Anti-school sentiment

[Dave Scotese]

I can't say... but I greatly suspect that the results would not be great if applied on a large scale.

I suspect great problems with anything applied on a large scale. Individual choice tends to create a diverse array of strategies for dealing with all kinds of problems, and therefore a remarkably robust community. I think we agree here.

[JBI]

In Great-Britain, if I am not mistaken, they have gone down the 'skills'-route of things. Children need to acquire skills not knowledge. This can be good: 'how do I look up a word in a dictionary?', 'how do I use a calculator?' (although it is doubtful whether that should be learned in primary school...), 'how do I look up (any) information on a subject I don't know?'. Sadly, this has as a consequence that children have to look up facts and not learn them. So... They don't know where London is and situate it somewhere near Manchester on a blind map.

Hell, the kids are still doing better than mine. I have no doubt that a number would end up placing Ohio somewhere in Asia. Hell, there was a recent survey of college students in which some ridiculously high percentage couldn't even recognize a photograph of Adolph Hitler! We have the same misguided notion here that we should be teaching "higher order thinking skills" as opposed to facts. In other words a child need not know where Ohio is, but should know what tools to use and how to use them in order to find the answer. The problem is that higher order thinking skills are dependent upon a solid core base of knowledge (which is what E.D. Hirsch argues in favor of). The problem in the United States is that in an increasingly multicultural society the question of just what core knowledge is essential to the larger culture has become politicized. A good many progressive educators fear that such a core body of knowledge excludes minorities and stigmatizes them. Hirsch and Gramasci both argued that the data shows the reverse to be true: that it is the poor and minority students who suffer most from not having a solid grasp of a core body of knowledge... a body of knowledge upon which they can succeed in the larger society and a body of knowledge that can be built upon and expanded... even questioned and challenged. There is at least one teacher of whom I know who teachers her children that the first US president was black (not Washington, but a figure white America has hidden) and that Africans were flying as early as ancient Egypt. Such "facts" are presented as a means of instilling self esteem in the students... but how do such false "facts" assist the student when he or she enters the larger society... and the job market?

For the later point - the problem isn't that the teacher teaches this to people, but the fact that the society has that so ingrained within its curriculum. Quite simply, in Canada, the bulk of people don't know much about history, and don't particularly care (which is the case in most places). One cannot say anything, without ironizing history, or running into too many conflicting viewpoints. As for first Prime Minister, from what I remember that is covered in Grade 10, and takes about 10 minutes of class.

The reason in the differences, is quite simply, as a society, the US functions with far more emphasis on historical characters as role models, the founding fathers, Lincoln, and uses those (most of which weren't even that exemplary all things considered, or have been revamped to fit an agenda) instead of, for instance, contemporary figures, religious figures, or even self-reflexive figures.

Everyone at a young age, it would seem, requires a sense of rolemodel - but history, in the sense of teaching at the young age, ultimately undercuts that, by taking away mythical elements, and the closeness between the young person, and the idol. Keep in mind, the teaching of history in schools ultimately fulfills an agenda, as does the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, or the singing of a national anthem (I don't know how it goes in the States, but in Canada, even the teachers didn't pay much attention to it when it went on). In a sense, I agree with what your colleague did, except that she made the mistake of, instead of completely breaking the problem, merely perpetuating another.

The mythical African-American president, ultimately will be as detached as a figure like George Washington. He serves the purpose of some kids, but in the end, as a role model figure, ends up falling short.

In truth, didactic mechanisms like this only can work if both parties are interested - in the case of this, I can't help but feel a Child would be more interested in the character on TV, who is perhaps more like him, and less boring and removed.

Which brings up an interesting point really; from the perspective of the kid, I would think he is somewhat justified - the only way to break that, really, is to flesh out a cross between the didactic, and the imaginative - the educational, and the recreational. That is by no means a new idea - computer software has been written for kids, to teach anything from basic math, to reading (I would know, as a kid, I was exposed to perhaps the vastest collection, given that my family is family friends with the former owner of The Learning Company CD-Rom company, which pretty much was the dominant company on the market at the time). But that is a more modern (albeit not so modern) example. It goes back beyond that - things like Hans Christen Anderson, or Antoine de Saint-Exupèrey's works - or even at a more basic level, your ordinary picture book.

Or perhaps even on the television, which surprisingly, has (or at least had in the 90s, since I haven't watched anything pretty much since I was about 10) a strong didactic current.

Take perhaps the best example (in keeping with the themes of Lit-Net anime weekend) of mid-90s Children's programming (this is for Canada, supposedly the phenomenon didn't fair as well in the US) - the series Sailor Moon. Essentially, the series functions on two levels (I am talking here about the original North American variant that they dubbed in Toronto from I think 1995, I know little about the Japanese version, though I am told it is quite different)- one, it has a strong feminist (or at least, empowering) undercurrent, aimed specifically at boosting self esteem, in a manner that was directly formed around concepts of female identity and culture - such as preoccupation with silly romantic interests, and the physical body and secondly, a strong undercurrent of didactic everyday knowledge, masked in elaborate metaphors and guises. The heroines are essentially exaggerated character types (exaggerated in the sense that their emotions are exaggerated, in keeping more or less with the conventions of anime), and are designed to fit into this sense of empowerment, yet at the same time, relate to the target audience. The show is heavily didactic, often is rather clever ways, and essentially, being perhaps the biggest cultural phenomenon of its time for female viewers in that age group, had I would argue, a lasting effect - by perpetuating a desire to mimic these Sailor characters, especially in their idealized form, television programming was perhaps able to fill in a gap, or boost at least the educational potential. Airing the program in the morning surely added a boost to its potential.


