|
On January 10 2014 09:36 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 07:19 Darkwhite wrote:
With all of the homeschooled people - about five of them? - in here so far thinking it worked out fine for them, it's not really possible to maintain that school is necessary or that homeschooling in and of itself is anywhere near child abuse.
Comparing not sending your children to school to withholding professional medical treatment, is somewhere in between arrogant and delusional. To clarify, I'm merely making the comparison of a stubborn parent thinking he knows more than trained professionals in some field, possibly because he saw something that he's tangentially relating to the field, despite not having proper training, research, or professional experience. Homeschooling isn't about the average parent being more competent than school teachers in all of the disciplines, it is about having children learn without all the sacrifices which comes with cramming children with widely different talents and interests into the same classroom. Regarding your next post: is that all based on the conversation you posted?
Can you clarify what you're asking please?
|
On January 10 2014 09:36 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 07:19 Darkwhite wrote:
With all of the homeschooled people - about five of them? - in here so far thinking it worked out fine for them, it's not really possible to maintain that school is necessary or that homeschooling in and of itself is anywhere near child abuse.
Comparing not sending your children to school to withholding professional medical treatment, is somewhere in between arrogant and delusional. To clarify, I'm merely making the comparison of a stubborn parent thinking he knows more than trained professionals in some field, possibly because he saw something that he's tangentially relating to the field, despite not having proper training, research, or professional experience. Homeschooling isn't about the average parent being more competent than school teachers in all of the disciplines, it is about having children learn without all the sacrifices which comes with cramming children with widely different talents and interests into the same classroom.
Hmm. I think that's one of the most valuable experiences about school, though -- being crammed together with other students of widely different talents, interests, and backgrounds in one tiny classroom (or an ugly white trailer, if your school was overpopulated).
|
On January 10 2014 09:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 09:36 Darkwhite wrote:On January 10 2014 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 07:19 Darkwhite wrote:
With all of the homeschooled people - about five of them? - in here so far thinking it worked out fine for them, it's not really possible to maintain that school is necessary or that homeschooling in and of itself is anywhere near child abuse.
Comparing not sending your children to school to withholding professional medical treatment, is somewhere in between arrogant and delusional. To clarify, I'm merely making the comparison of a stubborn parent thinking he knows more than trained professionals in some field, possibly because he saw something that he's tangentially relating to the field, despite not having proper training, research, or professional experience. Homeschooling isn't about the average parent being more competent than school teachers in all of the disciplines, it is about having children learn without all the sacrifices which comes with cramming children with widely different talents and interests into the same classroom. Regarding your next post: is that all based on the conversation you posted? Can you clarify what you're asking please?
With regards to http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=20565051 ,
I am asking whether you are basing this all on the conversation you actually posted - because it doesn't look like anything he said at all. Particularly the part where he supposedly literally said he wasn't homeschooling his kids, I can't find that one.
|
On January 10 2014 00:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sure you may not need a formal education to survive, but I would hope parents are raising their kids with the intentions of providing even more opportunities and an even better lifestyle than they had, when growing up. And I think this means not restricting a child's educational opportunities simply because there are some cons to schooling. I agree with you that work ethic and social skills are also incredibly important, and I think both of those can definitely be reinforced in school alongside good parenting.
That's such an arbitrary goal, though. Better lifestyle? More opportunities? These phrases don't have any relatable context as the massive variable that is your child and the massive variable that is the future both dramatically impact what you hope to achieve. You could not define what a better lifestyle or more opportunities means in any tangible sense, so it seems useless to pursue them.
What's important is being able to provide for yourself (Which is dead easy, in my opinion, in a lot of north america.) and to "be happy" whatever that means to you as a person. Sending your kids to school and doing this informal education thing are both methods that -could- provide those basic needs, and while I wouldn't contest that a formal education has been a tried and tested method of reaching those goals, I wouldn't throw out informal education because there's no reason it couldn't also meet them.
|
On January 10 2014 09:01 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 11:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 09 2014 11:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 07:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:
School was very detrimental to my career and a complete waste of time.
Everything that mattered to my career could not be learned at school, and I knew that and not even my parents respected that at the time.
I knew exactly what I wanted to to be from the age of 9 and what I needed to learn to get there. In the end I spent all my hours outside of school learning what I actually needed to learn to become successful. To the point of skipping classes to do so.
In the end, the only metric that mattered for my career was what I learned outside of school, and not in school.
If school is about learning social interaction then why isn't organisational behaviour being taught? let alone the tiny lunch breaks we get and the fact we aren't allowed to talk in class.
A high school teacher is not going to be able to show me the path to success, if they could, they wouldn't be high school teachers they would be entrepreneurs. Yet most teach as if what they know is valuable and worthwhile.
