The Purpose of Education

[FlorenceHamilton]

I have been mulling thoughts about this for some time. We are divided in this country (maybe in the whole world) by how we view education. There are those that feel that humans should be taught exactly what to think. And there are those who feel that humans should be taught how to think. It is the difference between regurgitating facts and understanding mechanisms. it is the difference between knowing how to use the program and knowing how to write the program. It is the difference between accepting what you are taught and discerning what is meant. It is the difference btween static and dynamic thinking. Ultimately, this is why Ceationists do not understand why learning deeper mechanisms for how beings evolve does not negate, but enhances Darwin's original work. This is also why Scientists fail to see how Creation can be called Science at all. It is not that Scientists think that Creation should not be taught. I know I think it should be taught..as Anthropology. Should children be taught to memorize all of the Presidents or should they be taught about how the conditions in the times affected the choices in leadership and molded the Presidents as leaders? Is memorizing the goal or the tool? Do we want out children ask questions or to be trained to obey?

There is no doubt that the educational system in our culture is broken. The troubling thing is that our differences are making it impossible to fix. Can we find common ground? Is it really about homeschooling versus private schooling versus public education? Shouldn't all of the world be place of learning all of the time at every age and every stage? Should kids be limited to only one format or another? Why can't learning be fun? I am fairly certain that the FJ's love learning. How can we make learning enjoyable for folks who require use of different senses to learn best?

Let's start the conversation.

The people on this forum are some of the best thinkers I know. Can we start this conversation?

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I believe a large part of why the school system is broken is specifically because there has been too much pandering to the right-wing agenda determined to undermine it. Instead of setting standards for the course of education, most subjects have become so politicized and debated that students don't get a good understanding of the material at all.

This was very indicative for example Ultimately, this is why Ceationists do not understand why learning deeper mechanisms for how beings evolve does not negate, but enhances Darwin's original work. This is also why Scientists fail to see how Creation can be called Science at all. It is not that Scientists think that Creation should not be taught. I know I think it should be taught..as Anthropology.

Creationism is not an "Alternative" form of science, it is not science. Full stop. It cannot be evidenced one iota , whereas the evolutionary theory can be reasonably well substantiated. If the Christian creation story is to be taught at school at all, it should be a part of world literature, or comparative mythology. Some kids or their parents might feel like their toes are stepped on a bit. Tough.

Same thing with sex ed. Some parents disagree with the nuances of the material and it's spun into this whole thing of schools intentionally sexualizing children and forcing homosexuality down their throats. Ridiculous.

And bullying. I understand that it is serious problem that affects lives but the focus on the victims, never the perpetrators, frustrates me. Too often discussions of bullying propose nothing that can actually be done about the bullying and the conclusion is, "If you don't want your kid to be bullied, take him out of public school."

I feel that the entire discussion has shifted away from how public schools can be improved. Because of the polarization of the problems I think the implied solution is just take your kid out of school and homeschool him.

To me this is a worrying trend. This kind of statement is elitist: there's an implicit suggestion that parents who cannot pull their children out of school to homeschool (financially, probably the vast majority of them), are passively neglectful or abusive, similar to the condescention of formula feeding mothers.

And, more worrying to me, of those parents who can logistically homeschool, not all of them--maybe not the vast majority of them--will be able to provide a good learning environment. I'm suspicious of the right-wing push to encourage parents to take kids out of public school on one hand, and corner the market on homeschooling materials on the other.

I'm not an expert at this at all but i think the discussion needs to return to actually fixing public schools, not alternates to them.

I know a lot of posters here homeschool, and do it well. I'm not talking to you.

[jenny_islander]

The purpose of education is to produce citizens, that is, people who can continue our democratic, pluralist, humane civilization--and yes, I know that each of these virtues has been dishonored repeatedly, often at the cost of human lives. Nevertheless, we don't need consumer units or productive test takers; we need citizens.

First, tailor schools to the ways in which children actually learn and fund them at levels that will keep them working properly. Reduce class sizes, shorten schooldays, and increase fresh air. Quit assigning hours of pointless worksheets and quit predicating school funding on standardized tests. Make sure that every child gets breakfast and lunch and for the love of all that does not suck make sure it's actual food, not prepackaged airline crap. Crack down on bullies, but drop "zero tolerance" rules that get children branded as violent criminals for bringing butter knives in their lunch boxes.

