Anti-school sentiment

[kiki1982]

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.

Oh, so a child only needs a minder to supervise that he actually studies during the day. Or maybe only a minder to go with him somewhere so he can learn from himself?

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?

Creationism is such a principle that should not be taught, as far as I am concerned and as far as the whole of the scientific world is concerned. If the parent does not know a sufficient amount of subjects, he should not teach his child. Then he is an unworthy teacher or mentor, whatever you want to call it.

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...

They should not be allowed to go as far as they want. If everone went as far as they wanted, no-one would be able to go far, because one's freedom ends when the other one's freedom begins. The parent's freedom to decide stops where the child's freedom to learn as much as he can begins. Despite what you may say about self-directed learning, it can be very damaging if the child is never interested out of itself.

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?

Of course that is democracy, but with limitations. We choose a parliament and the parliament decides what they want for us. Including everyone is impossible, because it causes too many opinions, and too many choices and in the end nothing moves: in Italy and early Soviet Russia this is the case.

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

Chaos and freedom might look the same, but they are not. In chaos no-one knows what anyone is doing and nothing can be done, while in freedom something gets done and everyone knows what everyone else is doing, or that should be the case. That is why it is called freedom and not chaos. Chaos works paralysing.

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?

I think you would choose the latter, and I as a European choose the first. Little organisations cost a lot of money, and it is principally the state who needs to care for the needy in our society. Over the ocean this seems to be alien to society, particularly in the USA (Canada I believe is a little more moderate. JBI will be able to explain something about this). It is the state's business to give the people who have worked for our society a pension, to give the unemployed a benefit, to give the sick both care and a benefit. To enhance the installation of solar panels by giving subsidies, to stimulate birth rates by issuing a child benefit.

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?

Please. We are not allowed to be too harsh here, but I find that sad, despicable and utterly unfair and inhumane what you said. I apologise beforehand for the expression of my disgust. I rarely do this, but his just xasperates me and touches my core. It is not about being a charity case! It is disgusting that people in the USA should choose between two fingers that re ripped off to have one sewn on because they can't afford two. In Europe everyone just finds it normal that you get your two fingers back if possible at all. And society pays for that. If you break your leg, you have sick leave for at least 6 weeks and you get paid. If you get cancer, you get sick leave, maybe for a year or two even, and you get paid. That is the most normal thing. It is an insult to those people to even associate the unfortunate cases with some of them who might just take advantage of the system... The system should never be abolished because of those few cases and I find it utterly disgusting as a human being not to want to help another. 'Because I am fortunate.' The next time you yourself are seriously sick, I trust you will see what I mean. Unless you are one who can actually pay for your own care, but what about the rest? Shall we just leave them to die in the street? Of course, because they don't want to work.

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.

Of course it occurs, but not in the big brother way we are addressing here. In very few cases words have beenreally re-indentified especially by the government. Do ou give an adequate example? Both my husband and I have studied linguistics for 4 years so we should know. Fear is a strange thing, it puts ideas in people's heads and they are not even aware...

As if everyone knows etymology... Etymology is a lot less straghtforward and a lot less easy than you think. They have done 100s and 100s of years over the art of etymology. And some words or a lot of them, have no Greek or Latin roots. I'd lke to meet the first person on the street who knows old Germanic which is a major source for English. And I'd like to see the first person who properly knows Sanscrit.

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.

So much, that you would allow your kids not to learn to read if they did not want to learn to read, or are there some bounderies to that freedom?

[Dave Scotese]

Oh, so a child only needs a minder to supervise that he actually studies during the day. Or maybe only a minder to go with him somewhere so he can learn from himself?

I think that's best left up to the parents.

Creationism is such a principle that should not be taught, as far as I am concerned and as far as the whole of the scientific world is concerned. If the parent does not know a sufficient amount of subjects, he should not teach his child. Then he is an unworthy teacher or mentor, whatever you want to call it.

Well, I was taught creationism, and it struck me as so peculiar that I studied competing theories and my best guess now agrees with evolution. Perhaps if one learns that "knowledge and comprehension" come from memorized bits of information instead of exploration and critical analysis of ideas, Creationism becomes a threat. Perhaps, since I never learned to just accept the facts to be memorized, I see no harm in "teaching" creationism. It's almost like teaching Newtonian Physics - it explains things to a degree, but it falls apart under critical analysis. What does Creationism explain that is useful? It explains the relationship between the human individual and the Universe that has given it life and a means to enjoy that life. It is unfortunate that proponents of Creationism want to literally interpret a beautiful metaphorical explanation of creation, but this only serves to show the scientific minded person how to dance with the non-scientific minded person.

