Hi Michael,
You had asked ALL:
-> What do you guys think of Ivan Illich's educational reform
-> theories as set forth in _Deschooling Society_ and _ABC:
-> Alphabetization of the Popular Mind_ ?
and I had suggested:
SK> I don't know about the others here, but I haven't read it. Do you
SK> mind to summarize?
Which you did, beginning first with the book _Deschooling Society_.
I get the impression from your response that you largely agree with the
author, especially from these remarks:
-> To me, the most beautiful and strongest passage in Illich's book
-> starts at the beginning of Chapter 7:

and:
-> If nothing else, I think you should finish reading this Chapter,
-> called "Rebirth of Epimethean man."
While I can appreciate some of the points you summarized, largely I find
the summary points you made to be oversimplistic. Some of the statements
I disagree with and many of them seemed to be "painted with a wide
brush" designed to find only fault with the current ed system. I believe
that all educators recognize that there is much room for improvement in
our ed system, but there are success and accomplishments in the system,
and we should not ignore those either.
I will respond to a few of the points:
-> _Deschooling Society_ says that obligatory education is not the same
-> thing as learning.
I would agree that they are not synonymous, but I don't agree that
obligatory education precludes learning.
-> The grade system that we have, is a certification of how _little_
-> somebody knows.
This is some cute remark designed to provoke an emotional response, I
guess. Otherwise, I don't get it. It's true that someone can pile up
degrees and not necessarily accomplish that much, but the idea that
spending more time in school necessarily results in little learning does
not mesh with my experiences either as a student, a teacher, or a mother
of students. The opportunity to learn in school is available. The
students have to take advantage of it. Simply because some kids cop an
attitude and don't feel like taking advantage of the situation, and thus
learn little, doesn't mean that no one in the system can learn.
-> The farther you proceed, from high school to college, involves you
-> but excludes many people and in effect shows them that they are
-> considered inferior.
Who considers these people inferior? I have siblings who have chosen not
to go on to college. They are making a decent living and are largely
content with their situation. I don't believe they feel "inferior" to
others simply because they chose to cease participating in the formal
education system. If others see them as inferior, that is their problem.
Someone needs an attitude check, here.
-> You must pass high school to get into college.
This is a false statement. Colleges do accept students with GED
certificates, homeschooled students, etc...
-> If you don't, you are made to feel unworthy and uneducated.  You must
-> pass college to be able to teach college.  If not, you are not a
-> learned scholar.
In general, I would agree with the fact that one needs to hold a college
degree in order to teach college. However, if there is a particular
discipline in which alternate qualifications should suffice, then
members of that discipline should suggest that these alternate
qualifications be considered, and work towards implementing an alternate
certification. Simply because there are other ways to become educated,
and college doesn't work for everyone does not mean to me that we should
scrap the college system.
-> People learn their best when they are interested in something, when
-> they are excited by something, and when they are actively involved,
-> hands-on in the process.
I agree with this.
-> If somebody wants to learn, they will go to great lenghts on their
-> own, to learn.  If they don't care about something, forcing it into
-> them isn't going to change that.
This sounds nice, but I don't know that it's always true. There are
cases of students learning things they didn't care about, and sometimes
a student may not initially be interested by a topic, but when
"forceably" introduced to it by compulsory education, they may find that
they develop an interest in it.
I disagree with the following three remarks:
-> Now, most people in our country learn all they need to know from
-> they're own lives, not from school.
......
-> Schools aren't institutions of _learning_.   They are institutions
-> that weed out and groom various degrees of people to serve various
-> functions in society.
......
-> You can't _plan_ to learn.
......
OTOH, I find some merit in some of these remarks:
-> [a true institution of learning] is one that offers a service
-> to the student on the student's own
-> terms. It is dynamic, not stagnant.  It is vibrant, not dead.  It is
-> at the student's beck-and-call, not the other way around.
-> A teacher in a true institute of learning does not need a certificate
-> to teach.  He only needs the consensus of the people who are
-> interested in learning what he has to offer.  A bad teacher won't
-> last very long in this situation.  A good teacher will thrive.  So,
-> it's a very efficient, self-monitoring process.
-> We all know that learning is often casual, spontaneous, or
-> accidental.
-> The greatest feat of every human on this planet is not learned in
-> school:  learning your first language.
I am curious what makes you feel so strongly about the formal ed system
this way, and what you would suggest instead? I would bet that without
obligatory schooling, the number of children out learning "street life"
would increase dramatically, to the detriment of not only those children
themselves, but all of society.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------