Second, teach the basics thoroughly. In preschool and K, teach attentiveness, use of the senses, and good habits. In primary, teach reading, writing, and 'rithmetic first of all. Teach history and geography through stories first; teach science and art through hands-on activities first. Teach hygiene, because epidemics are prevented by individuals, but drop the obesity scare tactics and the associated shaming of any child who is not shaped acceptably, and quit worshiping athletes. Teach a second language with songs and games. Teach logic and memorization. In higher primary, find a good, meaty textbook for history (I recommend Hayek) and a good, meaty textbook for science (I recommend Nebel). Teach reading with literature and geography with National Geographic. Hire local artists to teach their arts--dancers, potters, painters, weavers--whoever you can find within driving distance--and in this way you will teach culture. Keep teaching a second language. In the upper grades, teach debate and keep hammering on logic. Also make sure that every child takes civics and reads the Consitution and the Bill of Rights regularly.

Learning technology should not be a major focus of the public school system. By the time the child enters the workforce, the technology will have changed.

[holothuroidea]

This is a very timely thread for me. My oldest is going to turn 4 this summer and I have been mulling over the options. Home school vs. public school. (We can't afford private school).

I agree that the solution to the current education problem is to fix public schools and not to force everyone into alternatives. As to whether it is elitist for people who can home school to choose that option, I don't know. I could see it perceived that way from the outside, but when it's my child's education on the line I'm not thinking about the greater good, I'm thinking about my baby.

There are a lot of cons to home schooling, some of them I'm not sure if they outweigh the pros. I really dislike the idea of being the only educational authority in my child's life. I think that is dangerous and stupid. I'm pretty smart, and I'm a good teacher, but I'm only one person. To formulate your life based on one person's opinion completely goes against my values.

But then, I know she's not going to be bullied at home. I have much more control over the social situations she's put in. I know that I'm going to teach in a way that develops creative thinking skills over fact regurgitation, and I know I'm going to be able to meet her needs as an individual better than a teacher with a class full of kids.

Still, I am only one person. I'm worried about how exhausting it would be for me to keep up with the amount of social engagement she will need to be on par with her public-school peers who get it as a matter of course.

Okay so before this turns into a full-on rant, LOL... I'm going to sit back and absorb all the wisdom you guys have to offer on the subject. :D

[emmiedahl]

I think the ability to think and reason is so much more important than rote knowledge of facts. It might have been important for children to memorize the Presidents back before libraries were common, but it seems silly now. If I want to know who was president in 1832, I can look it up in seconds. Better to use limited brain capacity for other things, kwim?

I was taught to memorize until I became a science major this time around. I really struggled at first. I could memorize the structure and function of a given enzyme inside and out, but when I got to the tests there were questions about what would happen if a certain amino acid was replaced with another. We just don't think that way in the United States. I never really had a good sense of ratio and relationships between variables until physics and calculus.

Not everyone needs to know calculus, of course. Yet we need to make sure our more educated citizens know how to tease apart a problem, understand the ramifications of changing certain factors, know how variables are related, identify what is constant. This type of thinking should be introduced at a young age and built upon throughout one's education. How can someone understand the vast complexity of our health care system if they cannot perform this type of basic reasoning?

Learning to think analytically turned me into a far left wing progressive. Whoever said that fact has a liberal bias was right. The Republican Party has a vested interest in keeping the American public stupid and uneducated, and so far they are doing a stellar job of it.

[pomology]

Children should be taught how to think, not what to think. Being taught what to think is not an education. You can memorize facts, but if you don’t know what to do with them, then you don’t know anything (and I say this as a person who loves to memorize facts and trivia).

For example, in less than two weeks I am going to graduate from a liberal arts college with a degree in history. People ask me, “What are you going to do with that?†Honestly? I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter. My major has absolutely nothing to do with the value of my education.

Take, for example, the capstone of my college education: my honors thesis. Yes, I learned a great deal about the subject of my thesis. But you know what else I learned? I learned how to be organized enough to write a 68 page research paper. I learned about the determination and endurance needed to finish a long-term project. I learned how to do research and examine evidence. I learned how to synthesize and use that evidence to craft a narrative. I learned how to write a long, yet relatively concise, paper. After turning in my thesis, I had to defend it. During my defense I had to answer challenging questions and criticisms about my thesis. Just yesterday I had to give a talk about my thesis and answer some pretty unexpected questions from the audience.

All of these skills that I’ve learned and used will serve me no matter what I do with my life. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to do something that utilizes my love of history and conveys it to other people. But my education prepared me for far more than that. That’s what an education should do. It should teach you how to cope with any situation, because you never know what situation you will find yourself in. It should teach you how to adapt what you know in whatever way you need to.

