Slashdot Mirror
Domain: sudval.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sudval.org.
Comments · 32
-
Moving beyond "The War on Kids"
I like listening to music. Here is what some people have to say about forcing other people to listen to music:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-02/news/31989906_1_music-groups-torture-prisoners-guantanamo-bay
"A new documentary released by Al Jazeera exposes the use of childrens songs and heavy metal music to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. "I also like math... By analogy, what is forcing people to do math against their will?
You wrote: "I hated highschool..."
Then you wrote: "I have to
Why do you have to perpetuate the system you hate?
I know there are answers -- the right to consume in our society is linked to participating in our current economic order. See: "The Triple Revolution Memorandum".
http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/11/17/why-the-triple-revolution-memorandum-was-ahead-of-its-time/index.htmlSo, maybe you have to stay a school teacher for that reason. I certainly face the same economic issue myself regarding other paying work. And maybe you students are indeed better off with your approach in the context you describe, all other things being equal. So, then the issue is, how can one change the context so all other things are not equal and there is a rebalancing?
Still, either a universal basic income or the proposal I outlined would give families plenty of money to hire math tutors like yourself if their kids wanted to learn math. Or a basic income for everyone would mean you could do different things with your own time.
What you say from your experience is truth. But, you can still think more deeply and creatively about the meaning of it, like John Taylor Gatto, Jeff Schmidt, or John Holt did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_(educator)If all the kids you were teaching had freely chose to be in your class, would you have to think so much about authority? What would your day be like if the only kids you were interacting with explicitly wanted to be learning math or anything else you wanted to teach (like they wanted to be engineers or whatever)? The fact that there are children who are compelled to be in your classroom when they don't want to be there is a big part of the problem. Sadly, Jaime Escalante's efforts were essentially shut down by the school bureaucracy that could not accept them, so I'm not saying creating or sustaining alternatives in public schools is easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante#National_attentionKhan Academy is one example of part of a different way forward. Free schools are another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school
http://www.sudval.org/Or:
http://www.augusttojune.com/
"Come inside a public school happily and purposefully going against current trends and join 26 8-10 year olds, their teacher, and their parents for a year bursting with opportunities for curiosity, creativity and compassion. "The last link, is a documentary about an alternative public school, so things are possible.
More alternatives:
http://www.educationrevolution.org/More on this theme
-
Sudbury Schools
There's not even a need for fancy technology to get a solid non-traditional education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_01.html -
Re:Blame the mandateSupposing however that it works differently. That after dropping the mandate, the country that does it will see literacy rates begin to fall as well as the overall average of education in that country. Well, as long as we're just supposing... what if after dropping the mandate, our economy starts to grow at an unprecedented rate, as the billions of man-hours per year that were previously being wasted studying such things as the rules of volleyball, the symbolism of books about talking bunnies, and the innards of fetal pigs are instead directed into more productive pursuits?
Reading is a prerequisite for pretty much everything else in life, and written text is all around us. There are plenty of opportunities and motivations for literacy outside of a classroom. As for the "overall average of education", such a metric presumes that the number of hours spent in school is the only worthwhile measure of a person's knowledge and skill. School might not be fun, it might very well be like a prison, but that's too bad, because it's the most important thing the government can do for you. The state funded school system is the result of centuries of struggle for the right of all people to receive a fair and equal opportunity at the beginning of their lives. Providing all people the opportunity is the important part. Forcing all people to attend, not so much. No one ever struggled to have their freedom taken away. School is forced onto students because given a chance, most students would choose NOT to bother and many of their parents won't force them. Given a chance, most people will also choose not to work in a coal mine, or drink urine, or watch Battlefield Earth. I eagerly await your proposal to mandate those activities for everyone, since apparently the fact that someone doesn't want to do something is enough justification to force them into doing it. In essence, even if certain students cause problems. They still learn something, they're worth teaching and a poor learning environment is just the price we have to live with. They'll still learn something no matter where they are. Most of the important stuff I learned wasn't taught in school, and there are several schools based on the idea that if you put kids in an environment where learning is possible, and let them spend their time however they want, most of them will find something that interests them, and that's what they'll devote their time to. -
Re:Blame the mandateAnd for those kids who do not attend? What happens to them? What do you do when they are adults and cannot support themselves? Not saying you are wrong, but I'm curious is to what the rest of your game plan is. I see no reason to treat them any differently from any other group of people who choose not to support themselves. What do you do when a factory worker is laid off and doesn't have a broad enough education to get a job in another field? Solve that problem and you'll have your answer.