Now take another example from around the same time, that of the American program Power Rangers. I still don't quite understand what the deal is with the talking head, and quite simply the series doesn't inspire anything that the other one did. The show ultimately only projects violent content, which, in a sense, I would argue, clouds a distinction between right and wrong, and projects a solution of violence and brute force as a solution to problems.

I think, the reason has a lot to do with the mentality behind the creation of the series: Power Rangers was, one must remember, primarily geared toward a male American audience, just after the fall of the Soviet Union (perhaps though, with a little effort, it can be seen as a continuation of the earlier comic-book concepts). Politically speaking, it perpetuated a sense of Regan days violence and brute force as a solution, and perhaps would perpetuate a sense of militaristic culture, built upon fighting the enemies in the service of a big talking head-leader type figure. Certainly, when considered, the show would likely promote a sort of fascist agenda, and encourage a sort of bully mentality - one that is reflected within American culture to this day. But what is clear though, is these power rangers did, for the most part, serve as role model like figures for their audience.

Now, to tie it in with homeschooling - really, even if you go to a public school, the bulk of education is still bound to come from outside the classroom at even the earliest stages. Something like these two television series help to illustrate the point. What the public school system is designed to do, is to really give the resources and time required to teach basic skills, enabling a positive development. The actual education ultimately will come at home. What that means is, until the problem is really worked out, the public schools need to compensate for the inequalities between students, and budget their resources. At the primary levels, what that essentially means, is basic reading skills, basic writing skills (including the physical act, though in China, this is more gradual I'm told), basic math skills, and very minor rough facts from a wide range of subjects - history, basic, basic science (including basic introduction into methodology), perhaps basic music and art skills, and, if you are in Canada, very, very basic French skills (or English skills if you are studying in a French school). The rest of the time, and resources, are allocated for teaching other, equally as important skills - these generally vary somewhat depending on culture, but mostly they are social, skills, such as sports and fitness (which is both physical and social), teamwork, time budgeting, basic moral questioning, and ultimately an encouragement toward discussion (though, all these social aspects seem to vary greatly between cultures, as cultures socially vary). These latter skills, most often require a school system, as the homeschool system doesn't particularly encourage interaction between people. Beyond that too, I don't think it probable that someone homeschooled will meet people they wouldn't encounter through their parents, which perhaps puts a social wall between people.

Beyond that then, what goes on at home is the coming together of all these things. Practicing, for instance, the new words one learned at school, or doing your homework, or even, as I hope I illustrated, watching TV, or going to play games in the garden, or even reading a book.

Something like Barbie Doll culture has had the most profound didactic imprint on the minds of generations, more so than I dare say, any number of school classes. But the classes still, from my mind, are necessary - the only thing to really do, is to bulk them up to a certain level (something which varies between place to place), and make sure they teach things that actually do what they are expected to.

The US, from what I've seen, generally has tougher problems in many areas than Canada does, notably on a great focus on methodology and politics, something which carries forward into university classrooms, and isn't approached really the same way here, from what I've seen. Britain seems to have their own problems, but from what I've seen, based on a culture that really fell, and then really stopped caring, and an education agenda and budget that supports this perception. Canada has many problems as well, but I think is a little bit better off, in terms of equality and resource availability. Japan, arguably, is far better than most of these countries, though the system reflects a value system which I am only beginning to understand myself, and is not without its own flaws. But public schooling, is still more than necessary.

A classroom gives students what parents cannot - and that is time, and interaction. Quite simply, when learning with other people, it has been shown that people do better. The world isn't designed for individual action - humans, and all species generally, have always worked better in groups. What schools do, is perpetuate that sentiment, and try to carry it over, which is something homeschooling cannot do.

[Dave Scotese]

The problem in the United States is that in an increasingly multicultural society the question of just what core knowledge is essential to the larger culture has become politicized.

Most of the solutions I've seen to that call for more politics - policy change, that is. I argue for freedom. If the question has been answered poorly due to politics (as seems to be the case), people should have a choice to opt out. Or even if it hasn't been answered poorly - they should still have the choice to opt out. Maybe I see more good coming from individual choice than most people.

It seems that there are a few people here who feel that if the "majority" (of what, the neighborhood, the city, the state - it's unclear, but anyway...) feels that parents are doing a poor job raising their children, the children should be taken away. How poor is poor? Where do we draw the line? If you think it's ever justified to (coercively) take children away from their parents (for, say, 6 hours a day), what portion of the families of your fellow citizens do you think are unfit to keep their children if and when they choose to?

I would also like to add, that as I know it, rote memorization for the majority of subjects is the most effective way to learn. Languages for instance, require that (though, from what I understand, American education isn't too language heavy). Science too benefits from this mode of learning, and believe it or not, English as well. It's perhaps the most useful skill - just try going back to memorizing after taking a break. I can tell you, after about 10 years of not memorizing poems, going back was a major difficulty. I used to get them on the first or second reading, now, it takes at least half an hour for a sonnet, which is reduced from 2 hours, as my memory improved.

