Also, not true. President Bush introduced the Standards of Learning, for example.
Once again, completely untrue. Besides the absurd generalization, kids learn an amazing amount of things all on their own before they are a teenager.
That is where we have gone wrong. Our system takes little account (in school) of people with focused aptitudes and interests. We have veered towards the American broad-but-shallow model. I am glad I went to school back in the days when specialisation was possible from age 14. I would do badly in the modern system: bored stiff in dumbed-down maths and science classes, failing miserably in all the rest.PlasticIsGood said:
We also need to distinguish between pupils and students, as used to be the case. A pupil relies on the teacher. A student merely uses a teacher as one resource among many. If a student fails to learn then it can't be the teacher's fault, as the teacher is not responsible; the student must study.
It is a Prussian model brought to this country by Horace Mann in 1852. The Prussian model influenced almost every public school system in the world.
But SY, you are in a position to champion cheapness only because you happened to survive it. You can't build a successful civilisation on hollow righteousness. The unfortunate rejects would cost you a fortune before long, and the lucky 6% wouldn't be able cope on their own. It's a route with ruin in either direction.
Is there evidence that "failure or success is up to the individual", or is that a point of ethics? In truth, the success of individuals has for a very long time depended on social progress, and vice-versa. It's an interactive thing. If you were truly an individual, in the absence of society and its products, you would have no chance trying to educate yourself.
If failure or success is in some inevitable way up to the individual, why argue for socially organised education at all? Ban schools and have done with it.
Sink or swim can't work for long in any case, but now most of the world is in a position to contribute to your elite corps, the US would be down to 1% or less in a jiffy. You'd all need to be in the army to protect yourselves from the 99% of resentful under-achievers. I guess that's why you changed. Now you need to change again, without going backwards. Mine is the way forward.
With proper education for all, we could build a much happier and safer world. The better we can organise, the further we'll get. Binning 94% of students is no way to progress or harmony.
Is there evidence that "failure or success is up to the individual", or is that a point of ethics? In truth, the success of individuals has for a very long time depended on social progress, and vice-versa. It's an interactive thing. If you were truly an individual, in the absence of society and its products, you would have no chance trying to educate yourself.
If failure or success is in some inevitable way up to the individual, why argue for socially organised education at all? Ban schools and have done with it.
Sink or swim can't work for long in any case, but now most of the world is in a position to contribute to your elite corps, the US would be down to 1% or less in a jiffy. You'd all need to be in the army to protect yourselves from the 99% of resentful under-achievers. I guess that's why you changed. Now you need to change again, without going backwards. Mine is the way forward.
With proper education for all, we could build a much happier and safer world. The better we can organise, the further we'll get. Binning 94% of students is no way to progress or harmony.
94% of students don't belong at institutions directed toward high academic achievement. You can handle that one of two ways- restrict admissions (which keeps out competent individuals who didn't follow an "approved" path), or give everyone a chance to try and wean out the ones that can't get over the bar. That's not the end of life for the 94%- there are other academic institutions and other career paths which don't require rigorous academic training. My auto mechanic didn't spend a day in college and makes twice as much money as I do. My closest friend never went to college, he just retired at the age of 49 from a long and honorable career in the fire service. Most of those folks who couldn't cut the curriculum ended up having productive and interesting lives that just didn't happen to involve advanced degrees. Hey, I never ended up being a famous musician, ah well.
I am grateful that our institutions were run by more open-minded people when it was my turn, and I am very unhappy that the direction they've gone since then is to exclude people who take a non-traditional path.
I am grateful that our institutions were run by more open-minded people when it was my turn, and I am very unhappy that the direction they've gone since then is to exclude people who take a non-traditional path.
I'm more interested in when knowledge can be force fed, when technology begins to obsolete the whole existing knowledge business. It's pie in the sky now but when it gets close I'm not sure there will be any stopping it from putting several Extremely close knit institutions out of business. I also wonder how much research in this area quietly gets stifled or just ignored in order to maintain the status quo. There's no argument that it would be a revolution unlike any seen before, and I believe there are a lot of people who would be afraid more for the eventual missing argument than for than the revolution. What if Anybody could be a scientist? 10 bucks an hour. Professor, what for?
