10 ms·

It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. It used to be that education was

It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. Parents or a teacher would help children learn what they wanted to learn, when they were ready to learn it. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule. John Taylor Gatto wrote extensively of the corrupt nature of institutionalized schooling 15-20 years ago. I guess it's not polite to point out that the system is rigged against children, so Mr. Gatto's insights into more effective teaching have been successfully ignored in recent years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis "Against School: How Public Education Cripples our Kids, and Why" - http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm Archive.org should have the complete text of "The Underground History of American Education", which was formerly posted in its entirety at http://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com http://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com Also search for "I quit, I think", and ... "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher"... several copies of these essays are scattered around the internet.

jostylr 9y ago
For those interested in learning how a return to a one-room school house kind of mentality goes, the Sudbury Model Schools are such an example. The original such school's website has a number of resources: http://www.sudval.org/ http://www.sudval.org/
swift 9y ago
John Taylor Gatto is really worth reading. I also highly recommend "How Children Fail" by John Holt. It's one of those books that I keep thinking about, even years after I first read it.
protomyth 9y ago
Not sure about older children, but I was with a program that ran early childhood for the 6 weeks to 3+ year children (pre-Head Start). Other than the infants, all the children were in the same area. The older kids basically taught the younger children potty training and other skills. The teachers were still able to do individual learning (often helped by the younger children having watched the older children) and the children were happy. I think daycare / ECE that segregates children by years are doing a huge disservice to the children.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
Ivan Illich said a lot of this sort of thing in 1971: "Universal education through schooling is not possible. ...", Deschooling Society.
njarboe 9y ago
Elon Musk started a mixed-aged school, without grades (in both senses of the word), for his and some SpaceX employees kids. A pretty well-written, detailed article can be found here ( http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2015/06/01/finally-silicon-valley-funds-homeschooling-elon-musk-leads-with-ad-astra/ http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2015/06/01/finally-silico... ).
- paulddraper 9y ago
  First sentence: > Her name is Elizabeth and she is a parent to three girls that are being unschooled. Merriam webster says > to make (one) disregard schooling or training I don't think the well-written article and the dictionary are on the same page.
  - calibas 9y ago
    This is the kind of "unschooling" it's talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
  - njarboe 9y ago
    If you are going to criticize/snark, at least be factually correct. The part you quoted is in italics and is from the editor of the website, not the author of the article.
s73ver 9y ago
"It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. Parents or a teacher would help children learn what they wanted to learn, when they were ready to learn it. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule." Yeah, but back in that day, you only got education if your parents had the time and knowledge to do it, or the wealth to hire private tutors.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Not once the children learn to read. After that, all it took was a library or, now, the internet. That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too.
  - cmontella 9y ago
    I don't know how wise it is for a child (without having learned the value/practice of critical thinking yet) to gain foundational knowledge on the Internet of all places. > if the child values learning Big if there. Kids aren't really the ones who understand the value of learning. Give a kid with the ability to read the Internet and say "have at it" will probably not result in an educated child.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Why? What is wrong with taking all your politics and history lessons from 4chan?
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    > That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too. It's also entirely possible to take a child that values learning and drive that out of them through discouragement and disincentive, something schools are often quite good at. On the flip side, it's entirely possible to encourage a child to value learning. But that's something that tends to happen early, far before school, and even if present, may or may not survive contact with school.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
watwut 9y ago
Age mixed classes in lower grades are more effective, but also more expensive because you need less children on one teacher. As for teaching children only what they want to learn, no. I would not raise my kids that way.
metaphorm 9y ago
