From: Jeff Taylor (jeff@ultraviolet.com)
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999 - 12:03:33 MST
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)
Jeff Taylor
-- "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" <jocelynb@mindspring.com> >To: <extropians@extropy.com> >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 > is: >>how to learn. Assuming that this is a genetic trait, what if the child > never >>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 > it >>easier to learn one or more lanuages? >> >>jeff taylor > > > 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 > jocelynb@mindspring.com > > -----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------ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:26 MST