> You also assume that every kid will be interested in everything, if only the teacher and environment did everything perfectly. Neither is true. No, I'm sayin

> You also assume that every kid will be interested in everything, if only the teacher and environment did everything perfectly. Neither is true. No, I'm saying that the teacher/school environment is contaminated and we don't need it. It's imperfect, so let's get rid of it. It can't be made perfect. I'm saying that everyone has something they are naturally interested in. Even if that's just being on Facebook. Eventually you'll learn to read if you want to browse Facebook. > It is possible to learn things you are not particularly excited about. It is also possible to become later on interested in something you was not excited about initially. Yes, that's true. But it doesn't mean that's the only way. > I prefer teachers who can make kids interested in math itself and physics itself and history itself and writing itself even if it is not immediately useful. Uhm, why? There's no real reason. > But starting with assumption that it is not possible for them so lets not even try sound like definition of low expectations. I didn't say it's not possible. I said it doesn't work well. There are countless examples of being taught something we don't like and yet we're good at it. Yes, you're grateful for being encouraged to learn English in school, but you could have just as well learned it through your own motivation.