Just brainstorming: In my opinion, everything that is taught in US schools to age 18 could easily be taught by the time the student is 14 or 15, with an emphasis on how to learn rather than rote learning. 6 day classes and year round school with 4, 3 week breaks instead of one 12 week break. Sports is abolished as a "curriculum". From 15 to 18, the student does community/national service and catches up on anything they missed, also pursuing interests/aptitudes and deciding on a career path. For those who meet a minimum standard (at any age) the first two years of college are free, but the college is sink or swim, rigorous and competitive. The final year(s) of college are used as specialization and funded either by the student (by cash or loan), by grants based on need and aptitude or by a corporate sponsor for the student, based on a contract between the sponsor and student. Bachelors degree in three years. Masters in four. PhD in 5.
I just saw this excellent Ted talk from one of sudbury links in this thread - riveting stuff for those interested... Sugata Mitra: The child-driven education | Video on TED.com
Great thread btw...
Great thread btw...
dirkwright,
What I'm gonna tell you - the way it really is...
I sympathize intensely with your principles, but Merlinb and DF96 are right.
Where experiments in liberal education have been tried, they are almost always dependent on the vision and drive of a single individual, and are, in the final end, not the democracies they claim to be. They're certainly not pluralistic democracies. They normally have a (self-, or parent-)selected student body.
I used to wish I attended a school like that. I know I certainly cursed the time I was obliged to spend on latin when I could have been doing chemistry, but where I went to school somebody threw a bottle at the latin teacher in the playground (everybody knew, nothing was ever done), and somebody else who I only knew by sight stabbed me in the shoulder with a dart. You can't give people like that responsibility for the control of civilization, they're not civilized. This is why we still end up putting people in prison.
In between stints at university I ran a hostel for young offenders. I deplored prison and spent a lot of effort keeping hapless inadequates and victims of poor parenting out of prison.
I know people though, that I couldn't be alone with in a lifeboat. Only one of us would reach the shore alive. This is not down to me. I walk the streets every day, I leave no bodies behind me.
As I said before, I admire those countries who run successful education systems without corporal punishment, but it doesn't work everywhere.
If we didn't have the police, flawed though they are, we'd have to invent them. Perhaps in time we'll outgrow them, but that time has not come yet.
All this said, a successful society has to make the best use of the resources available to it.
The concentration of money in the hands of a small fraction of the population is not efficient, not globally competitive.
The same is true of education. We have to try to educate everybody to the level of their capability, and there is a strong tendency, particularly among the existing intellectual elite, to denigrate the capacity of the mass. On the other side of the equation are the idealist egalitarians who think that competition is unfair.
The universities aren't without their faults.
I went to university twice.
The first time, in the '60s, I left because I felt they couldn't teach me anything. It was true in a way.
I said to the professor, 'There are one or two things I'm not very happy about here...'
He said, 'Oh, you'd better leave.'
So I did. Non, rien de rien.
In the early '80s, after burning out as a social worker, I went back to my scientific roots and did an HNC. Those guys taught me a lot of practical stuff. They say, 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' I've even said it myself on occasion, but it's not really true.
Anybody who's ever watched a Feynmann lecture knows this.
τὸν κρατοῦντα μαλθακῶς θεὸς πρόσωθεν εὐμενῶς προσδέρκεται.
The second time, in the '80s I wanted the piece of paper, which I got.
I had to rescue one of the lecturers, there would have been a riot. He had such a condescending attitude, but he didn't speak English very well. People started mimicking his accent, taking the **** openly in a lecture, he was a disaster as a person. But then they all knew I was there, I wasn't going to let it get out of hand. It's all down to people skills. The really good teachers I had could explain things to you. Some think that if they've left their students bemused then they're doing a good job.
We had one guy, spent some considerable time talking about infinite networks.
Eventually I interrupted. 'Do you get a lot of these networks?', I said
'Oh yes,' he said 'everywhere'
90 minutes later, when it was time to leave, it turned out he was talking about transmission lines.
First you tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em.
