Traps set by the machine

[AFK]

I gotta run (my father and brother are coming here to stay with me for a few days, gotta pick them up) but I'll answer briefly to a few points:
-I consider pedagogy and the education system less effective than Sudbury schools. Pedagogy is a whole science about how to do the right things to get the right results out of children, and the education system invests tremendous amounts of energy into getting it right. Sudbury schools do not go to these efforts, and still get results just as good or sometimes better.

[citation needed]

-I consider schooling somewhat inhumane because it limits or wholly revokes a (young) person's right to determine what to do with his or her time. The situation in the United States is far less serious on this point because educational choice is a right that all enjoy. In Germany this right does not exist. And there are many countries in the grey area (such as Israel).

I agree, if a child literally has no choice as to where he goes to school then that is a pretty crappy situation.  I think part of our disagreement stemmed from cultural differences.  I think you are largely speaking from experiences on the other side of the pond while me being an American, I am seeing things from a different perspective.  Again, here in the States, I've seen some wonderful and innovative things done within the public school system.  Sounds like perhaps things aren't as rosy on that side and I really have no insights to educational matters where you are from. 

[LMNO]

What is the budgetary difference between "standard" publich schools and Sudbury schools?

That is, what is the "actual" cost-per-student between each school?

"Actual" in this case means the gross total spent per year divided by the number of students that attend.

[Verbal Mike]

RWHN, I understand that, but I believe there's a very strong case to be made for Sudbury schooling in the States as well. As you can see, I have a bit of a harder time in this kind of argument because I know more about the situations in Europe and Israel. But I tend to believe that as long as a school is still based on the same basic ideas that have been the basis of schooling since the Industrial Revolution, it's still essentially operating on false assumptions.

LMNO, I don't know about the specific figures, particularly regarding public schools. I know, however, that Sudbury Valley School, which operates as a private school, has always been far, far cheaper than any public school in the area, and the difference is only growing. The numbers were there in one of their books, but I've read about a dozen of them so I really don't know anymore where to look.

I'll be the first to admit Sudbury schools have a very acute lack of studies comparing them with other schools. But the lack of studies and statistics is not an argument against this kind of schools, or the philosophy behind it.

[Reginald Ret]

concerning both the schoolsystem and as an example of a trap in itself:
seggregation by age: If a child grows up being mostly surrounded by people of about the same age as itself and one or two grownups that are soo much older that a connection is very hard to make, and then after school it comes home to parents who are too tired from working all day(and unwilling to talk about work cuz it was teh suXXor)

Then the child will never get a view of how people develop as they become older because for that it needs an almost continuous surrounding with people from all age-groups(preferable multiple examples of each age-group), wich is impossible in the current schoolsystem.

I have the silly idea stuck in my head that putting undeveloped human brains in a culture and enviroment dominated by undeveloped human brains isn't the best way to instill the culture that is desired by the parents.

Then again, the parents grew up in the same schoolsystem, so their culture might be exactly the same.

I have no proof for any of this but thats ok because you don't have to agree with my view anyway.

[AFK]

concerning both the schoolsystem and as an example of a trap in itself:
seggregation by age: If a child grows up being mostly surrounded by people of about the same age as itself and one or two grownups that are soo much older that a connection is very hard to make, and then after school it comes home to parents who are too tired from working all day(and unwilling to talk about work cuz it was teh suXXor)

Then the child will never get a view of how people develop as they become older because for that it needs an almost continuous surrounding with people from all age-groups(preferable multiple examples of each age-group), wich is impossible in the current schoolsystem.

I have the silly idea stuck in my head that putting undeveloped human brains in a culture and enviroment dominated by undeveloped human brains isn't the best way to instill the culture that is desired by the parents.

Then again, the parents grew up in the same schoolsystem, so their culture might be exactly the same.

I have no proof for any of this but thats ok because you don't have to agree with my view anyway.

I call BS.  Segregation by age is a necessary construct in that different age levels can comprehend different levels of materials.  I mean you're not going to have some 5 year old in an Algebra class with 9th graders.  At recess time, kids have the opportunity to mingle and socialize with kids in other grades.  There is also nothing keeping them from socializing with other kids in their neighborhoods who will be likely of varying ages.  How many millions have gone through that system, and while society certainly can use improvement, I don't see how that particular construct of the education system has lead to any current issues. 

[Golden Applesauce]

One of the (many) grade schools I went to kept different grade students together for most subjects.  I.e., my fourth grade class also had fifth graders in it, and my fifth grade class had third and fourth graders as well.

Mostly what I remember was that some of the third graders were total assholes and that it was very hard not to punch them in the face.



You have a point though, children need role models.  More mature children and adults need to be present and need to engage the children.  Things like sports teams or other extracurriculars that mix age groups can help with this, both because they expose children to slightly older children and to the coaches and leaders, who are usually either parents or high school / college kids.

I do think that in high school the freshman who hung out with the upperclassmen grew up faster, not sure if the more mentally mature freshman gravitated towards the upperclassmen or if the upperclassmen influenced them.

[Requia ☣]

Speaking as someone who hung out with high school seniors while in junior high, I'd like to say that this probably slowed my maturity way way down. 

