But, it will be in their own time, without the threatening and dehumanizing methods employed by the government schools. This is about FREEDOM, LIBERTY; it's about not accepting what is given to you blindly. It's about approaching education with the critical, thorough, questioning mind I hope my children will have. I have asked hard questions of government and found it severely and irreparably wanting.
I can continue answering the questions you originally posted but like I said before, others have answered the questions better than I can.
Finally, I suggest you consider why it is you moved from a large, impersonal church to a small personal one (my wife and I are going through the same thing ourselves)? Why would the impersonal, mass-communication, generalized method of communicating information be bad for religion but good for everything else? If you would decide to remove yourself from that situation for the sake of growth, why would you volunteer to immerse your children in it? It either works or it doesn't. "Look how I turned out" isn't a very good argument. Survivors of unhealthy situations wouldn't volunteer to repeat them simply because they survived. They survived, in fact, in spite of the situation, not because of it.
Consider with an open mind.
- Adam
January 25, 2007 7:23:00 AM PST
A D Bachman said...
I posted my previous comment before I saw your comment from last night. Here's some responses to that one...
Certainly your 2 year old shows drive and ambition. Now what happens when he turns 3? 4? How is it by age 6 they suddenly lose it?
Not that by age 6 they "suddenly lose it." It's that by putting them in school, it is taken from them. Schools could not survive if they were driven by the students' ambitions. You can't have a classroom of 20 each going their own directions after all. Take a look at this article, specifically the six basic functions of modern school about 2/3 of the way down the page.
You also mentioned that modern schooling is 150 years old. That again is why I mentioned schooling in Asia. Countries like China have had their system for close to 4,000 years. And given the history of Chinese governments falling (let alone Mao constantly blaming intellectuals) there's no proof of government effectively controlling the schools.
Specifically schooling in this country. The Asian systems have most assuredly not existed in the same form for the last 4000 years. I would assert that schools today are a unique and distinct product of the industrial revolution. Without the need for workers we would have no need to standardize so extensively.
(skip a bit)... Without the opportunity to meet me, how would they have known?
By not being held without bond inside the insular walls of the school you attended. School doesn't cure ignorance, neither does reliance on chance encounters. What if you didn't meet them, would they still not know? What if the subject never came up in their entire lives, would it be a loss that they never learned? Should we begrudge a person their ignorance or faulty thinking if it has no effect on anyone but themselves?
So in the home schooling model, how do you break out of that cycle without some sort of "check"? When the only education you know is what your parents put in front of you? Either by what they teach or what environment they allow the child to be in?
Here's the beauty of the libertarian ideal, we don't check. The responsibility of the government is not to make sure people don't hurt themselves, it's to make sure they don't hurt each other.
The "only education" homeschooled children receive is that which their parents leave open to them. I fully intend to protect my children from some types of information (sex, violence, etc). Maybe in 30 years or even tomorrow someone will call me narrow minded and stupid, but that won't change what I'm doing or why I'm doing it. "The cycle" of parents teaching their children to be like them will continue until the world ends or until we separate children from their parents at birth.
An even more striking example is what Jewish and Muslim children learn about Israel. I can't even bring up the topic of Israel or Jews to my Muslim friends.
Am I to believe that there is a way to prevent parental bias?
Believe me, if I were even to suggest to my Muslim friends that they allow a Jewish history teacher to spend even 5 minutes with their kids I would never hear from them again!
Some may view this as a tragedy, but ultimately I think you would agree that this is the parent's choice. There is no way to prevent parental bias, just like there is no way to prevent teachers' bias or governmental bias. The relationship that would allow you, for example, to talk to your Muslim friends about Israel would have to be built on trust. What evidence has the government given that they should be trusted with the raising of this country's children? More importantly, what evidence have you given your friends that you care about them and their children enough that you should be allowed to suggest how the children should be raised?
And yes, you can learn mature reasoned thought outside of school. But how do you know it IS mature and reasoned? You can get the basic mechanics but what about the "flavor" of the thought?
And who develops this thought? What peers are available to test it?
Now here's a fundamental problem with School (big S). The idea we are taught and many in this country accept without investigation, that anything worth learning should and can only be taught in School. I know your thought is mature and reasoned when I hear it and recognize it as mature and reasoned. You know my own to be mature and reasoned by the same criteria. "Mature" and "reasoned" are ultimately subjective.
Philosophers get there by asking questions and judging the answers against their own reason. Christians get there by asking questions and judging against the Word and their understanding. I'm willing to bet you would not credit school with teaching you how to be a mature, reasonable adult. Did it contribute, sure, but that's not a good reason to dedicate my kids' lives to it.
January 25, 2007 9:01:00 AM PST
zip_blog said...
Okay, I see where this is going.
We've reached agreement on some points, and others we probably won't - at least not at this point. I can counterpoint what you just wrote, you do the same, etc.
