Actually, I am surprised in general how easy it is to get a driver's license in the USA. The requirements are very minimal considering the license allows a freshly-minted 16-year-old-driver to pull out in a 2-ton-gasoline-bomb-on-wheels and hit the road. Why do we (and the state governments) deem this acceptable, but then have a hissy-fit about gun control?
Maybe it's because we trust kids not to want to blow themselves up. It's in their self-interest not to die. And for the most part, the system works when the parents are involved. I would suspect a similar approach, modified slightly, would work for training kids on the appropriate use of the Internet.
As K-12 teacher in a mountain state, you'd think there'd be no relation to what goes on in NYC. But the big players, including NYC, Boston, Texas, California, set the policies, textbooks, standards and overall tone for the rest of the states. Yes, there is some variability from district to district, depending on how involved (read: subversive) the parents are, but in general, the system is meant to separate children and their parents. And the power to do otherwise is dolled out very thinly to different groups (parents, teachers, administrators, federal authorities, textbook companies, unions, etc.).
Ditto to the recommendation on John Taylor Gatto's writings. The first time I read his stuff, I thought this guy is just blowing hot air. Who can blame him: he was in the NYC schooling system for 30 years. But, the more time I've spent in the system myself, I keep coming back to the realization that he's right. Modern schooling in the States is foundamentally flawed. And he does a pretty good job in his writings explaining how the system has come to be, although admittedly, he doesn't formally document his claims, but I've found they're mostly verifiable. He's done a lot of research solid for his books.
So, if you're a student, a teacher, a parent, or you just have nagging subversive feeling about compulsory schooling, just read Gatto's 7 Lesson School Teacher.
Interesting that your bring up the car analogy. Why is it that states grant a driver's license to pretty much anybody who's at least got their head screwed on? The written exam is joke--it's almost impossible to fail it. And a 5-minute over-the-road test? THAT qualifies somebody to tool around in a 2-ton gasoline bomb on wheels? Why do states trust us so easily? Don't tell me that driving is easy. It requires an incredible amount of aptitude and hand-eye coordination. And it usually takes lots of practice for most people before they get the hang of it.
And on the other hand, look how much schooling most states require, and all the standardized tests, and the grading, and the regulations, etc. You can't go to the bathroom without some kind of pass... and, your whole day is regulated into 50-minute periods. What that says to me is that whatever topic is being taught, it ain't worth learning at all if you gotta put it down after 50 minutes.
My point is, what's the difference between a driver's license and schooling? Why does it take 5 minutes to get a driver's license, and 12 years to get a diploma?
Right, it usually is a privilege. And with privilege, the elite private schools typically give responsibility, at the least the top elite like Sidwell Friends and Groten. In fact, developing personal responsibility (i.e., *creativity*) is one of the main objectives of such institutions (not phonics/whole-word, not passing AP exams, not computer tech classes, etc.).
Of course, I'm not saying this is the case at all private schools--some are authoritarian, exclusively college prep focused (read: "places that drill you in how to do well on standardized exams").
When I say elite, I'm talking about the type of places where the Clintons' sent Chelsea. These are the 30 or so elite private schools in the USA.
Now, you mentioned that homeschooling is hardly ever a valid solution. How is that? What kind of socialization do you learn in middle school? That all your friends are suppost to be the same age as you, dress the same as you, eat the same as you, do the same homework as you, watch the same TV programs as you, etc. Are you sure that is the best kind of socialization? That kind of socialization seems very peculiar, and hardly meaningful. The homeschoolers that I've seen are very well-socialized. They know how to interact with younger kids, they know to approach adults appropriately, and they know how to treat senior citizens with tact. They respect janitors and working people, but they are confident enough to strike up a conversation with CEOs and big wigs. Their interests vary widely, and they are generally very curious. If something's broken, they find joy and satisfaction in fixing it, or modifying it, rather than buying a consumer product.
I can't say the same about public school kids, in general. And I've been a public school teacher for 7 years. The kids in public schools that do seem to thrive are those whose parents have instilled in them a "subversive" attitude towards public schools and its socialization structure. Those are the creative ones, those are the ones who don't seem to have time to waste in school doing busy work, those are the ones who make friends across cliques. These kids aren't the most docile to manage in the classroom, but that's my problem. If they were docile, that means they're aren't growing, learning, or enjoying being alive. And they must get this subversive attitude from their parents. So, I can't find a better solution for education than being taught by those folks. They may not have expertise in every field, but they generally know people who do, and they know how to get things done. They don't have time for "busy work" because most of them are busy working. But if more parents had confidence in themselves, instead of putting blind trust in teachers (really, how well do you actually know me?), this cycle of modern schooling can be broken.