The Gatto essays are remarkably concise and convincing. I'm very sympathetic to that critic. relatedly, Ivan Illich "Deschool Society" [0] is another author that wrote in depth on this subject with similar incisive critiques. also, Darren Allen writes on the institutional nature of modern society [1] and the way we are conditioned to become subservient to its structures [2]. all of this begins in elementary school and it's sorting of children into groups. The conditioning of children into being "manageable" components in an institutional indoctrination system is at the heart of how the system perpetuates itself. 0 - http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h... 1 - http://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-monomind/ http://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-mono... 2 - http://expressiveegg.org/2016/10/09/5-system-filters/ http://expressiveegg.org/2016/10/09/5-system-filters/
dragonwriter 9y ago
> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves Not really; for most people for most of time education, such as it was, has been narrowly directed from outside at a particular pre-ordained social role. The luxury of self-directed education has been rare, and mostly available in fairly narrow social strata where it has been available at all (and often some high-middle stratum more than actual highest elites, because the latter often had stricter expectations with less flexibility.)
alphydan 9y ago
One of the arguments seem rather weak: > Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; Oh, "Einstein was bad at math! and I'm bad at math ... so I can be a genius too!". Farragut, Edison and Rockefeller would have probably excelled anywhere. Schooling, no schooling, home-schooling or Montessori schooling. What about the millions of people who were not schooled, and remained philistines their whole life? If you are trying to solve your own smart child's education, his arguments make perfect sense. If you are trying to optimise the overall level of education of a country with a limited budget, things are more nuanced. There is, without question, lots of room for improvement in education. But suggesting that anybody can be a star if you take away that pesky schooling is disingenuous.
- Declanomous 9y ago
  Counterpoint: what about all of the people who went to school and are still philistines? People are proud of their lack of knowledge, and part of that is because it's 'okay' to hate school. It's not entirely uncommon that people feel they learn way better outside of school. I'd say that's a pretty huge indication of failure, given the fact that the entire purpose of school is learning.
  - escherize 9y ago
    I'd argue the purpose of school as we know it (Prussian model) is to indoctrinate the students to bow to authority, and diminish trust in peers. In which case you'd expect (student-lead) learning outside of school would be superior, as you mentioned.
    - analog31 9y ago
      I know a lot of teachers, and I've never met one who was even aware of, much less in support of, the "prussian model." I have kids in school, and consequently know lots of kids. I've never noticed that the ones who are more successful in school, are more authoritarian. The "prussian model" strikes me as an urban legend.
b_emery 9y ago
> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule. I have two kids in a public school. The teachers thus far have been extremely child-focused to the extent possible while still adhering to the common-core standards. The school has a number of mixed grade classes, e.g K-1, 1-2, 2-3, and the mix changes each year based on the needs of the kids. So my experience does not support your generalization of modern schooling. Nor does it support the ideas in Gatto's main thesis. Perhaps in the 90's his thesis was true, but these teachers are up to date on recent research and know how to build non-provisional self esteem, for example. They encourage the expression and self-management of emotions. Curricula are often built around a central unifying topic, for example unifying math, reading, and writing around a core event. Rote memorization plays a minimal role - often built in to the daily activities in a why that the students may not realize. I have also observed, during my weekly parent-volunteer hours, that the teachers are highly specialized and well trained. There is so much more to it than just 'learning styles' and such. They truly excel at managing behaviors and emotions, and creating engaging and multi-subject curricula. Most students do not show up ready to learn on any given day - and getting through to them requires extreme patience and tremendous creativity. Perhaps Gatto had unengaged and indifferent teachers - it seems that these would 'dumb down' students. Fortunately this has not been my experience.
- spraak 9y ago
  Your experience with two children vs Gatto's experience with hundreds (thousands?) as a public school teacher for years.
  - b_emery 9y ago
    My experience is with several classes and teachers, so a combined total of probably 100 kids in different classes over several years - but you make a valid point. It's quite possible that in the decades since his work that his criticisms have caused change to occur.
- madhadron 9y ago
  You have found an extremely unusual and remarkable public school.
hinkley 9y ago
I find it interesting that martial arts classes are not taught that way. Things are loosely segregated by aptitude but proximity allows you to see what's coming next and overhear those behind you (in which case you might learn something you didn't quite get the first time, or understand it with more nuance now)
- jojoo 9y ago
  Most (chinese/japanes) MA classes are loosely based around the teachings of Confucius. The basics of his paedagogics are based on a family-like bond between Teachers and Students. Its very different to the western model of education be it the traditional western style or the "Progressive Education" or its latest incarnation.
