"School is a prison--and damaging our kids"

[umsami]

Posted on Salon.com

 

Preaching to the choir, I know. 

 

"My colleague Gina Riley and I recently surveyed 232 such families. According to these families’ reports, the main benefits of this approach lie in the children’s continued curiosity, creativity and zest  for learning, and in the freedom and harmony the entire family experiences when relieved of the pressures and schedules of school and the burden of manipulating children into doing homework that doesn’t interest them. As one parent put it, â€œOur lives are essentially stress free … We have a very close relationship built on love, mutual trust, and mutual respect.†She went on to write: “As an educator I see that my daughter has amazing critical thinking skills that many of my adult college students lack … My daughter lives and learns in the real world and loves it. What more could I ask for?â€

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Riley and I are currently completing a study of approximately 80 adults who themselves were home schooled in this self-directed way when they were of “school age.† The full results are not yet in, but it is clear that those who took this approach came from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and have, as a whole, gone on very successfully into adulthood."

[Bluegoat]

Hmm - I must be doing it wrong, I don't feel stress free.

[TammyS]

If you want a better treatment of this subject find a copy of "School is Dead" by Everett Reimer.

[Valley Girl]

Hmm - I must be doing it wrong, I don't feel stress free.

 

Yeah, no kidding. I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom homeschooling is this amazing, fulfilling experience. It's not for us. We're doing it because traditional school of any kind would not work for one child. But my other one is having an incredible experience in public school, and I'm thrilled he has the opportunities and classes he does.

 

I think, as with so many things, it's really hard to make blanket statements about what's good and not good.

[regentrude]

Hmm - I must be doing it wrong, I don't feel stress free.

That comment was specifically made by a parent who

have scrapped set curricular approaches in favor of self-directed learning.

These parents do not give lessons or tests, but provide a home environment that facilitates learning,

and they help connect their children to community activities from which they learn

I assume that means unschoolers.

I can see how unschooling could be less stressful than more structured ways of homeschooling.

What is stressful for me is making sure the things are done that I consider necessary. If I did not feel like this and would be content to let my kids be *completely* self directed, it would be quite relaxing.

Edited May 5, 2016 by regentrude

[HomeAgain]

Here's the thing: schools are still producing people who, as a whole, have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Unschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Homeschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

 

The same is said for private/religious/philosophical-based/and free-democratic education.

 

Articles like this tend to be more inflammatory than actually producing change.  We all know the testing in schools is claptrap, and through refusal and petitioning, it's slowly changing.  This?  This is nothingness, designed to make people feel better or worse about the education they have chosen or is right for their family.  It's scare tactics and THAT'S NOT NICE.  Not everyone can homeschool.  Not everyone can give the attention due to unschooling.  And there are only a handful of Sudbury-style schools in the country.  And frankly, most of us in a position to use different methods or effect change were educated in public schools, so they must be doing something right to continue to produce those of us who are looking outside the box for answers.

Edited May 5, 2016 by HomeAgain

[EmseB]

Here's the thing: schools are still producing people who, as a whole, have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Unschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Homeschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

 

The same is said for private/religious/philosophical-based/and free-democratic education.

 

Articles like this tend to be more inflammatory than actually producing change. We all know the testing in schools is claptrap, and through refusal and petitioning, it's slowly changing. This? This is nothingness, designed to make people feel better or worse about the education they have chosen or is right for their family. It's scare tactics and THAT'S NOT NICE. Not everyone can homeschool. Not everyone can give the attention due to unschooling. And there are only a handful of Sudbury-style schools in the country. And frankly, most of us in a position to use different methods or effect change were educated in public schools, so they must be doing something right to continue to produce those of us who are looking outside the box for answers.

I increasingly see, though, a distinct lack of ability to form logical arguments and form culture (not pop culture), and really understand what it means to be educated. Not to get political, but I see this more clearly when I look at the three remaining U.S. candidates for president and our society's descent into populism, shouting at each other, and wanting to "send a message" or retain power rather than think critically about governance. These people are literate, functioning adults, but something is very lacking in their education. It's all very discouraging to me, and being that most people have been educated by the government in the last 50 years or so, I'm feel like that's where change really, really needs to happen in a huge way. Edited May 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[JumpyTheFrog]

My house is anything but harmonious. But I will have educated, maybe someday civilized, barbarians.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I increasingly see, though, a distinct lack of ability to form logical arguments and form culture (not pop culture), and really understand what it means to be educated. Not to get political, but I see this more clearly when I look at the three remaining U.S. candidates for president and our society's descent into populism, shouting at each other, and wanting to "send a message" or retain power rather than think critically about governance. It's all very discouraging to me, and being that most people have been educated by the government in the last 50 years or so, I'm feel like that's where change really, really needs to happen in a huge way.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that a thorough grounding in history and logic is necessary for a population to make good political choices.