The old Prussian schooling system is the basis for the modern US system. It got springboarded into implementation by the early barons: Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, and Morgan. Check out John Taylor Gatto's book on the underground history of American schooling. All the chapters are available free at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
Has anybody had luck refilling the toner in the Epson photoconductor unit (1104) for the CX11 laser printer? These things are supposed to last for 40,000 pages BW, 12,000 Color, but I've been getting far less than that. Luckily, the printer was still under warranty, and I had it replaced twice for free. But now, I'm faced with $260 price tag for an OEM unit now that it's out of warranty.
The kids just, um, were busy earlier when everyone else was learning to read. They may be a few years behind everyone else, but if we just stand around doing nothing I'm sure they'll fix the problem themselves! No, you think kids get stuck in something like that, but in reality, they don't. It doesn't matter what is called 'dyslexia' and what isn't. Kids who are behind in reading but without any other obvious learning disabilities need, duh, a specific kind of help.
So, how did the following folks survive in life: Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday, Frank Lloyd Wright, Albert Einstein, Craig Venter, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, etc etc etc? I don't think they got any special help from their schools teachers.
In fact, half of them flunked out of elementary school, and the other half never made it through college (at least the first time around). Have you noticed that the most successful people in the world tend to have little time or respect for institutional schooling and the experts within?
So, back your question. What DO we do for these struggling kids? Well, you alluded to peer pressure, which is a very powerful motivator indeed. It sure does not feel good to be a 12-year-old kid in school that can't do the nominal things a 9-year-old can do, and so on. But, is age-segregated schooling really necessary in the first place? In real life, does this kind of segregation exist to this degree? Imagine walking into a restaurant, and being asked what decade you belong to, so you can be seated accordingly. Also, is there a truly a perfect time to learn to read, for example? Consider a kid who learns to read at age 4. That's kinda early, but she's still "normal" intellectually, medically, etc. And then there's a kid who learns to read at age 9. He's naturally slow, but perfectly in the bounds of being normal too. But in school, they get labeled and diagnosed differently. The 4-year-old is "gifted and talented." The 9-year-old is bound for mediocrity in "special ed."
I don't know what the solution is, but it's not throwing more money toward specialists and technology. I think you underestimate the power of the individual will. If a kid is ready and motivated to learn to read, she'll do it on her own time, or ask for help from a parent. If a student in the LA ghetto wants to learn calculus, he can do it if he studies hard (check out Jaime Escalante). Maybe he'll be motivated by his peers, maybe he'll be inspired by a special teacher, or maybe he'll be motivated by his own curiosity. But, stuffing prescribed shit down his throat just because the school says so is counter-productive. The solution is getting kids out of our modern government schools, and into true learning environments. What better place than the home and community!? Are all parents effective educators? No, some are really crummy and horrific parents. But, what makes a government teacher more qualified, and why should we automatically trust them? Yes, some have advanced degrees in science, mathematics, and so forth. But, what guarantee of success is that? Is that the only benchmark? There is surprising little what the government actually knows about its teachers. And what makes parents so unfit that they can't give their children a basic education, or at least point them in the direction of somebody who's a true expert in a field they are interested in? Instead, we've got parents who have no confidence in themselves, and this is largely due to the fact that they've been through the government schools and were taught to "trust the school expert."
There's no overnight solution, no silver bullet to the problem. Throwing more money at government schools ain't gonna work--it's been done before. The schools have gone through countless reforms, but nothing really changes once the fad wears off. My parents were school teachers for over 30 years, teaching in both ghettos and affluent schools. They can attest to the fact that the power to get any real change done is spread too thinl
So, what do the elite private schools actually *do* that makes them so much better? Or is it the things they don't do? These elite private schools don't seem to spend a lot of money on technology and such. If you look at places like Groten and Sidwell Friends, their classrooms look pretty abysmal compared to some public schools: no LCDs, no computers, no TVs, no fancy gadgets.
Why do private schools collect so much money, yet spend little of that directly on the students? The virtues that private schools stress don't cost much money, but the students generally come out well educated. Is there something to be learned by the public schools here?