Certainly, if you want to learn facts, rote memorization is the best method. What does that do to your motivation and ability to seek and discover - the tendencies we are born with? I think if we want to pretend that we already know everything, and we should just give everyone a big taste of certain key pieces of it, then rote memorization makes sense. But the more I learn, the more I see that I don't know, and, indeed, no one knows. Since there is so much as yet undiscovered knowledge out there, it makes more sense to me to leave the rote memorization for those working in fields where they'll get tired of looking it up in the reference book. Indeed, every job I ever had where this happens, the reference book only gets used for the first week or so. Memorization of useful facts happens automatically. It's the destruction of curiosity that bothers me.

As for the literature, to get back on it - it seems like some pretty mediocre typically American stuff.

I was under the impression that this site was dedicated to discussing literature, rather than dismissing it with superficial denigration. Have you read it? Do you have specific critiques?

The world isn't designed for individual action - humans, and all species generally, have always worked better in groups.

Do you think it matters whether the individuals in the group have a choice to be there or not? If so, what effects would you expect when the choice is taken away?

[kiki1982]

If you think it's ever justified to (coercively) take children away from their parents (for, say, 6 hours a day), what portion of the families of your fellow citizens do you think are unfit to keep their children if and when they choose to?

I would probably conclude, after an afternoon's thinking that the answer would be 99,9%, if not 100%. Unless he is a person who perfectly masters all subjects he teaches and possesses the skill to teach in itself, he should not teach his children. These days it is impossible to possess such knowledge on each sbject that is required, because, as you say, there is too much to learn. But, in order to explain, one should know. How many are there in the general populaton who can explain in detail how the theory of relativity works? and what its uses are? The base of it, where it cmes from, is much more than the formula. And as such, to understand it, one needs to understand the framework. Looking it up in a reference book will not explain.

Knowing facts is a platform or framework for reasoning. If one doesn't know facts, one can't reason. Compare it to a language: if one does not know grammar, one is not able to speak, and people do not understand one. If one does not know words, one can't speak. Grammar is memorised, vocabulary is memorised. Looking the grammar up in a reference book is not an option, because while speaking it just needs to come there and then. Reading a book, it needs to come there and then too, otherwise we can't understand what it says. There are languages that are less severe with grammar, but there are the ones like Latin that just have to be memorised because reference books would make the whole thing a wood through which one can't see the trees (to use a Dutch expression). If I had to look up every word in a book in a foreign language, like English is to me, and not learn it, I'd end up looking up all the time the same word, until finally after 20 times I would know it. If I had learned it the first time, I'd have spared myself the journey to the bookshelf twenty times, the looking up twenty times and the aggravation that the loss of concentration has as a consequence. Besides, had I learned language by using them, I'd never have mastered German or French. And certainly not English spelling (which is still not perfect, but at least acceptable).

A better example of off-the-top-of-your-head information would be philosophy: all philosophers draw on one before them, or a series of philosophers before them. They know what they taught, and have thought about that, expressing their own thoughts. If all philosophers just thought thier own thoughts from the start, there would be nothing new because they would all start from the beginning. Even great renewers, like Nietsche (?) drew on people before them. Radically changing that train of thoughts, of course, but nonetheless using that knowledge to disagree. And argument why they disagreed.

How is one supposed to orientate oneself in a country or even in the world if one hasn't had to learn which countries are where? Going on holiday, we could look it up in a reference book, but it is much easier just to know. Looking it up loses you a lot of time. I sometimes do it, because I don't know the counties in England, for example, and when my husband talks about one or when I read about one (Pride an Prejudice: 'will you be in Derbyshire this season, sir?') I just have to orientate myself in that country. There is nothing so bad as not knowing where you are or what people are speaking of!

Memorisation does not have anything to do with us pretending we know everything, it is a shortcut. Why look something up that others know already if you could be spending your time with using that to reason? It is like reinventing the electric lamp. Every time again (for every child and every time the child can't remember because it hasn't had to learn), we look up eagerly when the French Revolution started. Would it not be better, less time-consuming and useless to just teach it to learn that that was on the 14th of July 1789 r jus in the year of 1789? Like that, the child has a reference for other things that it learns (before or after?). Napoleon's downfall: 1815 provides a great 'coathanger' we called it in class. Why? Because after that kings came back briefly, but also... The Viennese Waltz came en vogue. So we can now already place the composer Strauss and the big ball-hype of Gone With the Wind between 1815 through the Civil War and a little after. 1815 is a great date 'coathanger' for the nineteenth century. No 1815, no clue about Napoleon, no clue about when the bl**dy hell Scarlett O'Hara was Dancing, no clue about when the Civil War was possibly taking place if I haven't learned that date. Also no clue when Austen wrote her books, because they take place during the Regency period in England and the Napoleonic wars.

Such dates give you more than a reference to history. They give you a reference to art, music, literature, clothing, society, politics. Knowing where a place is does not make you surprised when the person says they went to the beach or that they had to wear an extra jumper. You might have a more interesting conversation about the country they went on holiday to if you don't have to find out about the most obvious things first...

In dating and situating anonymous texts, for example, the smallest thing can be of consequence: a political quote, the way some word is spelled,... How do antiquarians date furniture, jewellery or other old objects? They know that such and such materials were used between then and then, that such and such techniques were used between then and then, that a company produced between then and then, where they produced, which designers worked when. Which periods gave which results (Jugendstil, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Romanticism, Renaissance), If they had to look all this up... It would be a major work! Now, they look at it, and date up to 20 years accuracy, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes they have to get a more specialised person, because the designer/artist did a lot of work f.e. and they need one who can distignuish between early and later work.

