Author Topic: Theories of Education? (Read 25727 times)

Colin Michael · « **on:** February 24, 2009, 07:26:00 PM »

It was mentioned earlier so I thought: hey, why not?

What are the views of the boards regarding education, both in theory and for any practical reformation of our education system?

For me, I believe that (in theory) education is best done by intense competition. Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accomodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time. Socratic method is used by the teacher to ask questions over the reading; questions requiring deduction and application rather than content (which is assumed to be already known by the student).

As for reformation of the current education system, most of the work currently done in undergraduate college should be moved to highschool.
I'm also a big fan of the trivium/quadrivium.

Sean · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:33:12 PM »

Quote

Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accommodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time.

More than one teaching method so that understanding is grasped on more levels as well as by more students. What you propose is basically discrimination against students who don't learn well through auditory means. On average, that means most boys would be left to fend for themselves because, according to your system, they have to "make up the slack on their own." Way to go, you just graduated a class of girls and failed a class of boys.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Sean on February 24, 2009, 07:33:12 PM

Quote
Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accommodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time.
More than one teaching method so that understanding is grasped on more levels as well as by more students. What you propose is basically discrimination against students who don't learn well through auditory means. On average, that means most boys would be left to fend for themselves because, according to your system, they have to "make up the slack on their own." Way to go, you just graduated a class of girls and failed a class of boys.

Wouldn't you say that accomodating learning styles limits the people who learn that way to that style? People should learn to learn in uncomfortable ways too.

In regards to my theory of education, they would be forced to learn in a way not comfortable to them, thus making them smarter. Also, there is obviously reading in textbooks as well so it's just as hard for the auditory learners. And yes, it is survival of the fittest (and although I may be sexist, I'm not that sexist).

Sean · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:38:54 PM »

Quote

And yes, it is survival of the fittest.

LOL, nearly every educational theorist would eat you for that.

Quote

Wouldn't you say that accommodating learning styles limits the people who learn that way to that style? People should learn to learn in uncomfortable ways too.

No teaching through multiple learning styles doesn't hinder at all, in fact it does exactly what you claim to want, gets students to learn through methods that aren't the easiest for them. My teaching through more methods you give each student a greater ability to succeed while also "forcing" them to learn through methods that aren't their personal ideal.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:39:39 PM »

Quote from: Sean on February 24, 2009, 07:38:54 PM

Quote
And yes, it is survival of the fittest.
LOL, nearly every educational theorist would eat you for that.

Aren't they all Darwinist anyways?

Sean · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:41:19 PM »

No.

I will say, learning styles and teaching styles are of minor importance in the event that a student has ample guidance. If there is a 1:1 student-teacher ratio then, it isn't going to matter what style is used, the student will grasp the material because they have focused teaching and guidance. The true secret to education is being able to give attention to those students who need it without hindering those students who don't. Our current educational system has not been able to do this so far. That's why I think homeschooling is such a good option.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:44:02 PM »

You should have known I would comment on this one Colin....it's what I live and breathe....Your comments are dangerously close to prejudiced given what we know about the achievement gap. Competition is healthy yes, but only if the resources are equal and everyone gets a fair playing field. Which would mean that family background, community, environment, quality of staff, adequate school materials all have to be the same...Also, what do you do with a society of students who cannot achieve this "higher level" thinking of which you propose? Not even graduate schools are as mentally intense as you speak. I would argue more for pragmatism, simple display of knowledge is useless...So, in summary, your views are very elitist and I would argue never applicable in real society, much like Socrates....

Colin Michael · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:50:06 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on February 24, 2009, 07:44:02 PM

You should have known I would comment on this one Colin....it's what I live and breathe....Your comments are dangerously close to prejudiced given what we know about the achievement gap. Competition is healthy yes, but only if the resources are equal and everyone gets a fair playing field. Which would mean that family background, community, environment, quality of staff, adequate school materials all have to be the same...Also, what do you do with a society of students who cannot achieve this "higher level" thinking of which you propose? Not even graduate schools are as mentally intense as you speak. I would argue more for pragmatism, simple display of knowledge is useless...So, in summary, your views are very elitist and I would argue never applicable in real society, much like Socrates....

