[p2p-research] In the future...the cost of education will be zero...Mashable

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> http://mashable.com/2009/07/24/education-social-media/

Something related I posted recently to the Abundance Google Group:
"Re: [Abundance] Learning in a post-scarcity environment"
http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/msg/70338e28bd6d40a7

One excerpt:
"""
   In New York State, where I live, the states spends about US$20K per child
per year for schooling to produce a result where less than 70% of kids
graduate from high school, and of the ones that do graduate, most have got
almost nothing out of their education as far as life skills for surviving in
today's world.
   For thirteen years, at $20K a year, that is US$260K total, or with
compounding interest, that is perhaps closer to half a million dollars over
that time from kindergarten till a child graduates from 12th grade. Invested
well, a half a million dollars would mean that child would never have to
"work" a day in their life except at things they chose to do. Essentially,
rather than give kids half a million dollars when they turn eighteen, we
give them essentially a worthless high school diploma. Or, they could get a
nice house, a new car, and US$250K in the bank. Ask any kid or parent which
they would rather have. Which would you rather have for your kids?
   Note: according to John Holt, it takes only 50 contact hours to teach
someone to read once they decide they want to, and about another 50 hours to
teach the basics of math, after which most kids can bootstrap themselves to
higher levels of literacy and general knowledge. So, those 100 contact hours
are costing your child US$500,000, or about US$5000 an hour. These are some
web sites where kids can learn to reading, writing, and arithmetic online
for free.
    http://www.poissonrouge.com/ (learn to use the mouse)
    http://www.starfall.com/ (learn to read)
    http://www.math.com/ (learn math)
    http://www.powertyping.com/ (learn to type)
    http://mail.google.com/ (to learn to write by writing to friends)
(Obviously, doing stuff with pen and paper has its place too, and may even
be preferable. Free computers can generally been had from people upgrading,
or a new netbook costs about US$200.)
   Alternatively, the US$20K a year per child could be given directly to
parents who often would then no longer have to work while their child is
young. For example, a family with three children would have an income of
US$60K a year from that, an amount above the median family income in the
USA. Sure, a small percent of parents would blow the money on alcohol
instead of helping educate the child themselves or using tutors or private
schooling, but would the results even then be much worse than a greater than
30% failure rate of the current system, where even high school graduates can
be illiterate? And with every other family around dysfunctional families
able to stay home and take care of their kids, even the kids of
dysfunctional families would have neighbors to turn to for help.
"""

Granted, New York State is an extreme case, as the average per student 
expenditure in the USA is probably closer to US$12K to US$15K per child.
But it is still a lot of money.

So, we can see here an extreme example of a tension between peer-based 
home-based learning and hierarchically-based institution-based learning, in 
the amount of US$20K per child per year. In New York State, you can opt out 
of the hierarchical school system and homeschool (thankfully), but you don't 
get the US$20K per child if you have more confidence in on-demand peer 
learning than just-in-case hierarchical learning. So, there is a very 
specific ideology there directing vast amounts of money and vast amounts of 
labor (child and adult) to, what our best understanding shows us, is a bad 
end, since everything from homework to grades to sitting in one place for an 
extended time has been shown by scientific studies to be bad for children's 
growth, health, happiness, and productivity (in the context of long school 
days and long school years). But, John Taylor Gatto suggests, dumbed down 
kids are the backbone of the hierarchical State. So, I'd suggest improving 
education needs to be at the core of a peer-to-peer movement, and that is 
what we are seeing on the internet.

The single biggest reason most parents support the schooling system is that 
it is free child care; they need somewhere that seems to be safe to put 
their kids during the day so they can hold a job. If you gave parents a 
choice, I'd suggest many or most would take the $20K per child as income 
rather than use the schools for a day care purpose. There are other reasons 
of course, from feeling education goes on at schools (debatable) or that 
parents and children are often alienated from each other in our current 
society and so do not enjoy each others company. Still, our entire social 
and technical and work infrastructure is built around keeping children in 
prison-like buildings all day every weekday, so lots of things would need to 
change if schools were permanently dismissed.

Note: I'm not against all hierarchies (I feel we need a better balance of 
meshwork and hierarchy), and many teachers are, as individuals, wonderful 
caring people who try their hardest to help kids. Also, one-on-one or even 
small group instruction face-to-face may often be superior to using the 
internet or computers to learn a lot of things. Were public schools like 
public libraries, where anyone of any age could go to learn anything when 
*they* wanted to, I'd be all for them, even if it meant higher taxes. I'm 
all for "education" however it is done in a humane and cost-effective way. 
This is mostly a point about the vast amount of money we are pouring into an 
obsolete paradigm of Prussian-inspired compulsory schooling. And my comments 
are from a US perspective -- other countries may do some things better (cost 
less, teach more, provide more options, etc.).

From:
   "Sustainable education" by Jerry Mintz
   http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?articleid=195&newsletterid=1
"Nevertheless, there is an education revolution going on, and it is long 
overdue. It is moving in the diametrically opposite direction of the 
"testing" push. The latter comes from the bureaucrats from within that dying 
system, who do know there is something wrong. But since they can't think 
"out of the box," the only remedy they can come up with is longer hours, 
more homework, and "teaching to the test," in other words, more of the same. 
The education revolution is coming from people who have created alternative 
schools and programs, thousands of them, and from others who have checked 
"none of the above" and have decided to home educate"

To summarize, these are three main issues that often get confused when 
talking about schooling (Gatto has clarified these for me):
* schooling and education are not the same, as schooling is about the needs 
of the State and education is about the needs of the individual as well as 
society;
* teachers can be good people even if they are trapped in bad institutions 
that limit their actions and trained to be agents of the State; and
* redistributing tax money to families with children may be a good idea (as 
a basic income), even if spending tax dollars on their behalf in certain 
specific obsolete ways may be a bad idea (as Prussian-derived schooling).

By separating these issues out, one can think more clearly about the future 
of education and have more productive discussions about it.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/