I have a job for this summer. It has absolutely nothing to do with my major. It isn’t even in something I’m really interested in doing with my life (although it’s for an organization that I support). But you know what? It’s a job that I am going to get paid for and it is a job that I believe my education helped prepare me for, nevertheless.

Knowing facts is important, but it is useless without knowing how to think. Children should be taught that learning is something to enjoy that pervades every part of our lives, not the means to an end.

[jaynie]

I'm in Canada, and our education system doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as the USA system(s), but this is still something I think about a lot, and something we should always be looking to improve. This is probably a bit jumbled though. My apologies.

First, quality of education should never be dependant on personal finances. I know a lot of "inner-city" schools in the USA are severely underfunded and staffed with the worst teachers, and that is frankly appaling. The homeschooling thing comes up here too. Yeah, I probably could give my hypothetical children a good education (better, I'd wager, than many homeschoolers), and if I stay in my current economic class I could probably afford it, too. But I'm not everyone. Society is better off if everyone -- rich or poor -- has a good education and a fair chance to succeed, and it's ridiculous that people haven't recognized that.

Although we've slightly shifted away from rote memorization as a culture, I think there is still too much emphasis on it. This is the age of the internet. Any kid can see how silly it is to memorize a list of presidents when you can just pull that same list up on wikipedia on your phone, no matter how many tests you tell them they can pass. People will often lament that we rely too much on the internet these days, but really, it's not likely that it's going anywhere (and if it does, we probably have bigger problems). Why waste time memorizing the names of all the hormones when you could learn the ways in which they influence the body, how that matters to your health, how we research hormones, etc etc? But of course, it's easier to test terms than theory.

The teaching of literature needs an overhaul too. I do like Shakespeare but the way his plays are taught in most schools is abysmal. We learned the iambic pentameter thing as if you had to read every line like this: my MISS-tress' EYES are NOthing LIKE the SUN, which makes it sound increadibly dull (the word plodding springs to mind). So you sit there in class reading lines of Hamlet's soliloqy as if you are trying to time it to a horses' hooves, nearly falling asleep, when watching it performed by capable actors makes it enjoyable. I loved English in high school because our teachers acknowledged that literature encompassed Harry Potter as much as Chaucer, that film and television can also be literary, and that there isn't a right or wrong interpretation of a text. But I don't see a lot of that kind of thinking at other schools.

I really think psychology should be taught, not just as an elective but as part of the core education. I guess I'm biased as a psych student, but I really believe that a lot of societies problems have at least some basis in psychology, and an understanding of that would make students more empathetic and better able to make fair decisions. I've had arguments with people about things like pleading insanity in court (which is a legal term, not a psychological one, but it ties into psychology) which would be cleared up if people had some grasp of how the brain works. Something like Maslow's heirarchy of needs goes a long way to explaining criminal behaviour amongst the very poor. And there are practical applications as well -- like recognizing the symptoms of certain psychological problems, not being a dick to other people who are suffering, and -- popular topic round here -- raising your kids in a healthy environment, sans unreasonable expectations and corperal punishment.

Otherwise I largely agree with jenny_islander, except that I would say technology should be taught, but not so much "how to use windows 7" as "how computers work / are programmed / whatever". The technology itself will probably change, but the fundementals will hang on, and a good understanding of those fundementals will go a long way to being able to adapt to new technology.

I don't generally like the concept of boarding schools, but I really like the philosophy of this one, even though I think some of it's tactics are a bit flakey: http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/ "I would rather Summerhill produced a happy street sweeper than a neurotic Prime Minister." Basically I think that the schools we have now create an environment in which the "best" students can go on to high-paying jobs, and the "worst" are left behind. I'd rather see schools in which every student gets a chance to excel at whatever they are drawn to, even if it is something we traditionally undervalue.

[FlorenceHamilton]

The thing that I do not understand is the black and white thinking that goes with this topic. Why must you choose homeschooling public schooling? Why do you think directly controlling the social situations is the best course of action? You certainly can homeschool your child for basic reading and arithmetic and instill a sense of wonder. You can take your child on interesting field trips to stimulate curiosity about science and history. You can take your child to performances and you can read with your child to introduce them to literature. The public school option remains open to you all along. I see no reason not to use it and to support it. There are subjects that trained people may be better equipped to impart to your children than you are. The hard fact is that kids need to be faced with social situations that make you cringe. The most important thing is that they know that you are safe. Your child can always talk to you about difficult moments and know that it is safe. If it really gets tough, you can still pull them out. Remember that our job as parents is to protect our children only as we also prepare them. Ultimately, this is what the fundy families we snark about are missing.