Thank god I was one of those "lazy" troublemakers who didn't turn up to class because if it wasn't for that I would be earning half of what I am now. 1. Out of curiosity, what's your profession? 2. Organizational behavior is often taught in schools, regardless of the class. Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. 3. If you honestly think that people become teachers because it was a second-choice profession because they failed at becoming entrepreneurs, then you have a lot to learn, and it's dismissive, toxic, and ignorant opinions like yours that's the reason why educators lack appreciation in some cultures (yet are revered in the ones where their hard work and passion is recognized). 1. Software Developer. I started learning programming at 9 years old and never looked back. Although my father gave me a programming CD at that point because I told him I wanted to learn it (my father has no expertise in programming or IT in general). I was still only allowed to use the computer on weekends, so I'd learn how to program without a computer on my off days. I would spend almost all my spare time on learning how to program, although I had a balanced lifestyle, I did a lot of sports when I wasn't programming. At 13 he would tell me to stop playing games, I never told him I made them. At the same time, I had 0 interest in any of my classes, and would receive a lot of detentions for turning up late to school and whatnot. I also did the minimal amount of homework, got shouted at by teachers for drawing in my book instead of doing class work. At 15 I told him I wanted to become a games developer, he got really angry and told me its too difficult, ill never achieve it (or something along those lines). I was doing badly at school and apparently this was the cause. He moved me to a different school. I ended up skipping classes even more. At 19 I pushed and pushed until finally he accepted it and now is very happy that I did it. Unfortunately Australia is a pretty bad place for doing games development, but I'm doing pretty well as a Ruby developer, its still my dream and slowly working towards getting there without having to work in a shitty environment like Activision's. 2. Can you give me an example of this? "Many teachers work to provide a collaborative learning environment for students to problem solve and work together. " isn't really teaching organisation behaviour. If you've done organisational behaviour at university that is what I'm talking about. It has to be structured, group work doesn't really help in actually developing communication skills unless the participants are very mature. 3. I think you missed the point although it was dismissive, sorry. If I am taught by a maths teacher, I come to expect to be taught maths, not to be taught that I will fail in life if I don't learn it. I should be allowed to by choice, not partake in a class I have no interest in, if I can prove that I'm doing something worthwhile. This choice wasn't given to me, instead of trying to find alternate strategies, instead I was treated as if there was something wrong with me. I don't need school teachers who don't have industry experience to teach me how my career is going to end up. My friend had a similar experience who was a bit of a dropout, was told he would never amount to anything. Ended up becoming a fisherman and doing well for himself. This happens far too often when a teacher judges a student by his grades, and this only happens because the teacher has no real world experience and doesn't know any better himself. 1. I think that's fantastic that things worked out for you and your programming career. It sounds like you achieved your dream and can comfortably say "I told you so" to anyone who doubted you. That being said, I think that for every successful one-track-mind-that-hates-school-but-still-makes-it-big-in-life, there are hundreds of one-track-minds-that-hate-school-and-go-nowhere-in-life. And obviously at age 9 you didn't really know what your future job would entail, but you were starting to develop the passion and that's what's important. As far as school not helping you is concerned, I'm surprised that your school didn't offer any computer science, programming, or technology courses, as there have been even Advanced Placement courses aimed towards programming and computer science. And, obviously, majoring in these focuses in college could have helped you as well. You obviously got started on this at an age earlier than most, which is why I suppose taking relevant classes in school appeal to others even if you think you wouldn't have learned anything from taking them. 2. Understanding the psychological and sociological aspects of students in a classroom is a pretty big part of being a successful teacher. All educators end up taking a class or two on educational psychology, and we end up reading plenty of research on sociocultural and constructivist approaches to teaching. Utilizing these perspectives tends to help not only with classroom management, but also making sure that the students become as successful as possible (by learning from both the teacher and from peers because the classroom is set up in a structured way that's receptive to optimizing educational experiences). Obviously, as you pointed out, student maturity is desired, but that's going to be regardless of how the class is set up. 3. I agree with you that teachers should not be saying you'll fail in life if you don't ace their course, or that something's wrong with you. It's a silly thing for them to say, and I'm sure most teachers don't say this. It's unfortunate that your father and apparently some of your teachers rejected your passion for programming, although to be fair, a responsible teacher isn't going to tell you "Don't worry about trying in my class; I see your irrelevant passion is important to you so don't feel the need to complete any of my assignments" either. Keep in mind you were a kid who turned out to be an exception to the rule, and it's not a bad idea to still be well-rounded academically anyway. And if you don't want to be, that's fine too... but your teachers still have a job to do, and that involves trying to make their students competent in their subject matter. Thanks for the mature response, as you may have noticed this is a topic that invokes a strong emotional response from me, its hard for me to be rational about it. I'm gonna spoiler this because its not so relevant to the actual debate + Show Spoiler +I understand that I may have been an exception to the group, but I wanted to make my voice heard. I'm sure there are thousands of students like me that had the exact same issue. Its a case for Blue, it may not be the majority, but school shouldn't suck for anybody, and it certainly sucks for people like me right now. You've talked about depriving education to students as abuse. Issues like this will actually cause easily-preventable depression in students, and I think that is also abuse. I think solving this issue would solve a lot of the problems related to disenfranchised students which happens quite a lot. I also feel like this would have a snowball affect, class is all about synergy, and having troubled students in that class destroys the synergy. As far as school not helping you is concerned, I'm surprised that your school didn't offer any computer science, programming, or technology courses, as there have been even Advanced Placement courses aimed towards programming and computer science. And, obviously, majoring in these focuses in college could have helped you as well. Even as a private school the only subject available was Information Technology, which was the equivalent of learning basic arithmetic for me. The biggest problem is that highschool forces everyone to learn at the same pace for the most part. Even if I did year 12 Programming at Year 7, it still would have been like re-learning my ABCs. That would also have been the highest level possible at school, and the pains to even convince a teacher to do something that wouldn't even be a challenge was not really worth the effort. If I asked if I could skip a class and learn programming on my own (no teacher there would have been good enough to actually teach me anyway), pretty sure the answer would have been "fuck no". I found that teachers really only want to help you if you are excelling in their class. If you wanted to excel in a discipline that wasn't part of the schools curriculum, forget about it. I was winning computer science competitions and teaching my IT class how to do IT, yet no staff cared to further this discipline. There was only one teacher that helped me with programming but he was unable to actually help me in any regard to school, he was really a biology teacher so that's understandable. Given that I was more advanced than he, he just gave me a Dark Basic CD to give me more avenues to learn programming, but knowing that my abilities were being appreciated by even one person was a big self-esteem boost for me. I think that is one thing to keep in mind, many people want nothing more than to be appreciated and feel like they belong somewhere.
It certainly invokes an emotional and passionate response from me too 
Can you please explain what you mean by the issue of "Issues like this will actually cause easily-preventable depression in students, and I think that is also abuse." What exactly will cause depression?