Then you tell 'em what you tell 'em.
Then you tell 'em what you told 'em.
What I told you - the way it really is.
What I'm gonna tell you - the way it really is...
I sympathize intensely with your principles, but Merlinb and DF96 are right.
Where experiments in liberal education have been tried, they are almost always dependent on the vision and drive of a single individual, and are, in the final end, not the democracies they claim to be. They're certainly not pluralistic democracies. They normally have a (self-, or parent-)selected student body.
I used to wish I attended a school like that. I know I certainly cursed the time I was obliged to spend on latin when I could have been doing chemistry, but where I went to school somebody threw a bottle at the latin teacher in the playground (everybody knew, nothing was ever done), and somebody else who I only knew by sight stabbed me in the shoulder with a dart. You can't give people like that responsibility for the control of civilization, they're not civilized. This is why we still end up putting people in prison.
In between stints at university I ran a hostel for young offenders. I deplored prison and spent a lot of effort keeping hapless inadequates and victims of poor parenting out of prison.
I know people though, that I couldn't be alone with in a lifeboat. Only one of us would reach the shore alive. This is not down to me. I walk the streets every day, I leave no bodies behind me.
As I said before, I admire those countries who run successful education systems without corporal punishment, but it doesn't work everywhere.
If we didn't have the police, flawed though they are, we'd have to invent them. Perhaps in time we'll outgrow them, but that time has not come yet.
All this said, a successful society has to make the best use of the resources available to it.
The concentration of money in the hands of a small fraction of the population is not efficient, not globally competitive.
The same is true of education. We have to try to educate everybody to the level of their capability, and there is a strong tendency, particularly among the existing intellectual elite, to denigrate the capacity of the mass. On the other side of the equation are the idealist egalitarians who think that competition is unfair.
The universities aren't without their faults.
I went to university twice.
The first time, in the '60s, I left because I felt they couldn't teach me anything. It was true in a way.
I said to the professor, 'There are one or two things I'm not very happy about here...'
He said, 'Oh, you'd better leave.'
So I did. Non, rien de rien.
In the early '80s, after burning out as a social worker, I went back to my scientific roots and did an HNC. Those guys taught me a lot of practical stuff. They say, 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' I've even said it myself on occasion, but it's not really true.
Anybody who's ever watched a Feynmann lecture knows this.
τὸν κρατοῦντα μαλθακῶς θεὸς πρόσωθεν εὐμενῶς προσδέρκεται.
The second time, in the '80s I wanted the piece of paper, which I got.
I had to rescue one of the lecturers, there would have been a riot. He had such a condescending attitude, but he didn't speak English very well. People started mimicking his accent, taking the **** openly in a lecture, he was a disaster as a person. But then they all knew I was there, I wasn't going to let it get out of hand. It's all down to people skills. The really good teachers I had could explain things to you. Some think that if they've left their students bemused then they're doing a good job.
We had one guy, spent some considerable time talking about infinite networks.
Eventually I interrupted. 'Do you get a lot of these networks?', I said
'Oh yes,' he said 'everywhere'
90 minutes later, when it was time to leave, it turned out he was talking about transmission lines.
First you tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em.
Then you tell 'em what you tell 'em.
Then you tell 'em what you told 'em.
What I told you - the way it really is.