[DawnM]

Huh.  Well, I am sending my youngest to prison next year.

Oh, and I am apparently going back to be a warden.

[HomeAgain]

I increasingly see, though, a distinct lack of ability to form logical arguments and form culture (not pop culture), and really understand what it means to be educated. Not to get political, but I see this more clearly when I look at the three remaining U.S. candidates for president and our society's descent into populism, shouting at each other, and wanting to "send a message" or retain power rather than think critically about governance. These people are literate, functioning adults, but something is very lacking in their education. It's all very discouraging to me, and being that most people have been educated by the government in the last 50 years or so, I'm feel like that's where change really, really needs to happen in a huge way.

 

I honestly don't.  Logic has never been something that most of the American population has studied in any generation.  The 3Rs did not include Rhetoric, let alone formal logic. ;) Given the history of education in the U.S., and the history of politics....I mean, Andrew Jackson was a poor writer and when confronted with it during mudslinging of THAT election his retort was that it was a "damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word." Look up many of the pre-televised election years and you'll find all sorts of nastiness going on.  The rumor of a cross-dressing governor is STILL going, 200+ years later!  Talk about damaging a reputation for rumor's sake!

 

The only difference between now and then is that our witch hunts are carried on in a format much bigger than Salem's town square - online where ignorant and educated both have an equal voice.  Popularity is bigger.  Voices join up with others and their vocal remonstrations are not really vocal, but in all forms: written, vocal, and visual.

 

I have yet to see a large percentage of the population care deeply about governance.  We swing back and forth between watching the entertainment and willing to be led like sheep.  Between the 1960s and now is about the peak of attention from the common people to what their politicians are doing.

 

We are not different.  Our growth makes us think we are, but very little changes except our perception.

[Bluegoat]

That comment was specifically made by a parent who

 

I assume that means unschoolers.

I can see how unschooling could be less stressful than more structured ways of homeschooling.

What is stressful for me is making sure the things are done that I consider necessary. If I did not feel like this and would be content to let my kids be *completely* self directed, it would be quite relaxing.

 

Yes, I think you are right - I was mostly joking.

 

Though I suspect there are plenty of unschoolers who would not say their lives are stress-free - it seems a bit happy-clappy over the top.

 

I have some unschooling roots - I think there is a lot to be said for being responsive to the child and what is happening around.  And I don't give tests.

 

But yes - there are some things that I consider to be necessary skills or important knowledge for all citizens, and I wouldn't leave those things totally to chance. 

[Bluegoat]

I will comment on the obey authority figures perspective. Sorry the author thinks its stupid. Maybe if he had experience in a group situation he would see why it was necessary. My ice skating trip this week featured several homeschool families who could not bring themselves to obey the authority figure as they did their own thang. They were ejected after an hour, after several near injuries as they skated and stopped in front of beginners, or allowed the toddlers to crawl on the ice in the path of people learning to skate backwards. Thank you authority figures for keeping me out of the ER.

 

Culturally we seem to have a portion of the population that wants a kind of reflexive antipathy to authority figures.  Then there is the section that wants the opposite.  Unschoolers do seem to fall into the first group for the most part.

 

What I very rarely see is any kind of well-reasoned examination of the basis of rightful authority, or consistency of action among those who espouse either position.  I tend to be more among the "flout authority" crowd, and I have to say it drives me a little bonkers because they are often so conflicted in asserting authority appropriately, resent it from some sources, and then want to impose it in other cases.  But without much explication of how it all fits together.

[EmseB]

I honestly don't. Logic has never been something that most of the American population has studied in any generation. The 3Rs did not include Rhetoric, let alone formal logic. ;) Given the history of education in the U.S., and the history of politics....I mean, Andrew Jackson was a poor writer and when confronted with it during mudslinging of THAT election his retort was that it was a "damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word." Look up many of the pre-televised election years and you'll find all sorts of nastiness going on. The rumor of a cross-dressing governor is STILL going, 200+ years later! Talk about damaging a reputation for rumor's sake!

