At 10/9/12 07:22 PM, Saen wrote:
"factual eduction centered around accumulating random tidbits of information of how the world works..", in what classes within any class, public or private is this the case? Random tidbits of how the world works?
All of them. They all sort of form a branch mechanism that creates a larger view of the world that starts at small, factual statements.
I'll just choose one at random: American History. You have the class as a whole, which is supposedly the entire span of the history of the United States (and other stuff thrown in). Break that down and you have time periods, IE the Civil War. Break that down and you have events, IE the attack on Fort Sumter. Finally, break that down and you have several qualitative statements that can be made about the event like who fought in it, how many people died, and you can even break that down into smaller events that also have qualitative statements about them. These qualitative statements are the random tidbits I'm talking about.
Now what this class does is it takes those to generate a larger picture about our country. But there is very little explanation for where this picture comes from - often it's simply stated. What I'm concerned with is the generation of this larger picture - a picture that is a combination of opinion and objective assessment. The reason for this is you can never learn all that there is to know about American History, but you can learn how to take facts about it and come to a conclusion. This might seem like a common sense sort of thing, but I guarantee if you created an experiment where you gave students an assortment of factual statements they would put them together in completely different ways from each other.
This process is a lot like mathematics - it's essentially logic, which is a component of mathematics. And since there are people who suck at math, chances are there are people who suck at logic. That's a much more serious problem than anything else.
Also, the only information gathered from the internet you may trust as factual are journal articles and other non-fiction publications. You just can't guarantee anything is viable information. For now, schools aren't looking up random information on the internet they can teach you.
That's where source evaluation comes in. You might have had a short seminar in the library that talks about this, but that's as far as public schools go. That's not a good thing, especially when you consider that journals and textbooks have their own biases as well. Bias is inescapable. We should be teaching kids to identify bias, but that's not happening at all even within these short source evaluation seminars.
School teaches kids ideas and events that they wouldn't have the capacity or prior-interest to look up or research themselves, much less on the internet.
You were just saying that you can't make kids interested in things, and now you're relying on the fact that you can for your argument? Also, you know that whole "teach a man to fish" parable? That's what's at work here. Give them the capacity and interest. That's really all they need.
Most of what I know about reptiles, insects, birds of prey, apex mammalian predators, etc. came from books I read while in my elementary school library (I spent my recess either catching anoles, damselflies, grasshoppers or in the library haha), not from some internet forum or blog! Then again, my elementary school back then had much more funding and resources than it does now..
How do you know that everything you know isn't a lie? You really don't. You can say that it's based on scientific studies, but even those are fallible. So is the transfer of that study on to paper. And the transfer of that paper to the book. Yet you remain certain that what you learned is true.
Certainty is never a good thing. It's an over-attachment to knowledge than can lead to some really bad consequences, and students should know this. It's why innocent people get the death penalty. It's why the Spanish Inquisition even happened. Certainty is essentially closed-mindedness, and it's an extremely bad habit that should be broken through education. The scientific method is anti-certainty, are you one to argue with that?
Absolutely not. Corporations depend on the people who they hirer that actually received an education, so that they may collaborate to sell their product to the consumer. Corporations depend on educated people for inovation, to maximize profit and reduce waste, to make critical financial decisions. Maybe that's why most of all major corporations give charitable contributions and scholarships to students, like Exxon does for prospective chemistry majors.
But these innovative people are so few and far between, and their innovation certainly can't be contributed to schools, which is probably why so many dropouts are able to reverse their fortune and become billionaires in the process. They're able to learn on their own - a skill that schools should be taught and CAN be taught. Also mind the fact that most people consume, not generate. And if a corporation's goal is to get more money, it almost seems like the generation part is something they're forced to do. If they didn't have to be innovative, they wouldn't be, and they could easily set up a situation where innovation is no longer needed if given enough power.
I have no interest in your emotions like I said earlier. What I did not say is what you just quoted me for, which shows that you have entirely ignored the numerous points, ideas, and questions I have presented.
I believed I asked three or so questions before and 3+ more in a previous post. Why don't you try and answer some of them, discuss a solution, or even present your own relevant questions?
What is this bullshit about my emotions? This has nothing to do with emotions. I was saying that there's no connection between privatization and the points you're making, which means you are essentially leaving the privatization part to exactly what I put in quotes.
But I'll answer those questions in my own context.
Would private institutions be able to introduce more responsibility to high school students? For example, signing up for classes ahead of time online, a student's individual online profile, and increased time between classes (to possibly ask the teacher questions after lecture).
This is an example of what I meant by having no connection between privatization and the points you're making. Public schools could just as easily provide more responsibility to high school students. It's also a rather shallow question and can only be answered with a yes or no.
How would we expect high tuition schools to differ from lower tuition?
This is more relevant to privatization. It would be extremely unfair to have a better quality education based on tuition - that's why we have the public school system in the first place. Granted even that doesn't guarantee equal education (just compare math in Florida to New York. We're like, two-three years ahead of Florida in terms of extra curriculum), but the point still stands. It should only provide extra perks like facility, food quality, etc. All the unnecessary stuff. Since the skill set I insist on being taught to students doesn't leave much variation in quality, though, if private schools adapted it (which I doubt they would, pointing to my other arguments) there wouldn't be much of a problem here.
Will we see increased subject specialization among different high schools, or a widening of material taught?
This is actually something I'd like to see. In addition to the foundation skill set of critical thinking, maybe the school could help facilitate a career path for each student, which is NEVER done in public schools (I'm transferring to a completely different major - I know what this is like). This could also happen in a public school, though, so I have to say this is also irrelevant to privatization.