To sum: My central argument is changing of one system vs. a standard for millions; you're argument is that one system is TOO controlling and any other system would be the same, correct?
Let's do this - I'll read your links and posts. In return, I ask that you read information on how schooling is done outside the US. How it is done in Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, Canada, etc. Your argument (like mine) is that the American system doesn't work. But you haven't mentioned what or how other countries do it. Take a look at them (which was my post to begin with:). I'll post more questions when I'm done reading your sources.
I may even bring in my experts!
January 25, 2007 9:46:00 AM PST
A D Bachman said...
Just thought I might mention, I found a good source (if you count wikipedia as good) for articles on Education by Country.
January 27, 2007 11:05:00 AM PST
zip_blog said...
Okay, sorry it took awhile to get back to you. Life has been a little crazy the last two weeks (whoever thought Daylight Savings Time is the new Y2K???)
Anyway, I took a look at the Wikipedia link. I was mistaken, but not fully. The People's Republic of China has changed their education system since the Communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949 and kicked them off to Taiwan. The National Entrance Exam to College however has not changed, and exists in both countries.
Taiwan however has maintained the original education system or at least the foundation of it. Both my parents went through it and so do my cousins. So I have firsthand knowledge of this.
Now, in regards to the links you sent. The books obviously I haven't had a change to read, so I went with the FAQs and history lesson.
From what I see, the theme is the same - the American Education system is not working. Being that this is the whole point of the post, I'm not going to dispute that!
I also noticed that the links, like you, have made a distinction between "home-schooling" and "un-schooling". I guess I wasn't clear on the distinction.
But I still don't see why the changes proposed can't be done in a school.
One of the sites has a link to Montessouri style schools. I would think they would accomplish the same purpose?
Again, my questions in this case don't regard if a child can get a better test score. My question is at what price?
Parental bias, social factors, accountability, etc. etc. These are questions I have yet to see an answer to.
And it could just be a case of disagreement, too. I'm willing to accept that. For me, the factors above are not worth taking my child out of school.
One more thing: I was wondering what you thought about home-schooling "co-op"s?
February 1, 2007 2:09:00 PM PST
A D Bachman said...
I think I've strayed a bit from the post, too.
My argument is only in part with any one system. I think any model that segregates people by age (and ofter gender) and removes them from the real world has two strikes against it. Removal from the real world is a danger with any home-based model as well, but no public school I've read about--in any country-- represents "the real world" so the danger goes both ways. I suppose in deciding to unschool (or homeschool) I accept the risk of having my child grow up with my values and world-view, maybe I think that would be a good thing?
My argument with school isn't really one you touched on, I think reform is great and anything that can be done to improve the system for anyone is good. I just can't wrap my mind around the compulsory aspect of school. Forcing a person, child or otherwise, through education seems to be just about the least effective way to do anything of quality.
My approach to raising my children as lifelong learners is to simply open the doors and get out of the way. Please don't scoff and declaim the inability of children to learn on their own. They most certainly do know how to learn and they most certainly can do it on their own. To believe this, though, we have to understand why.
It really comes down to motivation. My son is walking and talking better everyday, not because we sit him down and lecture him. Not because we've studied the best, most scientific method for packing his brain with knowledge. He's doing it because he lives in a world where the people he wants to be like do it daily, as part of living. Think about that for a second. He wants to be like the people he sees around him. If there's any defining characteristic of childhood, it's not dumb ignorant emptiness (as the current models of mass-education assume), it's the desire to be like the people you are surrounded with. THIS is why mass-education is dangerous. THIS is why the lack of accountability for parents is nothing compared to the lack of accountability for you children's peers in public school.
This model for learning is the same we live out in every non-school situation we experience out here in the real world. Driving, working, politics and religion; we see a place we want to be, skills-wise or intellectually, and we do what it takes to get to that place. I'm not going to school for computer science because there's somebody making me, I'm going because I want to develop software. The best way (as I see it) to make myself ready for a job developing software is to get a degree in a subject that reflects the skills required to perform the job.
Similarly, I have no fear that if my children see something they want to be a part of, they will find a way to become a part of it. If that way includes reading, they will learn to read. If that way includes math, they will learn math. I will not teach them to read because I think they need it. But I have no doubt they will learn how to do it.
My suggestion that the whole system should be closed down was strong. I like to use it as an interesting way to start discussions. This discussion has me rethinking that exciting tactic, though. Closing that resource, as distasteful as I find it, would be unfair to those who feel it works for them. Rather than closed down I would like to see the whole system opened up. Open as in free, free as in speech (not free as in beer).
