News:

Endorsement: "I could go so far as to say they simply use Discordianism as a mechanism for causing havoc, and an excuse for mischief."

Main Menu

Unschooling: An Encouraging Option

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, March 14, 2013, 07:04:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Golden Applesauce

Not that simply adding "mixed-age" to a standard curriculum necessarily helps. 4th grade I was in a mixed 4th-5th grade class, and 5th grade I was in a mixed 3rd-5th grade class. We only split by grade for math classes. (Reading group was done by reading skill level). 4th grade was okay, I guess - I got special permission to be in the 5th grade math class, so that was something. But 5th grade was just doing generic classwork with 3rd graders. (Plus I had to re-take 5th grade math because they didn't have 6th grade math.) They never did anything to take advantage of the age range, it was just doing activities slightly dumbed down to a mid point between the theoretical 5th grader and theoretical 3rd grader.

Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

Anna Mae Bollocks

I like the Unschooling idea. Everything after fifth grade DOES do more harm than good.
But I also see what Roger is saying. Any time something good even TRIES to catch on, it gets twisted into AMERICA(TM).
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Lenin McCarthy

YES.
My 5th-7th grade teachers were awesome and gave me a lot of freedom (and ordered books for me at the school's expense) so it wasn't that terrible.
But the cesspool of intolerance and conformity that was middle school taught me few things other than that shitty people are very real, to hit back when attacked and to avoid being perceived as a sissy. I think I could have done at least as well without it.  The most exciting parts of it were the months I had whooping cough, because then I could go for solitary walks in P.E., read books and whatever I wanted a lot of the time.


AFK

#18
I think this "Unschooling" idea is fine as an option for education, but it won't work for all kids, just like homeschooling doesn't work for all kids, and traditional k-12 schools don't work for all kids.  But, K-12 DOES work  for kids, surely there are improvements to be made.  It worked for me, it's working for my daughter, but then again, I think the parents are the key.  I don't care which educational model you put your kids through, if you as a parent(s) are actively engaged in their education, they will be fine.  If parents aren't engaged, the kids will struggle and fail, whether it is homeschool, public school, or unschool.  Period.
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Good point, RWHN.

My aunt teaches 2nd Grade in one of the most underfunded school systems in Ohio. The whole district is full of really poor people with little education and at this point few jobs. I remember a story she told me where a very angry father came in and berated her for trying to teach his kid to read. Apparently since the mother and father couldn't read they didn't want their child thinking that he was smarter than his parents.

No matter which style of education that kid gets, I think he's probably fucked.

On the other hand, I know of success stories from public education, home schooling, Montessori and other alternative education options... in all of the cases I can think of though, the parents were actively involved. The reverse seems to hold in many cases as well.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

I think it is pretty simple really.  If parents are involved, then they are communicating to their children that education and knowledge is a family value.  And so with that value instilled, those kids will tend to succeed.  But as in the example you provided, if it isn't a value, or the parents are actively against education, then you're right, more often than not, those kids will be fucked no matter how good the educational system.
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Cain

Teacher interaction also counts for a lot.

In most public schools, teachers simply don't have the time for dealing with students individually.  If someone is having a problem keeping up...well, that's a discussion for after class.  While you're in the class, you teach to the class as a group.  And when that group is 30+, people are going to be left by the wayside, without the support they need.

Much of the reason private education gets better test results than public education is that private education a) has the money it needs and b) typically has low class sizes - never above 20 students, and usually with plenty of one-to-one interaction thrown in for good measure.

Naturally, this would also apply to some homeschooling and similar, because, assuming the parent knows what they are teaching about, the student will benefit massively from that more intense and concentrated interaction.

One of the international school systems I am most interested in is the Finnish one.  Finnish education results are amazingly, from an international perspective.  Part of that reason is the high teacher to student ratio (1:12), the selectiveness of the Finnish education system (need a Masters to teach, only top 10% graduating students are accepted), more social and free time for students, less standardized testing and greater social prestige for educators.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

 :lol: I can tell which of you read my essay and which of you didn't.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cain

I didn't.

I tried to, but it was too early in the day.  I woke up by the time I got on the second page, and decided to riff off the following conversation.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Cain on March 15, 2013, 10:52:04 PM
I didn't.

I tried to, but it was too early in the day.  I woke up by the time I got on the second page, and decided to riff off the following conversation.

Well, it is long and your time is limited, so I don't blame you... but the conversation now has little to do with it.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cain

Ah, I was rather hoping that would not be the case.  I'll try and catch up with the OP tomorrow, assuming my sleep isn't disturbed tonight.

Golden Applesauce

Nigel - what is it about college education that you find more valuable than, say, high school? Is is the age/maturity of the students, or something different between the structure of high school and the structure of college?
Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Thanks, Cain!

GA, I'll try to answer that tomorrow, I'm kinda burnt out tonight. But it's a simple answer, I promise.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 16, 2013, 01:17:05 AM
Nigel - what is it about college education that you find more valuable than, say, high school? Is is the age/maturity of the students, or something different between the structure of high school and the structure of college?

Mostly it's the structure. High schools for the most part have students in the classroom for seven-eight hours a day from very early in the morning, slowly doling out up to seven different subjects (with a ton of redundancy) and then sending them home with homework which is almost always repetitive, grindingly dull makework and not particularly educational. In college you pick three to four subjects you're interested in and spend on average three hours a day in class and another 3 doing homework. They say you should allocate twice as many homework hours as you have class hours, but I've never had it work out that way. Many classes are available online, so you can do bits and pieces of them throughout the week when you have time.

The materials are interesting and engaging, and the teachers treat you like an adult... which of course most college students are. Because you choose your classes, you're there voluntarily in a class you decided to take, so engagement is naturally higher. Fewer subjects means you're able to focus on the areas that interest you and learn them comprehensively.

Classes, unless they're highly specialized (for example, my social psych class next term is only available at 3 pm) are generally available at a wide range of hours, so early birds can take morning classes and night owls can take afternoon or evening classes, whichever suits their nature better.

College is not for most kids under 16, because it's very self-motivated and there's nobody holding your hand to make sure you attend classes or turn in work. But I'm watching my kids in middle and high school, and they have three times the classroom hours I have, the same amount of homework, and it takes them YEARS to plod through the same material I cover in weeks, and they come out of it with a poorer grasp, and definitely without liking it much. These are fucking smart kids; all of them test in the 99th percentile for IQ. The logical and natural conclusion I must come to is that the way they teach in school is ineffective to the point of being counterproductive.

If I was boss of the world, I would have k-6 schools for kids 6-12 for basic skills, supervised open/community based study for kids 13-16, two years of optional self-directed learning, and then college.

Kids here do have the option, at 16, of taking core classes at community college for simultaneous high school and college credit. A lot of kids are intimidated by the idea because they're afraid it's going to be really hard. However, the high school kids I see in my classes do just fine.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


AFK

IMO high school and college serve two different purposes.  Really, K-12 is pretty much just about teaching kids how to learn, 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. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.