http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/the-father-of-modern-school-re
Essentially he suggested some time ago that universal vouchers should be given out to everyone. Parents can decide what kind of school they want to spend there voucher at. They may have to add more money out of their own pocket if they believe a particular private school is worth the benefit or spend the voucher at a government (Public) school with no out of pocket added. The idea is that it would promote more competition in educational offerings by giving parents more choices. Competition would weed out the failed approaches and reward the successful ones. I like this idea. It doesn't directly address the problems related to centralized control of schools but it may address it indirectly through competition.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
What is "The Grain" with Public Schools
I believe "The Grain" as it pertains to Public Schooling, at least in Seattle, is the idea that you must support and endorse public schools because not supporting them means you must have some demented characteristic or nefarious goal. An example of this perception would be that people who do not support public schools fear an educated populace. The only reason to fear an educated populace is if you have something that populace wants. So clearly if you don't support public schools you are greedy, wealthy and therefore privileged and fear that your wealth will be stripped of you by an overwhelming tide of poor educated people who are tired of being your slave. There are some problems with this perception. It assumes there are no alternatives to public schools. It assumes the model by which public schools run is sound. It assumes the system can be fixed. It assumes the system itself wants to change. It assumes much about people with and without money. It also assumes you don't need anymore analysis in order to choose a side.
What if you think public schools are terrible because of deeply seeded fundamental flaws? What if you believe no amount of money will fix the underlying problems. What if you disagree with the fundamental model of existing public schools? Do you know what the model is?
I'm going to try and show you why I do not support the current system by showing that there are fundamental flaws that form the basis of this system and it can't be reformed or that it isn't worth reforming when compared to existing alternatives. Finally, contributing money or resources only encourages these flaws and enables further perpetuation of those flaws.
I've chosen to focus on the flaws below because they effected me when I was in school and I feel I can talk about them with some degree of experience.
* Teaching model where teachers lead and students follow.
* A centralized system must control and administrate schools.
* Repetition (and or memorization) are preferred over self empowermentMeta-Learning
It's worth pointing out that some of these flaws are not necessarily incongruent with the administrative structure of existing public school. Or are they? Lets get more details first on the flaws.
First, I'll tackle the leader-follower model. I can remember being a very passionate middle school stereo-hifi-enthusiast. My passion wasn't given to me by the school system. It seemingly manifested spontaneously. I really don't know why I was so passionate about that subject and that might not be important. I remember spending way more time reading and learning about that topic then any homework assignment or school project. I can also remember being so interested in the topic that you couldn't stop me from learning about it. If you tried I would have seen it as a challenge to overcome. I suspect very few children would care if you tried to prevent them from going to school. I also remember not needing any encouragement or stern warnings about what happens if you don't take learning seriously. To me it seems I was doing my own leading without a teacher. I certainly lacked structure, guidance and facilitation. Those would certainly have been helpful and created an opportunity to combine fundamentals like Math, Science, Language-expression, History and standardized testing with something I was very interested in. In summary, children should lead with their passions and teachers should facilitate and add structure. We need to determine if this new model works with the centrally managed and politically motivated school system.
What role does or should a self-protecting political and bureaucratic system have in that most simple and self motivated journey of learning? I mentioned earlier that I needed guidance and structure. Clearly I shouldn't have been left alone to my own devices and had society just hope that I learned a broad or deep enough set of knowledge. I can agree then that there should be standards and expectations of accomplishment. There should credible teachers capable of identifying, planning, facilitating and evaluating a child's work. However, I don't see why the administration and control of those duties has to be tied to a restrictive central control structure. An alternative would be decentralized schooling. Which already exists in many forms. The kind I'm most interested in is the most seemingly anarchistic of them. The self assembling parent created school. The basic idea is that you and a relatively small group of parents (10-15 families or couples) in your general community pool your financial and volunteer resources together with one or more experienced guides and form a school. Sounds really hard but that exact idea is done very frequently but typically at the preschool level on a regular basis. Parents are given jobs. Financial resources are used to rent physical space and qualified teachers. Individuals with experience starting these schools are paid for their guidance of the parents and the kids. Advantages include more individual power over how your child is taught, more involvement in your child's development, less reliance on law makers and voters who may differ with how you want your money spent. The fact that I can come up with a reasonable alternative shows that we don't have to default to our existing system and vilify those that dissent. We can explore and find different solutions.