When you say "The biggest problem is that highschool forces everyone to learn at the same pace for the most part.", I feel like tracking does a decent job of alleviating that problem for 99% of the students (unless you're a prodigy or incredibly mentally deficient). Granted, there are other problems with tracking, but even though I aced all my classes pretty easily (and I was in all advance placement classes, etc.), I still had other extracurricular opportunities to excel in interesting topics related to those subjects I found easy, and college provides plenty more options for those who are gifted.
I think it sucks that your school didn't have actual technology/ programming course options, and it could have been helpful for you if you had that class with a good enough teacher. Fortunately, those are becoming more regular (one of my close friends teaches computer science and AP computer science at his school, and I had the option to take those classes back when I was in high school).
I was sent to school by my parents under the pretence that I needed to be "saved". Teachers believed that I needed to be set straight by counselling me.
I agree that that's an awful impetus for going to school, and I can only hope that most parents and teachers attempt to stress the importance of an academic education in a more positive light.
I think its a false assumption that if a student doesn't learn a subject that he or she is disadvantaged. A student shouldn't need to attend a subject if he/she has no willingness to learn, I would like to challenge the fact that he/she is actually learning the subject anyway.
If the student ends up having later courses or a career in a field related to the subject that he dismisses, he will certainly be at a disadvantage. And it's usually the case that most ten year olds don't truly know what they want to be when they grow up, nor do they know what that process truly entails. And they can't know they don't like a particular subject if they don't try to learn about it first, and one of the things schools provide is the ability to dip your feet in a bunch of different subjects that could become interesting to you.
As for an alternative, I think its ok to have a structured but flexible curriculum that allows students to participate in subjects they enjoy. Sure maybe their decisions won't be the best, let them make mistakes, and when they realise their mistake, they will realise why they need to learn certain subjects.
I agree with most of this, but I don't think it's necessarily good enough to excuse young students from a subject simply because they don't like it, because sometimes the skills learned in the necessarily evils of English and math are actually important for real life (which they won't have the foresight to know now because they're only in elementary school). And that's where proper parenting and teaching comes in to play. Kids should certainly be allowed to make mistakes, but I think a line occasionally has to be drawn by the parents if those mistakes will actually have lasting effects that can seriously screw up a kid's life.
|
On January 10 2014 09:50 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 09:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 09:36 Darkwhite wrote:On January 10 2014 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 07:19 Darkwhite wrote:
With all of the homeschooled people - about five of them? - in here so far thinking it worked out fine for them, it's not really possible to maintain that school is necessary or that homeschooling in and of itself is anywhere near child abuse.
Comparing not sending your children to school to withholding professional medical treatment, is somewhere in between arrogant and delusional. To clarify, I'm merely making the comparison of a stubborn parent thinking he knows more than trained professionals in some field, possibly because he saw something that he's tangentially relating to the field, despite not having proper training, research, or professional experience. Homeschooling isn't about the average parent being more competent than school teachers in all of the disciplines, it is about having children learn without all the sacrifices which comes with cramming children with widely different talents and interests into the same classroom. Regarding your next post: is that all based on the conversation you posted? Can you clarify what you're asking please? With regards to http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=20565051 , I am asking whether you are basing this all on the conversation you actually posted - because it doesn't look like anything he said at all. Particularly the part where he supposedly literally said he wasn't homeschooling his kids, I can't find that one.
Right above the Green comment, he explicitly says he's not schooling/ homeschooling his kids.
As far as my general statements about education go, they're not solely based on this conversation in the OP, but also based on my experience as an educator and as a researcher currently working on my PhD... in education
|
On January 10 2014 10:02 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 00:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sure you may not need a formal education to survive, but I would hope parents are raising their kids with the intentions of providing even more opportunities and an even better lifestyle than they had, when growing up. And I think this means not restricting a child's educational opportunities simply because there are some cons to schooling. I agree with you that work ethic and social skills are also incredibly important, and I think both of those can definitely be reinforced in school alongside good parenting. That's such an arbitrary goal, though. Better lifestyle? More opportunities? These phrases don't have any relatable context as the massive variable that is your child and the massive variable that is the future both dramatically impact what you hope to achieve. You could not define what a better lifestyle or more opportunities means in any tangible sense, so it seems useless to pursue them. What's important is being able to provide for yourself (Which is dead easy, in my opinion, in a lot of north america.) and to "be happy" whatever that means to you as a person. Sending your kids to school and doing this informal education thing are both methods that -could- provide those basic needs, and while I wouldn't contest that a formal education has been a tried and tested method of reaching those goals, I wouldn't throw out informal education because there's no reason it couldn't also meet them.
I'd argue that having a thorough and ranged education can help provide you with the means of a successful job and lifestyle ("providing for yourself", as you put it). I think that in the year 2014, education is rather revered and necessary to be successful in a lot of jobs, and that many of the skills and much of the content may not be readily available merely at home.
I'm not throwing out informal education, but I am skeptical of only informal education for an entire childhood.
|
... I thought you were a PhD math student.
So out of curiosity: Why is getting a teaching qualification so goddamn easy in the USA? A lot of the teachers who end up teaching in secondary schools don't even know their own subjects, and they sure as hell can't teach it effectively, but the qualification test is so simple that they can pass it with ease.
I mean, I have my own theories, but I'd like to hear them from someone who is vaguely qualified to address the question.
|
On January 10 2014 10:24 babylon wrote:
... I thought you were a PhD math student.
So out of curiosity: Why is getting a teaching qualification so goddamn easy in the USA? A lot of the teachers who end up teaching in secondary schools don't even know their own subjects, and they sure as hell can't teach it effectively, but the qualification test is so simple that they can pass it with ease.
I mean, I have my own theories, but I'd like to hear them from someone who is vaguely qualified to address the question.