 

The only difference between now and then is that our witch hunts are carried on in a format much bigger than Salem's town square - online where ignorant and educated both have an equal voice. Popularity is bigger. Voices join up with others and their vocal remonstrations are not really vocal, but in all forms: written, vocal, and visual.

 

I have yet to see a large percentage of the population care deeply about governance. We swing back and forth between watching the entertainment and willing to be led like sheep. Between the 1960s and now is about the peak of attention from the common people to what their politicians are doing.

 

We are not different. Our growth makes us think we are, but very little changes except our perception.

I don't think we're different, however, when I look at what "educated" meant in the past and look at the average college junior or senior today, I think the differences in writing, speaking and thinking are stark. SWB made a comment about this one time I heard her speaking...about how the vast majority of her Comp 101 students could not write well, but they thought they could! And this was at William and Mary, not a remedial community college. They couldn't write a basic college paper with coherent structure and argument. In college!

 

Logic was not studied formally, but it was imbedded in primary sources and speeches and texts. It was formed and shaped in classes. If you read political speeches and debates from 150 years ago, the arguments are much more complex, nuanced, and in depth. Even the mudslinging was way more creative! We have many more people going to school than those days, but not much to show for it in the way of depth and true education. College is more of an experience than for education's sake.

 

I don't think everything was rosy back in the day, but I don't think what we have now is great for the population as a whole on a larger historical scale. I only jave to flip through about 10 channels on the TV to comfirm this for myself.

Edited May 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[regentrude]

I don't think we're different, however, when I look at what "educated" meant in the past and look at the average college junior or senior today, I think the differences in writing, speaking and thinking are stark.

 

But let's also keep in mind that only a small portion of the population could be considered "educated" in the past and that college nowadays is for mass education.

Edited May 5, 2016 by regentrude

[JoJosMom]

That was an interesting article; thanks for the link, OP.

 

I think the author has some valid criticisms, but I disagree with his starting point.  I think that actually some students do well with the "teach and test" method.  The problem is that the ones who succeed with that method are only a small subset of the population, something like 20%.  Personally, I think we need to get over this obsession with trying to find the magic elixir, the one-size-fits-all perfect approach that will turn every child into the perfect learning machine.  It's not going to happen.  That's why I am so against our ever-growing corporate education monolith; all it does is suck in money for the technocrats and our children's education just gets worse.  We need more diversity in education, not more standardized mediocrity.

[Bluegoat]

But let's also keep in mind that only a small portion of the population could be considered "educated" in the past.

 

This is very true and was my first thought.

 

On the other hand, there is a sense in which the tenor of what goes on in public policy comes from the people who are in fact educated and the leaders in society.

 

The level of political discourse at the top seems to have gone really downhill.  There is in some circles a virtue made of being anti-intellectual.

 

I've wondered if part of the reason is that there are so many people who think they are educated now, but in fact they are not.  To draw on the other thread - the history and structure of political decision making and the situation worldwide, basic knowledge of economics - these are things that people need to have to really have an educated perspective on our political situation.

 

But as far as I can see many of the people graduating from university, much less high school, actually have no knowledge of these subjects.

[EmseB]

But let's also keep in mind that only a small portion of the population could be considered "educated" in the past and that college nowadays is for mass education.

Yes, I agree, but I guess in my mind it looks like we've just spread it out thinner over more people, which has made it less valuable overall. You still have only a small amount of people getting a truly good, quality education. So, yeah, we have a lot more people reading, which is amazing, but then the people who have excellent reading comprehension have the edge, our those who can read technically difficult material and understand it. So, in my mind, mass education, while unequivocally good, isn't the panacea that so many make it out to be. If someone is graduating thinking they are educated, but find they can't write a basic paper (which, having just completed my undergrad, I believe happens quite frequently), then someone was lied to. I think that creates a certain kind of gullibility.

Edited May 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[Guest]

I feel like ive read this before.

 

I like it :)

 

The troubles with any homeschool do not negate troubles for many students in many bm schools, obviously :) and vici versy

[Jean in Newcastle]

I feel conflicted.  On one hand, what it says about the love of learning being snuffed out, resonates with me - with homeschooling as well as B & M schools.  But perhaps I am too entrenched in the ideas themselves to wholly give myself up to unschooling or "democaratic" education.  I try to do a mix with my kids and to ignore the feelings I have of inferiority to the more "rigorous homeschoolers". 

