Can there be any viable alternatives to schooling?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

... To me this term, Elite, is used to friviously. Someone who is elite in my book is one who goes above an beyond what is required. Someone who puts more effort and time forward, for their personal inquiry than others. Often times the term is associated with knowing more, but in a world where information is subject to change, it can not and does not denote one's elevation in status, as an elite.

At the very least, some commonality in education is desirable for making any progress. For example, learning what a dictionary is and how to use it is worthy of teaching to everyone, lest everyone simply defines terms as they see fit as Clown has with the term 'elite'.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

It not that there is something wrong with the model so much as the model does not serve to promote the overt goals of the overall system of people.

The system does not necessarily recognize at current that it is best served by the attainment of higher quality individuals than many low quality individuals.

Also I am not arguing against the compusolry education of the citizens of our collective world, but arguing in favor of making the system more attractive.

I wholeheartedly agree. I didn't think you wanted to argue against compulsory education, but it could have been misconstrued that way by others: I was just clarifying!

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I can envision school as a hotspot, a place to hang out talk and share information. Play games, socialize, communicate and otherwise learn. A warm welcoming, enticing enviroment even.

I agree, and in my unusual grade school experience--Southern California public school in a fairly well-to-do district--it was exactly that. Structured, lots of requirements, but lots of independent study opportunities, AP classes and teachers that challenged the smart ones and the slow ones to *all* think. And intellectual freedom--our screeds against the administration idiocy bordered on libel--in spades: I fear this sort of environment is less so today, looking at my daughter's experience in a similar district. It would be fabulous if all schools go in this direction, but society has not desired to spend the money, and--as those teacher friends of mine will tell you--has gone nuts on "teaching the basics and no more" (unless you're in a high-end school system). This is a major failure in our society, and I definitely understand the frustration you've expressed.

We need to do a whole lot better.

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

That is without ridged enforced controls the children will become slothful, and weak minded. That they will be come deliquent and are forever in the danger of falling to hoodlumism. There is an almost silent undercurrent in the methods, codes and othersuch of the education system in america that wants to shout but knows it's not proper "Children don't want to learn, so we must force them."

I think this is an extreme, minority opinion, although I would bet popular among current political appointees at the Department of Education. Its not true, and the teachers will tell you so. Even in the most depressed environments, there are many who are motivated to learn, and even the unmotivated can be made so, but its about *how* they're taught, and the "teaching to the standardized test" has forced uninteresting and unmotivating methods that teachers *hate* with a passion. No Child Left Behind has left most children behind across the entire spectrum of "motivation."

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Now as for the "never use x in real life." comments, and other such nonsense beliefs. Simple. Show them why and how they will use the skills they are taught.

Exactly, the only real challenge is to get them to sit through the argument, and that can take some "force" when the attitude is already there. Once they're past that, then that innate curiosity does indeed start to take over. There is some force involved though, purely as a practical manner.

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Someone who is elite in my book is one who goes above an beyond what is required. Someone who puts more effort and time forward, for their personal inquiry than others.

I think my definition is pretty much the same as yours here. The point being that "elite" very explicitly does not include "most" from any point of view, and thus programs designed for the elite probably won't work as well as for the "masses," and that's the only area I think you need to be careful. When I was a kid, there was a lot more money spent on the "gifted" programs, which have for the most part gone away except for AP classes. You want gifted, you need to be able to afford to pay for it either in private school or ritzy school districts. Thus, we end up with this situation where "elite" equals "rich" which is totally sucky.

As a society we've got to start realizing that education is our most important investment.

Do good for all,
Buffy

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Its not true, and the teachers will tell you so.

I am not saying this is the overt line, the one which is consciously used. I know from experience that often enough the teachers themselves don't realize the total effect of the system. There is a difference in playing the game and analyze it objectively. When in the game, one will often attach emotional importance to aspects of the game. That is one will define meaning and purpose for their participation.

This can lead to blindness of the system and the underlying content created by the system.

I approach this problem from both the stand point of an exceptional student, whatever that means, and from the perspective of a problem student, and all shades of gray and the myriad of colors in between.

I have been a student of the modern education system for the past 15 years. I have been from high to low, best student to worst student. I have examined it and discussed it with a number of people in my life. From principles, administrators, teachers, students, and parents to psychologist, councilors, college instructors, and even your average person.

The conclusion I have drawn in all my time, experience, research and studies, is that the school system itself, the methods used, the policies in acted all are based around a fundamental, implied belief that children don't want to learn. That people don't want to learn.