Chaos and freedom might look the same, but they are not. In chaos no-one knows what anyone is doing and nothing can be done, while in freedom something gets done and everyone knows what everyone else is doing, or that should be the case. That is why it is called freedom and not chaos. Chaos works paralysing.

In freedom "everyone should know what everyone else is doing"?? I don't understand that. Freedom to me doesn't really have any "should"s in it.

I don't think chaos is paralyzing. The closest I can remember to being in chaos is in the hills behind my high school. We used to have mudball fights and there were no rules. Sometimes we would agree to have teams, but if someone wanted to turn traitor, they did. We learned stealth and strategy and how to use terrain for sneak attacks, and what kind of soil makes good mudballs. All this, in chaos. But we were free - and definitely did not know what everyone else was doing.

It is the state's business to give the people who have worked for our society a pension, to give the unemployed a benefit, to give the sick both care and a benefit. To enhance the installation of solar panels by giving subsidies, to stimulate birth rates by issuing a child benefit.

You assign these responsibilities to the state because you don't think there is any other way to accomplish the good that can result from them. However, there is no way the state can fulfill these responsibilities without funds. Those who agree that the state should handle them should put their money where their mouth is. Those who don't should spend their money as they see fit - and suffer without unemployment benefits and socialized medicine etc. That's what freedom means to me.

It is not about being a charity case! It is disgusting that people in the USA should choose between two fingers that are ripped off to have one sewn on because they can't afford two. In Europe everyone just finds it normal that you get your two fingers back if possible at all. And society pays for that. If you break your leg, you have sick leave for at least 6 weeks and you get paid. If you get cancer, you get sick leave, maybe for a year or two even, and you get paid. (And society pays for that too.) That is the most normal thing.

I find it utterly disgusting as a human being not to want to help another. 'Because I am fortunate.' The next time you yourself are seriously sick, I trust you will see what I mean. Unless you are one who can actually pay for your own care, but what about the rest? Shall we just leave them to die in the street? Of course, because they don't want to work.

You have assigned me an answer I would not give. You justify taking money from unwilling citizens in order to cover the costs of what "society pays for". This suggests that you assign this answer to most people - so many that, you believe, those things that society pays for would be unavailable if only the willing were to pay for them.

I think most people find it utterly disgusting. I certainly do. Even more disgusting, however, is taking away the choice of whether or not they will help. Forcing them to help decreases every feeling of moral obligation to it, and the joy of helping, and the gratitude that the beneficiaries would feel toward those who helped.

Of course it occurs, but not in the big brother way we are addressing here. In very few cases words have beenreally re-indentified especially by the government. Do ou give an adequate example? Both my husband and I have studied linguistics for 4 years so we should know. Fear is a strange thing, it puts ideas in people's heads and they are not even aware...

"Anarchy" means without (political) power. It has come to be identified with chaos and rioting because the media, at the behest of governments who are threatened by anarchy's potential for peace and prosperity, has associated rioting with the term. Most riots that have been described using the word "anarchy" actually took place where there was a government that was doing a crappy job. Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 I believe that peace broke out in the northern part of Somalia, now called Puntland, a while back. If it isn't still peaceful, I'd suspect a government has been growing there.

So much, that you would allow your kids not to learn to read if they did not want to learn to read, or are there some bounderies to that freedom?

I don't know if we were lucky or what, but our children always wanted to learn how to read. I don't think you can teach a person to read unless they want to anyway. But yes, I would definitely not try to force them to learn anything. It devalues the knowledge and teaches a very bad association with learning. Rather, I entice them toward the benefits of knowing (how to read, what happened in history, how to calculate, etc.). I often say, "When you can figure it out, let me know and we'll move on (to something they wanted)". I think sometimes I make it too hard for them to get help from me, but they're very bright anyway. Mom helps them even though she feels I am a better teacher. Our youngest often plays the "I'm the baby" card - crying and whining when I explain to her that figuring certain things out takes time and patience, when she just wants me to tell her the answer so she can "learn" it. They're all very resourceful though, so I'm not worried at all.