[Rosie_0801]

Why are students in need of remedial classes accepted into college?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Why are students in need of remedial classes accepted into college?

 

What do you propose otherwise?

 

There is a need for it.  It would be nice if that need wasn't so large, but it's there. 

 

Also, you have to realize that when a student studies for a BA or BS they are required to take a wide range of courses (liberal arts they generally call it).  You don't just focus on what you want to focus on.  So if you happen to be an excellent writer, but weak in math, you still have to take math.  So should we say if you aren't good at everything forget it? 

 

I think it would be better if we didn't have these liberal arts requirements, but that's another debate.

[Rosie_0801]

I think your liberal arts requirements ought to be dropped too, since that was what high school was for. We get a lot of students from SE Asia coming here to skip the liberal arts requirements at their home universities.

 

People here who need remedial classes don't get into degree programs. They have to go off and learn more under their own steam, then try again next year. Many international students taking very expensive bridging courses offered by the universities, but I've never heard of domestic students taking them.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think your liberal arts requirements ought to be dropped too, since that was what high school was for. We get a lot of students from SE Asia coming here to skip the liberal arts requirements at their home universities.

 

People here who need remedial classes don't get into degree programs. They have to go off and learn more under their own steam, then try again next year. Many international students taking very expensive bridging courses offered by the universities, but I've never heard of domestic students taking them.

 

Yeah our system is rather weird, but a lot of people seem to hold onto that ideal of being well rounded.

 

If schools were better here I'd say unis should possibly be more difficult to get into, but that's not the case.  Very good students sometimes are weak in a subject.  Closing that door for them wouldn't be a good thing I don't think.

 

That said, there are certainly very selective schools who generally only take top students.

[Rosie_0801]

If schools were better here I'd say unis should possibly be more difficult to get into, but that's not the case.  Very good students sometimes are weak in a subject.  Closing that door for them wouldn't be a good thing I don't think.

 

I don't understand the last sentence. I don't see it as closing the door. Refusing to admit students who need remedial classes is telling them to try again later, not refusing them forever. 

 

I would think it'd do many students a favour, because they wouldn't be going into debt for classes that don't count towards their qualification.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I don't understand the last sentence. I don't see it as closing the door. Refusing to admit students who need remedial classes is telling them to try again later, not refusing them forever. 

 

I would think it'd do many students a favour, because they wouldn't be going into debt for classes that don't count towards their qualification.

Yeah, considering that a very high percent of them will drop out anyway, it would be better to not get in and skip the debt. But our culture seems to demand that everyone be given the opportunity to go to college, whether actually ready or not. Besides, universities seem to have financial incentive to let them in. There are (four-year) colleges where 75+% of students never graduate.

[umsami]

So kind of a spin off... but from this article I somehow ended up on a site profiling the 41 most innovative schools in America.   Some are really neat!

 

https://www.noodle.com/articles/innovative-schools-2015

[JumpyTheFrog]

Yikes, there are dozens of colleges with single digit graduation rates!

Edited May 5, 2016 by HoppyTheToad

[Rosie_0801]

Yikes, there are dozens of colleges with single digit graduation rates!

 

And are those who do make it through coming out with a good education?  :huh:

[Rosie_0801]

Ok, so how much money have you paid before you find out whether you need remedial classes?

 

And what kind of marks do you have to have to require remedial classes?

 

 

[Guest]

I tested straight into a remedial class. I was not surprised, and it was NBD.

 

I agree it'd be cool if ppl didn't need remedial classes but they do, so college (cc, often) is the place.

[Mimm]

Here's the thing: schools are still producing people who, as a whole, have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Unschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

Homeschoolers produce people who have gone on very successfully into adulthood.

They also produce dropouts and illiterates.

 

 

The same is said for private/religious/philosophical-based/and free-democratic education.

 

Articles like this tend to be more inflammatory than actually producing change.  We all know the testing in schools is claptrap, and through refusal and petitioning, it's slowly changing.  This?  This is nothingness, designed to make people feel better or worse about the education they have chosen or is right for their family.  It's scare tactics and THAT'S NOT NICE.  Not everyone can homeschool.  Not everyone can give the attention due to unschooling.  And there are only a handful of Sudbury-style schools in the country.  And frankly, most of us in a position to use different methods or effect change were educated in public schools, so they must be doing something right to continue to produce those of us who are looking outside the box for answers.

