Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More like Public Baby-Sitting System. Public schools only exist for that reason: to babysit children while parents are at work. Sorry, but you do not get educated in a public school K-12. The only worthwhile "education" you recieve is learning your ABC's and basic arithmetic in elementary school.
Love of learning and education comes from within, not forced on you by teachers. Real learning comes at the college/university level and the Department of Education should be eradicated, and states should be allowed to take over the functional aspects of education. Some children are better suited working in sweat shops anyway, make my tenny shoes.
Sorry, but a 5 year old is not capable of learning from "within" as are most adolescents without some type of instruction, facilitation or guidance.
Sorry, but a 5 year old is not capable of learning from "within" as are most adolescents without some type of instruction, facilitation or guidance.
Children much younger than that learn how to walk and talk "from within", both of which are among the most difficult things people ever learn, so there's no reason children can't or won't learn other things from "within" as you say, especially if they have resources and human assistance available along with parental love and support.
I think the point he/she was trying to make was not the above, but rather that it is impossible to force someone to want to learn something, and if you do not want to learn something you will not learn it in any meaningful sense. You will learn only what is required to avoid punishment, avoid the topic in the future, and over time will forget what you were taught; learning will also acquire a negative association in your mind, suppressing the human will to learn and thus one will learn less in the end than if the coercion had never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
How did it get to the point where kids need immediate "pay offs" to learn? If that's the case, then something went wrong somewhere. Obviously that's the current situation with many students and their families, but that expectation -- that kids need some short-term reason to be "made" to learn -- is reason enough to show that things need to change, even if that involves some major shifts in the ways we look at schools and approach education.
The idea that people must be made to learn is a foundational premise of the entire system of schooling; in that system it enjoys universal acceptance and all of its features are built around it. Since that premise is wrong, the best results imagined are unattainable, and poor results and failure in learning come as no surprise. Public school is the heart of this system and is very resistant (more than any other part of the system) to even changing the edges, let alone a foundational premise; this is why the system needs to be eliminated and will likely at the very least be wounded as people increasingly embrace alternative education models that are an anathema to the system. The people that feel their needs are being met by the public school system are diminishing in number, and so I believe this will turn out to be a dim century for public schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I disagree. I think public schools owe me a product that can, at least, go out and get a job following directions. IMO, one purpose of public education is to arm students with what they need to get a paying job in the hopes they won't become criminals. I don't think all of them can be turned into the thinkers you want. That's ok though because society needs followers too.
First off, you thinking of your children as "product" raises some ideological/philosophical eyebrows. Second, long before public schools existed the bulk of people weren't criminals, and it has not been demonstrated that public school itself has any decisive effect on crime. Third, the past two centuries have made clear that people with no formal education follow directions just fine if they are given a bit of on-the-job training. Fourth, virtually no public school teaches students any job-finding skills, so people are already learning that on their own. In other words, people can follow directions and find a job without school or even education, so if that's the goal there's no point in having schools. If the job they want requires education and/or training they can procure some themselves without being made to learn during childhood.
Obviously there are many purposes to learning and education beyond the workaday existence; indeed a good (but in my view not entirely convincing) case exists that the two are incompatible, but I was responding to the "we need public schools so people can work and obey the law*" argument.
*Incidentally acquiring a working understanding of the law and the judicial system may go a long way towards that end. I firmly believe that people need all the education and help they can get to navigate law as sprawling as this.
Isn't public school just a place where kids from poor and middle class families are brainwashed into the accepting the same routines/fates as their parents?
Public School Routine:
Get up early
Get to school on time
Do all your work
Appease your teacher
Don't act out of line, or else detention or suspension
Wage Worker Routine:
Get up early
Get to work on time
Do all your work
Appease your boss
Don't act out of line, or else you will be fired
Quite frankly, I see public education as a broken system that woefully teaches linear thinking. Will it ever be fixed? Who knows. Probably not. Those at the top are afraid of a well-informed, critically thinking populace. Public education is meant to produce workers, not thinkers. Thinkers don't work weekends busting their heels waiting tables or becoming deaf over loud bar music while bar tending. Thinkers don't pick up your trash on Mondays or hold those bright orange signs telling you to avoid construction zones.