I don't think it's as much of a problem as you make it out to be, though. Kids will learn something, no matter where they are and what they're doing; that's what kids do. There are several schools based on the idea that if you put kids together in a resource-filled environment where they can spend their time doing whatever they feel like, most of them will find something that interests them, and they'll end up learning a lot of valuable stuff even without classes, tests, and daily schedules. I went to a regular public school, but still, the skills that I use to support myself have very little to do with the classes I was required to take in school. -
Teachers vs. Pedagogue
I remember Peter Drucker discussing education in his autobiography, Adventures of a Bystander.
There are very few "teachers" out there, those who can illuminate a subject and adapt to all the various types of learning styles, personalities, and perspectives that various students may have. This is not a skill that we really know how to teach itself, it's more of a talent.
The second, more common effective educator, is the "pedagogue" (his use of the term), by which he implies, professionals who help motivate students to structure their own learning. This is a skill set we can teach & codify.
I think that new technology has a lot to do with increasing the pace of self-driven learning. In that vein, new technology is very important. I think old technology is great too (libraries, blackboards, etc.), but the ability of (for example) hypertext to provide context to information is an extremely powerful agent to learning, especially for those with short attention spans.
As for "damn kids are all entitled with no attention span" carmudgeons, I'd note that this seems to be a mainstream variant of Nerd Attention Deficit Disorder (NADD), which seems to be a way of coping with the increasing information glut. Some people bubble up, some people fixate on one medium, others soak it all in, but as a result wind up with "mile wide / inch deep" knowledge, for better or worse.
The trick, for educators, I believe, will be a way to structure education so that people can be specialists in several areas. This keeps things interesting. The second is to allow those areas of speciality to arise based on the student's strengths & talents. Sudbury Schools seem to be a growing approach, but I'm sure there are others.
Finally, there needs to be a sense of urgency instilled in students that is gradually increased as they grow... the work ethic is a hard thing to instill. I know from my experience in school that I coasted with 80s for 18 years -
Re:Freedom where art thou?
Education requires curriculum.
That turns out not to be the case. -
Not insightful; study case examples
Yeah, that's going to work SO well once they grow up. Seriously, children don't know what skills they're going to need to function in a modern society, nor do they understand how things are often related to one another.
That isn't an insightful comment. An insightful comment would be based on, I don't know, "facts" or something. Like, for instance, how do these free schools actually work out in practice? Are they total educational failures? If so, why do they still exist.
In point of fact, the most famous such "free" school in the U.S., the the Sudbury Valley School, has been operating continuously for almost 40 years now; they have an enrollment of some 200+ students. Unlike your pontificating, they have been concerned with how well their model actually works, so they have conducted post-graduation studies of their alumni, and have published their results. They found a high degree of job and life satisfaction, most of the students got into their first or second choice of colleges, they reported little difficulty adjusting to the college environment, and there was a small indication that their alumni were more prone to entrepreneurial activities.
How many fields of endeavor depend upon solid math skills? How many times will a child change his or her mind regarding what they want to do later in life?
I've changed my mind several times myself, and you know what? Schooling doesn't help that much, because it can't predict what I'm going to do with my life. When I decide to do something new, I go out and teach myself, or enroll in appropriate classes, or whatever. This idea that schooling is capable of anticipating your future needs and cramming you full of everything you will ever need to know is kind of bogus. People are perfectly capable of learning what they need to know when they need to know it, as they go along. Hell, most people get most of their work training on the job, and not directly from college.