 

This. :) I had to smile at the title of the thread. I just signed up my middle child for our local middle school prison for next year and unenrolled my oldest from our local high school prison for next year. The right school situation can change for each child, in each family, in each area they live in, and from year to year (sometimes day to day!) :)

[maize]

I did experience school as a prison, but it is clear that not everyone does.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't understand the last sentence. I don't see it as closing the door. Refusing to admit students who need remedial classes is telling them to try again later, not refusing them forever. 

 

I would think it'd do many students a favour, because they wouldn't be going into debt for classes that don't count towards their qualification.

 

I think it's hard to really explain because it's maybe different where you are?

When you say try again later, I'm not quite sure what that means. 

[Rosie_0801]

I think it's hard to really explain because it's maybe different where you are?

When you say try again later, I'm not quite sure what that means. 

 

It means you submit an application in 6-12 months time, whenever the course you want to do opens enrolments again.

[regentrude]

Ok, so how much money have you paid before you find out whether you need remedial classes?

 

And what kind of marks do you have to have to require remedial classes?

The grades would be unimportant.

You would find that you need remedial classes when they give you the placement tests before/at enrollment.

You would not have to pay any money; you could realize you're placing into remedial algebra and know from the catalog that this does not count

towards your desired degree - so you could decide to walk away before enrolling into these courses.

Edited May 6, 2016 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

It means you submit an application in 6-12 months time, whenever the course you want to do opens enrolments again.

 

Yeah it sounds very different than here.

 

There are some schools here where anyone can enroll.  Some you apply to but they take a large number of applicants.  Some are highly selective and hardly take anyone.  There are so many different types of schools, programs, etc.

 

In terms of remedial it's a bit odd because you may have really good grades and test scores and get in because of that, but then the school uses some sort of placement test and that could land you in a remedial course.  Which basically  means that your good grades that got you in apparently does not always equate with having the necessarily skills.  So I really do not know what the deal is there. 

[regentrude]

Yeah it sounds very different than here.

 

There are some schools here where anyone can enroll.  Some you apply to but they take a large number of applicants.  Some are highly selective and hardly take anyone.  There are so many different types of schools, programs, etc.

 

In terms of remedial it's a bit odd because you may have really good grades and test scores and get in because of that, but then the school uses some sort of placement test and that could land you in a remedial course.  Which basically  means that your good grades that got you in apparently does not always equate with having the necessarily skills.  So I really do not know what the deal is there.

The biggest issue with math placement tests is that students don't study and review before taking it.

Math grades in school are given for small pieces of information; you get tests on every unit and can get reasonably good grades without having achieved long term mastery and retention.

So, the school math grades mean nothing when the student is incapable of recalling the concepts several years later.

 

We have students who took calculus in high school but have forgotten all their trigonometry or who are pathetic in algebra. Some have issues manipulating fractions.

they can have gotten good grades in school, but since there are no comprehensive exams, they get by with forgetting the material after testing.

 

So they fail the placement test which tests the comprehensive high school math knowledge. All their good grades are useless, because they hit the delete button instead of retaining in the long term.

 

ETA: And if they spent the summer before college doing a systematic review, they could save themselves (some of) the remedial coursework.

But that would require *initiative*. My very math DD (we used AoPS through calc) prepped for her placement test when she started college by working through Lials. It is a smart time investment of a few weeks.

Edited May 6, 2016 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

The biggest issue with math placement tests is that students don't study and review before taking it.

Math grades in school are given for small pieces of information; you get tests on every unit and can get reasonably good grades without having achieved long term mastery and retention.

So, the school math grades mean nothing when the student is incapable of recalling the concepts several years later.

 

We have students who took calculus in high school but have forgotten all their trigonometry or who are pathetic in algebra. Some have issues manipulating fractions.

they can have gotten good grades in school, but since there are no comprehensive exams, they get by with forgetting the material after testing.

 

So they fail the placement test which tests the comprehensive high school math knowledge. All their good grades are useless, because they hit the delete button instead of retaining in the long term.

 

ETA: And if they spent the summer before college doing a systematic review, they could save themselves the remedial coursework.

