Why basic education fails - everywhere

[timtofly]

No one said that parents have been great. But since parents can't be counted on, the education system has to take up the slack. I have no idea what you mean by "as long as society accepts these conditions, those graduating will fail or not graduate at all".

As long as society steps up and performs the duties of lax parents, it will keep turning out lax parents. "Those who graduate and fail, or those who do not graduate at all."

 

[Ergo Sum]

Link to video.

This deserves to be here.

 

[aelf]

As long as society steps up and performs the duties of lax parents, it will keep turning out lax parents.

Better than doing nothing?

 

[timtofly]

Better than doing nothing?

No, reality is better than fiction.

It may be unpleasant until the cycle is broken, for a couple of generations. But things will not change as long as fiction is the norm.

 

[galdre]

No, reality is better than fiction.

It may be unpleasant until the cycle is broken, for a couple of generations. But things will not change as long as fiction is the norm.

There will be lax parents whether or not society does anything about them. Shouldn't we try to help the kids of lax parents? It's not their fault who they're born to.

 

[aelf]

No, reality is better than fiction.

It may be unpleasant until the cycle is broken, for a couple of generations. But things will not change as long as fiction is the norm.

What?

 

[timtofly]

There will be lax parents whether or not society does anything about them. Shouldn't we try to help the kids of lax parents? It's not their fault who they're born to.

What?

The problem is either society does everything and stops turning out lax parents, or society stops stepping in period. I did not say it would be easy. In fact downright hard and miserable for a couple of generations.

Society has made it easy to be "non-parents". If new generations did not appear then, society would fail all together. It is fiction though, that a parent should depend on society to do their job. The reality is: a society that steps in, just conditions the next generation to rely on that same society to raise their children, the same way they were and the failure continues.

The nanny state will fail though, after the point where no one cares and not enough income is generated for the state to do "all" of the "work". Unless the nanny state can convince enough people to be responsible and put in a decent amount of return to keep the nanny state operating.

Nanny states work well in fiction. They do not work well in reality unless people want to give up their will and just be another gear in the machine.

Free Market does not work well if people expect a nanny state to take up the slack. It has little to do with education and a lot to do with the product that comes out of the education system. Unless the "home" environment is removed, it plays a very important factor in the "production" system.

 

[galdre]

The problem is either society does everything and stops turning out lax parents, or society stops stepping in period. I did not say it would be easy. In fact downright hard and miserable for a couple of generations.

Society has made it easy to be "non-parents". If new generations did not appear then, society would fail all together. It is fiction though, that a parent should depend on society to do their job. The reality is: a society that steps in, just conditions the next generation to rely on that same society to raise their children, the same way they were and the failure continues.

The nanny state will fail though, after the point where no one cares and not enough income is generated for the state to do "all" of the "work". Unless the nanny state can convince enough people to be responsible and put in a decent amount of return to keep the nanny state operating.

Nanny states work well in fiction. They do not work well in reality unless people want to give up their will and just be another gear in the machine.

Free Market does not work well if people expect a nanny state to take up the slack. It has little to do with education and a lot to do with the product that comes out of the education system. Unless the "home" environment is removed, it plays a very important factor in the "production" system.

So are you assuming that there would be no lax parents if society did not step in at all? Are you claiming that lax parents are a product of societal interference? That seems to be the assumption you're basing your views on.

 

[Ayatollah So]

To sum up this thread: Downtown for Secretary of Education!

When I was a kid "social studies" was mostly just history and history studied seemingly at random and without any context of relating to the present. The emphasis was on memorizing dates & facts rather than developing any deep understanding of causes or connection to past & present.

Ditto. That's just dumb.

Or, perhaps, is not desired by Those In Power (tm).

You mean, Powers That Be? (public domain)

--

In conclusion: Downtown for Secretary of Education!

 

[timtofly]

So are you assuming that there would be no lax parents if society did not step in at all? Are you claiming that lax parents are a product of societal interference? That seems to be the assumption you're basing your views on.

Not interference, it has come to total dependancy in some cases. If society had let a few fall by the way side generations ago, we may not be in this mess.

