Unschooling: An Encouraging Option

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

IMO high school and college serve two different purposes.  Really, K-12 is pretty much just about teaching kids how to learn follow orders, by giving them discreet tools.  Reading, math, writing, science, and technical skills if you take a vocational track.  4-year college is more about becoming a bit more specialized in learning skills as you hone in on where you want to have a career.  You then either move on to a trade or job where you get even more specific in your learning and training, or you move on to Graduate school to gain professional skills. 


So, sure, college is more valuable in the sense it is taking you a step closer, in theory, to a career.  High school, honestly, isn't meant to do that at all.

Fixed.

Damn, RWHN, that was bad, even for you.

[AFK]

Your ignorant cynicism is just soooo cute.   

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Nobody (well, almost nobody) who works in public schools is really trying to churn out robots. Unfortunately the system is designed so that churning out robots is all a school can do if it wants to stay open very long. The overreaching and under responsive national standards system is mostly to blame for that. Schools must meet only the most minimal of actual educational standards, and their resources are strangled until that's all they can do. In many districts schools are restricted from doing anything creative for a lot of reasons, but the end result is a factory-based education model that values repetition over actual learning, and even punishes things like curiosity.

In short, it is true that schools are designed to teach kids to follow orders rather than to learn, even if that design is mostly accidental.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Vex is spot-on. It's not that the teachers are bad, it's that the system is bad. Few people recognize this more than educators, who daily butt up against the frustrating limits placed on their ability to teach by a broken system.

RWHN, I know you aren't going to read my OP, and I don't expect you to look up the articles I cited, but I did link to a couple of good videos that many people here might find enjoyable and/or interesting.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

These are them:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html

[AFK]

Vex is spot-on. It's not that the teachers are bad, it's that the system is bad. Few people recognize this more than educators, who daily butt up against the frustrating limits placed on their ability to teach by a broken system.

RWHN, I know you aren't going to read my OP, and I don't expect you to look up the articles I cited, but I did link to a couple of good videos that many people here might find enjoyable and/or interesting.

I did read the OP, and as I said the unschooling idea you talk about is fine as an option for education, but like any educational model can work for some and fail for others.  Just like the public school system turns out plenty of kids who aren't mindless drones and indeed have a thirst for garnering more specialized knowledge (i.e. going to college) and were plenty inspired to be creative individuals.  I was one of those kids, all of my creative and talented friends and colleagues came out of that system.  This idea that the public school system is nothing more than a meat factory, IMO, is a lazily and overly cynical one.  But before the peanut gallery gets all lathered up, I'm NOT saying it is perfect.  Indeed it isn't.  But it also isn't a teenage dystopia. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In most of the country the school system has reached crisis-level bad. That's not really a matter of debate at this point.

Which is a completely different topic from whether some kids can thrive in it when it's working well. As I said in my essay, some kids do.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Vex is spot-on. It's not that the teachers are bad, it's that the system is bad. Few people recognize this more than educators, who daily butt up against the frustrating limits placed on their ability to teach by a broken system.

RWHN, I know you aren't going to read my OP, and I don't expect you to look up the articles I cited, but I did link to a couple of good videos that many people here might find enjoyable and/or interesting.

I did read the OP, and as I said the unschooling idea you talk about is fine as an option for education, but like any educational model can work for some and fail for others.  Just like the public school system turns out plenty of kids who aren't mindless drones and indeed have a thirst for garnering more specialized knowledge (i.e. going to college) and were plenty inspired to be creative individuals.  I was one of those kids, all of my creative and talented friends and colleagues came out of that system.  This idea that the public school system is nothing more than a meat factory, IMO, is a lazily and overly cynical one.  But before the peanut gallery gets all lathered up, I'm NOT saying it is perfect.  Indeed it isn't.  But it also isn't a teenage dystopia. 

There are more than a few assumptions I think you're making here that don't necessarily deserve to be made. First of all, "the public school system" is not a monolithic thing that's the same everywhere you go. There are good ones and bad ones, like nodes in any widely distributed system. The problem isn't that there are NO good ideas or good practices in public education, it's that when there are good ideas, they are a) the exception and not the rule, and b) mostly limited to areas where the schools are already better than average.

I also think your definition of "plenty" differs from my definition of "plenty." Just because it is possible to succeed in spite of a terrible school system doesn't mean "plenty" of people are likely to succeed. Schools shouldn't just not get in your way, they should prompt you to expand your education and motivate you to achieve more. But our schools don't do that. Any system that lets people just slide by doing the bare minimum in terms of scholastic rigor is a failure of a system, because it's one that is comfortable with not pushing people to live up to their potential. No matter how many bright minds might pass through that system and go on to greater things, if it isn't the explicit mission of that system to inspire creativity and curiosity, then it shouldn't really called "education," it should be called "citizen training."

[AFK]

In most of the country the school system has reached crisis-level bad. That's not really a matter of debate at this point.