But that would require initiative. My very math DD (we used AoPS through calc) prepped for her placement test when she started college by working through Lials. It is a smart time investment.

 

Well and that is just it in my mind.  If schools are doing a lousy job should we hold that against students forever?  I don't think so.

 

Math was my weakest subject in school.  I took the math for college prep so at least I could say I took it, but I don't know how I got through, and my grades were nothing to write home about.  I did take a placement test and didn't have to take remedial.  I have no clue how on earth that happened. 

[regentrude]

Well and that is just it in my mind.  If schools are doing a lousy job should we hold that against students forever?  I don't think so.

Nobody is "holding" anything against the studnets. But the fact is, if they want a college education, they need to know math.

If they did not learn math in school, or learned it and did not bother to retain it, then they need to remediate - or not go to college.

You can't lower the (already low in many areas) college expectations to accommodate the shortcomings of school.

 

And at some points, adults have to take responsibility and have to stop blaming the schools. If they did not learn it in school, they have to take steps to learn it as adults. Period.

Edited May 6, 2016 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

Nobody is "holding" anything against the studnets. But the fact is, if they want a college education, they need to know math.

If they did not learn math in school, or learned it and did not bother to retain it, then they need to remediate - or not go to college.

You can't lower the 9already low in many areas) college expectations to accommodate the shortcomings of school.

I woudl like to have my bridges built by engineers who are proficient in math through calculus and have no gaps when it comes to fractions or geometry, thank you very much.

 

No I think you are misunderstanding me.  Or I'm not making myself clear.  I think offering the remedial is fulfilling a need that is there.  It would be better if math education was better in general, but what really do you imagine is more likely to happen?  Math education to get better or remedial offerings at colleges to fill in for those motivated to improve? 

 

I doubt there are too many entering college needing math remediation who ultimately go on to be engineers.

 

I think in part it's kind of dumb that they make everyone take everything.  Why does college need to be a rehashing of high school? 

 

I was looking at the program my kid is interested in.  So for electrical engineering he has to take history, English Lit, art or music, etc.  I mean why?! 

[regentrude]

I think in part it's kind of dumb that they make everyone take everything.  Why does college need to be a rehashing of high school? 

 

I was looking at the program my kid is interested in.  So for electrical engineering he has to take history, English Lit, art or music, etc.  I mean why?!

It is not a "rehash" of high school, since the material at college is taught at a higher level, with deeper insights and analysis.

I am very much in favor for having engineers who are educated people and know history and literature - just as I prefer English majors to have a basic grasp of science.

I do not like the idea of college as a narrow job training.

 

My DD's university has a very strong core requirement of about a third of all credits. They are receiving an incredible education and encountering

subjects and themes they would not have chosen to study. It broadens the students' horizon to be forced to think about material outside their disciplines.

 

Elsewhere, that is accomplished in high school and the core requirements are fewer, but students do enter university with a different background.

Back home, a college bound student must have taken calculus and two foreign languages in high school, irrespective of future major.

Since here you can get by with receiving a rather sparse high school education by picking and choosing subjects, I find it a good thing that colleges require their students to take a broad range of subjects.

An educated population is a good thing.

 

I am an undergraduate advisor, and it really bothers me when my students boast that they hate literature and don't want to study history.

Somehow, I don't think bragging of ignorance is very cool. They need their humanities classes, badly. In turn, I would like to see the humanities majors to have some stronger science requirements.

Edited May 6, 2016 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

It is not a "rehash" of high school, since the material at college is taught at a higher level, with deeper insights and analysis.

I am very much in favor for having engineers who are educated people and know history and literature - just as I prefer English majors to have a basic grasp of science.

I do not like the idea of college as a narrow job training.

 

My DD's university has a very strong core requirement of about a third of all credits. They are receiving an incredible education and encountering

subjects and themes they would not have chosen to study. It broadens the students' horizon to be forced to think about material outside their disciplines.

 

Elsewhere, that is accomplished in high school and the core requirements are fewer, but students do enter university with a different background.

Back home, a college bound student must have taken calculus and two foreign languages in high school, irrespective of future major.

Since here you can get by with receiving a rather sparse high school education by picking and choosing subjects, I find it a good thing that colleges require their students to take a broad range of subjects.

An educated population is a good thing.

 

I am an undergraduate advisor, and it really bothers me when my students boast that they hate literature and don't want to study history.