I'm a PhD math education student Not pure mathematics; I've taken enough higher level mathematics courses to recognize that shit is crazy. My focus is in math education because I'd like to research and affect educational practice (read as: I want to find a way to make at least a small number of math educators better at teaching and getting students to learn).
It is indeed pretty easy to become a certified teacher (your academic major is almost certainly easier than your education focus in college), and that saddens me. We really should make it a tougher, more prestigious, better respected job.
|
One of my rms is a high school math teacher (bachelors in math). He said that the previous math teacher couldn't do basic calculus, and she was apparently teaching AP Calc.
My brother also got offered a job to teach HS chemistry, and while he's excellent in the lab, that's just a joke considering he's only barely scraped by with B-/B's in chemistry classes. (For god sakes, he failed AP Chem in HS -- not just the exam, but the class as well! -- and just isn't good at academics, and they think he can adequately teach? I mean, yeah, again, good in the lab, but that's not the same as teaching ... though I admit that since he actually does have a bachelors in chemistry, he's probably more qualified than a lot of chem teachers in the US already.)
It's just such a joke. I mean, compare this with parts of East Asia, where secondary schools are taught by teachers who were at the top of their classes. Part of this is definitely an image thing, since people at the top of their classes in the US would often rather go into academia as opposed to HS teaching, and I think part of that is certainly due to how little prestige is attached to HS teaching.
|
On January 10 2014 10:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 10:02 Staboteur wrote:On January 10 2014 00:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sure you may not need a formal education to survive, but I would hope parents are raising their kids with the intentions of providing even more opportunities and an even better lifestyle than they had, when growing up. And I think this means not restricting a child's educational opportunities simply because there are some cons to schooling. I agree with you that work ethic and social skills are also incredibly important, and I think both of those can definitely be reinforced in school alongside good parenting. That's such an arbitrary goal, though. Better lifestyle? More opportunities? These phrases don't have any relatable context as the massive variable that is your child and the massive variable that is the future both dramatically impact what you hope to achieve. You could not define what a better lifestyle or more opportunities means in any tangible sense, so it seems useless to pursue them. What's important is being able to provide for yourself (Which is dead easy, in my opinion, in a lot of north america.) and to "be happy" whatever that means to you as a person. Sending your kids to school and doing this informal education thing are both methods that -could- provide those basic needs, and while I wouldn't contest that a formal education has been a tried and tested method of reaching those goals, I wouldn't throw out informal education because there's no reason it couldn't also meet them. I'd argue that having a thorough and ranged education can help provide you with the means of a successful job and lifestyle ("providing for yourself", as you put it). I think that in the year 2014, education is rather revered and necessary to be successful in a lot of jobs, and that many of the skills and much of the content may not be readily available merely at home. I'm not throwing out informal education, but I am skeptical of only informal education for an entire childhood.
I'm not arguing that a formal education doesn't provide you with the means to provide for yourself later in life. I'm arguing that it's possible to develop those skills through an informal education. I'm not even saying an informal education is -better-. Maybe it's easier this way : Most people, I think, will claim that they've learned more AFTER school or through the side-activities of school (Sports teams, social events, recess etc) than they did in classes. If there's any truth to that argument, then why not let that "out of school" time take a bigger slice of the time-pie? This applies doubly so if a natural interest in learning directs the kids to essential subjects such as the basics of maths and language.
Also, neither of my brothers even finished high school. One owns a company and makes six figures while the company deals in millions, and the other easily provides for his family, owns a house and is well above the basics for "surviving". In both of their cases I can say that it came from a core of good work ethic and while there is NO ARGUMENT for that not being built on the foundation provided by a formal education, I do feel safe arguing that a formal education is not the only way to build that foundation.
I also echo your concerns that an informal education would leave a shitty foundation, but I don't know that anyone can say that is/isn't true without trying it.
|
How about you all look this kid in the eye and tell him that he was wrong to go his own way for his education:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/07/this-is-what-happens-when-a-kid-leaves-traditional-education/
I believe that education is very important for a child's future. It is true that schools provide a reasonable platform for a child to get this education. Personal responsibility is very important because it allows people that are most affected (i.e. the parents/children) to make the decisions rather than some impassioned entity (i.e. The State). We have seen time and time again that The State makes poor decisions for individuals.
Yes, there will be successes and failures in homeschool/self education. But that is the same in any school system as well.
Yes, The State is very important for a society, but the involvement of The State should be very limited and only in exceptional circumstances. This is the proven way for the society to advance.
|
On January 10 2014 12:33 Azzur wrote:How about you all look this kid in the eye and tell him that he was wrong to go his own way for his education: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/07/this-is-what-happens-when-a-kid-leaves-traditional-education/I believe that education is very important for a child's future. It is true that schools provide a reasonable platform for a child to get this education. Personal responsibility is very important because it allows people that are most affected (i.e. the parents/children) to make the decisions rather than some impassioned entity (i.e. The State). We have seen time and time again that The State makes poor decisions for individuals. Yes, there will be successes and failures in homeschool/self education. But that is the same in any school system as well.
That fucking article's title is "This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education" for god's sake. Is no one else questioning this? This kid is clearly gifted and brilliant for his age, can all kids be smart just by leaving traditional education? That's a sample size of one!
The problem is that both the notions that "schools know best" and "parents know best" are deeply flawed. In many cases, it could be a mistake to leave a kid in a conventional school - and it could also be a mistake to homeschool another kid. Given my lack of experience in psychology, I wouldn't know how to figure out which type of education is better for which type of kid. What I know is that on average, a traditional education is beneficial for practical reasons. Many teachers along the way will be bad, the curriculum is not always coherent - but at least kids get to explore a reasonably vast array of stuff for their general culture.