Scientists would not know what another one was talking about if they didn't know their symbols and if they didn't know that V can be several things, depending on the context. So the one who has written the article might as well not have written it because it is useless if no-one can understand. The same as a language: if no-one can understand, there is no use in me speaking.

Knowing fact provides a certain bridge between people of different disciplines. In science this sometimes provides the chance to develop an idea further, because it is a border case. If the scientist who is doing a study does not know what the other one is talking about in his paper because he imself hasspecialised too much, he cannot use that theory for his own argumentation. Or he needs to go into depth into the other science, but that can take years. That is why a platform is a very good thing to have.

[Dave Scotese]

I would probably conclude, after an afternoon's thinking that the answer would be 99,9%, if not 100% [of the families of my fellow citizens are unfit to keep their children if and when they choose to].

You are a scary person. Have you heard of the book Geek Love? How about The Odyssey? Both show how far away from social expectations people are willing to go to keep and love their progeny. I'm a dad, and I have to say, I feel a cold dark black hole of despair in my heart when I think about how you arrive at and accept this answer you gave.

How many are there in the general populaton who can explain in detail how the theory of relativity works? and what its uses are?

Do you then also advocate imprisonment of those in the general population (for 4 - 6 hours a day or whatever) who can't explain this, so that they may be taught? Or are children somehow different from the general population?

Why look something up that others know already if you could be spending your time with using that to reason?

Ahh, well, I've been in that situation. It happens two or three times and then it's memorized. Why? Because I used it. The things I have memorized that I don't use are mostly gone.

I guess what it comes down to is whether it's better to spend your time memorizing all these facts in case you're ever in a situation where they would be useful, or to spend it studying what interests you. That might still only be rote memorization, but I have found that even the dullest of people tend to impose some kind of meaning on the facts they choose to remember. Schoolchildren, however, seem to just get grumpy and stressed out until the test is over, and then they forget most of what they learned. It was like that for me too.

Perhaps we have some instinctive protection from the rare curse described by Borges in Funes the Memorious, and that instinct of forgetting whatever hasn't yet proven useful is exercised in school, to the dismay of the history teacher (and all the other teachers who are forced by standardized testing to try and make their students memorize things).

[kiki1982]

You are a scary person. Have you heard of the book Geek Love? How about The Odyssey? Both show how far away from social expectations people are willing to go to keep and love their progeny. I'm a dad, and I have to say, I feel a cold dark black hole of despair in my heart when I think about how you arrive at and accept this answer you gave.

Oh, I am scary person because I am one who is modest enough to see that I am not fit to teach my children myself because I acknowledge that I don't know enough of certain subjects to be a worthy teacher? I also feel a dark black hole of despair when I read the above, but I will not result in offense. It is not because I would consider myself unfit to teach my children, that I would not love them. It isjust because would love them, that I would offer them every chance to get to know subjects that do not interest me, or might notinterest them at first sight.

Do you then also advocate imprisonment of those in the general population (for 4 - 6 hours a day or whatever) who can't explain this, so that they may be taught? Or are children somehow different from the general population?

If they don't need that knowledge, then fine, they don't need it, they don't feel that they don't know (I don't know myself). But who is to say which child should know and which not? We cannot see whether a child at five years of age, will become a scientist or not. Therefore, education offers a platform. Otherwise, university professors have to start with explaining a theory that is one of the basic ideas in a lot of sciences in the meantime (it does not only have to do with planets).

Ahh, well, I've been in that situation. It happens two or three times and then it's memorized. Why? Because I used it. The things I have memorized that I don't use are mostly gone.

You might consider them as gone, but when you need it again, it comes back surely. Even if you haven't done it for years it rings a bell. Two years ago, I was on the train with two 18-year-old engineering (?) students. They were complaining about the fact that they could not possibly solve a certain Maths-problem. After a while, I just couldn't stand it any longer, and I told them how to do it. Perfectly simple. It was such a group of 3 problems you had to combine in order to solve the biggest one. I just had to look at it for 5 minutes and I remembered how to do it. Yet I hadn't done it for 6 or 7 years! And then, we only did it very briefly. That kind of stuff also helps you solve puzzles. Because some of them, if not all, are based on mathematical things like that. I will never forget fractions. And that even helps to make cakes . Quatre-Quart (I think it is pound-cake in English) is a cake with four parts: butter, flower, eggs and sugar. If I am doing this without recepy and I go for the butter (250g), flower (idem) and sugar (idem) and then I am wondering whether I have everything, the conclusion is no, because I have only 3/4. 1/4 is missing. If I couldn't do fractions, I'd be at a loss and my cake ould go into the oven without eggs and consequently end up not being a cake. Also the fact that 1/4 is stuck in my mind as 250g helps, because 250x4=1000, so I will have 1kg of dough at the end of the process. I don't have to put it on the scales. Some of the knowledge you have to learn in school proves useless to you, but it might not be for another.

I guess what it comes down to is whether it's better to spend your time memorizing all these facts in case you're ever in a situation where they would be useful, or to spend it studying what interests you. That might still only be rote memorization, but I have found that even the dullest of people tend to impose some kind of meaning on the facts they choose to remember. Schoolchildren, however, seem to just get grumpy and stressed out until the test is over, and then they forget most of what they learned. It was like that for me too.