In many (most?) states, I can homeschool, but if I do the whole public school system is closed to me. No bands, no sports, no classes. That's kind of odd, given that I am still paying taxes. Similarly, if I'm enrolled in the public school system, the freedom of homeschooling is closed to me. No unscheduled field trips, no selection of classes, no missing school. On top of that, the no-choice (the definition of compulsory) system of schooling goes way beyond scheduling time. I've got to pull out another quote here. This is from the intro to a book by John Holt, you'd have to read some of his other books to fully understand some of his word usage, but this gives the gist of what I'm talking about:
In this book I feel myself speaking mostly to that minority of people, including parents, teachers, would-be teachers, and students themselves, who believe that children (like all people) will live better, learn more, and grow more able to cope with the world if they are not constantly bribed, wheedled, bullied, threatened, humiliated, and hurt; if they are not set endlessly against each other in a race which all but a few must lose; if they are not constantly made to feel incompetent, stupid, untrustworthy, guilty, fearful, and ashamed; if their interests, concerns, and enthusiasms are not ignored or scorned; and if instead they are allowed, encouraged, and (if they wish) helped to work with and help each other, to learn from each other, and to think, talk, write, and read about the things that most excite and interest them. In short, if they are able to explore the world in their own way, and in as many areas as possible direct and control their own lives.
That pretty much sums up what I'm getting at and the reason I cannot support more school as an improvement over school. I do not agree with John Holt because he's a good salesman or because I'm all into touchy-feely stuff; I agree because it's true. Whether or not this describes "the school" I experienced day to day, it describes the way school works, because this is the way mass compulsory government school is designed, in all times and in all places. This is not the way all schools are or have been designed, but it's what we have now in this and most other countries.
School breaks children, as well it should. How else could you convince an intelligent human being that they have to sit for eight hours a day and learn only what you tell them unless you first convinced them that there was no other choice. Choice and the lack thereof is what drives me crazy about school in this country. I am glad though that the government has been forced (don't think it is allowed willingly) to relinquish ultimate control of children and that I am still free to choose how I want to raise mine.
I think there are lots of models for schools that might work. I think Montessori is one possible path, I think the Sudbury School is a far more interesting path. But I think taking the model we have and adding to it is not good. I think school in it's current state is unhealthy for this country because it is unhealthy for people. The crippling challenge of mass-education is that it by necessity treats people like numbers. No quality is considered necessary or relevant unless it is measurable. Think for a moment about how screwed up that is.
Well, this has turned out longer than I expected, so I'm going to get back to work now. I've still got the original questions, but many have been at least touched on. Eventually I'll get my own answers in writing since the questions you asked are common objections to home and unschooling.
Oh, uh, your parting question: I think homeschooling co-ops are great, more power to them. It might be strong to say they're necessary, but I think we'd agree that if you're relying on yourself exclusively to present and open the world to your kids, you're setting them up for bad things. If not a co-op or other group, how are they connecting with people outside the home? The whole peer thing I don't see as critical, peers of 10 year olds are still 10 year olds and don't offer much in the way of world-view expanding experience.
February 2, 2007 8:37:00 AM PST
A D Bachman said...
In India: The Peoples' Institute for Rethinking Education and Development
From the site, a list that expresses some of the reasons I oppose "more school":
The Culture of Schooling...
1) Labels, ranks and sorts human beings. It creates a rigid social hierarchy consisting of a small elite class of ‘highly educated’ and a large lower class of ‘failures’ and ‘illiterates’, based on levels of school achievement.
2) Imposes uniformity and standardization. It propagates the viewpoint that diversity is a problem, which must be removed if society is to progress.
3) Spreads fear, insecurity, violence and silence through its externally-imposed, military-like discipline.
4) Forces human beings to violently compete against each other over scarce resources in rigid win-lose situations.
5) Confines the motivation for learning to examinations, certificates and jobs. It suppresses all non-school motivations to learn and kills all desire to engage in critical self-evaluation. It centralizes control over the human learning process into the State-Market nexus, taking power away from individuals and communities.
6) Commodifies all human beings, Nature, knowledge and social relationships. They are to be extracted, exploited, bought and sold.
7) Fragments and compartmentalizes knowledge, human beings and the natural world. It de-links knowledge from wisdom, practical experiences and specific contexts.
8) Artificially separates human rationality from human emotions and the human spirit. It imposes a single view of rationality and logic on all people, while simultaneously devaluing many other knowledge systems.
9) Privileges literacy (in a few elite languages) over all other forms of human expression and creation. It drives people to distrust their local languages. It prioritizes newspapers, textbooks, television as the only reliable sources of information. These forms of State-Market controlled media cannot be questioned by the general public.
10) Reduces the spaces and opportunities for ‘valid’ human learning by demanding that they all be funneled through a centrally-controlled institution. It creates artificial divisions between learning and home, work, play, spirituality.
11) Destroys the dignity of labor; devalues the learning that takes place through manual work.
12) Breaks intergenerational bonds of family and community and increases people’s dependency on the Nation-State and Government, on Science and Technology, and on the Market for livelihood and identity. February 5, 2007 11:17:00 AM PST