Last point deals with Meta-Learning. I was surprised and upset when I was in my early twenties and began to realize I didn't really know how to learn. I didn't see learning as a repeatable process with named stages done in order and clearly definable. I also didn't know what my individual learning style was. What the hell was a learning style for that matter? It seems really strange to me that we wouldn't arm our children with the tools necessary to be self sufficient learners who don't need as much leading to succeed.
It sounds to me that a system based on central control is more interested in preserving itself then creating powerful individuals that can learn on there own given access to knowledge and facilities for exploration.
What if you think public schools are terrible because of deeply seeded fundamental flaws? What if you believe no amount of money will fix the underlying problems. What if you disagree with the fundamental model of existing public schools? Do you know what the model is?
I'm going to try and show you why I do not support the current system by showing that there are fundamental flaws that form the basis of this system and it can't be reformed or that it isn't worth reforming when compared to existing alternatives. Finally, contributing money or resources only encourages these flaws and enables further perpetuation of those flaws.
I've chosen to focus on the flaws below because they effected me when I was in school and I feel I can talk about them with some degree of experience.
* Teaching model where teachers lead and students follow.
* A centralized system must control and administrate schools.
* Repetition (and or memorization) are preferred over self empowermentMeta-Learning
It's worth pointing out that some of these flaws are not necessarily incongruent with the administrative structure of existing public school. Or are they? Lets get more details first on the flaws.
First, I'll tackle the leader-follower model. I can remember being a very passionate middle school stereo-hifi-enthusiast. My passion wasn't given to me by the school system. It seemingly manifested spontaneously. I really don't know why I was so passionate about that subject and that might not be important. I remember spending way more time reading and learning about that topic then any homework assignment or school project. I can also remember being so interested in the topic that you couldn't stop me from learning about it. If you tried I would have seen it as a challenge to overcome. I suspect very few children would care if you tried to prevent them from going to school. I also remember not needing any encouragement or stern warnings about what happens if you don't take learning seriously. To me it seems I was doing my own leading without a teacher. I certainly lacked structure, guidance and facilitation. Those would certainly have been helpful and created an opportunity to combine fundamentals like Math, Science, Language-expression, History and standardized testing with something I was very interested in. In summary, children should lead with their passions and teachers should facilitate and add structure. We need to determine if this new model works with the centrally managed and politically motivated school system.
What role does or should a self-protecting political and bureaucratic system have in that most simple and self motivated journey of learning? I mentioned earlier that I needed guidance and structure. Clearly I shouldn't have been left alone to my own devices and had society just hope that I learned a broad or deep enough set of knowledge. I can agree then that there should be standards and expectations of accomplishment. There should credible teachers capable of identifying, planning, facilitating and evaluating a child's work. However, I don't see why the administration and control of those duties has to be tied to a restrictive central control structure. An alternative would be decentralized schooling. Which already exists in many forms. The kind I'm most interested in is the most seemingly anarchistic of them. The self assembling parent created school. The basic idea is that you and a relatively small group of parents (10-15 families or couples) in your general community pool your financial and volunteer resources together with one or more experienced guides and form a school. Sounds really hard but that exact idea is done very frequently but typically at the preschool level on a regular basis. Parents are given jobs. Financial resources are used to rent physical space and qualified teachers. Individuals with experience starting these schools are paid for their guidance of the parents and the kids. Advantages include more individual power over how your child is taught, more involvement in your child's development, less reliance on law makers and voters who may differ with how you want your money spent. The fact that I can come up with a reasonable alternative shows that we don't have to default to our existing system and vilify those that dissent. We can explore and find different solutions.
Last point deals with Meta-Learning. I was surprised and upset when I was in my early twenties and began to realize I didn't really know how to learn. I didn't see learning as a repeatable process with named stages done in order and clearly definable. I also didn't know what my individual learning style was. What the hell was a learning style for that matter? It seems really strange to me that we wouldn't arm our children with the tools necessary to be self sufficient learners who don't need as much leading to succeed.
It sounds to me that a system based on central control is more interested in preserving itself then creating powerful individuals that can learn on there own given access to knowledge and facilities for exploration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)