It is not about use, it is about potential. Can we tell, looking at a 6-year-old, what he or she will become when he is older? What we can tell is what talents that child has, but that might also change. I was great at Maths until I was 15 and it proved too much for me. Had they not fostered my French and English (French at which I was crap), I would have been totaly useless at 15. I was going to be an archeologist when I was 12. By 14 I didn't fancy 'digging up corpses' anymore and my interest turned to history. Particularly the middleages and New History (17th century until 1945). After 1945 I can't care less. Still I was taught the Russians, the Cold War (and all the wars or conflicts involved in that: Cuba, Vietnam, Korea), NATO etc. I am glad I learned it, although it was not so interesting to me, because it shaped our world and the society we live in now in a great way. I wasn't interested in books/reading until I was 15 and discovered adult literature. If I hadn't been asked to make a book review, and had been a self-directed learner, I'd have never discovered that interested me because I had not had the slightest inclination to take up a book and read it. It was only through one article in school that I came in contact with linguistics. I had neer though about that topic, but it was part of the curriculum. How can one be interesed if one doesn't know something?

Children should not be stressed for a test. The thing they should get used to, is getting tested. In our lives, we go through tests. We are expected to prove that we can do certain things before we are allowed to do them (apart from parenthood). For example to drive a car. If I ride my bike, I don't have to prove I can, but I should know the rules of traffic, otherwise I put my life on the line. As potential car-drivers are more dangerous, they are tested before they get in that potential killing machine. In our lives we are also continuously asked to do things we don't want, or to take disadvantages with the advantages of something. We cannot, as normals adults, only do what we want. Take even presidents and kings/queens: they need to take the great celebrity-interest with their function. Obama goes for a dinner with his wife, half the neighbourhood turns up. Kings/queens are expected to behave a certain way, because otherwise everyone gets offended. They need to ask permission to marry to the parliament. They cannot decide to all of a sudden cancel an appointment, because everyone would be offended. Nor can Obama. And I am not talking about really important decisions that involve the whole of the country... Of course, when Obama decided to go for president, we might say he chose this, but does he choose also the ceremonial clap-trap and would he not like to change that? Maybe, but that is not what he should do according to the rest. And he is reportedly the most powerful man on this earth. We cannot choose not to work (what would we live on?). We cannot leave work when we want to. We cannot choose not to pay our taxes. We cannot choose to drive on the left side of the road (in England and a few oher countries on the right). We cannot even choose to have our identity cards without biometric details in some countries. Has anyone asked a person who comitted a crime whether he should go to prison? No, because the law, and consequently society, has decided that way. Surely, the perpetrator would rather be free. Possibly to kill another person or break into another house. So why should children not become used to having freedom with borders? We cannot be left totally free, because that limits our existence. Children who have no rules, turn out difficult because there is no structure. Rules are freedom. Generalisation is freedom. Specialisation fixes a child in its earlier choices and limits. General learning, outside of its direct interests, gives it freedom to do something else when it feels like it. Isn't that wonderful?

Perhaps we have some instinctive protection from the rare curse described by Borges in Funes the Memorious, and that instinct of forgetting whatever hasn't yet proven useful is exercised in school, to the dismay of the history teacher (and all the other teachers who are forced by standardized testing to try and make their students memorize things).

I think that is a great misconeption of that book. Borges illustrated the problem of over-detailing and not enough generalisation. Funes would like to describe everything absolutely, even naming a object stating the time, because objects change with time. This prevents generalisation and thus reasoning. Borges does not argue that we should forget the details, butthat we should generalise, and that can only be done by not putting the details on the level of general ideas (in the Platonic sense). One does not learn history by learning detail, one learns history and remembering the bi points (generlisation). Structure in anything is made by generalisation, not by detail. How do we remember a landscape? By its over-all structure. How many hills there just were is not important. How many hoses there were is not important. But we do remember the church tower. New York was remembered as the city with those skyscrapers in the middle of its sky-line, and more particularly by the twin-towers. Were there no other buildings in the city? Surely there were.
How do we remember a certain day in our lives? By one thing that happened, not the whole bl**dy day, unlike Funes.
What does the word 'bird' tells us? It is a creature with wings, that fies through the air, with feathers and mostly a long beak (general idea). Yet, there are millions of birds in the world (detail). If every person had to learn all those species and sub-species like Funes, it would be impossible. Yet, if someone speaks to us about something and we don't know what it is, and he says: 'it is a bird,' then we at least know more or less what he means. That proves also useful in speaking another language. We might not know the detail, but we might know the general word.
That is what schooling is about: learning general facts, so that one knows more or less, on a low level what another person is talking about. Whether it is about molecules, atoms, history, maths, biology.

If people are only educated in their particular interest, they are very limited. Even scientists learn about other sciences, because they find useful things in them. If they weren't provided with that knowledge beforehand, it would be totally impossible.

[Scheherazade]

~
Please do not personalise your comments.

Such posts will be removed without any furhter notice.
~

[1n50mn14]

I dropped out of highschool a little over a year ago because I was offered an opportunity that I thought far more important than regular schooling... I do not regret my decision. I never agreed with the moral values that institutions tried to force onto me, anyway. Win-win. I am still going to make something of my life, and will probably write my GED (high school equivalency) just so that I don't have to struggle quite as much to overcome some roadblocks, but anybody who doesn't believe me... I'll send you an e-mail in a few years when I'm a published author, living back in the U.K and running my own successful horse stable, with a flat in London and a house in the countryside

[Dave Scotese]

I will always be afraid of people who feel that anything above s or 10% of their fellow citizens ought to be coerced in any way, including having their children taken from them for 4-6 hours a day for "schooling". Government is the only acceptable executor of such coercion, and it is everywhere and generally abused.