[kiki1982]

Well, I was taught creationism, and it struck me as so peculiar that I studied competing theories and my best guess now agrees with evolution. Perhaps if one learns that "knowledge and comprehension" come from memorized bits of information instead of exploration and critical analysis of ideas, Creationism becomes a threat. Perhaps, since I never learned to just accept the facts to be memorized, I see no harm in "teaching" creationism. It's almost like teaching Newtonian Physics - it explains things to a degree, but it falls apart under critical analysis. What does Creationism explain that is useful? It explains the relationship between the human individual and the Universe that has given it life and a means to enjoy that life. It is unfortunate that proponents of Creationism want to literally interpret a beautiful metaphorical explanation of creation, but this only serves to show the scientific minded person how to dance with the non-scientific minded person.

Well, at least you saw the light. There are many who haven't seen it yet. Creationism is something for the religious education class or whatever you want to call it. It is not because science hasn't proven it yet (and that is coming up with the last discovery) that it is not true. How are we supposed to prove Creationism? Not, as it seems. That even has a smaller chance to be proven as the concept it is about is not even proven that it is there. Of evolution it is at least known that other species have evolved. So there is at least an argument.

Creationism is not a threat . As a scientific theory it is totally and utterly misplaced.

The flaws in Newtonian Physics in the meantlime got an explanation.

In freedom "everyone should know what everyone else is doing"?? I don't understand that. Freedom to me doesn't really have any "should"s in it.

Ever heard of the phrase: 'Limitation is freedom'?

I don't think chaos is paralyzing. The closest I can remember to being in chaos is in the hills behind my high school. We used to have mudball fights and there were no rules. Sometimes we would agree to have teams, but if someone wanted to turn traitor, they did. We learned stealth and strategy and how to use terrain for sneak attacks, and what kind of soil makes good mudballs. All this, in chaos. But we were free - and definitely did not know what everyone else was doing.

Oh yes, do that in a real war and you'll be lucky not to get killed. Fortunately it was with mudballs and not real amunition...

You assign these responsibilities to the state because you don't think there is any other way to accomplish the good that can result from them. However, there is no way the state can fulfill these responsibilities without funds. Those who agree that the state should handle them should put their money where their mouth is. Those who don't should spend their money as they see fit - and suffer without unemployment benefits and socialized medicine etc. That's what freedom means to me.

Economics of scale. It is the cheapest and the best organised if there is at least a person organising it who knows how best to do that. Anyway, what do I do, in a system like yours, if there are no charity organisations in my neighbourhood (for whatever I might need) because all my fellow cictizens over there are people who want to keep their money? I move. That is freedom? Indeed, the one's reedom ends where the other one's begins. In this case, my freedom begins when I move, out of need and have to leave my beloved house bcause the others don't see a reaso to provide me with charity. Or otherwise, if with the money those few pay, there are everywhere charity organisations, I might get turned down because they are full. If there is such freedom, am I also allowed to turn to them when I haven't paid for such things, and I suddenly get into a state of need?

You have assigned me an answer I would not give. You justify taking money from unwilling citizens in order to cover the costs of what "society pays for". This suggests that you assign this answer to most people - so many that, you believe, those things that society pays for would be unavailable if only the willing were to pay for them.

Of course they would not be available, not on that large a scale. In some countries it is still not enough. Those citizens that are now unwiling will at some point also become too old to work and they will have earned their rest at 65. People that are unwilling now might just become seriously ill or unemployed. They will get the fruits of the system. We cannot order the tree to deliver fruit, we need to wait patiently for it.

"Anarchy" means without (political) power. It has come to be identified with chaos and rioting because the media, at the behest of governments who are threatened by anarchy's potential for peace and prosperity, has associated rioting with the term. Most riots that have been described using the word "anarchy" actually took place where there was a government that was doing a crappy job. Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 I believe that peace broke out in the northern part of Somalia, now called Puntland, a while back. If it isn't still peaceful, I'd suspect a government has been growing there.

It does not stand in my book as rioting and chaos. Anarchy, a disorganised state where no-one is in control.

Can you tell me how many people were in Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690? And how it came to collapse?

Maybe it has passed you, but Puntland has a parliament, president and budget. Based upon the traditional concept of clans and elders. They have had that for years. Not without problems though, but that might be because there are people that like to meddle. And why are tey independent? Because they are a rich region... And money makes people happy and creates peace.

[Dave Scotese]

Ever heard of the phrase: 'Limitation is freedom'?

Yes. It sounds like a contradiction until you realize that the limitation that provides freedom is that limitation one poses on oneself in order to be self-reliant: Living below one's means.

