Geo Da Sponge said:
Well firstly I would point out one thing you said:
Another aspect of this trite he somehow managed to get published is that it is all negative. In a good piece, even describing something you despise, you always put in a few points for the opposite argument, this creates a balanced and therefore valid argument.
I didn't see where you put in any points in favour of his argument. Therefore your argument is invalid by your own logic.
But now to actually dissect your argument properly. You think that enforcing conformity in schools is a good thing, but as I understand it he's more making a point about the petty rule enforcement that you can get in schools when a teacher doesn't want his authority undermined. Of course, who can blame them? They are only human and no one wants to be cheeked by a fifteen year old. This can extend into the learning environment; I remember back when I was doing GCSE geography, I was separated from my friends in class because we would question the teacher.
Skipping down to where you mention things that school does teach you that are helpful, all of the things you mention would naturally be part of any system where children are educated together. It is not some massive success on the part of the education system that they can make children form friendships by putting them together in large groups.
Earlier I was also annoyed by the lack of a presented alternative in the article. I have since realised that that's not the purpose of the article anyway, and to say that all of his points are invalid simply because there is no overall solution presented at the end of the article is patently absurd. Additionally, reading some of his other work I can see that his proposed solution is to make education more flexible with students and how they work. Let (and help) the child teach themselves instead of forcing teaching upon them.
I am glad you pointed out my lack of support for his article. This is because I am writing a reply on a forum, as opposed to an article or blog post. Furthermore, as I stated before, I disagreed with nigh on everything he wrote, and the closest I could have put to an agreement would have been to comment that the choice of font could have been worse.
My point about conformity is that schools do a good job at preparing you for real life. of the 12 years at school, I'd say the first 6 of them are just to teach you the basics. The basics being reading, writing, the ground rules of science later on and then introductions to the applications of them.
He claims
It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then on. The cry for "basic skills" practice is a smokescreen behind which schools pre-empt the time of children for twelve years and teach them the six lessons I've just taught you.
An adult may be taught these lessons in 50 contact hours, but most young children will not be.
And in order to understand the work at secondary school, you must have more then "basic literary skills" for any subject, let alone the study of English.
Of the 6 years spent in secondary education (again I may be missing something because I am from England) The argument mainly focuses around whether or not there should be a national curriculum.
He addresses this:
The current debate about whether we should have a national curriculum is phony; we already have one
And continues to talk about his six rule point.
A point he bases his entire argument on.
Six rules that society teaches
because it needs them. Not to imprison or unduly force conformity on, but because these things will help you in later life.
My response about the positives of skills was made in the belief that the only semblence of an alternative given is having everyone home-schooled, an idea that he himself realises is economicly ridiculous. But if such an opinion was somehow viable, these would be benefits lost by switching to it.
It's easy to complain about something without sporting an alternative.
I could say "eating sucks" write an article on how terrible it is that the good food tastes bad, and the bad food tastes good. How that losing three hours a day to eat is using up billions of man hours every day, but that those who go without suffer.
You'd treat me like a lunatic. Because I'm not presenting a rational alternative.
If I was to finish by saying "Well, keep everyone on a drip that we fill up, so we can be constantly on the go, enjoy all of our free time, and never have the inconvenience of having to eat food we don't like, and also be free from obesity"...
Well you'd still treat me like a lunatic, but at least you would know where I stand on the matter, and why.
You missed out a couple of ad-hominem name callings and a couple sentence structures that simply go nowhere too. I'm not perfect yet, and don't put enough work into forum posts to be.
But in yours, you managed to miss addressing the single most important part of my reply.
The Six step plan. The crooked foundation that ultimately brings the entire building down.
Increased flexibility in schools is a pipe dream. People appreciate the ability to measure one school against another too much for it to be changed. The only way this can be done is if all schools teach the same.
But furthermore, schools aren't a place for learning. It would be a waste of time to do so. They are for allowing people to find out what they enjoy most, and then college and university are the places where you begin to, and ultimately end up being able to specialise to any amount you desire.
It's for laying out the basic skills, rules and a soft introduction into how the world will treat you.
What reason is there to have it any other way?