But workers do all those unpleasant activities and more. And that my friends, is the Public Indoctrination System in full effect.
I just increased your reputation for original thinking.
Thinkers are also skeptical of talking heads calling anything that benefits the American people Socialist and distract us from the fact that lobbyists write our laws.
Learning is a very different activity from working; what is good for one may not (and indeed usually is not) good for the other. That said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everdeen
No early morning work?
Schedules at most workplaces differ significantly from schedules at schools; that has always been the case, and people have never had trouble adjusting. People that did no school work before 9:00 don't encounter any trouble with early morning work, and neither did previous generations that were on a similar schedule. Although irrelevant to the matter at hand, I would also note that the premise that workplaces gain some special benefit by starting early in the morning is highly questionable.
Quote:
Be late to work or work with no time constraints?
The (seemingly tiny ) number of people that are punctual by adulthood learn punctuality from their parents and start well before school age. Appointments to doctors, dentists, et. al. take care of that. Also, although it is again irrelevant, some people at present work with little or no time constraints.
Quote:
Leave unfinished tasks?
Parents stress the ability to finish what you start from the time children start walking. School actually discourages finishing tasks by having bells routinely cut off children's activities.
Quote:
Pi$$ off your boss?
Sometimes it's worth it , but again most people learn about the cost of angering others from a very early age, and the concept of the employer/employee dynamic is very simple to grasp. Even the most cursory study of work, a topic nigh-all children are curious about at some point in their childhood and will therefore make that cursory study in their education, will reveal it.
Quote:
Misbehave? Be rude? Annoy everyone? Act out against all social mores?
Sometimes those need to be done; more relevantly, good behavior in these areas is stressed by parents long before school age, and given how much misbehavior and rudeness people are exposed to in schools I doubt school helps their sociability much. You also have to consider the routine phenomenon of teachers annoying everyone else in the room and suffering no consequences; if that doesn't set a bad example in that area I don't know what does. Judgment, initiative, and courage are essential to judging when to anger/annoy others and when not to; those three qualities are what needs to be nurtured, and the school system is built to kill those qualities in people.
Quote:
The most successful people, and some of the happiest, set routines for themselves and get along with others?
Do you think the other poster is suggesting that? That's contradictory to your other points. Also, the extent to which successful and/or happy people adhere to a routine and go-along-to-get-along varies widely, but that's beside the point. Even if such was needed they don't need a school to teach them that, much less for 13 years.
Learning is a very different activity from working; what is good for one may not (and indeed usually is not) good for the other. That said...
I'm using the correlation from the post I quoted. This was the objection of that poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Schedules at most workplaces differ significantly from schedules at schools; that has always been the case, and people have never had trouble adjusting. People that did no school work before 9:00 don't encounter any trouble with early morning work, and neither did previous generations that were on a similar schedule. Although irrelevant to the matter at hand, I would also note that the premise that workplaces gain some special benefit by starting early in the morning is highly questionable.
I have no problem with schools having later and different start times. The current times are what are what they are because that is the parents want. Most parents want their children's school to offset the cost of daycare.
But again, the person to whom I was responding seemed to have an objection to an early start time for children and adults. I would like that person to explain what great good would come from having the children start later than 8:00 or 9:00. There are time constraints everywhere. It's not part of an overriding plot to indoctrinate students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
The (seemingly tiny ) number of people that are punctual by adulthood learn punctuality from their parents and start well before school age. Appointments to doctors, dentists, et. al. take care of that. Also, although it is again irrelevant, some people at present work with little or no time constraints.