Yes, children can learn perfectly well all on their own. The use of grandmothers to enhance their learning was a new idea for me. A list of famous people who were home schooled:
Artists
Claude Monet
Grandma Moses
Leonardo da Vinci
Rembrandt Peale
(return to top)
Athletes
Michelle Kwan
Jason Taylor
Tim Tebow
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
(return to top)
Authors
Agatha Christie
Alex Haley
Beatrix Potter
C.S. Lewis
Charles Dickens
George Bernard Shaw
Hans Christian Anderson
Louisa May Alcott
Margaret Atwood
Mark Twain
Phillis Wheatley
Pearl S. Buck
Robert Frost
Virginia Woolf
(return to top)
Businessmen
Andrew Carnegie
Colonel Harland Sanders
Dave Thomas
Joseph Pulitzer
Ray Kroc
(return to top)
Composers
Felix Mendelssohn
Irving Berlin
John Philip Sousa
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
(return to top)
Entertainers
Alan Alda
Charlie Chaplin
Christina Aguilera
Dakota Fanning
Hanson
Hillary Duff
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Justin Timberlake
LeAnne Rimes
Louis Armstrong
Whoopi Goldberg
(return to top)
Explorers
Davy Crockett
George Rogers Clark
(return to top)
Inventors
Alexander Graham Bell
Benjamin Franklin
Cyrus McCormick
Eli Whitney
Thomas Edison
Orville Wright
Wilbur Wright
(return to top)
Military Leaders
Douglas MacArthur
George Patton
John Paul Jones
Robert E. Lee
Stonewall Jackson
Matthew Perry
(return to top)
Photographers
Ansel Adams
(return to top)
Presidents
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Jackson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
George Washington
Grover Cleveland
James Garfield
James Madison
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
John Tyler
Theodore Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
William Henry Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
(return to top)
Religious Leaders
Brigham Young
Dwight L. Moody
Joan of Arc
John & Charles Wesley
William Carey
(return to top)
Scientists
Albert Einstein
Blaise Pascal
Booker T. Washington
George Washington Carver
Pierre Curie
(return to top)
Statesman
Alexander Hamilton
Daniel Webster
Patrick Henry
William Jennings Bryan
William Penn
Winston Churchill
(return to top)
United States Supreme Court Judges
John Jay
John Marshall
John Rutledge
Sandra Day O'Connor
(return to top)
Women
Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams
Clara Barton, started the red cross
Florence Nightingale, nurse
Martha Washington, wife of George Washington
Susan B. Anthony, women's rights leader
(return to top)
Famous Homeschooling Parents
Lisa Whelchel
Kelley Preston and John Travolta
Will and Jada Pinkett Smith
(return to top)
Since you never went to a Sudbury school, then you cannot speak from first hand experience, now can you?
Have you ever visited a Sudbury school? I have.
Have you ever talked to the children who attend one? I have and do
Have you studied the history of public education and therefore know why it was created? I have and I do.
Therefore your comments are merely your opinion and do not reflect the facts or any evidence.
Here are some facts about Sudbury Valley School: Every person who has graduated from there has been accepted at the college of their choice. About 80% of the graduates pursue a higher degree at a college or university. They state that they have never had a problem with the fact that they may not have had certain subjects before attending. Since they are self motivated, they have no problem catching up with whatever subject they are lacking.
Last edited:
A great thread gentlemen. Thank you.
I’ll post the link to my two daughters (I know their reaction but that’s OK)
Allow me to quote what has touched my own –“technical” or not- strings:
Grandparents work as a balsam in the psyche of children.
Balanced psyche is the key.
(I mean there is a longer list with institution schooled famous people and an even longer list with non famous, to whom we are all grateful.)
George
I’ll post the link to my two daughters (I know their reaction but that’s OK)
Allow me to quote what has touched my own –“technical” or not- strings:
sauvage noble: The Browning Version
dirkwright
Grandparents work as a balsam in the psyche of children.
Balanced psyche is the key.
(I mean there is a longer list with institution schooled famous people and an even longer list with non famous, to whom we are all grateful.)
George
If you mean just one extra year to get a PhD, then you haven't understood what a PhD is. It takes about three years: first year understand the problem, second year find a solution, third year understand and work round the snags and weaknesses in the solution and write it up for publication and examination. Details vary from country to country, but essentially a PhD is about doing research - not further study, although it usually involves further study too. There is an unfortunate modern tendency to downgrade a PhD by describing it as "training in methods of research".Ron E said:
Some might argue that a year is too short for a Master's too. We did one year Master's in the UK when our Bachelor's was more focused than most others. Now our B has degraded we ought to do 2 year M like others. Instead, via Bologna, we seem to have pursuaded others to drop down to a 1 year M like us.
It is interesting to reflect what is the most intellectually demanding qualification I possess? On paper it would have to be my 2006 PhD in EE. I know that in truth it is actually my 1975 BSc in physics - the 3rd year of that contained much more challenging material.