Just like the fact that a mother can use breast milk as well as supplement with baby formula, education can also be a mix of public and private options. It is important to stay aware of your children's needs and to alter the mix as appropriate. Although you cannot afford full time private school, your child can also learn from private education. Enrolling your child in a dance class, Saturday morning Art lessons, Karate, storytelling at the local library....these are all bits of private education.

Why does education end with the end of the "school day"? The easry evening is a very important time of day for families with children. It tends to be a hectic time, but it is filled wth moments that leave a huge impression on everyone in the home. A typical pattern consists of greeting and acknowledging the things that all family members have had adventures to share. Asking your child about what things were discussed at school and sharing the treasures of the bookbag for assignments and updates is a good start. It is also fair to share a bit about yur own day. Kids need to have a peek into the grown up world too. If you are extra tired and maybe irritable, it is ok to share that as well so that they know you are a human too. Conversation can continue as meals are set up and prep work is done. Homework can start as food is being cooked or set aside for all family members to share. It is good to be around when the children work on school projects and assignments.

Mealtime is also learning time. Everything from manners to hygiene need to be reinforced. Children benefit from learning to make dinner conversation and make eye contact with their loved ones. Even children who are full time public schoolers are also homeschooled. Your family may need to adopt an alternate of the typical pattern I have described, but cooperation and sharing of not only chores, but also ideas while accomodating family needs is an important part of your child's education. (Remember also that cooking and baking are also Chemistry lessons)

I do believe in public education. I believe that it deserves the public support neccesary to make it as high quality as possible. I grieves me to see it falling into such as sorry state that young parents feel the need to homeschool because public schooling so grossly inadequate. As we continue the healthcare debate, there is a huge glaring issue that needs to come to the surface. One of the most important factors in the long term health of a human being is literacy.

Moving forward, the generation replacing my own needs to support the improvement of public education while also doing what is best for your own child. Learning and teaching balance is crucial. Ultimately, investing in the education of the children outside your own home is as critical to your child's success as providing the best learning environment for your child. All of us (even our favorite fundies) expect our technology devices to be reliable and to improve, we expect the roads to be passable, we expect to go to the store and purchase quality food and clothing. If not for the education of other people's children how can this happen? You all need to role model the importance on investment not only in your own small circle, but in that of the greater world. Do you ever wonder if fundies take their large families to a build for Habitat for Humanity or something similar? I think that learning to do carpentry (which is also a great geometry lesson) while doing something wonderful for humans that you do not even know and with people you do not know is a hugely educational endeavor.

We have become very embrioled in an "all or none" way of thinking. It is part of why we are so politically polarized. The fact is the socialism is not a bad word. Nor is capitalism. The key is balance.

[SayNoToMullets]

Same thing with sex ed. Some parents disagree with the nuances of the material and it's spun into this whole thing of schools intentionally sexualizing children and forcing homosexuality down their throats. Ridiculous.

Forcing homosexuality down our throats? In my public school sex ed course, any mention of homosexuality was conspicuously absent. It wasn't condemned or anything, it was just treated as if it didn't exist. But I guess since we didn't get a fire-and-brimstone lecture about it, that constitutes not only tacit approval, but encouragement.

And bullying. I understand that it is serious problem that affects lives but the focus on the victims, never the perpetrators, frustrates me. Too often discussions of bullying propose nothing that can actually be done about the bullying and the conclusion is, "If you don't want your kid to be bullied, take him out of public school."

An excellent point, and I just wrote a paper about this. As noble as initiatives like "It Gets Better" are, they aren't going to change the problem at hand - kids are taught from a young age that force is how you get what you want. And this is a lesson that both victims and perpetrators take to heart - the "fight back" mentality reinforces this. We tell a kid to act tougher to avoid getting beaten up (that we even put the onus on the victim in this is ridiculous) and then we're shocked when he brings a gun to school. That either party sees violence as a solution speaks to a problem with what kids are being taught.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I went to a public high school that I liked - but later learned that it was actually an educational experiment dreamed up by some hippie educators in the late 1960s. When I was there, there was an emerging clash between the hippies of the old guard, and a newer, "back to basics" administration who were keen on imposing some rules. So, how much was the school a fundie's worst nightmare? We chose our own courses. We didn't just take "grade 10 English" - you got a choice of things like Shakespeare's Comedies, Children's Literature, Utopian and Anti-Utopian novels, etc. For the first few years, teachers never took attendance. You were responsible for yourself, and if you skipped class, you wouldn't know enough to pass. They had a program where you would basically design your own course and work on your own projects for the term. We got to debate abortion - until the school board issued an order that abortion and homosexuality were forbidden topics. There was fairly open drug use, by both students and teachers.

