Perhaps the real issue is that the current mode of education is just barely effectual. I personally failed in the public education system as an early study of hyperactive or 'ADD' children. I was had a powerful sense of curiosity and found myself bored to tears in conventional American public schools. Eventually, I was fortunate enough to enroll in a private school who had a radically different, scalable approach to education. I learned at my own pace and with topics I excelled at, I was allowed to move swiftly through them. I went from being a c-f graded student to a 'straight a' student. Also, we were encouraged to explore unusual topics such as Philosophy, which for a curious 5th grader was absolutely fascinating.
I personally agree that the current educational systems of the world are largely failing to work efficiently. I'd say that my American educational system is suffering a legacy of buraucracy but perhaps suffers due to practical issues like budgets and staffing.
I've noticed that the evolution of education has been severely inhibited. Is this a subversive maneuver to preserve the economic class structures?
A poorly educated nation is easiest to govern. Perhaps that is why so little is spent educating our people. (in the USA)
-- "We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." -Albert Einstein ----------
>From: "Jocelyn Brown" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: NOW(-ish): Education
>Date: Tue, Mar 30, 1999, 10:03 AM
>>It seems too me that one of the basic skills that people learn in school
>>how to learn. Assuming that this is a genetic trait, what if the child
>>wants to learn to read because playing outside with friends is more fun?
>>There are windows of opportunity to learn certain types of skills when you
>>are young that increasingly become difficult with age. e.g. learning a
>>lanuage. I think the window is between 0-7 years. During this time, isn't
>>easier to learn one or more lanuages?
> First off, if a child does not wish to learn to read, then forcing the
> subject on him will only cause him harm, and will certainly not teach him to
> enjoy reading. I do believe it is easier to learn to read up until a certain
> age, and I'll accept your age of 7 for the sake of discussion, because I
> don't have more accurate information. It is my belief, and I think the
> success of SVS shows, that if children want to learn, and if they have to
> read to learn, that they will want to learn to read. But they have to decide
> when. I was reading at age 3-4, not because of school but because my parents
> read to me and I wanted to learn it. My husband, who is more intelligent
> than I am, learned to read between the ages of 6-7. He just wasn't ready
> before then. But when he was ready, he did it, and he did it because he
> wanted to.
> What you say about languages is also true -- it is far easier to learn them
> at a young age. But once again, how does this typically come into practice?
> Not by them being taken to classes at age 3 to learn to speak French. It
> happens by living in a multilingual household or by spending time in foreign
> countries during these developmental years. Personally, I highly recommend
> this and intend to do it with my own children when I have them.
> Jocelyn Brown
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCA d- s: a- C++ U--- P--- L-- W+ N w+ M- PS+++ PE+++ Y+ t--- 5++ X+ R+ tv+
> b++ DI++ D+ G e+ h- r+++ x+++++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------