5 ms·

How is it "ludicrous"? The aim of every educational reform I have ever seen is "how do we make students do what we want and perform the way we want?". I have N

by no_wave 13y ago

How is it "ludicrous"? The aim of every educational reform I have ever seen is "how do we make students do what we want and perform the way we want?". I have NEVER seen the question "how do we encourage students to behave in ways that we do not expect?". What does this signal?

Nursie 13y ago
>> "how do we make students do what we want and perform the way we want" I've never, ever heard it put that way by people pushing educational reform or by educators themselves. "How do we help children learn better?", that one comes up quite a lot but is rather different. >> I have NEVER seen the question "how do we encourage students behave in ways that we do not expect". It doesn't seem like a useful question to me. >> What does this signal? Very little.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  > "How do we help children learn better?" By acknowledging that not all children learn well in lecture/"traditional classroom" formats and doing something about it. But that would undermine the system.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    This is acknowledged, as is parental choice. You don't have to send your kid to that kind of school or to any school at all, but you do have to educate them. I struggle to find this unreasonable. The people (via the state) fund a particular model, it's true. And you'll never catch me arguing it's not full of all sorts of flaws, but I would still dispute that suppression of individuality and creativity are even a minor goal in state education, let alone a primary one.
    - Domenic_S 13y ago
      > You don't have to send your kid to that kind of school or to any school at all, but you do have to educate them. Sounds reasonable on its face, but the reality is that if you try and homeschool you will face all types of resistance from the educational establishment. Tellingly, you will encounter that resistance from public primary schools (many colleges love homeschoolers). This is because the primary goal of the system is to strengthen and reinforce itself. This is so that it may have complete power to create generations of people who contribute to making a strong country through work and capitalism. This purpose may be good or bad, I leave that judgement as an exercise to the reader. But let's not pretend that any of this is done in the best interests of children.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> But let's not pretend that any of this is done in the best interests of children. Ummm, yeah it is. Without education they, individually, will find it very hard to thrive in our capitalist system. Again, I struggle to see this as a bad thing. Yes - one of the goals of the political classes in establishing a perpetuating a compulsory education system is most likely to be economic. I'm not sure I understand how "people who contribute to making a strong country through work and capitalism" are necessarily devoid of individuality or creativity. (--edit-- I agree that a lot of systems do end up becoming very focussed on self preservation and expanding their reach, look at the military and police. Education is in no way immune from this, I still don't think that suppressing individuality and creativity are key goals of the system though)
      - torkins 13y ago
        look at it from the other side: Do you think it is criminally negligent for a parent to bring up their child without any education whatsoever? Do you think the state should intervene to protect criminally neglected children from their neglecting parents? Most people I know, myself included, would say yes to both questions, and therefore the establishment of compulsory education is at least in part directly intended to benefit the children. Education is shown to be one of the very few reliable indicators around the globe of both individual and societal prosperity. How we educate is always up for debate.. should we educate is typically not.
        randomdata 13y ago
        Being educated is the default state of being. An education is literally available everywhere, and kids especially seem to get excited about the process. Parents would have to explicitly set up an environment to prevent their kids from receiving an education of some kind, which, I agree, would be troubling. How realistic is that kind of environment though? Aside from that, it really is just a question of how.
        no_wave 13y ago
        Well, you could start by forcing children to sit still (!) in the same room every day, lecturing them about things that they do not care about, forcing them to do things that they do not want to do, finding ways to shame them if they do not obey, and then insisting that this is what education is and what the process of learning looks like. That would be one way to teach them not to seek education.

by no_wave 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

>> "how do we make students do what we want and perform the way we want" I've never, ever heard it put that way by people pushing educational reform or by educators themselves. "How do we help children learn better?", that one comes up quite a lot but is rather different. >> I have NEVER seen the question "how do we encourage students behave in ways that we do not expect". It doesn't seem like a useful question to me. >> What does this signal? Very little.

Domenic_S 13y ago
> "How do we help children learn better?" By acknowledging that not all children learn well in lecture/"traditional classroom" formats and doing something about it. But that would undermine the system.
- Nursie 13y ago
  This is acknowledged, as is parental choice. You don't have to send your kid to that kind of school or to any school at all, but you do have to educate them. I struggle to find this unreasonable. The people (via the state) fund a particular model, it's true. And you'll never catch me arguing it's not full of all sorts of flaws, but I would still dispute that suppression of individuality and creativity are even a minor goal in state education, let alone a primary one.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    > You don't have to send your kid to that kind of school or to any school at all, but you do have to educate them. Sounds reasonable on its face, but the reality is that if you try and homeschool you will face all types of resistance from the educational establishment. Tellingly, you will encounter that resistance from public primary schools (many colleges love homeschoolers). This is because the primary goal of the system is to strengthen and reinforce itself. This is so that it may have complete power to create generations of people who contribute to making a strong country through work and capitalism. This purpose may be good or bad, I leave that judgement as an exercise to the reader. But let's not pretend that any of this is done in the best interests of children.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> But let's not pretend that any of this is done in the best interests of children. Ummm, yeah it is. Without education they, individually, will find it very hard to thrive in our capitalist system. Again, I struggle to see this as a bad thing. Yes - one of the goals of the political classes in establishing a perpetuating a compulsory education system is most likely to be economic. I'm not sure I understand how "people who contribute to making a strong country through work and capitalism" are necessarily devoid of individuality or creativity. (--edit-- I agree that a lot of systems do end up becoming very focussed on self preservation and expanding their reach, look at the military and police. Education is in no way immune from this, I still don't think that suppressing individuality and creativity are key goals of the system though)
    - torkins 13y ago
      look at it from the other side: Do you think it is criminally negligent for a parent to bring up their child without any education whatsoever? Do you think the state should intervene to protect criminally neglected children from their neglecting parents? Most people I know, myself included, would say yes to both questions, and therefore the establishment of compulsory education is at least in part directly intended to benefit the children. Education is shown to be one of the very few reliable indicators around the globe of both individual and societal prosperity. How we educate is always up for debate.. should we educate is typically not.
      - randomdata 13y ago
        Being educated is the default state of being. An education is literally available everywhere, and kids especially seem to get excited about the process. Parents would have to explicitly set up an environment to prevent their kids from receiving an education of some kind, which, I agree, would be troubling. How realistic is that kind of environment though? Aside from that, it really is just a question of how.
        no_wave 13y ago
        Well, you could start by forcing children to sit still (!) in the same room every day, lecturing them about things that they do not care about, forcing them to do things that they do not want to do, finding ways to shame them if they do not obey, and then insisting that this is what education is and what the process of learning looks like. That would be one way to teach them not to seek education.