Students from "free schools" are trained to do that, because that's the only way they learn: by taking the initiative to learn new things when they feel it's important to do so. Traditional schooling gives the false impression that you can rely on classes to teach you what you need to know. Even in grad school I saw too many students sitting back and thinking that they were going to learn physics in their classes, when they should have been spending time reading the literature, talking to professors, and thinking about their own research program.
Teach them English so they can communicate. Teach them math so they're prepared for almost any job. Teach them history so their society isn't doomed to repeating the same mistakes. Teach science and biology and art and music. Teach them to think. Teach them to learn.
The entire point of a free school is to teach them to think and learn on their own, because nobody else is going to do it for them. You'd be surprised at how eager kids really are to learn things, even "dull" things, when they get to decide when and how they learn them. -
Not insightful; study case examples
Yeah, that's going to work SO well once they grow up. Seriously, children don't know what skills they're going to need to function in a modern society, nor do they understand how things are often related to one another.
That isn't an insightful comment. An insightful comment would be based on, I don't know, "facts" or something. Like, for instance, how do these free schools actually work out in practice? Are they total educational failures? If so, why do they still exist.
In point of fact, the most famous such "free" school in the U.S., the the Sudbury Valley School, has been operating continuously for almost 40 years now; they have an enrollment of some 200+ students. Unlike your pontificating, they have been concerned with how well their model actually works, so they have conducted post-graduation studies of their alumni, and have published their results. They found a high degree of job and life satisfaction, most of the students got into their first or second choice of colleges, they reported little difficulty adjusting to the college environment, and there was a small indication that their alumni were more prone to entrepreneurial activities.
How many fields of endeavor depend upon solid math skills? How many times will a child change his or her mind regarding what they want to do later in life?
I've changed my mind several times myself, and you know what? Schooling doesn't help that much, because it can't predict what I'm going to do with my life. When I decide to do something new, I go out and teach myself, or enroll in appropriate classes, or whatever. This idea that schooling is capable of anticipating your future needs and cramming you full of everything you will ever need to know is kind of bogus. People are perfectly capable of learning what they need to know when they need to know it, as they go along. Hell, most people get most of their work training on the job, and not directly from college.
Students from "free schools" are trained to do that, because that's the only way they learn: by taking the initiative to learn new things when they feel it's important to do so. Traditional schooling gives the false impression that you can rely on classes to teach you what you need to know. Even in grad school I saw too many students sitting back and thinking that they were going to learn physics in their classes, when they should have been spending time reading the literature, talking to professors, and thinking about their own research program.
Teach them English so they can communicate. Teach them math so they're prepared for almost any job. Teach them history so their society isn't doomed to repeating the same mistakes. Teach science and biology and art and music. Teach them to think. Teach them to learn.
The entire point of a free school is to teach them to think and learn on their own, because nobody else is going to do it for them. You'd be surprised at how eager kids really are to learn things, even "dull" things, when they get to decide when and how they learn them. -
Re:In such an educational system
There even is a more radical aproach called 'eigenwijs' which literelly means something like stubborn, but in this case means self-thought. In this system children get to decide what they want to do.
There is a famous example of this in the UK, the Summerhill School, and an even "freer" version in the US, the Sudbury Valley School. -
Sudbury Valley School
The problem with school as we know it? It crushes the natural curiosity of every child nearly without exception.
Contrast the passionate learning and exploration of a child before kindergarten with the stereotypical apathy of a student in high school. Three guesses what happened between point A and B.
Public schools are not public. Our public libraries and public roads are for our convenience --- to be used as they help use pursue our goals. They don't need a truancy officer.
It's helpful, but not necessary to lead a horse to water, and it's wrong to take away recess when she won't drink. Horses will go to extreme lengths to reach the water with or without help because water is fundamental to their existence.