Economics of scale. It is the cheapest and the best organised if there is at least a person organising it who knows how best to do that. Anyway, what do I do, in a system like yours, if there are no charity organisations in my neighbourhood (for whatever I might need) because all my fellow cictizens over there are people who want to keep their money? I move. That is freedom?

Of course! Would you have the government take from your neighbors because you are in need? I don't think you would enjoy the neighborhood if that happened. You worry so much about being in need - why is that? You have savings, no? Or perhaps you are imagining yourself in the position of others. That is certainly honorable, but you can't ignore the fact that such worry motivates the would-be poor to live below their means - to be self-sufficient and remain in a position to fix that neighborhood problem of a severe lack of charity. Think positively, and what you see as a problem becomes a great opportunity to be the neighborhood hero.

Indeed, the one's freedom ends where the other one's begins. In this case, my freedom begins when I move, out of need and have to leave my beloved house bcause the others don't see a reason to provide me with charity. Or otherwise, if with the money those few pay, there are everywhere charity organisations, I might get turned down because they are full. If there is such freedom, am I also allowed to turn to them when I haven't paid for such things, and I suddenly get into a state of need?

Yes, there is always a possibility that you end up desperate and needy and out of luck. While its comforting to think that the government will force people to support you if this ever happens, let's not forget how such force affects the level of charity in the hearts of its victims: They lose their money, but gain a relief from that most basic of all human qualities: empathy. It is a devil's trade. Living below my means in order to decrease the perceived need for such a sad state of affairs is the path for me. In other words, we help people in need so that when the government insists that we must pay taxes to take care of them, we can show that there aren't any around - because we already take care of them. Sadly, it is a lonely path, but it works for me. Would you care to join?

Of course they would not be available, not on that large a scale. In some countries it is still not enough. Those citizens that are now unwiling will at some point also become too old to work and they will have earned their rest at 65. People that are unwilling now might just become seriously ill or unemployed. They will get the fruits of the system. We cannot order the tree to deliver fruit, we need to wait patiently for it.

You believe that a person should only have to work until they are 65 years old. Does it matter whether they are heavily in debt at that point, or they have saved enough to retire? Does that matter to you? I would like society to encourage the latter and discourage the former. Profligacy should't merely be discouraged, but feared. What we have now is a mechanism (welfare) that spreads the pain of profligacy across everyone, rather than concentrating it on the guilty party.

Can you tell me how many people were in Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690? And how it came to collapse?

Did it collapse? I don't think so! I imagine that if some form of government came and saved them from some kind of collapse, it would be in all our history books. The omission is quite glaring. I have looked for an account of how the region came to be governed once again, but have not found it.

Maybe it has passed you, but Puntland has a parliament, president and budget. Based upon the traditional concept of clans and elders. They have had that for years. Not without problems though, but that might be because there are people that like to meddle. And why are tey independent? Because they are a rich region... And money makes people happy and creates peace.

Yes, government is the place for those who like to meddle.
Do you know how Puntland's government came to be? As far as I know, it came to be out of the necessity to declare itself autonomous, and its government remains quite weak, while the country itself survives quite well despite being ignored by just about every other country on the planet. Whether a government appears where there isn't one because of a need, or the same way weeds grow where there is fertile soil, I don't know, but I suspect our opinions on the matter will disagree. One of the horrible causative factors of government in Africa is that governments act as a representative to other countries to receive charity, and so we see much corruption in those countries to which taxpayers are forced to provide aid, much to the detriment of charities whose help could be so much more effective if governments got out of their way.

I found a book by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. It has a quote in it that I agree with:
"The human brain should be used for processing, not storage."
-- Thomas A. Kelly, PH.D.
The Effective School Report

[Gladys]

I agree that schools are little more than child minding, especially in the first ten years. Most teachers spend their time striving for crowd control. Schools do put pressure on most children (through their parents) to learn some skills and acquire some knowledge. However, this process is very slow and, for most students, inefficient and at worst ineffective.

Politically, schooling works by creating a culture that accepts the need for academic learning for all. Most children do learn something! By high-school most read as well as my children on entering school, aged four.

Home-schooling makes eminent sense, though few parents have the time and fewer the ability to facilitate learning. The use of the governess for the rich in bygone centuries also produced better results with teacher to student ratios approaching 1:1.

I think our education systems would work better if those in authority - politicians, principals, teachers, academics - were honest enough to freely admit to these shortcomings. Hardly likely.