bluGill 9y ago
I do not want kids who learn only what they are interested in. I know too many adults who don't like to read, hate math... - they never would have learned to read or do basic math if they had not been forced at some point. Learning what you are interested in is fine when you have the basics and want to fill some time. It doesn't matter to me if you learn to welding or piano - both are interesting and could potentially make you money, but neither is core to life. You could add hundreds of other things to that list. Learning can start with your interested, but at some time you will realize something is hard. At that point you need something higher to force you to buckle down and study when it isn't fun anymore. I think all great piano players can tell you that there was a time their tried to stop playing completely and their parents didn't allow it.
- spraak 9y ago
  I think you're missing the point, maybe because you too went through a traditional school? Most kids in traditional schools who don't want to do math or read because they don't have something hard or interesting to motivate them. But in free school settings the focus is first on what you want to accomplish and then how to do that, which most often then involves learning to read, write and math as an avenue to achieve something greater. It's similar to your pianist example but the motivation is internal. I wouldn't want to force any child to continue doing something they don't like just because I see value in it. I highly doubt "all great piano players" have been coerced that way. And those who have are probably out of touch with what they really want to be doing. Just because you can be great at something doesn't make it your calling.
  - deepsun 9y ago
    The assumption you're making is that it's always possible and easy to create that motivation. I totally agree that motivated student studies 100x better, I just think it's impossible to motivate student 100% of time. A teacher that is able to achieve 50% motivation deserves the Medal of Honor. In the end, it all boils down to teachers. Good teachers worth gold by weight. From my own life example: I was literally forced to learn some subjects in college (I'm mathematician), but 10 years later I'm re-studying the same subjects, now on my own. And it really helps that I learned them previously, as I already have a global overlook of the whole area, and know where I am, what should work, and what must be too hard to try.
caseysoftware 9y ago
We should also ditch the myth that "you can be anything you want to be." Not everyone has the skills, ability, or temperament to be a [choose: doctor, janitor, software developer, plumber, assassin, author, etc] and be successful at it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone should go to [choose: college, vocational school, Hollywood]. Let's stop with the idea that there is One True Way to be "successful" and encourage kids to experiment, learn, and help them explore what they're good at not what we want them to be good at.
jansho 9y ago
> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. They still mix ages in Montessori schools. There is a stronger self-learning culture, including peer-to-peer collaborations and older children playing a mentorship role to younger ones. The teachers observe, faciliate and are there whenever they are needed. It's not always so rosy in real life though. One school I volunteered at actually had to do more age-segregated classes (rather than lump Lower Primary together) because it was way too disruptive to mix 6 - 9 years old together. To add context, since the school was specifically for disadvantaged children, most (especially refugees) either join much later or stop suddenly, so couldn't fully benefit from the Montessori system.
bobbington 9y ago
I've come to think that school as we know it is largely daycare for younger students, and preparation for making people good at doing whatever they are told no matter what. We condition students not to be creative or innovative, but to obey the boss. I think the reason it stays like this is because the powers that be want a predictable, easy to control workforce. I've come to belief School, as we have it is so stupid. It's a massive waste of time and a huge amount of unnecessary work. And it's so dumb that they make it so that most people will not be able to get an A. (I got As but it shouldn't be about that) When I was in 4th grade I homeschooled. I worked for a couple hours a day, then goofed off. It was the best. I also completed 2 years worth of math. Now that I am in the work force, life is about 5x easier. Seriously coding is way easier than constantly trying to cram my head full of information every day. It's just too much information we throw at kids. I was lucky because I'm good at school so they said I was an "A" student. But other people who happened to be artistic, athletic, or just plain had a great gift with people were told they were subpar students, or even Failures. That's just not right and it bad for kids. And then you have the whole social issue. A lot of the social problems kids have with bullying, I think, is because kids don't have anything to really do that produces value. So they get bored and pick in each other
julian_1 9y ago
> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. It is easy to identify exceptions (replication crisis, intrusion of managerial activities), but this motivation also applies at the higher levels - ie phd candidature and above. The goal is self-directed research within a chosen field to produce new knowledge.