Now those of us who know a little about information, will recognize quickly (I would hope) that garbage in is garbage out. You teach the teachers to deal with the students like the students don't want to be there, and the teacher teaches the students like they don't want to be there. Then you indoctrinate the teachers and students, and the system itself (by self-reference) to believe that people don't want to learn.

Anyone who has learned some history and knows the role of belief in history, will most likely recognize the insidious dangers inherent in this kind of slippery indirect indoctrination.

If I tell you over and over again, from age 6 that you don't want to be here, that learning is hard and that only a few will go on to make it big, do you think your likely to reject that? What if your family espouse the same doctrine? Your friends, the society you live in? The TV you watch, radio you listen to, the books that you read?

I am lucky in that my mom taught me otherwise. That learning is fun, that I can be anything, that I want to be educated and involved with my education.

We create these prisons for our kids and then expect them to just suddenly shed the controls imposed on them? Our current education system institutionalizes our future demographic. That isn't to say that the current system is worse than the past systems, quite the opposite. Just that It is no where near optimal yet.

Structure and support are good, they are needed. That is the point of the model I would like seen used. I want people to learn and to have fun doing it. School shouldn't be a place you have to go to. It should be a place you want to go to.

Just because you have free association doesn't mean that you are let of the hook for learning. Quite the opposite.

Mark my words, if you turn schools into the premier hangout, without compromising their integrity as places of learning, to rival the mall, the movie theater, the theme park, the circus, and the arcade, you will create a society that will go somewhere, that will leap and bound across the borders of understanding.

Make them public and publicly funded, so that tuition is payed by each citizen for their right and privilege to have such resources available to them, and we may very well see the next era.

Education and Entertainment, it's the only logical jump from where we stand now. Give the people what they want, bread and circuses.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Turtle, I don't like reading your elitist rhetoric, however I do so to keep up to date on different positions, to keep informed on the state of the system.

? Using a dictionary is elitist? Your Humpty Dumpty approach to words contributes nothing to clarifying the issue of finding viable alternatives to education.

[hallenrm]

Very interesting inputs dear KAC, Buffy and Turtle, let me now add my bit of experience!

Here in India, often schools of are unattractive to students because of either quality of teachers, the infrastructure, the curriculum or the setup. To the few who somehow like to go to school everyday, it is an opportunity to socialize with others of their own age. Often, there are students who are not too happy with this socialization, because they can't find other students in their class whom they really like. Often they are forced in to learn from a teacher they cannot connect. On the other hand there are teachers they take instant liking for. But, there is no structure that encourages such a mode of learning.

Yesterday, after initiating the thread, I googled to find an answer to my question. The articles that caught my attention were unschooling alternative education and alternative schools.

But, what I have in mind is a much more flexible structure than a school. My interactions on this forum led me to imagine. I have found that some members on this forum, for example Turtle are instant hits with newcomers, CraigD attracts people like me who are seeking new knowledge and there are many more, I can't remember the names at the moment. Similar are my experiences with children around, children often take instant liking for some persons and they would like to be taught by them, but the school system does not always allow this. Here in India, home tutions are becoming popular because often they give such an option. But the problem is of economic viability and visibility. Not everybody can afford a private tutor, and even if one can there is this problem of finding the right one and the accessibility to him/her. Because, she may not be residing closeby and the time when s/he is available. Internet seems to offer a possibility.

e-tutions are becoming popular slowly among students, as are clubs for extracurricular activities for the young. Can they offer an alternative??? I am thinking, I need some inputs, Anybody ready for help !

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

I love children, although I have no offsprings of my own.

I love to watch them grow, just I do love to see flowers bloom!

Lately I have come across some articles in my newspaper where the authors advocate that schoolong is no longer a relevant mode of education.

I somehow tend to agree to the proposition. Schooling was the best mode of education when there were no alternative to communication.

I enjoyed listening to this very wise, intelligent, caring woman
Ockham's Razor - 6*May*2007* - Those who have ears

It will only be there for a few more days. I think it is best listened too rather than reading a transcript
I have sent the link to all my teacher friends

Listen Now - 06052007 | Download Audio - 06052007

Brisbane educator Jennifer Riggs discusses children who have serious problems with auditory processing. Studies have shown that a third of us are strongly visual-spatial learners and many children cannot learn through being talked at, but will learn better by seeing and doing. The fundamentals of learning are the five senses, but how many of them do we use in teaching?

Show Transcript