I think the natural rate of truly criminal behavior (forget about legislation - I'm talking about stealing, killing, fraud - stuff built into common law - the kinds of rules people followed before Hammurabi wrote them down) is very low. It is artificially raised by adding laws that make personal choices illegal (riding a bike without a helmet? Camping in a public park? Spending all the money you earn and not saving any for the government?), and further increased by constraining people's freedom to pursue their own interests (why do you need a license to run a business?), or to eat, drink, or smoke what they please (Why is marijuana illegal?).

So, 5%, I'd say is about as high as I'm comfortable with, of fellow citizens that should be coerced into anything. And what that thing is should be a way for them to make up for the damage that their criminal behavior has done.

I'm sorry for personalizing my fear.

[kiki1982]

I think we forget here that most people do not have the money to home school. Even if they had the skills, they couldn't because they have to go out to work because their partners do not earn enough.

School, whatever people may say, is not abusing. Certainly not if it is a proper school. I am sure that there are in the US also good schools available. Maybe not in the public sector. Do we think that Eton (in the UK) is a drug-ridden, violent school?

If the school is a good environment, there is no harm in it.

For people to live happily together in a state, there need to be rules. Were does the one freedom end and the other begin?

Just a few minutes ago, I encounter a post of Peripatetics. He/She uses a Greek word. 15 years ago (13 years old), I was coerced into learning a tiny bit of Greek. For three months. But it did not agree with me. Yet now, 14-15 years later, I can read this word. I never needed that knowledge. Yet, it came back when I tried to decifre that word. What had I done if I hadn't been abl to red it? I had gone to a translation engine, but this is not an option because it is philosophy.

[Dave Scotese]

I think we forget here that most people do not have the money to home school. Even if they had the skills, they couldn't because they have to go out to work because their partners do not earn enough.

Perhaps some of us forgot, but I don't think it matters whether or not they can afford it. It should be their decision. You disagree with that, don't you? We just have to agree to disagree because I don't think financial ability should be used as a pretext for coercion. I think the only good reason to use coercion against a person (or a family) is criminal behavior, as defined by the community through common law, judged by juries in community courts when parties disagree too much to settle their own differences.

School, whatever people may say, is not abusing. Certainly not if it is a proper school. I am sure that there are in the US also good schools available. Maybe not in the public sector. Do we think that Eton (in the UK) is a drug-ridden, violent school?

If the school is a good environment, there is no harm in it.

If it is good, yes. I think whether or not it is good for a particular child is a decision the parents of that child should be allowed to make, and their decision should be respected by the community and the school and the government. Compulsive schooling doesn't respect it, and the resulting damage is in evidence.

For people to live happily together in a state, there need to be rules. Were does the one freedom end and the other begin?

I think it ends at the point where the efforts of unwilling participants are required to enforce the rules. This means a citizen's taxes should be used to enforce only those laws with which the citizen agrees. Certainly, big corporations will not wish to help enforce the particular laws that keep them from exploiting people and resources, but everyone who does will. If they are able to enforce the laws without the financial help of those companies, then it is the right thing for the whole society. That is a basic faith in democracy and human cooperation that I have.

Just a few minutes ago, I encounter a post of Peripatetics. He/She uses a Greek word. 15 years ago (13 years old), I was coerced into learning a tiny bit of Greek. For three months. But it did not agree with me. Yet now, 14-15 years later, I can read this word. I never needed that knowledge. Yet, it came back when I tried to decifre that word. What had I done if I hadn't been abl to red it? I had gone to a translation engine, but this is not an option because it is philosophy.

I always enjoy looking up the words I don't understand anyway. I guess you consider that a waste of time? I especially enjoy studying the Greek and Latin roots as they often show how propaganda perverts the meanings of words by the contrast between those roots and their current common meaning. Perhaps, with this digression, you see how memorizing things and hence not needing to look them up (and have the chance to see them in a different light) could be used by a propagandistic government to maintain its control in the face of slowly destructive policies that keep power in the hands of the powerful elite. It's nice when people recognize these things.

[Lynne50]

Interestingly enough, I had an idea before I turned negative on school itself. My idea was that kids in high school should be teaching the kids in grade school. Now that I understand what school is all about, I think a simple "babysitting" service would be ideal. Grace Llewellyn provides many examples of teenagers doing useful things with their lives while opting out of school - though I haven't gotten to that part of her book yet. Perhaps running a babysitting service is one of them.

In Dumbing Us Down, Gatto describes community and how compulsive schooling kind of crowds it out of the lives of people - parents and children alike - by disallowing freedom of association: kids are kept away from adults except for "certified educators", including their own parents, and also kept away from kids of different ages for the most part, and forced to spend time with the other kids in their class.

I have never read either author you spoke of, but the last part of your statement about "dumbing us down" is the farthest from the truth at the school where I teach.. Our parents are welcomed in school, actively participating in many events throughout the year. Our younger children have "study buddies", older children in the school, that provide much cooperative learning. Our school also strives for volunteerism. Every grade level contributes to a different philantrophic cause. One of our goals for our children is to be a responsible, contributing member of society. And the last statement about being forced to spend time with the other kids in their class is, in my opinion, forcing anti-social behavior. We are not going to like everyone in this world, but one must be respectful, tolerant, and learn to share. What better place, than a schoolroom with diverse economic, cultural, and educational backgrounds to learn how to get a long. Oh, I forgot, to mention this... I teach in a public school.