So-called "student government" is a sham. Democracy is empowerment. Student goverment is bureaucracy. Our schools are Un-American.
Introducing the solution: http://www.sudval.org/
"At Sudbury Valley School, students learn to think for themselves, and learn to use Information Age tools to unearth the knowledge they need from multiple sources. They develop the ability to make clear logical arguments, and deal with complex ethical issues. Through self-initiated activities, they pick up the basics; as they direct their lives, they take responsibility for outcomes, set priorities, allocate resources, and work with others in a vibrant community. Children ages 4-19 explore the world freely, at their own pace and in their own unique ways." -
Alternative Education models WORK!
The best way to make schools more effective is to remove the mind-numbing disciplinarian structure and make school an environment where kids actually enjoy learning instead of having regimented work set out for them that they must complete in a drone-like manner. Sudbury valley school http://www.sudval.org/ is a school that teaches kids to think for themselves while making sure they are well educated and have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. Their studies show that 80% of their graduates go on to post-secondary school and more often get into the first school they apply to. Sudbury Valley School is a place where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated. The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility. In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises. The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy. "At Sudbury Valley School, students learn to think for themselves, and learn to use Information Age tools to unearth the knowledge they need from multiple sources. They develop the ability to make clear logical arguments, and deal with complex ethical issues. Through self-initiated activities, they pick up the basics; as they direct their lives, they take responsibility for outcomes, set priorities, allocate resources, and work with others in a vibrant community. Children ages 4-19 explore the world freely, at their own pace and in their own unique ways." So getting people to think for themselves AND having a better overall education. It's what you guys all say you want without the regimented authoritarian classrom. You should encourage your school system to take on this kind of model.
-
A new alternative: The Sudbury Model
The best way to make schools more effective is to remove the mind-numbing disciplinarian structure and make school an environment where kids actually enjoy learning instead of having regimented work set out for them that they must complete in a drone-like manner.
Sudbury Valley School is a place where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated.
The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility.
In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises.
The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy.
"At Sudbury Valley School, students learn to think for themselves, and learn to use Information Age tools to unearth the knowledge they need from multiple sources. They develop the ability to make clear logical arguments, and deal with complex ethical issues. Through self-initiated activities, they pick up the basics; as they direct their lives, they take responsibility for outcomes, set priorities, allocate resources, and work with others in a vibrant community. Children ages 4-19 explore the world freely, at their own pace and in their own unique ways."
Sudbury valley school http://www.sudval.org/ is a school that teaches kids to think for themselves while making sure they are well educated and have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. Their studies show that 80% of their graduates go on to post-secondary school and more often get into the first school they apply to.
So getting people to think for themselves AND having a better overall education. It's what you guys all say you want without the regimented authoritarian classrom. You should encourage your school system to take on this kind of model. -
Obligatory Sudbury post
My wife is a HS english teacher, and even she says the system needs a complete redesign.
Yes, I know many teachers who say the same thing in private.
I personally am somewhat enamored by the Sudbury Valley model. At the very least, I believe some of its principles would be beneficial to mainstream education.
-
Our Un-American Schools
And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
An interesting essay on how our very school system repudiates the fundamental American values. See particularly chapter 3, as well as the section "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned" from this document -
Our Un-American Schools
And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
An interesting essay on how our very school system repudiates the fundamental American values. See particularly chapter 3, as well as the section "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned" from this document -
Re:The guy has a point
It is well-established that the first stage of learning is rote memorization and repetition.
Uh, no it isn't. In fact there's quite a debate between the "traditionalists" and the "constructivists".
Maybe we should start letting the students design the curricula. Maybe we should give them total control over what subjects to take. Maybe we should give them the choice of going to school or not.
Maybe we should. What are your arguments against it?
As Christopher Thomas said, if it were up to most kids, they'd play all day;
Good! That's how people learn. That's how I learn; fooling around with stuff for my own amusement. Playing encompasses all kinds of creative activities, not just Playstations. When did "play" become an educational dirty word? Heck, how do you think half of Slashdotters learned about computers? By what they considered "play", not school instruction.