Somehow, I don't think bragging of ignorance is very cool. They need their humanities classes, badly. In turn, I would like to see the humanities majors to have some stronger science requirements.

 

Then again I took a lot of those things in college and my husband did not, but he strikes me as pretty well rounded. 

 

 

[regentrude]

Then again I took a lot of those things in college and my husband did not, but he strikes me as pretty well rounded.

And as I mentioned in my above post: some other countries take care of these things in high school.

So I am fairly certain he had to take calculus, two foreign languages, history every year, physics, chemistry and biology for several years,

and had far fewer opportunities to elect not to take core subjects.

(Unless he is from one of the city states with their pathetic school system)

[SparklyUnicorn]

And as I mentioned in my above post: some other countries take care of these things in high school.

So I am fairly certain he had to take calculus, two foreign languages, history every year, physics, chemistry and biology for several years,

and had far fewer opportunities to elect not to take core subjects.

(Unless he is from one of the city states with their pathetic school system)

 

Well, from my POV of what my life was like as a young person going to college, it was frustrating to have to pay for all of this. 

 

Oh yeah he definitely had a far more rigorous course load in high school. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think ultimately I've learned the most just working with my kids for the past 10 years. 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

I don't think we're different, however, when I look at what "educated" meant in the past and look at the average college junior or senior today, I think the differences in writing, speaking and thinking are stark. SWB made a comment about this one time I heard her speaking...about how the vast majority of her Comp 101 students could not write well, but they thought they could! And this was at William and Mary, not a remedial community college. They couldn't write a basic college paper with coherent structure and argument. In college!

 

Logic was not studied formally, but it was imbedded in primary sources and speeches and texts. It was formed and shaped in classes. If you read political speeches and debates from 150 years ago, the arguments are much more complex, nuanced, and in depth. Even the mudslinging was way more creative! We have many more people going to school than those days, but not much to show for it in the way of depth and true education. College is more of an experience than for education's sake.

 

I don't think everything was rosy back in the day, but I don't think what we have now is great for the population as a whole on a larger historical scale. I only jave to flip through about 10 channels on the TV to comfirm this for myself.

I think in part this is due to education focus moving from language rich to stem. I personally think math education expects more of kids though English may be less.

[Meriwether]

So kind of a spin off... but from this article I somehow ended up on a site profiling the 41 most innovative schools in America. Some are really neat!

 

https://www.noodle.com/articles/innovative-schools-2015

I know a family who attended this school. I thought it might make the list, but it didn't.http://m.cjonline.com/news/2013-03-27/one-time-elementary-school-now-agricultural-charter-school#

[SKL]

I did feel like school was a prison too, as a kid.  That's why I graduated as soon as I could.  I didn't lose my love of learning; I enjoyed interacting with most of the teachers; but I felt like a caged animal and like I was continually guilty until proven innocent.

 

My kids seem to like school.  I see many benefits at school that I would not be able to duplicate out of school (and those I could would wear me out).  But I do feel that school is restrictive, and that's not developmentally appropriate for older teens.  That's one reason I believe in accelerating (when appropriate), and I'm not a fan of red-shirting (for neurotypical kids).  It would be easier to be a 17yo senior than a 19yo senior I'd think.

[Professormom]

Culturally we seem to have a portion of the population that wants a kind of reflexive antipathy to authority figures.  Then there is the section that wants the opposite.  Unschoolers do seem to fall into the first group for the most part.

 

What I very rarely see is any kind of well-reasoned examination of the basis of rightful authority, or consistency of action among those who espouse either position.  I tend to be more among the "flout authority" crowd, and I have to say it drives me a little bonkers because they are often so conflicted in asserting authority appropriately, resent it from some sources, and then want to impose it in other cases.  But without much explication of how it all fits together.

  

 

Response to the concept of authority seems to be deeply rooted in emotions, so a well-reasoned examination of the basis of rightful authority would be a refreshing change:-)

 

The article also mentioned something about kids not having to do things they didn't like or didn't want to do. I suppose that may appear that way in homeschooling, but I would hate to see the kid that never had to do anything he didn't want to do/feel like doing/thought was beneath him. When homeschooling is portrayed that way, I get all twitchy:-) Young people have adults in their lives for a reason. They do not have the capacity to have great long-term appreciation of consequences and have a much harder time - developmentally - holding likes and dislikes in tension in order to accomplish goals. They are working to develop these things. Appropriate authority goes a long way toward keeping Jack from running the island :D

 

That was an interesting article; thanks for the link, OP.