I like your analogy: learning to read is like learning to drive a vehicle. It takes a whole lot of practice. So, in the US, why does the government hand out driver's licenses so easily, considering that a car can be used as a deadly weapon? Forget gun control when anyone can make a 20gal-gasoline bomb on 2-ton chassis with wheels. They give a piece-o-cake written exam, and eventually a short road test. And almost everyone eventually passes. Why is it so easy? The government needs people to commute, of course, for the economy to run. But also, in this case, the government trusts people to avoid killing themselves. And most people don't want to die, so they've got to take driving, at least a little bit, seriously.
But, why do have all these expert specialists in schools telling kids they've got a problem and will need extensive hours of specialized training, etc.?
Let's take the driving analogy again. What if you've got a parent or a driving instructor that continually butts in and says, "no, you're too clumsy, so you'd better jump rope for a couple hours and take an etiquette class before you learn to drive." Or, "gee, you've a little bit nearsighted, but instead of getting you a $50 pair of eye glasses to correct the problem, let's get you a telescope so you'll be able to see extra well!" With all these experts continually dispensing advice on a problem, is there any time or self-confidence left for the individual to address the problem themself? Many reading problems are easily self-fixed without "expert" interference.
Yes, dyslexia can be neurologically-based, but it's a very small percentage of the population. And a proper diagnosis is extremely helpful. But what about the kids who've got something else going on (some kind of reading disorder) and get misdiagnosed as having dyslexia? Now, they're totally screwed. They're taught to trust an expert, and not themselves. Would you want to learn to drive this way: "I've been told my memory is not so good, and I'm not sure the accelerator is on the right side, so I'd better use my cellphone to ask my driving instructor before I do anything." Yes, some kids see right through the schooling crap, and figure it out for themselves. But, others get stuck in this I-need-help-from-an-expert mentality for perpetuity. Corporations and the health care industry are quite happy with this kind of thinking.
Back to teaching technology in the classroom... Whom would you rather hire as a security consultant: the "perfect" student who obeyed all instructions, completed the required assignments, but had no ambition to learn anything beyond what was taught in class, or the student who completed only some of the assignments because s/he wass too busy figuring out how to bypass security settings, installing software (games or whatever), and poking around on "secured" servers? Frankly, having all kids have ipods for the intended purposes would be a joke and a waste of money. But, the unavoidable temptation for non-sanctioned tinkering would definitely help motivate "unmotivated" kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I am surprised in general how easy it is to get a driver's license in the USA. The requirements are very minimal considering the license allows a freshly-minted 16-year-old-driver to pull out in a 2-ton-gasoline-bomb-on-wheels and hit the road. Why do we (and the state governments) deem this acceptable, but then have a hissy-fit about gun control?
Maybe it's because we trust kids not to want to blow themselves up. It's in their self-interest not to die. And for the most part, the system works when the parents are involved. I would suspect a similar approach, modified slightly, would work for training kids on the appropriate use of the Internet.
As K-12 teacher in a mountain state, you'd think there'd be no relation to what goes on in NYC. But the big players, including NYC, Boston, Texas, California, set the policies, textbooks, standards and overall tone for the rest of the states. Yes, there is some variability from district to district, depending on how involved (read: subversive) the parents are, but in general, the system is meant to separate children and their parents. And the power to do otherwise is dolled out very thinly to different groups (parents, teachers, administrators, federal authorities, textbook companies, unions, etc.).
Ditto to the recommendation on John Taylor Gatto's writings. The first time I read his stuff, I thought this guy is just blowing hot air. Who can blame him: he was in the NYC schooling system for 30 years. But, the more time I've spent in the system myself, I keep coming back to the realization that he's right. Modern schooling in the States is foundamentally flawed. And he does a pretty good job in his writings explaining how the system has come to be, although admittedly, he doesn't formally document his claims, but I've found they're mostly verifiable. He's done a lot of research solid for his books.
So, if you're a student, a teacher, a parent, or you just have nagging subversive feeling about compulsory schooling, just read Gatto's 7 Lesson School Teacher.
Interesting that your bring up the car analogy. Why is it that states grant a driver's license to pretty much anybody who's at least got their head screwed on? The written exam is joke--it's almost impossible to fail it. And a 5-minute over-the-road test? THAT qualifies somebody to tool around in a 2-ton gasoline bomb on wheels? Why do states trust us so easily? Don't tell me that driving is easy. It requires an incredible amount of aptitude and hand-eye coordination. And it usually takes lots of practice for most people before they get the hang of it.
And on the other hand, look how much schooling most states require, and all the standardized tests, and the grading, and the regulations, etc. You can't go to the bathroom without some kind of pass... and, your whole day is regulated into 50-minute periods. What that says to me is that whatever topic is being taught, it ain't worth learning at all if you gotta put it down after 50 minutes.