I found an interesting (if long-winded) post by the former principal, with some interesting ideas: http://jdiakiw.blog.yorku.ca/category/s ... hievement/

Today, I think that educators need to respond to the "google challenge". Information is available in ways that it has never been available before. I don't know if some of the younger members here can truly appreciate that. When I was in university, if I wanted to know the GNP of Brazil, or the biochemistry of schizophrenia, I would take the bus to the university library, look up the topic in catalogs and a journal index, go into the stacks to manually retrieve the book or journal, put in a request for an inter-library loan if the item wasn't there, and manually photocopy the information. Today, I would just google it. At the same time, though, it was pretty obvious back then if the information was credible. You were instantly aware of whether you were holding the New England Journal of Medicine, or a pamphlet handed out by the crazy guy on the corner. Today, it's not so obvious. I'm constantly amazed by how many people - even those that are otherwise intelligent and decently educated - will believe that something is true because they read it on the internet. It's frustrating when you challenge someone who is spouting BS to cite sources, and all you get in a weblink.

Students today need to learn to filter and critically evaluate information.

One of the most valuable courses that I ever took was on ancient Israelite history. The professor taught us that if something is written, all that you know as a fact is that someone wrote that thing down. You have to do more work to figure out their motivation for writing it down, whether it is likely to be true, or whether it was written for another purpose.

Students need to understand logical and scientific reasoning. It's not enough to know theory - they need to be able to problem-solve.

Some of the old ways that we did things in school - working quietly by yourself, not "cheating" by asking questions or looking at your books - doesn't translate into skills for the real world today. In the work world, you don't need the smart but isolated loner. You need the person who is chatting with everyone, who can network and who knows exactly who to contact to answer a question or provide what you need. You need someone who can quickly use the information in front of them to solve a problem.

[emmiedahl]

The thing that I do not understand is the black and white thinking that goes with this topic. Why must you choose homeschooling public schooling? Why do you think directly controlling the social situations is the best course of action? You certainly can homeschool your child for basic reading and arithmetic and instill a sense of wonder. You can take your child on interesting field trips to stimulate curiosity about science and history. You can take your child to performances and you can read with your child to introduce them to literature. The public school option remains open to you all along. I see no reason not to use it and to support it.

This.

Between my stepchildren and my children, I have used every method of schooling that is legal in the US. I homeschooled for several years before putting my children in public school. I found out very quickly who my real friends are in the homeschool community, because many people I had known and loved for years no longer speak to me.

Homeschooling is expensive and time-consuming. When I returned to college myself, it was no longer a viable option. Also, my oldest son was in 8th grade. He had not yet outpaced my own knowledge, but he was getting there. He helped me with some trig the other day--I had completely forgotten a basic concept--so it is safe to say I am probably not qualified to teach him higher math. Not every kid will be taking trig and/or calculus, every parent has to know what their child needs and what they can provide.

One of the things I loved about homeschooling was that I could teach my children *how* to think. Not what to think. We did a lot of science experiments that involved "what will happen if we do this? what if we change it a bit?" We still do those things. There is no reason I cannot do them, my children still spend most of their lives at home. I use the public schools as free childcare and also for basic instruction in the boring stuff like phonics and arithmetic. You can be pro-homeschooling and pro-public schools, I am also pro-private school and would probably send my children to one if I could afford it. Sometimes what they learned at school is a springboard for important talks that otherwise might not have happened. My teen boy came home crying about My Lai because of a documentary they watched, and we discussed how this situation is a reality of the warrior mindset.

One of my main issues with the public schools in my area is their acquiescence to religious extremism. There is no sex education, not even that video you watch in 4th or 5th grade about your body changing. The science curriculum is designed to dodge the entire subject of evolution. Our schools react to any controversy by simply not teaching controversial topics. But those are where you begin to think and form ideas. It's a real shame.

