Mal Education - System Design - Should Be VS Is

LB,

Since I got us off topic, let me try to get us back.

System Design.

Your Hyper School is attractive, 'tho I feel doomed by the Pols and Bureaucrats. As you've mentioned, they have a lot of clout.
I question the motivation part, so I'm following that thread.
I wonder if the focus is too results oriented, as opposed to a more Liberal Arts approach. Frankly, we already have today a majority that only learn what they are interested in (Kardashians, Football). I'm afraid institutionalizing such an approach will give us much better educated specialists who are gullible politically since they never bother to learn basics in History and Civics, much less delve in deep and get truth. And I fear we can't afford a larger uninformed citizenry. But that's just me. And the other thread.

Anyway, may I suggest a simpler alternative that will do far less and with less impact, but might have a chance of being tried in some areas, helping some students?

1. Merge the campuses. K-8 at least, maybe K-12.

2. Like courses are taught at the same time. All Math classes are 10:00-11:00, say.

3. The student goes to the classroom at the level he is able to learn, not his grade level; So a 4th grader who can do 8th grade Math goes to the 8th grade room for instruction from 10:00-11:00.

4. A reverse motivation in this scheme is that the 8th grader doing only 5th grade History has an incentive (embarrassment) to not be in that classroom and so to learn the minimum of the subject to get nearer his grade level.

Yes, it's in many ways naive, keeps the poor teachers, keeps the pols and unions, does nothing about bullying, and has many other bad points from the present system. But it also rewards those students who can advance, who otherwise would lose interest and stultify, and provides a bit of motivation to learn at least some in all classes.

Ken

The more you learn, the less you know--I don't want to know anything.

<b>[kElp] "I wonder if the focus is too results oriented, as opposed to a more Liberal Arts approach."</b>

I was a bit puzzled by this at first, but then I figured out you are making a complaint similar to Jim's - with the 'result' you slam being the creation of more cogs for the machine. Worker bees.

One the one hand I agree. But (on the other hand) a lot of people just want to get a job to support their life. Wife, family and home are what they live for. A job, any job, is merely a means to that end. They actually want to be a mere cog, so they can save all of their mental energy for what is important to them.

I was ... different, and wanted a more general education. Not exactly the formal liberal arts regimen but close to it. With a heavy helping of the results part re advanced science and technology.

<b>"Frankly, we already have today a majority that only learn what they are interested in (Kardashians, Football)."</b>

Yeah. It's a problem. But you have to start with the way things (kids) are. There is probably a way to take a kid's interest in the Kardashians (or even football !!) and manipulate it and the kid so that a general (liberal arts like) educational experience happens.

Notice I said probably. I'm speculating. I personally have no idea how to actually do that. But ... some kid that can't live without her daily dose of 'Kard' might. This is an issue of motivation. How can a Kard-Kid be motivated to memorize the multiplication table? Maybe something as simple as wanting to know how many times Kim could get pregnant before she is too old? (Math, biology, English, clothing design).

???

<b> "I'm afraid institutionalizing such an approach will give us much better educated specialists who are gullible politically since they never bother to learn basics in History and Civics, much less delve in deep and get truth. And I fear we can't afford a larger uninformed citizenry. But that's just me. And the other thread."</b>

It is said that a successful democracy depends on informed citizens. As we have become less informed over the decades[1] number of problems we turn over to the politicians has increased. Since politicians are really only good at one thing (campaigning) we see the obvious result that fewer problems are being solved.

Filled potholes and painted bridges are the yardstick by which we should measure our politicians. Few of them pass - they mostly just take the highway money and use it for their next campaign.

But I'm looking to un-institutionalize teaching/learning. Back to that 'ridiculously hard to communicate' irritation. More soon.

LB

[1] The US literacy rate depends on which expert's definition you use. By some definitions it now stands well above 99 percent. By others it peaked more than 100 years ago. These guys are obviously not measuring the same thing.

<b>[KeLP] "1. Merge the campuses. K-8 at least, maybe K-12."</b>

I think a better way to word this would be "collapse the grades", and it is an idea I've wondered about too. I'd do them all; pre-K through graduate school.

As far as the campuses themselves are concerned, I want to break up them up. The average person can probably comfortably remember about 200 to 300 people. So if you are immersed daily in a larger pool, you frequently see people that you do not know. If the pool is 1000 or more, you frequently see people you don't even recognize.

Such anonymity is one of the causes of antisocial behaviors like bullying.

So every campus ought to be able to accommodate any student of any age at any grade level in any given subject. And there should be no more than a few hundred students and staff at each campus. If people want to get together in larger groups for some non-school purpose (athletic competitions, prom and other dancing events, etc.) I can think of no reason to forbid it.

The non-classroom-learning/teaching associated with planning, managing and attending these events would be good for the kids, for the parents, and for the community.

LB

BTW, using smaller 'campuses' would probably make our prisons cheaper, safer and more effective as well.

<b>kELp: Anyway, may I suggest a simpler alternative that will do far less and with less impact, but might have a chance of being tried in some areas, helping some students?</b>

Actually, this is similar to the rural school I went to until grade 6, when it burned and a new one was built. It had different classrooms for each grade. The first school had two floors: K - 6 on the first and 7 - 12 on the second. All grades were in one room and any kid could "tune-in" to the subject/class he/she wanted.

Ken, I like your suggestion as an intermediate step - a refinement of the current paradigm, if you will.

LB and I are trying to invent a new paradigm - one that seeks to leverage current technology to make education of the next generation better, cheaper, faster and overall, more effective in empowering individuals to fulfill their potential.

Yes, it is results oriented, but it does not limit anyone. They learn more and more about what they find interesting, whether it be liberal arts or the sciences, and whenever they discover the interest, age-wise.

I see many examples of oldsters professing inability and disinterest in learning anything about computers - taking pride in this fact sometimes. Then they discover that their grandchildren are all over facebook. In a matter of days they master all they need to know to get online and interact with their grandkids.

I have seen many youngsters where I grew up, leaving school at grade 8 or 9 (my brother, for example) to go work on a fishing boat (because that is what they found interesting, and they could earn ~$50,000 per year {2013 dollars}). Then electronic navigational and fishing aids became available. They had no problem quickly learning how to effectively use these advanced technologies to improve their standard of living. Through 45 years of hard work and rapid learning, my brother has amassed a net worth of several million dollars. He seems happy.

My conclusion is that most people can learn what is of interest to them very effectively, once they have mastered basic literacy.

As usual, shando has some great anecdotes to help us visualize stuff.

The 'one size fits all' attitude of problem solving championed by politicians (all of them, all parties, all over the world) works for a lot of people. After all, we are a lot alike in a lot of ways, so it makes sense.

But some of us are different. Different enough that the OneSize approach does not work for us. Those differences can be ... important -beautiful - puzzling. They can also be ugly, dangerous, etc.

These non-standard 'cogs' (hi Jim) can still be educated (for the most part). Either to be just another actual cog in the machine (if that is what they want) or to be something different or unique (if this is what they want).

But the teaching/learning system that will work for them is not the one that works for most of us.

<b>LB: But the teaching/learning system that will work for them is not the one that works for most of us.</b>

They would be what I call <b>"mal educated"</b> under the present paradigm.