And general culture is important. If what you want to do in life is make wooden furniture and that's what you absolutely love, it's still good to learn other stuff. And perhaps having a lot of teachers with different perspectives will eventually show you that perhaps there's something that you like even more than wooden furniture. Or maybe you'll just be able to enjoy the extra knowledge that'll hopefully also make you a person who's at least a little bit more capable of critical thinking and whatnot.
Now if some parents are for one ABLE to homeschool their kid (for fuck's sake don't any of you tell me that all parents are capable of doing a good job of this) then fine. But that's not a decision that should be taken lightly. And I would advance that parents who are "revolted" by the system and decide to yank their kid out of it are perhaps doing their kid a great disservice.
Part of the problem is that "article's" title which is a fucking disgusting piece of garbage by the way. By demonizing the education system, the same fuckers who are gullible enough to believe that vaccines are bad, they also believe that traditional education is bad but they don't know why. And more importantly, they don't know how to do any better with their resources. So they ditch it and they substitute it with bullshit.
As I've said in a previous post, the education system is very flawed, but it's all most lower and lower middle class can reasonably afford. And it's reasonably effective for most kids. Opting out of it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, ever.
Yes, The State is very important for a society, but the involvement of The State should be very limited and only in exceptional circumstances. This is the proven way for the society to advance.
Don't resort to bullshit catchy lines please... I understand what you're trying to say and you're right to an extent but calling it "THE PROVEN WAY FOR THE SOCIETY TO ADVANCE" is demagogy. Plenty of government interventions have been great, many are better than nothings (and many are fucking awful but that's no reason to dismiss everything with the back of your hand).
The political right is correct because it's proven to be correct. -Azzur
Granted, I don't know what you mean by "exceptional circumstances" but yeah.
|
I think a lot of people also seem to heavily underrate the benefits of a relatively broad education. I'm currently studying computer science, and while almost none of it focused on code specifically, I would say that my education at a traditional (albeit private) high school has greatly helped me both in my studies and just in enjoying life in general. I know a decent amount of people that began learning about their chosen field before leaving high school. While some of them may have liked to have a bit more focus on that field before university, I don't think almost any of them would say that high school held them back when they could have achieved more. As usual in this thread, this is all anecdotal, but the experience of being frustrated with the system may not be as common as you think, even for those students who excel in some area outside of the traditional high school subjects.
|
On January 10 2014 14:57 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 10 2014 12:33 Azzur wrote:How about you all look this kid in the eye and tell him that he was wrong to go his own way for his education: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/07/this-is-what-happens-when-a-kid-leaves-traditional-education/I believe that education is very important for a child's future. It is true that schools provide a reasonable platform for a child to get this education. Personal responsibility is very important because it allows people that are most affected (i.e. the parents/children) to make the decisions rather than some impassioned entity (i.e. The State). We have seen time and time again that The State makes poor decisions for individuals. Yes, there will be successes and failures in homeschool/self education. But that is the same in any school system as well. That fucking article's title is "This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education" for god's sake. Is no one else questioning this? This kid is clearly gifted and brilliant for his age, can all kids be smart just by leaving traditional education? That's a sample size of one! The problem is that both the notions that "schools know best" and "parents know best" are deeply flawed. In many cases, it could be a mistake to leave a kid in a conventional school - and it could also be a mistake to homeschool another kid. Given my lack of experience in psychology, I wouldn't know how to figure out which type of education is better for which type of kid. What I know is that on average, a traditional education is beneficial for practical reasons. Many teachers along the way will be bad, the curriculum is not always coherent - but at least kids get to explore a reasonably vast array of stuff for their general culture. And general culture is important. If what you want to do in life is make wooden furniture and that's what you absolutely love, it's still good to learn other stuff. And perhaps having a lot of teachers with different perspectives will eventually show you that perhaps there's something that you like even more than wooden furniture. Or maybe you'll just be able to enjoy the extra knowledge that'll hopefully also make you a person who's at least a little bit more capable of critical thinking and whatnot. Now if some parents are for one ABLE to homeschool their kid (for fuck's sake don't any of you tell me that all parents are capable of doing a good job of this) then fine. But that's not a decision that should be taken lightly. And I would advance that parents who are "revolted" by the system and decide to yank their kid out of it are perhaps doing their kid a great disservice. Part of the problem is that "article's" title which is a fucking disgusting piece of garbage by the way. By demonizing the education system, the same fuckers who are gullible enough to believe that vaccines are bad, they also believe that traditional education is bad but they don't know why. And more importantly, they don't know how to do any better with their resources. So they ditch it and they substitute it with bullshit. As I've said in a previous post, the education system is very flawed, but it's all most lower and lower middle class can reasonably afford. And it's reasonably effective for most kids. Opting out of it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, ever. Yes, The State is very important for a society, but the involvement of The State should be very limited and only in exceptional circumstances. This is the proven way for the society to advance. Don't resort to bullshit catchy lines please... I understand what you're trying to say and you're right to an extent but calling it "THE PROVEN WAY FOR THE SOCIETY TO ADVANCE" is demagogy. Plenty of government interventions have been great, many are better than nothings (and many are fucking awful but that's no reason to dismiss everything with the back of your hand). The political right is correct because it's proven to be correct. -Azzur Granted, I don't know what you mean by "exceptional circumstances" but yeah.
I can't comprehend your point because it contains alot of words but they don't mean anything. My point is very simple: if parents wish for their kids to opt out of traditional education, then they should be allowed to do so. The premise is that they will be accountable their kids future and hence should be given the responsibility for it.
Your yourself said that some kids will benefit from a non-traditional education. You clearly understand that non-traditional education can work for some people. So, why should they be denied the chance?