There are schools that have let students determine what to do with their time for decades, you know. They do all right, and all of them so far have ended up literate, despite the fact that nobody was forcing them to crack a book. -
Some alternative schooling methods
-
Skip the drugs, try switching schools
In all likelihood there is nothing at all 'wrong' with your daughter. If she's having problems focusing in school, try a change of environment. Consider homeschooling, or a Sudbury school (Link 1) (Link 2).
Some kids may be able to sit still for hours in an uncomfortable wooden chair, ingesting mostly-useless information from a chalkboard and asking permission to use a bathroom. Others can't, and should not be placed in such a miserable environment.
-
Re:Nobody's interested in my success..
Perhaps you should check out the Sudbury Valley School.
-
The other extreme on trustMy kids attend the Sudbury Valley School in Framingham, MA, which is at the other extreme.
There are no grades and no homework. I trust the kids to find challenges and learn what they need to learn.
The kids who come out this environment are amazingly self-confident and capable.
-
Re:Sudbury model of education - anti-intellectual?Before anyone gets too enthused:
From the sudval schools's "Free Texts" page: Is Sudbury Valley School "Anti-Intellectual?" "from Reflections on the Sudbury School Concept By Daniel Greenberg"Is Sudbury Valley School "Anti-Intellectual"?
!
[...]
To some parental observers, it seems as if the school is saying: "Cooking yes; science no. Beadwork yes; spelling no. Skiing yes; math no." Or, to generalize: "If a student wants to piddle around in some unessential activity that doesn't involve deep thoughts, the school's staff will rush to get involved; if a student wants to do something that develops his/her body of knowledge or ability to think critically (a term regularly used by prevailing schools to justify the subject matter that they include in their curricula), then s/he will get a fairly cold shoulder from the staff." The conclusion these observers draw: Sudbury Valley has an anti- intellectual bent.Let's look more carefully at what is going on here. [...]
The only way the system works, however, is if adults at school carefully avoid structured situations which are associated in the minds of children with the standard societal demands that are imposed upon them in other environments. In the present context of American society, it is not possible to have a relaxed adult-child interaction that involves chatting innocently about subjects that form the curriculum of the prevailing school system [italics in original]. There is no possibility to have casual get-togethers that putter around in science-related areas; for the children, these situations immediately turn into "science classes", and the adult becomes the "science teacher".One of the arguments for textbooks and structured education is not that it constrains students, but that it constrains teachers. So even the most science-phobic and clueless of them have to at least try to learn and teach, rather than declaring their ignorance a philosophy. The standardized "science" taught is often/usually horrible -- but there are worse approaches.
-
Re:Sudbury model of education - anti-intellectual?Before anyone gets too enthused:
From the sudval schools's "Free Texts" page: Is Sudbury Valley School "Anti-Intellectual?" "from Reflections on the Sudbury School Concept By Daniel Greenberg"Is Sudbury Valley School "Anti-Intellectual"?
!
[...]
To some parental observers, it seems as if the school is saying: "Cooking yes; science no. Beadwork yes; spelling no. Skiing yes; math no." Or, to generalize: "If a student wants to piddle around in some unessential activity that doesn't involve deep thoughts, the school's staff will rush to get involved; if a student wants to do something that develops his/her body of knowledge or ability to think critically (a term regularly used by prevailing schools to justify the subject matter that they include in their curricula), then s/he will get a fairly cold shoulder from the staff." The conclusion these observers draw: Sudbury Valley has an anti- intellectual bent.Let's look more carefully at what is going on here. [...]