[fluttershies]

I went to a public high school that I liked - but later learned that it was actually an educational experiment dreamed up by some hippie educators in the late 1960s. When I was there, there was an emerging clash between the hippies of the old guard, and a newer, "back to basics" administration who were keen on imposing some rules. So, how much was the school a fundie's worst nightmare? We chose our own courses. We didn't just take "grade 10 English" - you got a choice of things like Shakespeare's Comedies, Children's Literature, Utopian and Anti-Utopian novels, etc. For the first few years, teachers never took attendance. You were responsible for yourself, and if you skipped class, you wouldn't know enough to pass. They had a program where you would basically design your own course and work on your own projects for the term. We got to debate abortion - until the school board issued an order that abortion and homosexuality were forbidden topics. There was fairly open drug use, by both students and teachers.

I found an interesting (if long-winded) post by the former principal, with some interesting ideas: http://jdiakiw.blog.yorku.ca/category/s ... hievement/

Today, I think that educators need to respond to the "google challenge". Information is available in ways that it has never been available before. I don't know if some of the younger members here can truly appreciate that. When I was in university, if I wanted to know the GNP of Brazil, or the biochemistry of schizophrenia, I would take the bus to the university library, look up the topic in catalogs and a journal index, go into the stacks to manually retrieve the book or journal, put in a request for an inter-library loan if the item wasn't there, and manually photocopy the information. Today, I would just google it. At the same time, though, it was pretty obvious back then if the information was credible. You were instantly aware of whether you were holding the New England Journal of Medicine, or a pamphlet handed out by the crazy guy on the corner. Today, it's not so obvious. I'm constantly amazed by how many people - even those that are otherwise intelligent and decently educated - will believe that something is true because they read it on the internet. It's frustrating when you challenge someone who is spouting BS to cite sources, and all you get in a weblink.

Students today need to learn to filter and critically evaluate information.

One of the most valuable courses that I ever took was on ancient Israelite history. The professor taught us that if something is written, all that you know as a fact is that someone wrote that thing down. You have to do more work to figure out their motivation for writing it down, whether it is likely to be true, or whether it was written for another purpose.

Students need to understand logical and scientific reasoning. It's not enough to know theory - they need to be able to problem-solve.

Some of the old ways that we did things in school - working quietly by yourself, not "cheating" by asking questions or looking at your books - doesn't translate into skills for the real world today. In the work world, you don't need the smart but isolated loner. You need the person who is chatting with everyone, who can network and who knows exactly who to contact to answer a question or provide what you need. You need someone who can quickly use the information in front of them to solve a problem.

That last part really struck a chord with me. I am one of those who did very well at working quietly by myself in school and as a result, I really struggle in the real world because I pretty much am the smart but isolated loner. I mean, it's not just down to school but also being raised as an only child for a long time, being very independant and also, I suspect, being somewhere on the high-functioning end of the Autistic Spectrum. Things like networking are a real struggle for me, so I suspect I should stay in academia career-wise.

[celestial]

Some of the old ways that we did things in school - working quietly by yourself, not "cheating" by asking questions or looking at your books - doesn't translate into skills for the real world today. In the work world, you don't need the smart but isolated loner. You need the person who is chatting with everyone, who can network and who knows exactly who to contact to answer a question or provide what you need. You need someone who can quickly use the information in front of them to solve a problem.

I think it depends on the job, though. Many research positions are great for smart but (somewhat) isolated loners and would bore extraverts to tears.

ETA: Of course, all positions require some level of social skills, so it's important schools develop those. Just wanted to point out that there is a place in the workforce for people who just aren't that into constantly networking with others.

[asinglevoice]

I think we need to move away from the chasm that exists between "how to think" and "what to think" and instead move toward linking "how to think" and "what to know."

There is a need for students to learn factual information. But it is equally important that they know how to analyze, synthesize, create - all of those things. Unfortunately, our current system - and by 'system' I mean the state and district implemented standards and curriculum that dictate what the teachers teach - emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge much more than the application of skills.

I'm starting my student teaching this fall. It's a little daunting but...we'll see how it goes!

[Austin]

This.

Between my stepchildren and my children, I have used every method of schooling that is legal in the US. I homeschooled for several years before putting my children in public school. I found out very quickly who my real friends are in the homeschool community, because many people I had known and loved for years no longer speak to me.

Homeschooling is expensive and time-consuming. When I returned to college myself, it was no longer a viable option. Also, my oldest son was in 8th grade. He had not yet outpaced my own knowledge, but he was getting there. He helped me with some trig the other day--I had completely forgotten a basic concept--so it is safe to say I am probably not qualified to teach him higher math. Not every kid will be taking trig and/or calculus, every parent has to know what their child needs and what they can provide.