I now tell people that whatever rumours they have heard about grade inflation are not true; the reality (in the UK) is far worse than the rumours.
For my money I'd take a traditional education -loved, wanted or forced - if need be, and supplement with student led discovery, Sudbury style or otherwise. I'm not quite sure that kids know at a young age, where to direct all that energy that they have.
So we need something - some angle, but what is that ?
They key is curiosity IMO.. Curiosity comes from NOT knowing or NOT having something. We, parents, can't stand that though. That we deprive our kids of something.
"daddy, what are the ancient Egyptians and what did they do ?"
How many of us could resist they urge to either tell them OR tell them how they can find out?
Maybe we should let them stew on it a while ?
But no..... We try and answer them in the best way we know..
Pop culture tells parents to innovate and find ways to entertain and engage your kids - that's our job as responsible and good parents. So we give them the easy way .... We bombard kids with ways to help them answer all their questions quickly and thus dull their curiosity. Then we ask why they're not interested in anything. They don't need to be.
There's no wanting to know and then working hard to find out..... And then feeling the pleasure when you succeed.
How satisfying could dinnertime be if you kep getting fed snacks every 20 mins ?
Evolution is a cool thing - no species does anything they don't have to.
That the species are our children doesn't change that.
So we need something - some angle, but what is that ?
They key is curiosity IMO.. Curiosity comes from NOT knowing or NOT having something. We, parents, can't stand that though. That we deprive our kids of something.
"daddy, what are the ancient Egyptians and what did they do ?"
How many of us could resist they urge to either tell them OR tell them how they can find out?
Maybe we should let them stew on it a while ?
But no..... We try and answer them in the best way we know..
Pop culture tells parents to innovate and find ways to entertain and engage your kids - that's our job as responsible and good parents. So we give them the easy way .... We bombard kids with ways to help them answer all their questions quickly and thus dull their curiosity. Then we ask why they're not interested in anything. They don't need to be.
There's no wanting to know and then working hard to find out..... And then feeling the pleasure when you succeed.
How satisfying could dinnertime be if you kep getting fed snacks every 20 mins ?
Evolution is a cool thing - no species does anything they don't have to.
That the species are our children doesn't change that.
Last edited:
Yeah, after I submitted it I thought about my phrasing and thought, "no, it would need to be at least three more," but I didn't get up to edit it, thinking it might be fodder for discussion.
BTW, I think the premise of the thread is false, kids can be (and are) force fed knowledge. Kids should be force fed more of it. In the US, they don't seem to teach much spelling or math any more because kids have spell check and calculators. That said, there is a place for rote learning and some things that should be taught this way. I think critical thinking skills are significantly more important than rote knowledge, but a certain amount of rote knowledge is required to obtain critical thinking skills.
I did a student exchange and the 16 year olds in Austrian "gymnasium" had to memorize all of the major and minor geographic features in the country, every mountain range and stream, etc.. seems ridiculous. Students would be better off memorizing all the countries and major geographic features in the world.
I think all the general education that is done in college is the job of primary and secondary schools. Schools should also teach some practical stuff, like how to make a budget, wages, savings and retirement, major purchasing decisions, etc... A child at 18 should graduate with a basic understanding of how the world works. When a kid asks why they need to learn, the answer should be "Education is the basis for a civil society and your job, funded by the tax payers of this country, is to learn it."
ok, soapbox mode off
You forgot Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin): a guy who used to be a "philosopher" that used Marx and Engels' books as the "proof" that revolution is noble and progressive thing, and organized forced political regime change in Russian Empire.
I would have liked some outdoor schooling. Five hours sitting on a classroom chair is a highly UNNATURAL thing to do - especially for kids. I would have liked to learn the art of bowhunting (mammal lover here, so only apple hunting for me) and how to deep dive in search for juicy oysters and, also, what plants to eat to be able to speak with the gods. But, nope, I was taught algebra and grammar instead. Rotten luck. Oh boy, that stuff on textbooks bored me stiff. People who write textbooks don't know how to write. All those ridiculous sentences. Oh the horror.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.