The only way the system works, however, is if adults at school carefully avoid structured situations which are associated in the minds of children with the standard societal demands that are imposed upon them in other environments. In the present context of American society, it is not possible to have a relaxed adult-child interaction that involves chatting innocently about subjects that form the curriculum of the prevailing school system [italics in original]. There is no possibility to have casual get-togethers that putter around in science-related areas; for the children, these situations immediately turn into "science classes", and the adult becomes the "science teacher".One of the arguments for textbooks and structured education is not that it constrains students, but that it constrains teachers. So even the most science-phobic and clueless of them have to at least try to learn and teach, rather than declaring their ignorance a philosophy. The standardized "science" taught is often/usually horrible -- but there are worse approaches.
-
Sudbury model of educationIMHO, textbooks have their place but are relied upon much too heavily, as are chalkboards, assigned seating, standardized testing, age segregation and fixed curriculum.
I have been intrigued for quite a while by the Sudbury Valley model. Sudbury schools are free, democratic schools which allow students the freedom to pursue their own interests, and to learn by doing.
Suggested reading:
Sudbury schools are definitely radically different than traditional U.S. public and private schools, and probably aren't for everyone. All I know is that school was absolutely the most miserable experience in my life, and that I undoubtedly would have thrived in a Sudbury-like environment. -
Not a troll.(regarding the ishmael essay):
the guy is a troll. He questions the education system and the need for an education system but his idea that we should all piss off back to the Stone Age is moronicDid you read the whole essay? The Stone Age idea was a brief tangential thought-experiment, not a serious proposal. His proposal is "unschooling": that you let kids learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it rather than forcing them to sit at a small desk in a large room and be talked at for 6 hours a day according to a fixed curriculum. Unschooling is a valid method; it works.
If you're interested in these ideas you might also want to look at the Sudbury Method, which is basically Unschooling in a school setting .
-
Re:Now the truely amazing thing is...
The school he goes to (Paideia) is actually quite cool. It is kinda a free form private school. From what I remember they really don't have many grades or announced tests. Kids are encouraged to learn at their own rate, and many gifted kids go their when they out pace their regular classes. It is kind of a neat place. They actually encourage creative thinking instead of kicking you out or arresting you!
You might be interested in Sudbury Schools, which are modeled more or less after the original Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts.
The schools are run as a democracy, with students, parents and staff voting in the weekly school meeting on things including hiring and firing of staff. Students of all ages are able to mix freely, and there is no mandated curriculum. Never been to one, but they do seem to have more than a few good ideas.
-- -
Re:Now the truely amazing thing is...
The school he goes to (Paideia) is actually quite cool. It is kinda a free form private school. From what I remember they really don't have many grades or announced tests. Kids are encouraged to learn at their own rate, and many gifted kids go their when they out pace their regular classes. It is kind of a neat place. They actually encourage creative thinking instead of kicking you out or arresting you!
You might be interested in Sudbury Schools, which are modeled more or less after the original Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts.
The schools are run as a democracy, with students, parents and staff voting in the weekly school meeting on things including hiring and firing of staff. Students of all ages are able to mix freely, and there is no mandated curriculum. Never been to one, but they do seem to have more than a few good ideas.
-- -
Against force-feeding
An interesting educational model to think about is that espoused by The Sudbury Valley School, a democratic school with no curriculum. You can read about their philosophy. I particularly like "The Crisis in American Education"; it ironically criticizes the American public educational system as being fundamentally at odds with the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.
-
Against force-feeding
An interesting educational model to think about is that espoused by The Sudbury Valley School, a democratic school with no curriculum. You can read about their philosophy. I particularly like "The Crisis in American Education"; it ironically criticizes the American public educational system as being fundamentally at odds with the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.
-
Against force-feeding
An interesting educational model to think about is that espoused by The Sudbury Valley School, a democratic school with no curriculum. You can read about their philosophy. I particularly like "The Crisis in American Education"; it ironically criticizes the American public educational system as being fundamentally at odds with the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.
-
PC's are the least of these children's problems.
I'd say that computers are neutral compared to the damage that forced education does to children. This may be a bit off-topic, but I think it's something that people should learn more about.