[Lynne50]

I agree that schools are little more than child minding, especially in the first ten years. Most teachers spend their time striving for crowd control. Schools do put pressure on most children (through their parents) to learn some skills and acquire some knowledge. However, this process is very slow and, for most students, inefficient and at worst ineffective.

Politically, schooling works by creating a culture that accepts the need for academic learning for all. Most children do learn something! By high-school most read as well as my children on entering school, aged four.

Home-schooling makes eminent sense, though few parents have the time and fewer the ability to facilitate learning. The use of the governess for the rich in bygone centuries also produced better results with teacher to student ratios approaching 1:1.

I think our education systems would work better if those in authority - politicians, principals, teachers, academics - were honest enough to freely admit to these shortcomings. Hardly likely.

Gladys, why do you think that teachers and principals are not honest enough to see their own shortcomings? They know their limitations, but they also know what they were hired to do, educate, to the best of their ability and resources ALL the children that live in their immediate district. And wouldn't it be great if we could have one-to one ratios for all our classes? But how unrealistic is that? Even homeschooled children, usually take some classes with other children. I think teachers do spectacular jobs considering what some have to deal with, such as number of children per class, no resources, and especially, low pay. I don't think you can make a blanket statement, that says home schooling is better than a public education. There are some homeschoolers that I would definitely not want to educate my children, as well as there are some schools that I wouldn't my children to attend either.
I just didn't like the statement that public schools don't admit their shortcomings. To be effective, schools need and welcome parent involvement. That's what strengthens and improves the learning environment.. Public schools do not take away parental rights and responsiblities. And in some inner city schools, they may spend a lot of time with crowd control, but I think those are exceptions and not the rule. It's those schools that have little or no parent involvement, so if you shut down all the public schools and made the parents teach their own children, do you think they would take that responsiblity seriously? I think not.

[Dave Scotese]

Gladys, why do you think that teachers and principals are not honest enough to see their own shortcomings? They know their limitations, but they also know what they were hired to do, educate, to the best of their ability and resources ALL the children that live in their immediate district.

I don't think teachers have much power at all in schools. Even their authority over their students is pretty lame. I think most shortcomings of teachers are readily admitted - specifically because they are shortcomings that are imposed on them from above. There are shortcomings in teachers that the teachers can't see - just as we all have - but they are generally considered to be assets by the compulsory public schooling system: tendency toward socialism, an assumption that students need teachers to learn, that learning happens more when students are inactive and paying attention to a teacher (rather than actively pursuing some kind of goal and paying attention to how everything reacts to them), and that measuring students' progress tends to help that progress (when, in fact, measuring learning progress is counterproductive simply because of pscychological reactance).

Principals, I think, are generally in the same lack-of-authority position, being supervised by their school board, which is in turn kept on a financial leash by federal and state mandates that affect funding. However, more authority does generally diminish one's ability to see one's own shortcomings, and principals certainly suffer from that.

[Gladys]

And in some inner city schools, they may spend a lot of time with crowd control, but I think those are exceptions and not the rule.

While, I do agree with all you've said, Lynne, my original post stands. I also agree with Dave. Far from assigning blame, I'm yearning for improbable honesty.

And in some inner city schools, they may spend a lot of time with crowd control, but I think those are exceptions and not the rule.

The problem with learning at school is, of course, wider than crowd control and includes:

• Teaching substantially geared to the median student.
  
  
• Imprisoning the student for half the day while occupying his mind for perhaps 10% of each session.
  
  
• Dealing with chronically disruptive or attention seeking students, often bored because they know far too little or far too much.
  
  
• Bullying and shaming by students and teachers inside and outside the classroom.
  
  
• Corralling the student inside a classroom with an atmosphere hostile to learning, for the reasons just given.

[blazeofglory]

Anti schools sentiments is somewhat close to the idea of anarchism. The idea is really appealing and man wants to be free to the extent of following wild laws or no laws at all. We intellectuals know that our social systems are corrupt and it goes against our natural or biological instincts, and that ultimately lead man ultimately to a state of sickness spiritually, yet the fact is that we kind of think about living the way life goes in the wilderness at all. For life out there is deadlier. We watch natural geography and know that there are really mind-thrashing terrible scenes and we really go wild in awe. This accentuates the fact that we like to be governed for fear of some deadly forces.
By the same token we choose to go to school or we cannot deny the institution of school at all from this point of view

[Dave Scotese]