jostylr 9y ago

For those interested in learning how a return to a one-room school house kind of mentality goes, the Sudbury Model Schools are such an example. The original such school's website has a number of resources: http://www.sudval.org/ http://www.sudval.org/

swift 9y ago

John Taylor Gatto is really worth reading. I also highly recommend "How Children Fail" by John Holt. It's one of those books that I keep thinking about, even years after I first read it.

protomyth 9y ago

Not sure about older children, but I was with a program that ran early childhood for the 6 weeks to 3+ year children (pre-Head Start). Other than the infants, all the children were in the same area. The older kids basically taught the younger children potty training and other skills. The teachers were still able to do individual learning (often helped by the younger children having watched the older children) and the children were happy. I think daycare / ECE that segregates children by years are doing a huge disservice to the children.

kwhitefoot 9y ago

Ivan Illich said a lot of this sort of thing in 1971: "Universal education through schooling is not possible. ...", Deschooling Society.

njarboe 9y ago

Elon Musk started a mixed-aged school, without grades (in both senses of the word), for his and some SpaceX employees kids. A pretty well-written, detailed article can be found here ( http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2015/06/01/finally-silicon-valley-funds-homeschooling-elon-musk-leads-with-ad-astra/ http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2015/06/01/finally-silico... ).

paulddraper 9y ago
First sentence: > Her name is Elizabeth and she is a parent to three girls that are being unschooled. Merriam webster says > to make (one) disregard schooling or training I don't think the well-written article and the dictionary are on the same page.
- calibas 9y ago
  This is the kind of "unschooling" it's talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
- njarboe 9y ago
  If you are going to criticize/snark, at least be factually correct. The part you quoted is in italics and is from the editor of the website, not the author of the article.

s73ver 9y ago

"It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. Parents or a teacher would help children learn what they wanted to learn, when they were ready to learn it. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule." Yeah, but back in that day, you only got education if your parents had the time and knowledge to do it, or the wealth to hire private tutors.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Not once the children learn to read. After that, all it took was a library or, now, the internet. That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too.
- cmontella 9y ago
  I don't know how wise it is for a child (without having learned the value/practice of critical thinking yet) to gain foundational knowledge on the Internet of all places. > if the child values learning Big if there. Kids aren't really the ones who understand the value of learning. Give a kid with the ability to read the Internet and say "have at it" will probably not result in an educated child.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Why? What is wrong with taking all your politics and history lessons from 4chan?
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  > That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too. It's also entirely possible to take a child that values learning and drive that out of them through discouragement and disincentive, something schools are often quite good at. On the flip side, it's entirely possible to encourage a child to value learning. But that's something that tends to happen early, far before school, and even if present, may or may not survive contact with school.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

watwut 9y ago

Age mixed classes in lower grades are more effective, but also more expensive because you need less children on one teacher. As for teaching children only what they want to learn, no. I would not raise my kids that way.

metaphorm 9y ago

The Gatto essays are remarkably concise and convincing. I'm very sympathetic to that critic. relatedly, Ivan Illich "Deschool Society" [0] is another author that wrote in depth on this subject with similar incisive critiques. also, Darren Allen writes on the institutional nature of modern society [1] and the way we are conditioned to become subservient to its structures [2]. all of this begins in elementary school and it's sorting of children into groups. The conditioning of children into being "manageable" components in an institutional indoctrination system is at the heart of how the system perpetuates itself. 0 - http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h... 1 - http://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-monomind/ http://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-mono... 2 - http://expressiveegg.org/2016/10/09/5-system-filters/ http://expressiveegg.org/2016/10/09/5-system-filters/

dragonwriter 9y ago

> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves Not really; for most people for most of time education, such as it was, has been narrowly directed from outside at a particular pre-ordained social role. The luxury of self-directed education has been rare, and mostly available in fairly narrow social strata where it has been available at all (and often some high-middle stratum more than actual highest elites, because the latter often had stricter expectations with less flexibility.)