My point is, what's the difference between a driver's license and schooling? Why does it take 5 minutes to get a driver's license, and 12 years to get a diploma?
Right, it usually is a privilege. And with privilege, the elite private schools typically give responsibility, at the least the top elite like Sidwell Friends and Groten. In fact, developing personal responsibility (i.e., *creativity*) is one of the main objectives of such institutions (not phonics/whole-word, not passing AP exams, not computer tech classes, etc.).
Of course, I'm not saying this is the case at all private schools--some are authoritarian, exclusively college prep focused (read: "places that drill you in how to do well on standardized exams").
When I say elite, I'm talking about the type of places where the Clintons' sent Chelsea. These are the 30 or so elite private schools in the USA.
Now, you mentioned that homeschooling is hardly ever a valid solution. How is that? What kind of socialization do you learn in middle school? That all your friends are suppost to be the same age as you, dress the same as you, eat the same as you, do the same homework as you, watch the same TV programs as you, etc. Are you sure that is the best kind of socialization? That kind of socialization seems very peculiar, and hardly meaningful. The homeschoolers that I've seen are very well-socialized. They know how to interact with younger kids, they know to approach adults appropriately, and they know how to treat senior citizens with tact. They respect janitors and working people, but they are confident enough to strike up a conversation with CEOs and big wigs. Their interests vary widely, and they are generally very curious. If something's broken, they find joy and satisfaction in fixing it, or modifying it, rather than buying a consumer product.
I can't say the same about public school kids, in general. And I've been a public school teacher for 7 years. The kids in public schools that do seem to thrive are those whose parents have instilled in them a "subversive" attitude towards public schools and its socialization structure. Those are the creative ones, those are the ones who don't seem to have time to waste in school doing busy work, those are the ones who make friends across cliques. These kids aren't the most docile to manage in the classroom, but that's my problem. If they were docile, that means they're aren't growing, learning, or enjoying being alive. And they must get this subversive attitude from their parents. So, I can't find a better solution for education than being taught by those folks. They may not have expertise in every field, but they generally know people who do, and they know how to get things done. They don't have time for "busy work" because most of them are busy working. But if more parents had confidence in themselves, instead of putting blind trust in teachers (really, how well do you actually know me?), this cycle of modern schooling can be broken.
The old Prussian schooling system is the basis for the modern US system. It got springboarded into implementation by the early barons: Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, and Morgan. Check out John Taylor Gatto's book on the underground history of American schooling. All the chapters are available free at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
Has anybody had luck refilling the toner in the Epson photoconductor unit (1104) for the CX11 laser printer? These things are supposed to last for 40,000 pages BW, 12,000 Color, but I've been getting far less than that. Luckily, the printer was still under warranty, and I had it replaced twice for free. But now, I'm faced with $260 price tag for an OEM unit now that it's out of warranty.
The kids just, um, were busy earlier when everyone else was learning to read. They may be a few years behind everyone else, but if we just stand around doing nothing I'm sure they'll fix the problem themselves! No, you think kids get stuck in something like that, but in reality, they don't. It doesn't matter what is called 'dyslexia' and what isn't. Kids who are behind in reading but without any other obvious learning disabilities need, duh, a specific kind of help.
So, how did the following folks survive in life: Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday, Frank Lloyd Wright, Albert Einstein, Craig Venter, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, etc etc etc? I don't think they got any special help from their schools teachers.
In fact, half of them flunked out of elementary school, and the other half never made it through college (at least the first time around). Have you noticed that the most successful people in the world tend to have little time or respect for institutional schooling and the experts within?
So, back your question. What DO we do for these struggling kids? Well, you alluded to peer pressure, which is a very powerful motivator indeed. It sure does not feel good to be a 12-year-old kid in school that can't do the nominal things a 9-year-old can do, and so on. But, is age-segregated schooling really necessary in the first place? In real life, does this kind of segregation exist to this degree? Imagine walking into a restaurant, and being asked what decade you belong to, so you can be seated accordingly. Also, is there a truly a perfect time to learn to read, for example? Consider a kid who learns to read at age 4. That's kinda early, but she's still "normal" intellectually, medically, etc. And then there's a kid who learns to read at age 9. He's naturally slow, but perfectly in the bounds of being normal too. But in school, they get labeled and diagnosed differently. The 4-year-old is "gifted and talented." The 9-year-old is bound for mediocrity in "special ed."
