I'm with you on this one archytas. In our family learning is very important, not 'education', because anymore this means whatever the school system is pushing.
I'm a highschool dropout, who got a bit of higher education (technical school), with a white collar proffesion. I spend my spare time picking up new hobbies, things to do with my hands, and I'm always learning new things. My wife is a teacher focusing on math and science, but only taught a couple years in the US School system. This year we decided to homeschool our kids. We did not think that the school system was doing well for them, even supposedly attending one of the best school districts in our state. We have found that the teachers in our school district do care, and have a commitment to the kids, but the way to become an exemplary school district is to teach children how to take state and national tests. Before we decided on homeschooling we sat down and talked alot about education and school, and reflected on what we got out of the school system ourselves, foucusing on early learning. It seems, especially recently in America, we are teaching how to test. Like you had mentioned, we're teaching the kids to do what their told, not to question. My 9 year old daughter was in a bit of a state of shock early on in her homeshooling experience, because we put our emphasis on understanding, not rote. She was intimidated by the fact that she might make a mistake trying to work out something on her own, and was used to being given the correct answer. I was shocked, entering the workforce, how little University education reflects the abilities of a person to perform their duty. I'd like my kids to be able to get into good Universities, but it is more important to me that they become effective people, and if the Universities' criteria do not match my criteria, so be it. Reviewing my education, and many people I talked to, I decided on some specific thing that I think my children need to be effective adults in the world, none of them involving memorizing historical dates. First of all they need to have a passion for knowledge and understanding and not feel that any area is off limits for them. Second, they need the tools to learn, to be able to research and find and judge the answers. Most of the tools are just the knowledge that answers aren't just something handed down from somone who is an expert, or written down in a book by the hand of God. Answers are found by people, just like themselves by expirimenting, researching, and exploring. Third, they need to learn to communicate effectively, words and speech are our interface to the rest of the world. The brightest mind will not be taken seriously if they cannot communicate. And fourth, Math. Depending on their life choices, they may not need any more than elementary Mathematics in their lives, but they need to understand more than that, or so much in life will be closed up to them. It's a bit of a scary step to take the untrodden path with our children, but the state funded school system is not a viable choice if we have an alternative. They are enjoying their school, they are currently learning about ancient Greece, and are genuinely interested. They spend the days going to museums, doing hands on science projects, researching personally chosen subjects to write reports on, and reading books they are interested in. On Oct 9, 7:20 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I've given up teaching in universities. They have failed to find the > real aims of education and perhaps were always to elitist to be fit > for this purpose. Education is increasingly a vile, trillion-dollar > international business - though I'm very grateful to our local primary > school for its efforts locally - I'd find it hard to fault a > magnificent, caring staff. Yet I would advocate a 'de-schooling' in > order that we could all start learning work across the globe. I make > the proviso that this would have to include armed services working on > a democratic basis - a massive problem. > I took a stance that university education can be technical - but that > this has to be in a wider context of trying to do something decent > with lives and the planet - maybe further in my wilder sci-fi dreams. > One key element concerns teaching people how to learn - this > containing an obvious element about how we come to know what best to > teach, an argument very similar to 'who polices the police'? > > There are no 'blank slates' to teach - even in primary schools. Kids > come from a variety of backgrounds, often very problematic - whether > from poverty or wealth. One issue in deciding what education is about > is the way in which routes through privileged schools and universities > exist and attract parents prepared to pay very high fees. This > applies across the globe. In this model 'education' retains its Greek > origin 'to make like a Duke' - something very elitist and to do with > the sham of meritocracy. Parents believe this privileged form of > education gives great advantages - in the UK you only have to look at > the success of public schools and elite universities in placing > students in professions - a royal route also found in the more > 'egalitarian' France (the book had 'the making of a European business > elite' in the title). I doubt there is any connection between > 'intelligence-talent' and success in this system - but such > meritocracy is only part of what we should be trying to do and should > not lead to the 'success' it does in any case. > > Even most university students have little clue (even on graduation) on > intrapersonal intelligence (to some extent Orn's intraspection), how > to keep learning about insight on skills and the lack of them in the > area. They can't really do research either and will mostly have > actively avoided it. There are frequent claims in class that to be > taught independent thinking and 'finding out' only leads them into > conflict with the 'hymn sheet singing' employers expect. It's almost > impossible to teach anything of value, other than what can be used > technically, either in a science (not many jobs) or as a functionary > (lawyer, accountant, manager, teacher ...) serving interests not to be > questioned. To be teaching at all in a university one is already a > functionary and already not 'universal' in the sense that one's duties > are limited. > > With the Internet, we should be able to make great strides in creating > a free and easily searchable resource for people to learn on their own > - our learned papers should be available to all (most are actually so > vapid no one would want them, which is why they remain so 'secret' - > laughably available at great cost and often mere plagiarism or as dumb > as 'Chicken Soup for the Soul'). Most university teaching is now > located somewhere near what a grammar school 5th form used to get. > > I would want people to explore 'what motivates you, what do you think > motivates others, how might we improve matters' (we can all do this) - > yet this collapses to 'critically evaluate process and content > theories of motivation at work'. The answer to this latter is much > more simple (find the answer in the text book your tutor has given you > and from which her lectures are delivered using notes from the > publisher). We basically rank and grade on this copying ability. I > might set an apparently more complex question that appears radical. > 'Critically evaluate Foucauldian Accounting's Contribution to the > Deconstruction of World Bank Policy' - but this is just the same in > some ways as a shrewd student can find the 'answer' in another text > book. A colleague once announced his students had finally discovered > Gramsci was the answer to everything (and nothing) in one module - > they had simply shrewdly assessed the lecturer's preferences. He was > asking me to remark a brilliant paper zeroed by the lecturer which > equated Margaret Thatcher and Gramsci - actually excellent parallels - > the lecturer merely annoyed his idol had been exposed. > > Beyond this we should be out of the classrooms doing stuff - or at > least organising our students in doing stuff - creating some kind of > valid economy of people doing worthwhile stuff and learning where most > learning takes place - in action. Instead we have a sickening > 'Chinese Bureaucracy' of temporary bookishness. I always wonder what > right I have to teach, what knowledges - yet no such 'reflection' > takes place in regard to the world on offer to work in - even as we > see it burning the planet and with no answer to pre-historic problems > of war, greed and survival. I feel like a chemist making great > discoveries, only for them to be poured into a festering septic tank! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