[Dave Scotese]

I have never read either author you spoke of, but the last part of your statement about "dumbing us down" is the farthest from the truth at the school where I teach.. Our parents are welcomed in school, actively participating in many events throughout the year. Our younger children have "study buddies", older children in the school, that provide much cooperative learning. Our school also strives for volunteerism. Every grade level contributes to a different philantrophic cause. One of our goals for our children is to be a responsible, contributing member of society. And the last statement about being forced to spend time with the other kids in their class is, in my opinion, forcing anti-social behavior. We are not going to like everyone in this world, but one must be respectful, tolerant, and learn to share. What better place, than a schoolroom with diverse economic, cultural, and educational backgrounds to learn how to get a long. Oh, I forgot, to mention this... I teach in a public school.

Study buddies is a great idea. Is it forced on them or are they allowed to choose whether or not to have one - and if they do have one, how is their buddy selected? Do they mix the classes up for a month or two so the kids who find each other to be helpful in studying have time to find each other?

The more control the kids have over the group of other kids that they sit or discuss things with, the better. Being alone a lot seems to help kids find their curiosity and start expressing it too. I don't know how that can happen in school, though I suppose if the teacher manages to make all the kids be quiet, those who are ready for some alone time get it - as long as their personal exploration can be done at a desk.

Are the kids in each grade forced to help with the philanthropic cause, or is it an option for them? How do they choose what cause to support, or is that choice made for them?

Are the parents encouraged to attend classes and hold little discussion groups, or is their participation limited to "events" - I mean, if a parent wants to be his child's teacher, is that possible, or do such parents have to homeschool to do that? Do parents ever disagree with the curriculum of the school, and if so, how is that handled?

Where is your school? How does it compare to other schools in your district? How does your district compare with neighboring districts?

I really like the study buddy and philanthropic programs. How long have they been in effect?

[kiki1982]

Perhaps some of us forgot, but I don't think it matters whether or not they can afford it. It should be their decision. You disagree with that, don't you? We just have to agree to disagree because I don't think financial ability should be used as a pretext for coercion. I think the only good reason to use coercion against a person (or a family) is criminal behavior, as defined by the community through common law, judged by juries in community courts when parties disagree too much to settle their own differences.

Financial ability is not used for coercion as such. But how can one teach, if one has to go to work? If the child finds itself in a good, constructive school (of which there are definitely around!) I don't think there is any parent that can do better.

If it is good, yes. I think whether or not it is good for a particular child is a decision the parents of that child should be allowed to make, and their decision should be respected by the community and the school and the government. Compulsive schooling doesn't respect it, and the resulting damage is in evidence.

Parents can take a decision on that, yes. If they are not blinded by strange principles or a little backlash that their child received. And if that decision is taken, it should be verified if those parents are in a state good enough to teach their child like at school (both knowledgewise, and pedagogiclly educated). Financial ability is also an issue, but I guess that is up to the parents to decide. However, all hose people who are involved in the credit crisis also took their decisions on their own... The question is how fa people should be allowed to go.

I think it ends at the point where the efforts of unwilling participants are required to enforce the rules. This means a citizen's taxes should be used to enforce only those laws with which the citizen agrees. Certainly, big corporations will not wish to help enforce the particular laws that keep them from exploiting people and resources, but everyone who does will. If they are able to enforce the laws without the financial help of those companies, then it is the right thing for the whole society. That is a basic faith in democracy and human cooperation that I have.

If people are unwilling, they are in the wrong place. And I don't mean that about school, I mean that about the subject they are studying. If they are not really interested in history, they should not be doing it for four hours a week, but only two so they have at least a basic knowledge. If they would like to do woodwork instead of sewing, then why coerce them into woodwork. But there are certain things that are indespensible.

However, if society were to ask all people living in that society if they wanted to support such and such government scheme or not we would go back to the times of the Celts... Even then there were elders who decided for the comunity. Adopting this scheme would have total chaos as a consequence. If the industry did not pay for social security, there wouldn't be any. I guess that is more the case in the USA than in Europe. People have to be forced about taking their responsibility. Otherwise they do not take it. Take insurance companies. When do they ever pay up? Not. One needs to go to court to make them pay and then they still try to get out of it. Do we want a good roads? Yes. Do we want to pay for them? No. Well tough, you pay for that road, that proves its use. If we were all left to decide on our own, nothing would budge and we would certainly not have ended up as we are: in a society that takes care of the weak (at least more or less). Because we do not want to pay for that continuously. Yet, we are happy when we are sick that someone pays for us, though maybe unwillingly.

I always enjoy looking up the words I don't understand anyway. I guess you consider that a waste of time? I especially enjoy studying the Greek and Latin roots as they often show how propaganda perverts the meanings of words by the contrast between those roots and their current common meaning. Perhaps, with this digression, you see how memorizing things and hence not needing to look them up (and have the chance to see them in a different light) could be used by a propagandistic government to maintain its control in the face of slowly destructive policies that keep power in the hands of the powerful elite. It's nice when people recognize these things.

Shifts in meaning do not occur because of governments. They have been longer around than governments even. They do occur, because people use words differently. Nevertheless, we cannot start using a word in its original Latin or Greek meaning, if that is not the same in the language we are talking in. I am sure, you get that. My husand and I are linguists...