One of the things I loved about homeschooling was that I could teach my children *how* to think. Not what to think. We did a lot of science experiments that involved "what will happen if we do this? what if we change it a bit?" We still do those things. There is no reason I cannot do them, my children still spend most of their lives at home. I use the public schools as free childcare and also for basic instruction in the boring stuff like phonics and arithmetic. You can be pro-homeschooling and pro-public schools, I am also pro-private school and would probably send my children to one if I could afford it. Sometimes what they learned at school is a springboard for important talks that otherwise might not have happened. My teen boy came home crying about My Lai because of a documentary they watched, and we discussed how this situation is a reality of the warrior mindset.

One of my main issues with the public schools in my area is their acquiescence to religious extremism. There is no sex education, not even that video you watch in 4th or 5th grade about your body changing. The science curriculum is designed to dodge the entire subject of evolution. Our schools react to any controversy by simply not teaching controversial topics. But those are where you begin to think and form ideas. It's a real shame.

I agree, but also want to say that many, many teachers work very hard at differentiating their educational approaches to meet the needs of the many different learning styles in their classrooms. They also recognize and highly value the need to teach children how to think, not just what to think. My husband and his like-minded peers spend hours and hours outside of the classrom every single week in order to do this. He writes his own curriculum and tailors it to six different subsets of students within his classroom, for six different subjects. That's about as granular as he can get unless he's willing to give up sleep. He spends so much time working that I actually insisted he see a therapist because I thought (and think) it was way out of balance in his life. It didn't help.

Our own children got fine educations in a school district that was not rated very highly throughout most of their school careers. Only recently has it been recognized as getting much better. They learned what they needed to in school and we, as their parents, who are ultimately responsible for their educations, supplemented and augmented their school education with enrichment experiences and activities. I am proud of the education my children received and do not see my local public schools, its students or its teachers, as "broken".

[Kitty]

I think some aspects of public education are very, very broken. On the other hand, if schools are a reflection of the community, then we have way more problems that really need to be addressed.

I went to a school where I was taught to question things and to think critically. Despite Hometown being as conservative as it is, I think I benefited from that. Unfortunately, education is thought to be all about "book learnin'" so even kids in my honors and AP classes got annoyed. It's depressing how common that mindset is-- that education is purely academics and nothing more. That mindset is what leads to books being banned and curricula in all subjects being compromised in favor of religion. If education is simply academics, then the academics should conform to a very specific worldview. I was fortunate that my teachers went off the beaten path, even risking their jobs for it. I was unfortunate that my classmates did adhere to that mindset.

What I find very worrying is the near-worship of Asian countries' school systems. I can see how it appeals to the American work ethic, but they're not perfect either and in a country run by religious wackjobs it would turn out much worse. In China, Japan, etc. education is largely rote memorization and testing, and education isn't for personal gain but for career training. And that's what it's turning into here in the US, or maybe has always been. I just know that a few decades ago, you went to college and majored in whatever you wanted to, because it was for *you*, not your career. Now it's just for job training, and if you're not in the "hard sciences" people will smugly inform you that Starbucks is hiring. I'm not suited for the "hard sciences," but I didn't want to spend any more time in Hometown.

I've had people with no hope of being accepted into college become very smug that they found something they could do with an associate's degree. So the fuck what? I wanted something more. I don't want to just do low-paid shitwork for the rest of my life. Can't I go learn something for the sake of learning? Apparently not, because that's just weird.

[zipper]

I just wanted to say how much I feel like these are really great replies. I really like the formula comparison and I agree that opting out doesn't solve anything for the greater population. But- while I want very much to be able to come together and create something functional as a society I feel like :) even in areas of wealth, involved parents, etc. it's not happening right now. It wasn't my fault that my education was worthless, but knowing that how do I put my child in the system? It's very hard to sacrifice your child to the system for the good of future other people's kids :) it's perhaps not something Americans really can do well. But it's likely to be the only path towards a government funded solution because while mass opting out will eventually topple the broken system it will essentially have put in its place pay based highly discriminatory education. I love this discussion and I wish we lived on planet FJ so it could be my reality- so I ask since it's not and I have a complicated preschooler who has already been sent to assessments because she's more work than the other children at her private preschool (she's gifted but incredibly asynchronous) how do I support both her and the system?

