Hi Michael,
First of all, a moderating note. You are new to the conference, so
perhaps you need a bit of introduction to the operating policies here.
Messages are to be brief. That means 3 or 4 screenfuls max (please refer
to the guidelines posted yesterday, and at the beginning of each month).
The message you sent me is soooo long, I can't see all of it in my
scrollback buffer (a it is a 300 line buffer). Some BBSs and off-line
mail readers cannot handle such long messages and simply cut them off at
about 100 lines or so, and the rest of the message goes to the
bit-bucket.
Secondly, I don't think I'll respond to the entire message, since it is
so long and I don't that much time to spend here. But I'll summarize,
and maybe do a few quotes.
I'm glad that you admit that you are suggesting an ideal. I feel that
there is hope for you, then. However, I simply don't agree with your
premise that abolishing the ed system is the solution to the problems
with the ed system. (On a side note...have you heard of Sudbury Valley
School? They run a school that utilizes a lot of these types of ideas
that learning should not be compulsory and that the learner should only
study what s/he wants to. You would probably find it quite interesting.)
There are certain students who do not do well in the ed system as it is
designed. I think that what this then calls for, is a reform for these
students so that they can learn better.
I also am glad that there are certifications for such persons as
doctors, teachers, pilots, and so on. I think your idea that we should
do away with these things is, well sorry if this sounds a bit harsh,
but...ridiculous. I want to be protected from quacks. I don't want to
take a family member of mine to a physician and find out after my child
or husband is dead or permanently disfigured that I should've picked a
different doctor. That is simply not reasonable to me and I find it
_very_ odd that you suggest that it is. Maybe you're just jerking us
around for the fun of the discussion???
-> For them, school is nothing but a certification of how little they
-> know.  It belittles them, by saying, "You didn't make it through
-> school, so you are going to be stuck working at McDonald's and you
-> will have a heck of a time getting a different kind of
-> opportunity".
Do you really think that the drop-out rate is that high? I understand
that for most schools it is below 10%. And I'll wager that a significant
portion of those students who drop out do so because they _choose_ to,
because they don't want to be in school, not because they are unable to
succeed within the system. I know there is room for improvement, but
your characterization of the secondary schools as a place that "weeds
out" incapable individuals just doesn't agree with the notion of the
schools that I have, where most teachers and administrators are doing
their best to help students succeed and stay in school.
You say that you, personally, didn't enjoy high school. I suspect that
your own personal experiences are generating a lot of your support for
Illich's ideas. Perhaps you would like to specifically point out some of
the things in your school that could have been improved.
-> SK> 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.
-> Yes, but why do you disagree with it?
Because, of all the people I know, a great deal of what they know they
learned in a school.
-> Tell me something that you absolutely must learn in school, in order
-> to survive in our world.
Wait a minute, this is another topic altogether and doesn't correspond
to the above point. Just because most people learn a great deal of their
total knowledge in school doesn't mean that they _couldn't_ have learned
these things outside school.
-> You can work at learning, and some learning does result from work.
-> But even here, the moment in which you gain understanding, is
-> unanticipated.  It is a mysterious act of inspiration.
That doesn't mean that you didn't plan to learn it. I have a lot of
experience with learning, and with teaching students, so I know what
you're talking about. But I simply disagree with your term that this is
"unplanned" learning.
-> I see a lot of people grumbling about school and not enjoying it.
You know, a lot of people grumble about their jobs. A lot of people
grumble about the daily commute. A lot of people grumble about politics.
-> Math is one of the hardest subjects to learn, and that's what I
-> tutored a lot of.
That's what I teach.
-> I found that the college professors were very deficient in teaching
-> it.
In my experience, it's about a 50/50 proposition that a math professor
will be any good. I'm not going to continue with this thread, since the
message is getting long and I know we're going to disagree in the end
anyhow.
-> We have plenty of money to go around, there's no reason why the
-> wealthiest students should get the best facilities, the best-paid
-> teachers, and the most
-> opportunities.  Abolishing our educational system, and letting people
-> set up their own autonomous places of learning, will do wonders you
-> can't even concieve of.  It will allow teachers to find their own
-> niches and teach what they want.  It will allow people to easily
-> access what they want to learn.
You know, I just don't think it would happen that way. There is only so
much demand for Calculus teachers (as you give the example of the
teacher you had who really wanted to teach calculus). Most schools only
need one such teacher. Letting everyone teach what they want isn't going
to let more people be able to teach calculus simply because they like it
and want to do so. I bet you there would actually be less demand for
calculus teachers under your proposed system.
-> SK> I would bet that SK> without obligatory schooling, the number of
-> children out learning SK> "street life" would increase dramatically,
-> to the detriment of not only SK> those children themselves, but all
-> of society.
-> I don't think so.  People who are inclined to the street life, just
-> drop out of high school anyway, right now.
But some who are marginal don't do the street-life route, since they
stay in school due to compulsory laws. With these laws removed, as you
suggest, these marginal students would be more susceptible to going that
route. I think there are kids who are saved from going that route by
compulsory schooling.
-> Really ,you should read Illich's book.  He does more justice to this
-> topic and has thought about it much more than I have.
I appreciate that (that he expresses the ideas better than you), but
I'll have to pass on that read for two reasons: (1) lack of time, (2)
from even the little bit that you've managed to share here, I know that
I will simply have fundamental disagreements with that author. Same
thing happened when I read one of Howard Gardener's books (which I
purchased). He had some good ideas, but so many of them I didn't agree
with that I could only make it about half-way through the book before I
put it aside. I felt that he had no experience with the teaching
situations I was dealing with, for if he did he wouldn't have written a
lot of those things. And I couldn't put much credibility in someone
telling me how to run my classroom if he had never been in the same
situation.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------