alphydan 9y ago

One of the arguments seem rather weak: > Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; Oh, "Einstein was bad at math! and I'm bad at math ... so I can be a genius too!". Farragut, Edison and Rockefeller would have probably excelled anywhere. Schooling, no schooling, home-schooling or Montessori schooling. What about the millions of people who were not schooled, and remained philistines their whole life? If you are trying to solve your own smart child's education, his arguments make perfect sense. If you are trying to optimise the overall level of education of a country with a limited budget, things are more nuanced. There is, without question, lots of room for improvement in education. But suggesting that anybody can be a star if you take away that pesky schooling is disingenuous.

Declanomous 9y ago
Counterpoint: what about all of the people who went to school and are still philistines? People are proud of their lack of knowledge, and part of that is because it's 'okay' to hate school. It's not entirely uncommon that people feel they learn way better outside of school. I'd say that's a pretty huge indication of failure, given the fact that the entire purpose of school is learning.
- escherize 9y ago
  I'd argue the purpose of school as we know it (Prussian model) is to indoctrinate the students to bow to authority, and diminish trust in peers. In which case you'd expect (student-lead) learning outside of school would be superior, as you mentioned.
  - analog31 9y ago
    I know a lot of teachers, and I've never met one who was even aware of, much less in support of, the "prussian model." I have kids in school, and consequently know lots of kids. I've never noticed that the ones who are more successful in school, are more authoritarian. The "prussian model" strikes me as an urban legend.

b_emery 9y ago

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule. I have two kids in a public school. The teachers thus far have been extremely child-focused to the extent possible while still adhering to the common-core standards. The school has a number of mixed grade classes, e.g K-1, 1-2, 2-3, and the mix changes each year based on the needs of the kids. So my experience does not support your generalization of modern schooling. Nor does it support the ideas in Gatto's main thesis. Perhaps in the 90's his thesis was true, but these teachers are up to date on recent research and know how to build non-provisional self esteem, for example. They encourage the expression and self-management of emotions. Curricula are often built around a central unifying topic, for example unifying math, reading, and writing around a core event. Rote memorization plays a minimal role - often built in to the daily activities in a why that the students may not realize. I have also observed, during my weekly parent-volunteer hours, that the teachers are highly specialized and well trained. There is so much more to it than just 'learning styles' and such. They truly excel at managing behaviors and emotions, and creating engaging and multi-subject curricula. Most students do not show up ready to learn on any given day - and getting through to them requires extreme patience and tremendous creativity. Perhaps Gatto had unengaged and indifferent teachers - it seems that these would 'dumb down' students. Fortunately this has not been my experience.

spraak 9y ago
Your experience with two children vs Gatto's experience with hundreds (thousands?) as a public school teacher for years.
- b_emery 9y ago
  My experience is with several classes and teachers, so a combined total of probably 100 kids in different classes over several years - but you make a valid point. It's quite possible that in the decades since his work that his criticisms have caused change to occur.
madhadron 9y ago
You have found an extremely unusual and remarkable public school.

hinkley 9y ago

I find it interesting that martial arts classes are not taught that way. Things are loosely segregated by aptitude but proximity allows you to see what's coming next and overhear those behind you (in which case you might learn something you didn't quite get the first time, or understand it with more nuance now)

jojoo 9y ago
Most (chinese/japanes) MA classes are loosely based around the teachings of Confucius. The basics of his paedagogics are based on a family-like bond between Teachers and Students. Its very different to the western model of education be it the traditional western style or the "Progressive Education" or its latest incarnation.