I don't know what the solution is, but it's not throwing more money toward specialists and technology. I think you underestimate the power of the individual will. If a kid is ready and motivated to learn to read, she'll do it on her own time, or ask for help from a parent. If a student in the LA ghetto wants to learn calculus, he can do it if he studies hard (check out Jaime Escalante). Maybe he'll be motivated by his peers, maybe he'll be inspired by a special teacher, or maybe he'll be motivated by his own curiosity. But, stuffing prescribed shit down his throat just because the school says so is counter-productive. The solution is getting kids out of our modern government schools, and into true learning environments. What better place than the home and community!? Are all parents effective educators? No, some are really crummy and horrific parents. But, what makes a government teacher more qualified, and why should we automatically trust them? Yes, some have advanced degrees in science, mathematics, and so forth. But, what guarantee of success is that? Is that the only benchmark? There is surprising little what the government actually knows about its teachers. And what makes parents so unfit that they can't give their children a basic education, or at least point them in the direction of somebody who's a true expert in a field they are interested in? Instead, we've got parents who have no confidence in themselves, and this is largely due to the fact that they've been through the government schools and were taught to "trust the school expert."
There's no overnight solution, no silver bullet to the problem. Throwing more money at government schools ain't gonna work--it's been done before. The schools have gone through countless reforms, but nothing really changes once the fad wears off. My parents were school teachers for over 30 years, teaching in both ghettos and affluent schools. They can attest to the fact that the power to get any real change done is spread too thinl
So, what do the elite private schools actually *do* that makes them so much better? Or is it the things they don't do? These elite private schools don't seem to spend a lot of money on technology and such. If you look at places like Groten and Sidwell Friends, their classrooms look pretty abysmal compared to some public schools: no LCDs, no computers, no TVs, no fancy gadgets.
Why do private schools collect so much money, yet spend little of that directly on the students? The virtues that private schools stress don't cost much money, but the students generally come out well educated. Is there something to be learned by the public schools here?
I like your analogy: learning to read is like learning to drive a vehicle. It takes a whole lot of practice. So, in the US, why does the government hand out driver's licenses so easily, considering that a car can be used as a deadly weapon? Forget gun control when anyone can make a 20gal-gasoline bomb on 2-ton chassis with wheels. They give a piece-o-cake written exam, and eventually a short road test. And almost everyone eventually passes. Why is it so easy? The government needs people to commute, of course, for the economy to run. But also, in this case, the government trusts people to avoid killing themselves. And most people don't want to die, so they've got to take driving, at least a little bit, seriously.
a _myth/dyslexia.html
But, why do have all these expert specialists in schools telling kids they've got a problem and will need extensive hours of specialized training, etc.?
Let's take the driving analogy again. What if you've got a parent or a driving instructor that continually butts in and says, "no, you're too clumsy, so you'd better jump rope for a couple hours and take an etiquette class before you learn to drive." Or, "gee, you've a little bit nearsighted, but instead of getting you a $50 pair of eye glasses to correct the problem, let's get you a telescope so you'll be able to see extra well!" With all these experts continually dispensing advice on a problem, is there any time or self-confidence left for the individual to address the problem themself? Many reading problems are easily self-fixed without "expert" interference.
Let's take "dyslexia" again. What the heck is it really? It's definition has been so convoluted that it virtually has no significance. scholar-google it or check out this TV report from the UK:
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dyslexi
Yes, dyslexia can be neurologically-based, but it's a very small percentage of the population. And a proper diagnosis is extremely helpful. But what about the kids who've got something else going on (some kind of reading disorder) and get misdiagnosed as having dyslexia? Now, they're totally screwed. They're taught to trust an expert, and not themselves. Would you want to learn to drive this way: "I've been told my memory is not so good, and I'm not sure the accelerator is on the right side, so I'd better use my cellphone to ask my driving instructor before I do anything." Yes, some kids see right through the schooling crap, and figure it out for themselves. But, others get stuck in this I-need-help-from-an-expert mentality for perpetuity. Corporations and the health care industry are quite happy with this kind of thinking.
Back to teaching technology in the classroom... Whom would you rather hire as a security consultant: the "perfect" student who obeyed all instructions, completed the required assignments, but had no ambition to learn anything beyond what was taught in class, or the student who completed only some of the assignments because s/he wass too busy figuring out how to bypass security settings, installing software (games or whatever), and poking around on "secured" servers? Frankly, having all kids have ipods for the intended purposes would be a joke and a waste of money. But, the unavoidable temptation for non-sanctioned tinkering would definitely help motivate "unmotivated" kids.