I would argue that where there is crisis it is directly related to economic issues (funding, poverty, etc.) and not necessarily the system.

Which is a completely different topic from whether some kids can thrive in it when it's working well. As I said in my essay, some kids do.

It's much more than "some", but certainly it isn't enough.

[AFK]

There are more than a few assumptions I think you're making here that don't necessarily deserve to be made. First of all, "the public school system" is not a monolithic thing that's the same everywhere you go.

No shit, you're kidding me, really?  I had no idea! 

There are good ones and bad ones, like nodes in any widely distributed system. The problem isn't that there are NO good ideas or good practices in public education, it's that when there are good ideas, they are a) the exception and not the rule, and b) mostly limited to areas where the schools are already better than average.

You mean like where the economy is better, parents are better off, and are more likely to have the capacity to be involved? 

I also think your definition of "plenty" differs from my definition of "plenty." Just because it is possible to succeed in spite of a terrible school system doesn't mean "plenty" of people are likely to succeed. Schools shouldn't just not get in your way, they should prompt you to expand your education and motivate you to achieve more. But our schools don't do that. Any system that lets people just slide by doing the bare minimum in terms of scholastic rigor is a failure of a system, because it's one that is comfortable with not pushing people to live up to their potential. No matter how many bright minds might pass through that system and go on to greater things, if it isn't the explicit mission of that system to inspire creativity and curiosity, then it shouldn't really called "education," it should be called "citizen training."

I disagree with your characterization and generalization of the monolithic system that just above you were telling me isn't a monolithic system.  The problem isn't the public school system.  The problems are economic. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In most of the country the school system has reached crisis-level bad. That's not really a matter of debate at this point.

I would argue that where there is crisis it is directly related to economic issues (funding, poverty, etc.) and not necessarily the system.

Which is a completely different topic from whether some kids can thrive in it when it's working well. As I said in my essay, some kids do.

It's much more than "some", but certainly it isn't enough.

How much is more than "some"? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

RWHN, how can you separate the non-economic factors from the economic factors? Are economic factors not part of the system as it is designed?

I think you're just arguing in order to be argumentative, and you're also pretty far off topic.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

...

I disagree with your characterization and generalization of the monolithic system that just above you were telling me isn't a monolithic system.  The problem isn't the public school system.  The problems are economic. 

The problems aren't simply economics. Yes, funding is a problem... lack of equipment, lack of extracurricular programs, the constant possibility of layoffs and furloughs hanging over faculty like a black cloud are all problems. But another problem is that with every successive revision to school curricula, standards are set lower so schools are more able to meet standardized testing requirements. Meanwhile, the tests themselves keep multiplying, and schools have to dash from one specific point covered on tests to the next, with no time left for anything like in-depth discovery. The whole thing becomes an exercise in memorizing names and dates and buzzwords, and the whole system is set up to help students with this memorization, at the expense of learning any background stories.

Also, this ridiculous push to teach everyone at the same time that schools are obsessed with. Remedial classes are disappearing, as well as advanced classes. The fact is that some kids aren't great at some subjects, and they need more time to learn them thoroughly. But instead of giving those kids that extra time, we dumb down the requirements of the course so they can meet the benchmarks, and hold the rest of the kids back to that level.

Kids who are bored by the relentless repetition and "review" work start fidgeting, and then they're sent straight to the nurse and then home with a note that says they need to see a doctor so they can get loaded down with mind-altering narcotics so they can "conduct themselves appropriately." The schools believe as much now as they did in the 1850s that every child should respond the same way to the same environment, otherwise they must be pounded into the mold. Like I said, it's a factory-based model that we've used since public schools began in this country, and yes it's failing miserably.

Schools and their results aren't monolithic, but the problems with the way we teach children are systemic, and it's a disease that reaches every corner of the system.

[AFK]

In most of the country the school system has reached crisis-level bad. That's not really a matter of debate at this point.

I would argue that where there is crisis it is directly related to economic issues (funding, poverty, etc.) and not necessarily the system.

Which is a completely different topic from whether some kids can thrive in it when it's working well. As I said in my essay, some kids do.

It's much more than "some", but certainly it isn't enough.

How much is more than "some"? 

Open newspapers, look at dean's lists, look at the kids involved in school programs, community service projects, arts programs, public schools DO encourage kids to thrive, to become integral parts of the community.  There needs to be more, yes, there needs to be more schools doing these programs and producing these results, yes.  But there are many kids who are doing well.

[AFK]

RWHN, how can you separate the non-economic factors from the economic factors? Are economic factors not part of the system as it is designed?

I think you're just arguing in order to be argumentative, and you're also pretty far off topic.

No, I'm not.  You can introduce all of the educational models you want, shit will still be broken, too many kids will still get lost because the economy is still broken.  Fix the economy and more kids will thrive in ALL educational models.