 

I think the author has some valid criticisms, but I disagree with his starting point.  I think that actually some students do well with the "teach and test" method.  The problem is that the ones who succeed with that method are only a small subset of the population, something like 20%.  Personally, I think we need to get over this obsession with trying to find the magic elixir, the one-size-fits-all perfect approach that will turn every child into the perfect learning machine.  It's not going to happen.  That's why I am so against our ever-growing corporate education monolith; all it does is suck in money for the technocrats and our children's education just gets worse.  We need more diversity in education, not more standardized mediocrity.

 

 

"Standardized mediocrity" is my new favorite expression, lol.

 

 

 

I've wondered if part of the reason is that there are so many people who think they are educated now, but in fact they are not.  To draw on the other thread - the history and structure of political decision making and the situation worldwide, basic knowledge of economics - these are things that people need to have to really have an educated perspective on our political situation.

 

But as far as I can see many of the people graduating from university, much less high school, actually have no knowledge of these subjects.

  

 

I think TechWife was talking about humanities at high school vs college and their value even if they are taught at different ages. STEM or no STEM, humanities are foundational to prevent the "think they are educated, but they are not". History, especially, provides a long view of humanity, with its victories and follies. A strong (and honest) examination of history is humbling. It gives young people the ability to see beyond their own ideas, ideologies, likes, dislikes, etc. Of course, this happens over time, but it starts a maturing process that is crucial to valuable contributions to the public discourse.

 

It also should - but often doesn't - give students a stronger appreciation for the development and value of real scientific knowledge.

 

I feel conflicted.  On one hand, what it says about the love of learning being snuffed out, resonates with me - with homeschooling as well as B & M schools.  But perhaps I am too entrenched in the ideas themselves to wholly give myself up to unschooling or "democaratic" education.  I try to do a mix with my kids and to ignore the feelings I have of inferiority to the more "rigorous homeschoolers".

 

I think peer culture contributes significantly to the love of learning being snuffed out, perhaps even more than the educational style. And that goes back to the quality of authority. You, being a wise and reasonable authority in your kids lives:-), guide them better than they could themselves because you just know more about life. If they are following peers, it is more the blind leading the blind.

 

  

Yeah our system is rather weird, but a lot of people seem to hold onto that ideal of being well rounded.

 

 

 

I kwum. Dh and I have been discussing the shift from generalist culture (in the 80s) to the specialist culture of today. (These are obviously generalizations being used for getting an idea across.) Encouraging kids who have a specialist bent to focus enables them to develop and contribute mightily, as long as they also have an understanding and appreciation of the world outside of their own. The generalists can be encouraged to go wide because they make connections between specialties that are important. However, they need to see what mastery truly means and have an appreciation of what deep immersion means to a specialty.

 

 

The biggest issue with math placement tests is that students don't study and review before taking it.Math grades in school are given for small pieces of information; you get tests on every unit and can get reasonably good grades without having achieved long term mastery and retention.So, the school math grades mean nothing when the student is incapable of recalling the concepts several years later.We have students who took calculus in high school but have forgotten all their trigonometry or who are pathetic in algebra. Some have issues manipulating fractions.they can have gotten good grades in school, but since there are no comprehensive exams, they get by with forgetting the material after testing.So they fail the placement test which tests the comprehensive high school math knowledge. All their good grades are useless, because they hit the delete button instead of retaining in the long term.ETA: And if they spent the summer before college doing a systematic review, they could save themselves (some of) the remedial coursework.But that would require *initiative*. My very math DD (we used AoPS through calc) prepped for her placement test when she started college by working through Lials. It is a smart time investment of a few weeks.

:iagree:

 

Initiative. This is one of the main reasons we homeschool, oddly enough. Not because we can externally impart it, but because Dh and I can model it continuously. We want them to see the difference between the types of students regentrude mentions above. If they choose not to work hard and better themselves as adults, that's on them. But, we aren't giving them excuses to say they didn't know. You have to go above and beyond to be above and beyond.

 

I am also of the mindset that college is not narrowed to job training. "Excellent Sheep" is a book that discusses this mentality and why college is so much more than that. While I think his last chapter is more of a political diatribe than solution, the rest of the book is excellent reading:-)