It is at the point where society stepping in is no longer working, either stop altogether, or take control over everything and start turning out people who will contribute instead of just take.

IMO kids today have no idea what responsibilty even is. Telling them does not work. Yes, they can see it in some of their teachers, but if the teacher has lost all control in the class rooms, then to me, even that chance at learning responsibility is lost. Usually by the time today's adult has figured it out, the next generation has already past the point of learning from them.

 

[galdre]

Not interference, it has come to total dependancy in some cases. If society had let a few fall by the way side generations ago, we may not be in this mess.

It is at the point where society stepping in is no longer working, either stop altogether, or take control over everything and start turning out people who will contribute instead of just take.

IMO kids today have no idea what responsibilty even is. Telling them does not work. Yes, they can see it in some of their teachers, but if the teacher has lost all control in the class rooms, then to me, even that chance at learning responsibility is lost. Usually by the time today's adult has figured it out, the next generation has already past the point of learning from them.

But society did let a lot fall by the wayside for a very long time - societal involvement in things like education was to try to stop that from happening, or at least reduce it.

 

[Kozmos]

I don't see a general reason why not. It really is just another tool, a typical approach. Not some higher level of consciousness or whatever... What it requires is guidance and practice. Practice, practice, practice. If that is done in a professional manner and students can be bothered to invest serious effort (which is a problem, no doubt, but that applies to say math just as well) - there just is no reason why it can't be done. It isn't magic.
You for instance can give people a thesis and demand them to analyze why it may be wrong, or too limited in its scope, or how its natural bias could obscure things and so on.
You can give them a news report and (knowing the full story) illustrate how it may be misleading and what causes this had.
You can pick historic examples of social sciences and illustrate how people managed to fool themselves. Like with psycho analysis.
There are countless opportunities to practice this skill because our life by default offers countless opportunities every day to make use of it.

Sure, you can make it a part of the curriculum and make them do all that. But you can't force anyone to apply it in Real Life TM. To most it will be just another academic hurdle they will have to jump through. A few might get interested if the teacher is really engaging and good, but good luck with that.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In conclusion: Downtown for Secretary of Education!

A conclusion that Downtown should hold a position of influence is not worth the time typing it

 

[timtofly]

But society did let a lot fall by the wayside for a very long time - societal involvement in things like education was to try to stop that from happening, or at least reduce it.

That is not totally true. The New Deal did not fix the system. No one can say what would have happened if there had been no New Deal. That would have been a different timeline that can only be speculated on. It has not fixed the situation and we are in a greater mess now. Those are the facts. If one believes we are not in a mess, then it seems that this thread is fiction.

 

[galdre]

That is not totally true. The New Deal did not fix the system. No one can say what would have happened if there had been no New Deal. That would have been a different timeline that can only be speculated on. It has not fixed the situation and we are in a greater mess now. Those are the facts. If one believes we are not in a mess, then it seems that this thread is fiction.

I'd agree we're in a mess in many ways, but to say that we're in a greater mess than (for example) the 19th century is inaccurate. I know which time I'd rather live in.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sure, you can make it a part of the curriculum and make them do all that. But you can't force anyone to apply it in Real Life TM. To most it will be just another academic hurdle they will have to jump through. A few might get interested if the teacher is really engaging and good, but good luck with that.

That's just you being a pessimist.

 

[Kozmos]

That's just you being a pessimist.

That's just me observing my peers and collections of other peoples experiences from various kinds of colleges. Even students of philosophy are not that much better.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Interesting point, but what I define as being a "responsible citizen" isn't at focus even in college. Because there are no tests about it.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

They teach to measure reality with someone's else authority, and not your own mind.

Also:

Now there's nothing wrong with facts as such. Educators of necessity seek a common ground on which to reach their students.

But one of the characteristics of a fact is that it has a record of past performance. That's what makes it a fact: Phenomenon X behaved and/or existed in thus-and-such a manner yesterday, last week, last month, last year. So, we have reason to anticipate that it will behave and/or exist the same way tomorrow.