Although some people have the opportunity to work whenever they want, it is hardly the norm. And even those people have deadlines to meet.
What's your point here? Again, what is the problem with requiring students to be to class, and adults to be at work, on time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Parents stress the ability to finish what you start from the time children start walking. School actually discourages finishing tasks by having bells routinely cut off children's activities.
So, absolutely no work can be completed after a bell is rung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Sometimes it's worth it , but again most people learn about the cost of angering others from a very early age, and the concept of the employer/employee dynamic is very simple to grasp. Even the most cursory study of work, a topic nigh-all children are curious about at some point in their childhood and will therefore make that cursory study in their education, will reveal it.
I appreciate the attempt to be eloquent, but I'd like to prevail on you to be direct and use examples. It also lack appropriate structure in order to make sense. The bolded section above just doesn't do anything to support the poster to whom I was responding.
Regardless, how does this answer the question as to whether it is in the best interests of a student to annoy their teacher? Teachers do not want to be harassed or spoken to in a disrespectful manner. They want their students to take their studies seriously and complete their homework. That's how you don't annoy your teacher. There is no conspiracy here. Just be nice. It's not to much to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Sometimes those need to be done; more relevantly, good behavior in these areas
what areas?
Quote:
is stressed by parents
some parents
Quote:
long before school age, and given how much misbehavior and rudeness people are exposed to in schools I doubt school helps their sociability much. You also have to consider the routine phenomenon of teachers annoying everyone else in the room and suffering no consequences
yeah, it is annoying to a rude individual if a teacher (or boss, or police officer, etc.) calls you to task if you are showing animosity towards them
Quote:
if that doesn't set a bad example in that area I don't know what does. Judgment, initiative, and courage are essential to judging when to anger/annoy others and when not to; those three qualities are what needs to be nurtured, and the school system is built to kill those qualities in people.
You are so all over the place, as well as uninformed on what goes on in K-12 education, that it's nearly impossible to respond to the points you are attempting to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Do you think the other poster is suggesting that?
Yes, that's what he said.
Quote:
That's contradictory to your other points.
What are talking about? You are so all over the place. It is no wonder that you dislike structure.
Quote:
Also, the extent to which successful and/or happy people adhere to a routine and go-along-to-get-along varies widely, but that's beside the point. Even if such was needed they don't need a school to teach them that, much less for 13 years.
Being punctual, polite, and completing work is required in order for the school to run efficiently and for the student to get the most enriching experience.
So what would be your suggestion? Completely unstructured schools? Kids show up whenever they want and only classes that they want? If they don't like the teacher, mouth off? Cause disruptions and keep students who actually want to learn?
How is structure and politeness such a bad thing?
So again, what alternative would you suggest? Stick to the topic and be concise when doing so.
I don't see what your point is. My point is that you should not dismiss alternative education methods that do not adhere to the current workplace or factory model because "it will make them unprepared for work/life". People acquire those skills from daily life and parenting, not from schools; for that purpose schools are not needed (you seem to believe the opposite). What follows naturally from that premise is that education in schools should not be based on the model used for wage workplaces unless that model is a great aid to learning. Since most people affected by the use of that model in schools (the people we're (supposedly) trying to serve!) don't like it, a strong justification should be required for its continued existence. I have yet to see one, therefore we should adopt a different model. The question of this thread is whether a need for change exists, not which model we should adopt; it is illogical and not "sticking to the topic" to demand an answer to the second as a precondition of answering the first, because even if there is no better alternative, recognizing the need would encourage the invention of alternatives that are better.
If you ask me all the individual children have widely varying educational needs and desires, and no one method is capable of being the best method for even most children, let alone all children. A method that works well for one child may produce failure for another. The idea of a "replacement system", therefore, doesn't even make sense, since the very existence of a "system" is the problem in education. Education is best served if there is no "system", or put another way education is best served by a diverse multitude of systems that match the diverse multitude of students.