bluGill 9y ago

I do not want kids who learn only what they are interested in. I know too many adults who don't like to read, hate math... - they never would have learned to read or do basic math if they had not been forced at some point. Learning what you are interested in is fine when you have the basics and want to fill some time. It doesn't matter to me if you learn to welding or piano - both are interesting and could potentially make you money, but neither is core to life. You could add hundreds of other things to that list. Learning can start with your interested, but at some time you will realize something is hard. At that point you need something higher to force you to buckle down and study when it isn't fun anymore. I think all great piano players can tell you that there was a time their tried to stop playing completely and their parents didn't allow it.

spraak 9y ago
I think you're missing the point, maybe because you too went through a traditional school? Most kids in traditional schools who don't want to do math or read because they don't have something hard or interesting to motivate them. But in free school settings the focus is first on what you want to accomplish and then how to do that, which most often then involves learning to read, write and math as an avenue to achieve something greater. It's similar to your pianist example but the motivation is internal. I wouldn't want to force any child to continue doing something they don't like just because I see value in it. I highly doubt "all great piano players" have been coerced that way. And those who have are probably out of touch with what they really want to be doing. Just because you can be great at something doesn't make it your calling.
- deepsun 9y ago
  The assumption you're making is that it's always possible and easy to create that motivation. I totally agree that motivated student studies 100x better, I just think it's impossible to motivate student 100% of time. A teacher that is able to achieve 50% motivation deserves the Medal of Honor. In the end, it all boils down to teachers. Good teachers worth gold by weight. From my own life example: I was literally forced to learn some subjects in college (I'm mathematician), but 10 years later I'm re-studying the same subjects, now on my own. And it really helps that I learned them previously, as I already have a global overlook of the whole area, and know where I am, what should work, and what must be too hard to try.

caseysoftware 9y ago

We should also ditch the myth that "you can be anything you want to be." Not everyone has the skills, ability, or temperament to be a [choose: doctor, janitor, software developer, plumber, assassin, author, etc] and be successful at it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone should go to [choose: college, vocational school, Hollywood]. Let's stop with the idea that there is One True Way to be "successful" and encourage kids to experiment, learn, and help them explore what they're good at not what we want them to be good at.

jansho 9y ago

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. They still mix ages in Montessori schools. There is a stronger self-learning culture, including peer-to-peer collaborations and older children playing a mentorship role to younger ones. The teachers observe, faciliate and are there whenever they are needed. It's not always so rosy in real life though. One school I volunteered at actually had to do more age-segregated classes (rather than lump Lower Primary together) because it was way too disruptive to mix 6 - 9 years old together. To add context, since the school was specifically for disadvantaged children, most (especially refugees) either join much later or stop suddenly, so couldn't fully benefit from the Montessori system.

bobbington 9y ago

I've come to think that school as we know it is largely daycare for younger students, and preparation for making people good at doing whatever they are told no matter what. We condition students not to be creative or innovative, but to obey the boss. I think the reason it stays like this is because the powers that be want a predictable, easy to control workforce. I've come to belief School, as we have it is so stupid. It's a massive waste of time and a huge amount of unnecessary work. And it's so dumb that they make it so that most people will not be able to get an A. (I got As but it shouldn't be about that) When I was in 4th grade I homeschooled. I worked for a couple hours a day, then goofed off. It was the best. I also completed 2 years worth of math. Now that I am in the work force, life is about 5x easier. Seriously coding is way easier than constantly trying to cram my head full of information every day. It's just too much information we throw at kids. I was lucky because I'm good at school so they said I was an "A" student. But other people who happened to be artistic, athletic, or just plain had a great gift with people were told they were subpar students, or even Failures. That's just not right and it bad for kids. And then you have the whole social issue. A lot of the social problems kids have with bullying, I think, is because kids don't have anything to really do that produces value. So they get bored and pick in each other

julian_1 9y ago

> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. It is easy to identify exceptions (replication crisis, intrusion of managerial activities), but this motivation also applies at the higher levels - ie phd candidature and above. The goal is self-directed research within a chosen field to produce new knowledge.