[Reginald Ret]

heh i didn't mean teaching kids of all ages the same thing, ofcourse the curriculum should be ageist. I was thinking more of getting kids to be more exposed to those younger and older then them.
Combining schools with community centres would be a good start, seeing some old geezers playing chess, some teens in the middle of hormonal turmoil and some so called grownups bitching about the weather or politics would be of much rgeater use then spending another couple of hours stuck in class ignoring mr johnson talking about history again. Maybe integrate it even more and get lots of older(and younger?) guest-teachers.

I would like to know what would happen if the surroundings of a child are a good representation of the society it will be expected to function in and the kind of roles it might wish/have to play when growing older.

[Verbal Mike]

different age levels can comprehend different levels of materials

[citation needed]

I know a 12-year-old who knew more about physics four years ago than I do today. I understand Algebra better than my mom does. My sister, two years my junior, groks music theory on a level I can't hold a candle to.
Where exactly does this linear, age-based scale of comprehension come into play? Or is this about those "average n-year-olds" I keep hearing about? I wish I could meet an Average 19-Year-Old Male and see how I compare with him.

[AFK]

different age levels can comprehend different levels of materials

[citation needed]

I know a 12-year-old who knew more about physics four years ago than I do today. I understand Algebra better than my mom does. My sister, two years my junior, groks music theory on a level I can't hold a candle to.
Where exactly does this linear, age-based scale of comprehension come into play? Or is this about those "average n-year-olds" I keep hearing about? I wish I could meet an Average 19-Year-Old Male and see how I compare with him.

Of course there will be individuals who will excel at learning and be able to handle more advanced topics.  But really it's more of a construct on advancement.  Generally, you need to have a good foundation of basic mathematics before you can tackle more advanced mathematics like Algebra, Trig, Calculus, etc.  Same with reading comprehension.  Most 5 year olds aren't going to be able to pick up War and Peace, read it, and then prepare a 10 page book report about it.  So it isn't just that it's a function of age, it's a function of laying down the framework for future learning and future topics. 

[AFK]

heh i didn't mean teaching kids of all ages the same thing, ofcourse the curriculum should be ageist. I was thinking more of getting kids to be more exposed to those younger and older then them.
Combining schools with community centres would be a good start, seeing some old geezers playing chess, some teens in the middle of hormonal turmoil and some so called grownups bitching about the weather or politics would be of much rgeater use then spending another couple of hours stuck in class ignoring mr johnson talking about history again. Maybe integrate it even more and get lots of older(and younger?) guest-teachers.

I would like to know what would happen if the surroundings of a child are a good representation of the society it will be expected to function in and the kind of roles it might wish/have to play when growing older.

I guess I still don't see a significant benefit to this.  Sure, if a kid was in complete isolation outside of school, this kind of idea would make sense.  I agree that community integration is very important, however, I don't think you need to necessarily do it with the education system.  Perhaps some community service projects within classes would be appropriate and help.  And I know many schools have these sorts of things in place.  The town where one of my colleagues lives, their high school actually has some community service worked into their curriculum which every student has to perform.  So I could see encouraging something like that would allow for some of this community integration, without sacrificing time for studies. 

I actually think it would be more beneficial if the community's local government got involved in this sort of thing.  Special events and activities that bring different people of different ages, cultures, etc., together.  Some do it, some don't.  It's a real challenge though in the economy we're in.  These sorts of things require money, and there is little to go around these days. 

[Verbal Mike]

I wouldn't be too sure about the math thing, as far as requiring a certain basis. I'm not an expert, but I recently read this delightfully eloquent rant about math education, by a mathematician and math teacher by the name of Paul Lockhart. Here's the pdf: http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
He makes many interesting points about what passes for a mathematical education in American high schools, and one of his points is that the idea of math requiring a linear progression through material is not only false, but not actually followed in any logical way by the high school math curriculum. (He outlines said curriculum in the last two pages of the document, by the way. Mirth/horror galore.)

[AFK]

I call BS on the whole article.  I read a lot of complaining and whining but read very few, concrete solutions.  Kids don't go to school to become mathematicians.  They go to school to get a base level of knowledge to prepare them for what it is they want to do next.  If they want to become mathematicians, they will then get the appropriate, higher level knowledge of Mathematics in their undergraduate, and graduate studies.  Perhaps high schools could do some reorganization of the curriculum to integrate some sort of Mathematics Appreciation class that would address some of the things this guy is talking about.  But scrapping the whole math-curricula is not the solution, because quite honestly, it isn't the problem he thinks it is.  This sounds like a stuck-up Math geek complaining that not everyone is going to have his level of interest and wonder in mathematics. 

[Verbal Mike]

Erm, did you read the whole thing? Because he gets pretty concrete towards the end, after making his case.
And I mainly brought in the article in response to "Generally, you need to have a good foundation of basic mathematics before you can tackle more advanced mathematics like Algebra, Trig, Calculus, etc." - he addresses that argument pretty directly, iirc.

[AFK]

I read enough to catch his obvious bias.  He assumes much and doesn't give math teachers the benefit of the doubt that they can find creative ways to use the math curriculum to both teach the basic fundamentals AND engender interest in math.  I had that experience in my education, and I know many others who shared the same experiences.  Again, I'm all for adding some kind of Mathematics Appreciation class, to get the more metaphysical and heady aspects of math, but I personally think his criticism of how math is taught in the US public shool system is BS.