I've always entertained the idea of travelling the world if/when I have a kid, and using exploration as a means of instruction.
I've always found that passion is the most important thing, regardless of subject. So why do we teach subjects and hope that passion follows? I'd rather explore passions, and let the subjects become known within that passion.
Take programming as a prime example:
Most programmers who are passionate about the craft, use self learning and interest to fuel their development. While you could argue that they might miss some fundamentals such as Database design if they don't like DB work, or even CSS if they're not into web development, it doesn't matter because we all know in our hearts that if they're passionate about a certain realm within the industry, they'll most likely do OK.
Why don't we teach this? I've never understood the stigma associated with home schooling. The main argument against it is that the child won't learn fundamental life skills. So what about living? Won't that teach life skills?
If someone said I need to teach arithmetic to a child because they need to learn how to handle money, Why can't I just teach them how to handle money?
School in my opinion is an abstraction that isn't necessary anymore. A relic of the industrial age, when information was sparse and communities were largely illiterate.
Now we have mostly literate communities with an abundance of information at our finger tips.
Considering that the ability to learn no is largely in the domain of seeking knowledge instead of memorizing and testing yourself with that knowledge, I think that one only needs to instill the ability to follow ones passions, and to parse through information adequately.
'School in my opinion is an abstraction that isn't necessary anymore. A relic of the industrial age, when information was sparse and communities were largely illiterate.'
While this may be true for many people, there are plenty of parents out there who would do a much worse job than school would in teaching their children.
Sure, there are parents who are great at homeschooling, and who might even have time to do it (some of them have jobs, I hear), but this is not true for the vast majority.
Schools, in addition to providing some modicum of education, offer children a place to be while their parents are at work, and one where they can interact with others of their age in a controlled environment.
I agree that it's better for kids to be supervised then un supervised, but disagree about the age thing. That isn't realistic in terms of the real world.
You don't work with people that are the same age as you, and will most likely have friends with different ages as you get older.
Other than that however, I agree with you. My opinion is one I can only hold personally. I would hate to see certain parents attempting to educate their kids when they aren't intelligent or street smart enough to do it.
I do however think school can do much better. Some sort of Montessori without the pompousness.
I could not agree more. As the availability of information increases, the necessity of learning in its current incarnation of "school" becomes more obsolete.
It is my opinion that there is a mirror between the lifecycles of education and technology. In the very beginning, the complexities of each required dilligent and strict adherance to rules. As each progressed the systems became more complex and convoluted.
At this point they split, even though they should continue along the same cycle.
Technology began to shift focus from supplying the necessary information to elegantly presenting complex code in a way that anyone can use it (or write it). Back in the day you had to know how to program machine code to get anywhere. Now almost anyone can use the technology, from a todler to a granny. Technology is so advanced that it is almost natural.
"School" has hit this point and refuses to progress towards the natural state of learning. Instead of leveraging the availibility of information and using that ease of access to fortify practicle growth, we are forcing a system of modular selective learning. Learning that spends so much time trying to teach the basics that it bypasses connecting the actual relevance of the subject to real world applications.
If this was TL;DR here is a summary:
School now is like trying to teach someone how to hunt the wrong way. They make you read a bunch of books, write a bunch of papers, and learn the equations for the parabolic arc of a spear in midair, then drop you off in the middle of a forest "confident" you will survive, when all they had to do was give you a spear and have you throw it a couple times with guidance.
5 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 16.9 ms ] threadI've always entertained the idea of travelling the world if/when I have a kid, and using exploration as a means of instruction.
I've always found that passion is the most important thing, regardless of subject. So why do we teach subjects and hope that passion follows? I'd rather explore passions, and let the subjects become known within that passion.
Take programming as a prime example:
Most programmers who are passionate about the craft, use self learning and interest to fuel their development. While you could argue that they might miss some fundamentals such as Database design if they don't like DB work, or even CSS if they're not into web development, it doesn't matter because we all know in our hearts that if they're passionate about a certain realm within the industry, they'll most likely do OK.
Why don't we teach this? I've never understood the stigma associated with home schooling. The main argument against it is that the child won't learn fundamental life skills. So what about living? Won't that teach life skills?
If someone said I need to teach arithmetic to a child because they need to learn how to handle money, Why can't I just teach them how to handle money?
School in my opinion is an abstraction that isn't necessary anymore. A relic of the industrial age, when information was sparse and communities were largely illiterate.
Now we have mostly literate communities with an abundance of information at our finger tips.
Considering that the ability to learn no is largely in the domain of seeking knowledge instead of memorizing and testing yourself with that knowledge, I think that one only needs to instill the ability to follow ones passions, and to parse through information adequately.
While this may be true for many people, there are plenty of parents out there who would do a much worse job than school would in teaching their children.
Sure, there are parents who are great at homeschooling, and who might even have time to do it (some of them have jobs, I hear), but this is not true for the vast majority.
Schools, in addition to providing some modicum of education, offer children a place to be while their parents are at work, and one where they can interact with others of their age in a controlled environment.
You don't work with people that are the same age as you, and will most likely have friends with different ages as you get older.
Other than that however, I agree with you. My opinion is one I can only hold personally. I would hate to see certain parents attempting to educate their kids when they aren't intelligent or street smart enough to do it.
I do however think school can do much better. Some sort of Montessori without the pompousness.
It is my opinion that there is a mirror between the lifecycles of education and technology. In the very beginning, the complexities of each required dilligent and strict adherance to rules. As each progressed the systems became more complex and convoluted.
At this point they split, even though they should continue along the same cycle.
Technology began to shift focus from supplying the necessary information to elegantly presenting complex code in a way that anyone can use it (or write it). Back in the day you had to know how to program machine code to get anywhere. Now almost anyone can use the technology, from a todler to a granny. Technology is so advanced that it is almost natural.
"School" has hit this point and refuses to progress towards the natural state of learning. Instead of leveraging the availibility of information and using that ease of access to fortify practicle growth, we are forcing a system of modular selective learning. Learning that spends so much time trying to teach the basics that it bypasses connecting the actual relevance of the subject to real world applications.
If this was TL;DR here is a summary:
School now is like trying to teach someone how to hunt the wrong way. They make you read a bunch of books, write a bunch of papers, and learn the equations for the parabolic arc of a spear in midair, then drop you off in the middle of a forest "confident" you will survive, when all they had to do was give you a spear and have you throw it a couple times with guidance.