No one here says that schools should be eliminated. You have missed the point of what some are saying - people should be given the free choice and reap the benefits/consequences. Whether you personally think one way (or the other) is better is totally immaterial to the discussion.
|
On January 10 2014 17:25 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 14:57 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 10 2014 12:33 Azzur wrote:How about you all look this kid in the eye and tell him that he was wrong to go his own way for his education: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/07/this-is-what-happens-when-a-kid-leaves-traditional-education/I believe that education is very important for a child's future. It is true that schools provide a reasonable platform for a child to get this education. Personal responsibility is very important because it allows people that are most affected (i.e. the parents/children) to make the decisions rather than some impassioned entity (i.e. The State). We have seen time and time again that The State makes poor decisions for individuals. Yes, there will be successes and failures in homeschool/self education. But that is the same in any school system as well. That fucking article's title is "This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education" for god's sake. Is no one else questioning this? This kid is clearly gifted and brilliant for his age, can all kids be smart just by leaving traditional education? That's a sample size of one! The problem is that both the notions that "schools know best" and "parents know best" are deeply flawed. In many cases, it could be a mistake to leave a kid in a conventional school - and it could also be a mistake to homeschool another kid. Given my lack of experience in psychology, I wouldn't know how to figure out which type of education is better for which type of kid. What I know is that on average, a traditional education is beneficial for practical reasons. Many teachers along the way will be bad, the curriculum is not always coherent - but at least kids get to explore a reasonably vast array of stuff for their general culture. And general culture is important. If what you want to do in life is make wooden furniture and that's what you absolutely love, it's still good to learn other stuff. And perhaps having a lot of teachers with different perspectives will eventually show you that perhaps there's something that you like even more than wooden furniture. Or maybe you'll just be able to enjoy the extra knowledge that'll hopefully also make you a person who's at least a little bit more capable of critical thinking and whatnot. Now if some parents are for one ABLE to homeschool their kid (for fuck's sake don't any of you tell me that all parents are capable of doing a good job of this) then fine. But that's not a decision that should be taken lightly. And I would advance that parents who are "revolted" by the system and decide to yank their kid out of it are perhaps doing their kid a great disservice. Part of the problem is that "article's" title which is a fucking disgusting piece of garbage by the way. By demonizing the education system, the same fuckers who are gullible enough to believe that vaccines are bad, they also believe that traditional education is bad but they don't know why. And more importantly, they don't know how to do any better with their resources. So they ditch it and they substitute it with bullshit. As I've said in a previous post, the education system is very flawed, but it's all most lower and lower middle class can reasonably afford. And it's reasonably effective for most kids. Opting out of it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, ever. Yes, The State is very important for a society, but the involvement of The State should be very limited and only in exceptional circumstances. This is the proven way for the society to advance. Don't resort to bullshit catchy lines please... I understand what you're trying to say and you're right to an extent but calling it "THE PROVEN WAY FOR THE SOCIETY TO ADVANCE" is demagogy. Plenty of government interventions have been great, many are better than nothings (and many are fucking awful but that's no reason to dismiss everything with the back of your hand). The political right is correct because it's proven to be correct. -Azzur Granted, I don't know what you mean by "exceptional circumstances" but yeah. I can't comprehend your point because it contains alot of words but they don't mean anything. My point is very simple: if parents wish for their kids to opt out of traditional education, then they should be allowed to do so. The premise is that they will be accountable their kids future and hence should be given the responsibility for it. Your yourself said that some kids will benefit from a non-traditional education. You clearly understand that non-traditional education can work for some people. So, why should they be denied the chance? No one here says that schools should be eliminated. You have missed the point of what some are saying - people should be given the free choice and reap the benefits/consequences. Whether you personally think one way (or the other) is better is totally immaterial to the discussion.
That TED video is pretty cool, and it certainly demonstrates that a kid, given the right resources, can succeed outside of school. And I think that's absolutely awesome, and I'd love it if my kids ended up being that insightful and well-rounded. I think the speaker is an example of a successful homeschooled education (as are a few of the other posters in this thread). We just need to also keep in mind, however, that this kid has a lot of resources, super-motivated parents, and a ton of other affluent opportunities that many students (unfortunately) won't have. Clearly, homeschooling is working for him, but it's also because he's got a structured schedule (he said that once a day he does X, once a week he does Y, there are 8 rules to follow and pursue, etc.). So it's a great example of how homeschooling can be successful, but I don't think anyone is saying that no kid should be homeschooled (or that no kid should be put in school, for that matter).
|
On January 10 2014 10:52 babylon wrote:
One of my rms is a high school math teacher (bachelors in math). He said that the previous math teacher couldn't do basic calculus, and she was apparently teaching AP Calc.
My brother also got offered a job to teach HS chemistry, and while he's excellent in the lab, that's just a joke considering he's only barely scraped by with B-/B's in chemistry classes. (For god sakes, he failed AP Chem in HS -- not just the exam, but the class as well! -- and just isn't good at academics, and they think he can adequately teach? I mean, yeah, again, good in the lab, but that's not the same as teaching ... though I admit that since he actually does have a bachelors in chemistry, he's probably more qualified than a lot of chem teachers in the US already.)
It's just such a joke. I mean, compare this with parts of East Asia, where secondary schools are taught by teachers who were at the top of their classes. Part of this is definitely an image thing, since people at the top of their classes in the US would often rather go into academia as opposed to HS teaching, and I think part of that is certainly due to how little prestige is attached to HS teaching.
Those are definitely serious concerns, as it's terrible news when anyone takes a job that they're unqualified for. I can venture a few guesses as to why that may have happened...
1. Inadequate resources to obtain a more qualified teacher. When the pool of teachers you can select from is tiny (perhaps because you're in a not-so-attractive district, or you have very little money to offer), you pretty much take what you can get. And there is actually a dearth of math and science teachers in this country, despite there being an overabundance of history, English, elementary, and special educators.