Anti schools sentiments is somewhat close to the idea of anarchism. The idea is really appealing and man wants to be free to the extent of following wild laws or no laws at all. We intellectuals know that our social systems are corrupt and it goes against our natural or biological instincts, and that ultimately lead man ultimately to a state of sickness spiritually, yet the fact is that we kind of think about living the way life goes in the wilderness at all. For life out there is deadlier. We watch natural geography and know that there are really mind-thrashing terrible scenes and we really go wild in awe. This accentuates the fact that we like to be governed for fear of some deadly forces.
By the same token we choose to go to school or we cannot deny the institution of school at all from this point of view

But it isn't really one or the other, is it? One need not be governed to cooperate with another in an effort to protect each other. Or with several others. The key is cooperation, and that requires choice, which requires freedom. So really, when you say "This accentuates the fact that we like to be governed for fear of some deadly forces," it isn't quite right. It seduces us into being governed if we don't have the brains to choose cooperation. And school tends to suppress the part of the brain that causes cooperation (also called note-passing, talking-in-class, and playing-with-friends). Hence the anti-school sentiment :-).

[Hurricane]

Public schools (and private schools) aren't perfect, but I would choose either over homeschooling my children. I love instructing and tutoring people, and have given thought to becoming a teacher in the way-off future, but I would still never home school my kids. School isn't just about learning stuff you could get for $1.50 worth of late fees at the library.
My Mother teaches elementary school, and has seen parents pull their kids out to "home school" them because the parents don't want to get up early and get their kids ready for the bus and similar reasons. I wish I was kidding.
Both of my parents are extremely smart and knowledgeable people. Dad's got his PhD, Mom's got her Masters. But if they'd home-schooled my sister and I, we would have had an awful education compared to what we got through the school system. One (or two) people can't possibly teach, or even guide learning, on every possible topic at the high school level.
Learning how to deal with others, particularly ones you don't like, is probably one of the most vital things as a kid. Children can be cruel, and it's important to protect them from the worst of it, but if their only interaction with non-sibling people their age is through a sport that they do for a couple hours a week, I think you're crippling them. School teaches kids how to deal with failure, embarrassment, jerks, and having to do things you don't want do. On a more positive note, school also teaches how to befriend and cooperate with others most efficiently.
A lot of creativity can come out of school: working together with classmates to invent a game, spending recess time productively, etc. My love of literature and history came from and was encouraged by a couple of teachers as far back as third grade. Though history is taught very simplistically at earlier ages, I know by middle and high school I was being taught to question and entertain alternative theories to the consensus. It's very important, I think, to see and understand both sides of an issue to make an informed decision.
I decided to Google Llewellyn and Gatto and read a little bit about each of them. I just don't buy the whole "unschooling" thing. If I'd done that, I probably would never have gone past 10th grade geometry and never taken chemistry or physics. I'd have just read and written bad short stories for the next three years, and I consider myself a very motivated learner (I mean seriously, I'm reading "The Crisis of the 12th Century" for fun right now). Most teenagers won't even do that. I think it's fair to say that a least some of kids' cynicism towards learning comes from having to go to school, but honestly, tough tiddlywinks. Part of life, and of being an adult, is being able to work at things you don't necessarily want to. I don't want to take physics or Calculus III right now. But I have to, and I daresay I'll have a better understanding of my world for doing it.

[Dave Scotese]

I just don't buy the whole "unschooling" thing. If I'd done that, I probably would never have gone past 10th grade geometry and never taken chemistry or physics. I'd have just read and written bad short stories for the next three years, and I consider myself a very motivated learner

I think you underestimate yourself, but I think most people do that. Not surprisingly, I think it comes from school - more public school than private though. If the topic doesn't bore you or upset you, you might want to Google Iserbyt too. She served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration. Her work backs up my theory on where people get the tendency to underestimate themselves.

[blazeofglory]

Ideas about anti-school sentiments is a good idea. Of course there is kind of suppression in schools. Children at their very tender ages get forced to study and at some schools in the east children are kind of treated very cruelly and ruthlessly. Of course there is abuse as a matter of fact.

[gbrekken]

This thread is not dead. However, inorder to compse a comprehensive reply from even my own limited knowledge will take a great deal of time. Please stay tuned.

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact this is a great and classical debate. I agree one hundred percent that schools are corrupt today and it warps natural creativity in children in point of fact. Children are persuaded and at times humiliated, intimidated to study and such mechanic ways of study mars their intuitive and congenital capacity for inventiveness through imagination. But we say through our conditioned minds this is called education and civilization, but at the bottom of it they become ruined