Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy:
Part 67: Solutions:
September 8, 2003:
In my essay 51, I began outlining a plan for education which I have come to call interest driven learning. This is the complete opposite of the curricula driven, no choices, plan we currently have. It is now time to honestly evaluate the likelihood of this kind of educational plan being implemented. Until Holt caused me to think about it, I was becoming more and more pessimistic. The question becomes, who will have the courage to implement this plan?
We know the government will never do anything just because it is right, even when they know what they are doing is completely wrong. The government's record is all too clear at whatever level we check it. The entrenched bureaucracy is highly resistant to change of any kind. The bigger problem in education is the politicians don't even know what to do. I am sure no one in power has read my essays or Holt's books. They don't want to know these things exist. Even if they did, they would be afraid to try something new. If it did not work they would be destroyed. The media with the help of the rabble would destroy them for trying to fix something that does not work.
Just the same, I now think this new model can be implemented. It can be done in two ways I can think of. A small community could do it if they could get clear of government blackmail and other intimidations. Also, a large group of like minded parents might bring it off as a new form of home education. I am convinced nothing will change unless brave people get together, spend whatever is necessary and go against the system. Real change can grow out of that. The people in power will change nothing. They are generally stupid and have a vested interest in the oppressive system they have created.
First let me suggest an idea that came to me when I was investigating educational financing. This is the small community plan. It would require a small school district to eschew government aid of any kind. They would then be free of any government blackmail. They would still be vulnerable to brute force government intervention. Of course, that kind of intervention would reveal the thugs for what they are. Also, a good attorney could delay a power takeover and possibly even prevent it. Governments are notorious for having attorneys as dumb as the bureaucrats or rabble who appoint them. If Geoffrey Fieger proved anything at all he proved that. He helped almost every DA in Michigan make a fool of himself.
Points of challenge are multitudinous. The validity of government standards and tests is the first point. The notion that all kids must learn a particular set of subjects is another. The rights of the community to determine what constitutes education for their kids can also be weighed, etcetera.
Finally, we must find a community that can finance this plan without government support. Such communities do exist. There is at least one in Michigan that I know of. When I looked at financing there was one school district which got no government aid, but put in $26,269 per student of their own money in the 2001 - 2002 school year. As you might guess, their tax base is over $1.5 million per student.
I probably could not afford to live in that neighborhood. Let's take an imaginary drive through it. We are cruising on a wide tree lined boulevard. We can see driveways with iron gates and fences but no houses. The paved drives are carefully curved for that purpose. The people who live here have clearly done well. Then we come to the school. It looks more like a mansion that a school building. It is set back from the street on a spacious lawn with beautifully trimmed hedges. Even in recess, we see no kids for the activities go on in shielded fenced grounds behind the school. And so on.
This community could implement this interest driven education plan. It is quite likely that the school board here is already very progressive. We can guess the teachers are the best available. We can be sure, most of the parents are well above average in analysis abilities. They think things through and make generally good decisions. Finally, we can be sure these parents will want their kids to be successful. They will expect it and will do what seems right to assure it. All they need do is have it presented to them.
Now the alternative to this implementation would be some kind of in-home education plan. Holt seems to favor this as an alternative. I don't know what his model of it is because I have not read that particular book. Thus, I cannot comment on it. I can reiterate my own principle about the social value of the public system. This is reenforce by my own personal experience and that of my children and grandchildren.
I am not sure Holt really understands the socializing value of schools. Single family home education is not a good answer because it lacks that very important element. I don't know if Holt had more insights or not. I hope to pursue that later. He wrote at least two books about these things called Teach Your Own and Instead of Education. He wrote another one called How Children Learn. He may have a different model. He does have other suggestions which I like. He does catch on to the idea of interest driven rather than curricula driven learning.
I am convinced that a parent controlled interest driven educational community outside the establishment is possible. The real key to viability is in how we implement it. Facilities and or logistics becomes a big problem to overcome. It must be big enough to offer all of the elective possibilities and provide the positive influence of a large social environment.
Facilities do not have to be the classic school buildings with all the additions and gingerbread. We might need a gymnasium, but no field house or football field. We would surly need plenty of space, but it need not be cut up into separate rooms. Only sound producing activities need to be isolated. Otherwise we can just have areas of activity separated by space. Thinking of it that way, there are many possibilities. On possibility would be unused large retail stores or light manufacturing buildings. Perhaps K-Marts will become available. If not, something else will.
There must be a way to do it. We must take kids away from incompetent
governments, school boards, and teachers. We must also be willing
to pay the true cost of doing this. If we ever get it completely
organized, I would not be surprised to find that it costs less
money. It is probably a matter of realizing and using all of the
resources available. These include the advanced kids spending
part of their time as guides. This is a large valuable resource.
It is not exploitation of the kids if we view it as just a part
of their education. Some of the kids, we can be sure, will want
to become guides. We must also use the parents and the community
at large. Finally, once it works, we will begin to get the normal
facilities back from the bureaucracy. We will be able to use our
normal school buildings again.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|