2. They may have forgotten the easier/ earlier concepts. While you did say they failed calculus and chemistry in high school, they eventually went on to obtain college degrees in mathematics and chemistry, so clearly they were at least adequate in general in regards to those topics. A mathematics degree isn't all about calculus (although some parts are useful for about half the classes), and the higher chemistry classes don't always return back to the basics of Chem 101 (the usual college equivalent of AP Chem in high schools), so they may have succeeded in other areas of the field- enough to net them a degree- all the while forgetting some of the basics (which are the stuff they'll unfortunately need to teach).
|
On January 10 2014 17:25 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 14:57 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 10 2014 12:33 Azzur wrote:How about you all look this kid in the eye and tell him that he was wrong to go his own way for his education: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/07/this-is-what-happens-when-a-kid-leaves-traditional-education/I believe that education is very important for a child's future. It is true that schools provide a reasonable platform for a child to get this education. Personal responsibility is very important because it allows people that are most affected (i.e. the parents/children) to make the decisions rather than some impassioned entity (i.e. The State). We have seen time and time again that The State makes poor decisions for individuals. Yes, there will be successes and failures in homeschool/self education. But that is the same in any school system as well. That fucking article's title is "This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education" for god's sake. Is no one else questioning this? This kid is clearly gifted and brilliant for his age, can all kids be smart just by leaving traditional education? That's a sample size of one! The problem is that both the notions that "schools know best" and "parents know best" are deeply flawed. In many cases, it could be a mistake to leave a kid in a conventional school - and it could also be a mistake to homeschool another kid. Given my lack of experience in psychology, I wouldn't know how to figure out which type of education is better for which type of kid. What I know is that on average, a traditional education is beneficial for practical reasons. Many teachers along the way will be bad, the curriculum is not always coherent - but at least kids get to explore a reasonably vast array of stuff for their general culture. And general culture is important. If what you want to do in life is make wooden furniture and that's what you absolutely love, it's still good to learn other stuff. And perhaps having a lot of teachers with different perspectives will eventually show you that perhaps there's something that you like even more than wooden furniture. Or maybe you'll just be able to enjoy the extra knowledge that'll hopefully also make you a person who's at least a little bit more capable of critical thinking and whatnot. Now if some parents are for one ABLE to homeschool their kid (for fuck's sake don't any of you tell me that all parents are capable of doing a good job of this) then fine. But that's not a decision that should be taken lightly. And I would advance that parents who are "revolted" by the system and decide to yank their kid out of it are perhaps doing their kid a great disservice. Part of the problem is that "article's" title which is a fucking disgusting piece of garbage by the way. By demonizing the education system, the same fuckers who are gullible enough to believe that vaccines are bad, they also believe that traditional education is bad but they don't know why. And more importantly, they don't know how to do any better with their resources. So they ditch it and they substitute it with bullshit. As I've said in a previous post, the education system is very flawed, but it's all most lower and lower middle class can reasonably afford. And it's reasonably effective for most kids. Opting out of it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, ever. Yes, The State is very important for a society, but the involvement of The State should be very limited and only in exceptional circumstances. This is the proven way for the society to advance. Don't resort to bullshit catchy lines please... I understand what you're trying to say and you're right to an extent but calling it "THE PROVEN WAY FOR THE SOCIETY TO ADVANCE" is demagogy. Plenty of government interventions have been great, many are better than nothings (and many are fucking awful but that's no reason to dismiss everything with the back of your hand). The political right is correct because it's proven to be correct. -Azzur Granted, I don't know what you mean by "exceptional circumstances" but yeah. I can't comprehend your point because it contains alot of words but they don't mean anything. My point is very simple: if parents wish for their kids to opt out of traditional education, then they should be allowed to do so. The premise is that they will be accountable their kids future and hence should be given the responsibility for it. Your yourself said that some kids will benefit from a non-traditional education. You clearly understand that non-traditional education can work for some people. So, why should they be denied the chance? No one here says that schools should be eliminated. You have missed the point of what some are saying - people should be given the free choice and reap the benefits/consequences. Whether you personally think one way (or the other) is better is totally immaterial to the discussion.
I don't get what you don't understand. English is my second language, I recognize that sometimes it's not perfect but you should be able to understand what I'm saying. I suspect you may be lazy, disingenuous or dumb if you think my "words don't mean anything". Make an effort.
I understand your point that "if parents wish for their kids to opt out of traditional education, then they should be allowed to do so.". That's also not a point or an argument, it's a statement of belief or opinion, and it's worthless on its own. As for the argument that parents will be responsible of their kid's future, that's great in theory, but in practice could it possibly lead to parents misjudging their ability to properly educate their kids and prepare them to the real world? What would happen in 10 years when little Timmy is 3 years behind the other kids because he didn't take advantage of the heavily subsidized school system and his parent's don't have the competences that they need to educate a kid?
As for my point, you've missed it. I never argued against the fictitious position that schools should be abolished. I argued against your position that people should be able to opt out, possibly without any evidence that they are indeed capable of giving their child an education that's equivalent or better to what they would get in the traditional education system.
My argument is that parents who wish to give their kids an alternative education to their child should be able to prove that they have the means to do so. And I take this position for multiple reasons. For one, if a parent really does believe that their child is better off outside of school and they care and know enough to educate their child by themselves, then they won't mind the extra administrative hoops that would be put into place to ensure that the kid won't lag behind in terms of education and general knowledge. Second, some parents are just anti-government-stuff and choose to opt-out of school for an array of bullshit. The parent's ideology should not be a detriment to the child's career prospect in life.
I'm in favor of alternatives to traditional education, but it's not true that every parent is capable of properly educating a child. Dumbshit parents educating kids leads to dumbshit kids. I simply put the kid's long term interests first, rather than the parent's right to fuck up their kids life due to a faulty ideology. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that many homeschooled kids then go on to have issues with social situations because they haven't gotten used to them. (I would like to nuance this because otherwise I'll get flak since people can't read: I do indeed say "many kids" have those issues, as opposed to ALL of them).