Now I'll go back and examine the OP...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenChester
Public School Routine:
Get up early
Get to school on time
Do all your work
Appease your teacher
Don't act out of line, or else detention or suspension
Wage Worker Routine:
Get up early
Get to work on time
Do all your work
Appease your boss
Don't act out of line, or else you will be fired
Quite frankly, I see public education as a broken system that woefully teaches linear thinking. Will it ever be fixed? Who knows. Probably not. Those at the top are afraid of a well-informed, critically thinking populace. Public education is meant to produce workers, not thinkers. Thinkers don't work weekends busting their heels waiting tables or becoming deaf over loud bar music while bar tending. Thinkers don't pick up your trash on Mondays or hold those bright orange signs telling you to avoid construction zones.
But workers do all those unpleasant activities and more. And that my friends, is the Public Indoctrination System in full effect.
It occurs to me that the OP is not criticizing structure, being nice, and showing up on time. It is also clear that usual twisting of "this structure is too rigid" to "we shouldn't have structure" has taken place. What the OP is (clumsily) trying to get across with all his points is the public school structure indoctrinates people into unthinking obedience, which is what the powers that be desire(d) in wage workers, hence the similarity between the routines. The system we have strongly encourages and rewards unthinking obedience, and discourages and punishes initiative and disobedience; this isn't an accident, since the school reformers of the 19th century admired and emulated the Prussian school system, which was designed for just that purpose. The models are similar and the admiration and intention is well-documented.
There is no conspiracy to keep this system, but there was a conspiracy to get it, to the extent that there were people who thought it was good for society and successfully advocated for it. The idea that control of the masses by the powers that be was good for both the masses and the powers that be had obvious appeal to the powers that be, and thus a lot of the advocacy came from powerful people and institutions. Most of this process was out in the open and presented as progress and modernity. The original intent has by now been forgotten in most circles of power (some retain the attitude that founded it), but it persists primarily because of inertia: the system sprouted a bureaucracy that wants to protect itself, that paradigm is the only one people know, and it's much easier to add an innovation to the existing system than it is to change the system. The latter has been the reason most reforms fail, because the structure is the problem that must be reformed, but introducing reforms into the structure only leads to the structure changing the reforms to suit its own needs, thus the reforms fail. Considering the many attempts to make that structure be liberal, pro-initiative, pro-thoughtfulness, and pro-independence that have been grafted onto it, it may be considered a decayed conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenChester
Get up early
Get to school on time
It reads like getting up early and being punctual, which I have little objection to, but I think the point RottenChester is trying to make is school indoctrinates the child to obey by arranging his life around its desires and schedule, rather than arranging his life around his desires and schedule.
Quote:
Do all your work
I think this was twisted around into the "RottenChester doesn't want people to finish tasks" talking point, but I think what he/she is objecting to is not doing all your work, but doing all the work someone else gave you. Again, we see obedience being encouraged and rewarded and initiative being discouraged.
Quote:
Appease your teacher
Don't act out of line, or else detention or suspension
This was twisted into "RottenChester thinks people should be rude" talking point, but obviously what RottenChester is objecting to is "appeasing" teachers, not being nice to them. We again see the theme of obedience, in that school indoctrinates people to obey and please authority figures such as teachers, which goes far beyond just being nice to others. I'm astonished at the number of people that seemingly recognize no difference between these concepts. Judging by his other posts, RottenChester wants an education that encourages independence and individual initiative rather than an education that encourages dependence and obedience. There are many possible methods to accomplish this.
Misbehave? Be rude? Annoy everyone? Act out against all social mores?
The most successful people, and some of the happiest, set routines for themselves and get along with others?
These jobs do exist, the people working them are called "Congressmen."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) number of people that are punctual by adulthood learn punctuality from their parents and start well before school age. Appointments to doctors, dentists, et. al. take care of that. Also, although it is again irrelevant, some people at present work with little or no time constraints.