I'd be solved by privatising education and creating vocational schools for the masses. Look at German education if you want to see an example of how bad our education system is (and they also have lesser vocational schools for the unintellegent). When I was in Uganda teaching was impossible; the level of math the middle school students were taking was some kind of trigonometry unfamiliar to all of us.

Eqalitarianism is fail. My grandpa came overseas from Russia during the depression and nobody gave him an "equal playing field". His son (my father) went to Seaton Hall, graduated in three years on top of his class, and went from being in a family of lower middle class blue collar workers to upper class in a matter of ten years. His brother did the same.

As for the non-intellectual elites, we need people to do the lower jobs in society. Why should we give the unintellegent masses jobs as CEOs? These increases in education are nothing compared to Japanese or German schools.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2009, 08:06:21 PM »

vocational schools work for the masses when the society needs a ton of vocational opportunities, which we don't. We are slowly moving more and more from the blue-collar opportunities, manufacturing is being out-sourced time and time again. Students will need some form of post-secondary education in order to survive. As a first-generation college graduate, soon to be Master's graduate, and shortly PHD student I understand your issues with equivalence schooling. However, given the situation we are in, we have little choice. What has the Japanese truly gained from their methods of instruction...besides reinforcing their possible feudal society?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2009, 08:18:14 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on February 24, 2009, 08:06:21 PM

vocational schools work for the masses when the society needs a ton of vocational opportunities, which we don't. We are slowly moving more and more from the blue-collar opportunities, manufacturing is being out-sourced time and time again. Students will need some form of post-secondary education in order to survive. As a first-generation college graduate, soon to be Master's graduate, and shortly PHD student I understand your issues with equivalence schooling. However, given the situation we are in, we have little choice. What has the Japanese truly gained from their methods of instruction...besides reinforcing their possible feudal society?

Well, as you said, reinforcing their possible feudal society, as well as becoming the second largest economy in the world, and creating all of the little things that make our life easier, to name a few.
Germany was just surpassed by China, now being the fourth largest economy in the world.

If blue-collar opportunities disappear, the need for harder education will be even more important.

Red · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2009, 08:58:25 PM »

what your saying is that school needs to be 100% book learning and zero hands on and no homeschool?

!!!!!!

Colin Michael · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2009, 08:59:33 PM »

Quote from: RED on February 24, 2009, 08:58:25 PM

what your saying is that school needs to be 100% book learning and zero hands on and no homeschool?!!!!!!

That would be jumping to conclusions indeed.

Red · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:00:27 PM »

i'm a weird kid some say.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:46:22 PM »

Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?

Red · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:49:07 PM »

you don't like it?

TimMierz · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2009, 10:36:05 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on February 24, 2009, 09:46:22 PM

Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?

I think it has the potential to reinforce a single point of view rather than a variety, and to isolate a student from diverse interpersonal interaction. But then again, I don't speak from experience.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:08:46 PM »

I'm a fan of self education and homeschooling (if the parents are parents of character).

crustpope · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:16:07 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on February 24, 2009, 10:36:05 PM

Quote from: Janissary on February 24, 2009, 09:46:22 PM
Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?

I think it has the potential to reinforce a single point of view rather than a variety, and to isolate a student from diverse interpersonal interaction. But then again, I don't speak from experience.

As an educator, I would agree with this. I have no first hand experience, but I have seen several friends who were homeschooled face various challenges due to the often single minded approach to their education and their isolation from other peers. There is a lot of social education that is done in schools that is Good.

I know all the arguments for Homeschooling and I would agree that, on a case by case basis, some public schools are failed institutions. I would also agree that, given the current social climate and societal perceptions, Public schools are playing with the deck stacked against them. Often communities fail to support their school. Parents often dont care about their childs education until there child is experiencing a problem. Even teachers who want to enforce discipline and order are not supported by administrations who kow-tow to parents who are more concerend about looking bad than that their child is actually successful.

That being said, runnign to the other extreme and isolating students in homeschooling can be just as dangerous in a different way. I know that some school districts are so dangerous that homeschooling is the only way to keep their child safe. But just as often I see parents keeping their kids out of public school because they dont want their child to hear about evolution and feed them a steady diet of straight up creationism. This does nothing to prepare them for the real world.