Lastly in case you forgot, I want to reiterate that I'm not against homeschooling or any other alternative. The parents just need to be able to deliver. You don't just yank a kid out of school on a whim an teach him how to read and write. That's not good enough, and it's dangerous. So yeah that's all. To summarize: it's not a decision that should be taken lightly. That's all.
|
On January 10 2014 11:42 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 10:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2014 10:02 Staboteur wrote:On January 10 2014 00:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sure you may not need a formal education to survive, but I would hope parents are raising their kids with the intentions of providing even more opportunities and an even better lifestyle than they had, when growing up. And I think this means not restricting a child's educational opportunities simply because there are some cons to schooling. I agree with you that work ethic and social skills are also incredibly important, and I think both of those can definitely be reinforced in school alongside good parenting. That's such an arbitrary goal, though. Better lifestyle? More opportunities? These phrases don't have any relatable context as the massive variable that is your child and the massive variable that is the future both dramatically impact what you hope to achieve. You could not define what a better lifestyle or more opportunities means in any tangible sense, so it seems useless to pursue them. What's important is being able to provide for yourself (Which is dead easy, in my opinion, in a lot of north america.) and to "be happy" whatever that means to you as a person. Sending your kids to school and doing this informal education thing are both methods that -could- provide those basic needs, and while I wouldn't contest that a formal education has been a tried and tested method of reaching those goals, I wouldn't throw out informal education because there's no reason it couldn't also meet them. I'd argue that having a thorough and ranged education can help provide you with the means of a successful job and lifestyle ("providing for yourself", as you put it). I think that in the year 2014, education is rather revered and necessary to be successful in a lot of jobs, and that many of the skills and much of the content may not be readily available merely at home. I'm not throwing out informal education, but I am skeptical of only informal education for an entire childhood. I'm not arguing that a formal education doesn't provide you with the means to provide for yourself later in life. I'm arguing that it's possible to develop those skills through an informal education. I'm not even saying an informal education is -better-. Maybe it's easier this way : Most people, I think, will claim that they've learned more AFTER school or through the side-activities of school (Sports teams, social events, recess etc) than they did in classes. If there's any truth to that argument, then why not let that "out of school" time take a bigger slice of the time-pie? This applies doubly so if a natural interest in learning directs the kids to essential subjects such as the basics of maths and language. Also, neither of my brothers even finished high school. One owns a company and makes six figures while the company deals in millions, and the other easily provides for his family, owns a house and is well above the basics for "surviving". In both of their cases I can say that it came from a core of good work ethic and while there is NO ARGUMENT for that not being built on the foundation provided by a formal education, I do feel safe arguing that a formal education is not the only way to build that foundation. I also echo your concerns that an informal education would leave a shitty foundation, but I don't know that anyone can say that is/isn't true without trying it.
Yeah it's a weird situation, because it's such a personalized decision that even statistics on the matter might not reflect one's potential for successful homeschooling experiences, especially if the family has enough resources and creativity. The other factor, however, is the risk involved: if a parent ends up being too busy, or the kid sees being taken out of school as an opportunity to just dick around all day, it can kill a kid's educational opportunities. Even if after a year or two of unsuccessful homeschooling, he might be too far behind in school to ever really catch up. So it's obviously a huge risk, and while kids could definitely become as successful (intellectually, socially, etc.) as their school counterparts, I personally don't find it worth the risk (especially since it's not like every homeschooled kid becomes twice as happy, healthy, educated, and successful- by whatever metric you want to use- as kids in school).
In regards to your comment about the ratio of in-school to out-of-school time: Let's assume that school is about 7 hours per school day (8 AM - 3 PM). With 180 days of public schooling per year, that means kids are in school for 1,260 hours per year, out of a total amount of 8,760 hours per year... which means about 1/7 of the year is spent in school. Now obviously, kids will need to eat and sleep and such, but they'll still have tons of time for sports and games and arts and friends and family time and charity and extracurricular opportunities, compared to the amount of time they're in school (hopefully learning something). I think a far more useful solution, rather than cutting the amount of time spent in school, is for parents to make sure that their kids aren't wasting the extra 6/7 of their childhood (the time spent out of school) on crap that won't help them in the future. Obviously, kids should be able to play and have fun and relax (and be kids) too, but if 100% of their free time is spent on bullshit, the schools definitely shouldn't be blamed. Parents need to play their part in their kids' education too.
Also, while kids certainly learn a lot outside of school, I think there's plenty of structure and content that students will eventually find useful inside school as well, so I don't really see the need to cut down on the amount of schooling per year (teachers are having trouble fitting in all the aspects of our curricula as it is, although problems with curricula are a whole other set of issues lol).
|
On January 10 2014 15:17 packrat386 wrote:
I think a lot of people also seem to heavily underrate the benefits of a relatively broad education. I'm currently studying computer science, and while almost none of it focused on code specifically, I would say that my education at a traditional (albeit private) high school has greatly helped me both in my studies and just in enjoying life in general. I know a decent amount of people that began learning about their chosen field before leaving high school. While some of them may have liked to have a bit more focus on that field before university, I don't think almost any of them would say that high school held them back when they could have achieved more. As usual in this thread, this is all anecdotal, but the experience of being frustrated with the system may not be as common as you think, even for those students who excel in some area outside of the traditional high school subjects.
I think a few people in the thread (e.g., sluggaslamoo) did make a case for school holding them back, only because their teachers were so closed-minded and their parents didn't really allow an opportunity for them to do the things they loved. And that's a pity, and hopefully a rare situation at best.
I do agree with you that schools often supply you with a broad enough education that you're likely to find some subjects interesting and promising for future study and possibly career paths. It certainly worked for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