This means that to deal with facts, you must devote a great deal of attention to analysis of their track records. What did they do in previous encounters, and how did they do it? They're like cases in law: Past history dominates. First, last, and always you check precedents.

If this were as far as the matter went, there wouldn't be any real headache. But the educators refused to let it go at that. Facts were easy to present. Knowledge of them was easy to test. In many areas they were of great practical use. Centering attention on them obviated the complications that went with dealing with each student as an individual.

So, educators in the lead, an entire society plunged into wholesale fact-worship.

When you glorify one thing, it's generally at the expense of something else. In this case, the ''something else'' was feeling.

Now a feeling is about as opposite to a fact as you can get. At best, you might describe it as a sort of internal driving force, like electricity in a motor. You can't see it or hear it or smell it or taste it or touch it. It reveals itself to the outside world only in overt behavior, as a reaction. Even measuring its intensity, by any objective standard, remains a problem not at all satisfactorily resolved.

As if that weren't enough, feelings differ from moment to moment and person to person. They're the ultimate variable—utterly unpredictable, oftentimes; poker with everything wild.

Faced with this unpredictability of feelings, this refusal of an element to behave in neatly ordered fashion, the educators responded with varying degrees of uncertainty, suspicion, outrage.

—Feelings all, of course, you understand; but acceptable, because they were housed in the right people.

Being human as well as frustrated, the educators took the obvious course of action: They taught generations of children to depend on facts.

—And, as a corollary, to hold all feelings suspect.

Result: a population trained to feel guilty every time it discovers that emotion prompted an action.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408230.Techniques_of_the_Selling_Writer

 

[Slobadog]

To improve education our schools need to study the human body and brain, study human behavior study the enviroment that humans are evolved to live in, then apply that knowledge to their education methods.


Our society already knows much about such topics. All we need to do is apply.




1.) Humans are evolved to be hunters and gatherers. Their bodies and minds are broadly speaking evolved to exceel in such a world. (So educate our offspring in the skills used by hunter gatherers. We use the teaching methods used by hunter gatherers. Of course we no longer live as hunter gatherers, so we can't apply all the hunter gather skills and educational methods closly bu we can apply it to some extent.




2.) Pleasure chemicals are meant to facilitate the body and brains functions. (So we don't fight them. We utilize them whenever possible. )



3.) Our bodies and minds are evolved to deal heavily with phyiscal activity. Emphasize phyisical activity. Combine phyiscal activity with all other education if possible, deemphasize desk work. Hunter gathers don't sit at desks and don't have have paper.)


4.) The mind responds better to practical example than to theoretical example. Hunter gathers don't get their food from mere philosphical utopias or mere mathmatical equations. They sieze the day and acompllsh something right now. Implement practical accomplishment into education as much as posssble.


5.) The mind and body craves pleasure. If education involves no pleasure students will despise eduation. If non educational activities provide pleasue then students will flock to them. ( So make education win the pleasure fight)



6.) Human minds don't appeciate large groups as well as small groups. Hunter gathers can't support large numbers. ( So we make class sizes small. )


7 .) Humans naturally seek to join and create groups of familar and simliar people and fight those who arn't familir or simillar. Hunter gathers can't trust outsiders and they can't surive without community ( So we make school into community. When ever possible emphizes cooperation and similar values and goals. Prevent the factional breeding ground for bullies.)



Of course since we are all not living as hunter gathers and can never go back we can not use the hunter gather way completly. This should be adopted to degrees, only to degrees. Also due to the fact that currently neither nature or humans cause much population selection. Our gene pool will vary a good bit more that it will for hunter gathers. But not enough to make the hunter gather education strategy unviable. It will work for many people. Now as as far as those who are different. Say for example some male who exihibits no desire to fight or hunt but love to stay in their minds and paper and work out complex theoretical equations. We must adjust to them too. No matter what customization is a crucial element of education. We must teach people the way they are meant to be taught. We must put the round peg through the round hole. We must put the square peg though the square hole. I don't have your genes and you don't have mine.





I left much unexplained but I swill say more later. So if anything seems strange then please take note that I can clarifiy later.