I like private schools but I dont like the fact that they are pricey and they are open only to those who can afford them. If only the rich can afford a good education then soon a class tiered society will evolve. (or will continue to evolve since it is apparent that a class society exists to a certain extent already).

I dont know what the answer is. I like public school because it is available to everyone, but I dont like the rules that public school operates in.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:36:07 PM »

Demolish public school.

If there is a need for education, free-market will provide affordable schools to the poor.

Sean · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:37:51 PM »

Really Colin? LOL

Colin Michael · « **Reply #20 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:40:28 PM »

Completely serious. America is one of the only nations left with free public school and we're the least educated (besides Poland, that is

).

Sean · « **Reply #21 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:44:32 PM »

I'll be the first to criticize the public schools but I surely do not think we should demolish them. Besides, we pay for them through our taxes. If all of a sudden we made everyone pay for learning at the preliminary and secondary level we'd have a huge rise in uneducated people because there would be so many who couldn't afford it. Without an education you can't get a job and without a job you eventually get forced into poverty. We should be trying to keep people out of poverty, not push them into it.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2009, 12:20:35 AM »

Quote from: Sean on February 24, 2009, 11:44:32 PM

I'll be the first to criticize the public schools but I surely do not think we should demolish them. Besides, we pay for them through our taxes. If all of a sudden we made everyone pay for learning at the preliminary and secondary level we'd have a huge rise in uneducated people because there would be so many who couldn't afford it. Without an education you can't get a job and without a job you eventually get forced into poverty. We should be trying to keep people out of poverty, not push them into it.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. Government is not the solution for our problems.

lightningninja · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2009, 12:32:02 AM »

I agree. But I don't think demoloshing all public schools is good either.

The Spy · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2009, 11:40:37 AM »

I had a huge argument here before on this subject, and I actually have to agree with Colin on this point. If the concepts of Capitolism and free competition were taken to the ideal extremity, then we would have no public schools in the first place. Let us face it! The government just cannot compete with the private sector when the will and the means are already inherent in the private sector. I have two different solutions to the problem of public schools:

Ideal solution:
Let us just get rid of public schools! We simply don't need them! On the financial side of things, we could afford to endorse the private sector if we were not paying for stupid legislation like the "Free-Lunch Program," and if we were not paying so heavily for public schools with our tax dollars. To argue that people can not afford Private/Home Schools becomes a non-argument when the funding of public schools is torn out of your tax payments. That money goes right into your pocket, and you can spend it on your own children instead of being forced to pay for someone else's child. As for the social life of home scoolers, I will admit that many home schooled students do not have much of a social life, but not only is this not a big deal, it too is a non argument for two reasons. First, the number of unsocialized home schooled students is overestimated and blown way out of proportion. Many home schooled students hold co-ops, and get togethers with other home schooled students. This socialization of home schooling is on the rise, which leads to my second point. If public schools were abolished, then there would be a lot more home schoolers who could socialize with other home schoolers. By abolishing public schools, you would be remedying this problem.

Of course, everything you just read will probably never happen as long as there is a huge lobbyist group that opposes us with large wads of cash that should rightfully be invested in the private sector.

Pragmatic solution:
With reality as our target, we must look at our views of capitolism and see if we can find a pragmatic way to chip away at the stagnant pool of anti-capitolism. If our goal is to introduce capitolism, then states should adopt the tax credit system, or voucher system. This would allow parents to withdraw their tax funding of the public schools, and invest that money in the private sector. The problem that we have right now is that parents who wish to pay for educational alternatives are forced to pay not only for their children, but for the children of other parents. This is simply unfair. If parents had more of a tax incentive to choose alternative education, the private sector would get a huge boost, and this would do one of two things. It would either introduce capitolism into the educational system and force the state-funded sector to compete, or it would make the state-funded sector become obsolete and inferior. In either case, we would win, and the rights of the people will have won out in the end.

For those of you who didn't read everything I just said, I will say this: "I have to agree with Colin wholeheartedly."

~The Spy

News:

Author Topic: Theories of Education? (Read 25727 times)