Check out stuff by authors such as A.S. Neill, John Taylor Gatto, and Alfie Kohn. In fact, Alfie Kohn has a website devoted to his work, and the school started by A.S. Neill (Summerhill School) also has it's own website.
We all need to realize where the idea of public schools and everything involved with them (forced education, splitting the day into one hour segments, age separation, bells, assigned seating, raising your hand) originated, and it did not originate in the idea of creating a free-thinking society. John Taylor Gatto has an essay that deals with just this subject.
Here's an excerpt:
The structure of American schooling, 20th century style, began in 1806 when Napoleon's amateur soldiers beat the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. When your business is selling soldiers, losing a battle like that is serious. Almost immediately afterwards a German philosopher named Fichte delivered his famous "Address to the German Nation" which became one of the most influential documents in modern history. In effect he told the Prussian people that the party was over, that the nation would have to shape up through a new Utopian institution of forced schooling in which everyone would learn to take orders.
So the world got compulsion schooling at the end of a state bayonet for the first time in human history; modern forced schooling started in Prussia in 1819 with a clear vision of what centralized schools could deliver:
1.Obedient soldiers to the army;
2.Obedient workers to the mines;
3.Well subordinated civil servants to government;
4.Well subordinated clerks to industry
5.Citizens who thought alike about major issues.
Other things to look into are schools such as the "Sudbury Valley" schools, and even Montessori (although I don't find Montessori schools to be nearly radical enough in their teaching methods).
The whole idea of these schools (usually called "free", "democratic", or "modern" schools) is that children do not need to be forced to learn. Teachers should play a supportive role, and should involve themselves only when children initiate learning.
A lot of people say, "But then children won't learn anything," but that's not the case. Children are, by nature, very curious and willing to learn. If you've ever observed students going from 1st to 2nd to 3rd grade you see an incredible transformation from being absorbed by learning, to actively resisting it. This is because they're being forced to learn subjects and in ways that they're not comfortable with.
Before the Spanish Civil War, a lot of the anarchists (which totalled around 3 million out of Spain's 20 million) were strong advocates of modern schools as put forth by Francisco Ferrer (who later was killed by the Catholic Church), because they were opposed to the authoritarian methods that the Church used in their schools (which were the only ones available to poor children).
To summarize, authoritarian learning is not really learning, but instead obedience mixed with memorization. Libertarian learning, on the other hand, is much deeper, because it is based on what a child wants, and not what teachers and by extension, the state, imposes on them.
In other words, computers in the classroom are the least of these children's worries.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net -
Sudbury ValleyThe obvious solution to the problem at hand - science teachers being out of date - is to remove some of the credentialism. Specifically, stop requiring potential instructors to have a teaching degree. That one requirement weeds out 98% of the people who could potentially be superb at teaching math and science - working mathematicians and scientists who have a passion for their field.
As for fixing the deeper problems with the school system, I tend to favor the Sudbury Valley approach, best described by Danny Greenberg in the article Back to Basics. As he says, learning is something you do, not something that is done to you. The fundamental problem with modern schools is that kids are force-fed a preplanned curriculum rather than allowed to make their own decisions about what to learn and how and when to learn it.
If you're in Silicon Valley and have school-age kids, you should check out Cedarwood Sudbury School in Santa Clara.
-
Sudbury ValleyThe obvious solution to the problem at hand - science teachers being out of date - is to remove some of the credentialism. Specifically, stop requiring potential instructors to have a teaching degree. That one requirement weeds out 98% of the people who could potentially be superb at teaching math and science - working mathematicians and scientists who have a passion for their field.
As for fixing the deeper problems with the school system, I tend to favor the Sudbury Valley approach, best described by Danny Greenberg in the article Back to Basics. As he says, learning is something you do, not something that is done to you. The fundamental problem with modern schools is that kids are force-fed a preplanned curriculum rather than allowed to make their own decisions about what to learn and how and when to learn it.
If you're in Silicon Valley and have school-age kids, you should check out Cedarwood Sudbury School in Santa Clara.