Words get badly translated, words get to be a verb because of a writer, words get a wider use, words become archaic, words get different pronunciation. Has nothing to do with governments or big brother, but everything with people like you and me, or should I say thee and me (because you was actually the informal of thee at some point and I would be using thee if I were speaking to a not-known person). No I shan't, as they would have said it until the 70s. Because it sounds strange. Just because those words have gone away and we now use different ones to express the same. Nobody ever told us to do so.

Nothing to do with Latin or Greek. And anyway, how would I have been able to look up the Greek root,if I knew no Greek? Hard... Very hard... For that, one has to study first without being interested. And how is one interested without knowing it? By being introdruced to it by another.

[Dave Scotese]

But how can one teach, if one has to go to work?

Hmm. You are answering a question about whether or not families who don't want to send their children to school should be forced to. Your answer assumes that a child must have a teacher and that the government, has to solve this problem for any family that has it. Below, you address this. I feel that the parents of a family are responsible for that family, and if they can't find a way to raise their child and earn enough at the same time, they should find the solution that's right for them rather than being forced into the one the government created. The government is not our mommy and daddy.

...If they are not blinded by strange principles or a little backlash that their child received. And if that decision is taken, it should be verified if those parents are in a state good enough to teach their child like at school (both knowledgewise, and pedagogiclly educated)... The question is how fa people should be allowed to go.

How can anyone besides the parents decide what are "strange principles" or who is "in a state good enough to teach their child" (and why would you qualify that with "like at school"?). How far should people be allowed to go?

They should be allowed to go as far as they want, up to the point where they are breaking laws willingly supported by enough citizens to stop them. Again, you address this below...

However, if society were to ask all people living in that society if they wanted to support such and such government scheme or not we would go back to the times of the Celts... Even then there were elders who decided for the comunity. Adopting this scheme would have total chaos as a consequence. If the industry did not pay for social security, there wouldn't be any.

Isn't asking "all people living in that society if they wanted to support such and such government scheme" the fundamental principle of democracy? I mean, doesn't your country already do that?

Chaos and freedom look the same from the outside, don't you think?

Do you prefer to force people to give up part of their income to an institution so that the institution can help the needy, or to allow people to help the needy directly? If you weren't forced to help (by the tax laws), would you contribute anything to any program that helps the needy? If so, would it be a government program or a non-government program?

If we were all left to decide on our own, nothing would budge and we would certainly not have ended up as we are: in a society that takes care of the weak (at least more or less).

I understand that position. I think it reflects an unfortunate lack of faith in people. From afar, I find that most people appear very foolish. However, when I engage them, they turn out to be pretty smart. I can see how this closer=smarter effect leads most people to feel that "If we were all left to decide on our own, nothing would budge." However, I always leave all my clients to decide on their own, and my children usually decide things on their own - after I've explained to them what I've decided on my own. We do budge less often, but it's never very far in a direction that turns out to be bad. Leaving people free to choose brings out their best. I think the problem the government solves by avoiding such freedom is a problem for big business: it's difficult to get people to fall for all the latest gizmos, gadgets, fashions, and services when they are at their best. They save more, stick with what works, approach new things with caution, watch less TV, and have meaningful discussions. Corporations have a much harder time exploiting them.

Yet, we are happy when we are sick that someone pays for us, though maybe unwillingly.

Some of us, I suppose. Not me. I loathe being a charity case. Even for those who are happy that someone else has been forced to pay for them, the loss of dignity is abrasive to the human spirit. I imagine that people living always on the dole have very little spirit left. Part of growing up is finding the joy in suffering (and thereby learning) from your own mistakes, no?

Shifts in meaning do not occur because of governments. They have been longer around than governments even. They do occur, because people use words differently. Nevertheless, we cannot start using a word in its original Latin or Greek meaning, if that is not the same in the language we are talking in. I am sure, you get that. My husand and I are linguists...

If you are categorically denying that propaganda by redefinition ever occurs, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. I understand that most shifts in meaning occur because of common usage, but I also understand that popularized usage (that is, media control) is a tool of propaganda that has been used across the globe for centuries, and redefining terms through it is one of its main strategies.

Nothing to do with Latin or Greek. And anyway, how would I have been able to look up the Greek root,if I knew no Greek? Hard... Very hard... For that, one has to study first without being interested. And how is one interested without knowing it? By being introdruced to it by another.

Ever heard of Google? You can type a word in ANY language and you're a few clicks away from an explanation of it in whatever language you understand.

It isn't hard! Even without a computer you could just ask the person who used the word - if they don't know its etymology, then ask others. Curiosity saves the day, you know? It brings people together too. Geez, now that you bring it up, maybe we'd all have healthier communities if everyone always had to find someone else to explain new things (rather than being sat in front of a teacher who would explain them without even being asked). Talk about how school is necessary for socialization - maybe it's just trying to be a solution to a problem it caused in the first place?

People who are working don't have time, you'll argue, I assume, to answer a lot of questions from kids roaming the streets trying to find stuff out that they "should have" learned in school. Well, only one of them needs to find out, and that one can pass it on, and the information will spread like a virus if it's useful. You can accuse me of being utilitarian - I am - but I put a higher value on the freedom of others (yes, even to keep their kids out of school) than on anything I think they should do. To me, the greatest utility I get from others comes from their freedom. Perhaps I have been consulting too long to see it any other way.