[holothuroidea]

I think it depends on the job, though. Many research positions are great for smart but (somewhat) isolated loners and would bore extraverts to tears.

ETA: Of course, all positions require some level of social skills, so it's important schools develop those. Just wanted to point out that there is a place in the workforce for people who just aren't that into constantly networking with others.

I think both of these posts reflect the current attitude about education in the U.S., that is a means to an end (namely, a job).

[emmiedahl]

I think both of these posts reflect the current attitude about education in the U.S., that is a means to an end (namely, a job).

Educating yourself is a great pursuit on its own, but for many of us the job aspect is important. The vast majority of people need to work, and preferably we will train ourselves for a job that meets our social and financial needs.

[celestial]

I think both of these posts reflect the current attitude about education in the U.S., that is a means to an end (namely, a job).

IMO, the goal of education should be to prepare people to become thinking, compassionate, aware, productive members of society. Yes, part of that is preparing them to find a job that they can do well, is satisfying to them, and contributes a societal need. However, that is far from the whole picture, just as being a good citizen =/= having a job. People also need to be educated about how to learn, how to think critically, how to be kind to others, how to be responsible...

[Soldevi]

Interesting topic. I don't have an opinion yet. I have been reading some news articles about Finnish and American schools and their differences and trying to understand why American way is so diversified. I am going to reread your answers and ponder more :)

One thing I have never understood is that already mentioned memorising thing. When I was in primary school, I don't think we really memorised anything per se. Of course learning languages requires memorising words and grammar rules, but that is normal. We discussed a lot, played a lot, wrote a lot and read a lot. We were taught to find and understand information, it wasn't given us directly and especially in later grades we were expected to analyse subject and to apply a theory to a given problem. We also performed lots and lots on different kind of practical experiments. It is generally thought that schools are there to help kids to face life, not so much to know specific topics.

This is one of the articles I have been reading lately: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-pl ... sful.html#

[holothuroidea]

Educating yourself is a great pursuit on its own, but for many of us the job aspect is important. The vast majority of people need to work, and preferably we will train ourselves for a job that meets our social and financial needs.

There is also the option to educate yourself and then seek employment based on the skills you have gained, rather than seeking skills for future employment.

That's not to say that the latter is the wrong way to do it. I was just pointing out that is the dominant thought in the U.S., and it works for a lot of people. It doesn't work for everyone, though, and I don't think it's good to impose one way or the other on a child who might grow up to find that maybe the other way would have been better for them.

It would be great if our educational system could be flexible enough to incorporate as many different learning structures and motivations as there are children.

[holothuroidea]

IMO, the goal of education should be to prepare people to become thinking, compassionate, aware, productive members of society. Yes, part of that is preparing them to find a job that they can do well, is satisfying to them, and contributes a societal need. However, that is far from the whole picture, just as being a good citizen =/= having a job. People also need to be educated about how to learn, how to think critically, how to be kind to others, how to be responsible...

This does seem to be the predominant attitude, but it does cause some problems. We set ourselves up for the thought that a person's worth is wrapped up in how much money they can earn (or how they "contribute to the economy"). This stigma is a big part of why it is difficult to be a SAHP, which I believe is very beneficial for society, probably more so than many jobs that are out there. (personal opinion)

[emmiedahl]

There is also the option to educate yourself and then seek employment based on the skills you have gained, rather than seeking skills for future employment.

That's not to say that the latter is the wrong way to do it. I was just pointing out that is the dominant thought in the U.S., and it works for a lot of people. It doesn't work for everyone, though, and I don't think it's good to impose one way or the other on a child who might grow up to find that maybe the other way would have been better for them.

It would be great if our educational system could be flexible enough to incorporate as many different learning structures and motivations as there are children.

I know so many people who followed their passion for linguistics or whatever and are now employed at McDonalds and struggling to pay rent while student loans hang over their head. I think it is a bad idea to get an education that will not lead to a job if you are someone who will need to work for a living.

There is a reason I use linguistics as an example. I love linguistics! So I read any book about it I can get my hands on, took related classes as electives at university, and I certainly think my ability to speak multiple languages will be helpful as an MD. It would be irresponsible for me to finance an education based on linguistics, though.

[uber frau]

Well duh. You educate your children to read a bit of the KJB and the back of the tator-tot package. Although, if you do your job properly, they'll have memorised enough proof-texts and made ttc enough times to have it down pat by the time they're nine or so and then you can start introducing the really challenging stuff-like folding fitted sheets.