Mitch, the majority of us mere mortals have no choice but to comply with the "arbitrary, dogmatic control of our time". Precious few of us have the skills and smarts to be entreprenuers, and therefore work in the real world. Even the gifted few have customers to satisfy, whom I'm sure you would agree can be every bit as capricious as any boss.
I'll grant you elementary school is a flawed and antiquainted institution, but letting kids "do their own thing" is a recipe for disaster.

I thought it was interesting that 35% of the kids were classified at "special needs" kids. HA.
By whose standards? The public school system is still a whore...they get extra money for "special needs" kids. I'd like to see the percentages for the St. Paul and Mpls. public school systems for "special needs" children.
35% in Northfield alone? Well, is there something in the water? lol.....

Mitch, pansy-ass hippie, mewled: "The only thing that kids learn in elementary school that the vast majority of them couldn't learn better on their own is how to sit for hours, how to ask permission to go to the bathroom, and - for the lucky ones that adapt well to having their lives controlled by arbitrary, dogmatic adults, how to work the system to their advantage."

Good God, where would us right-thinking Republicans be if people started thinking for themselves?

You can't coddle these little bastages. Angryclown remembers travelling to angry circus school, 45 kids in a single, tiny clown car an hour each way. Once there, we were continuously drilled and tested on pie-throwing, seltzer-spraying and crafting cutting blog replies.

"Mitch, the majority of us mere mortals have no choice but to comply with the "arbitrary, dogmatic control of our time"."

So in other words, "education" is really institutionalized intergenerational hazing?

"Precious few of us have the skills and smarts to be entreprenuers, and therefore work in the real world. Even the gifted few have customers to satisfy, whom I'm sure you would agree can be every bit as capricious as any boss."

True. And it doesn't matter. Giving people a love of learning - as opposed to a facility for getting long in an institution - is a great goal in and of itself.

"I'll grant you elementary school is a flawed and antiquainted institution, but letting kids "do their own thing" is a recipe for disaster"

Actually, in the places where it's been tried free of public school interference, it's been a recipe for amazing success.

I'd be the last person to defend the current ed system. We do however need to standardize things like behavior in society. You want to teach responsibility, that's a good thing. Can you do so without teaching a measure of conformity?

"We do however need to standardize things like behavior in society."

That's what "laws" are for.

" You want to teach responsibility, that's a good thing. Can you do so without teaching a measure of conformity?"

Why not?

Why not? Good Lord, Mitch you have kids. Do they go to bed whenever they want? Eat brownies for breakfast? Forgo tooth brushing? Or do they require that gentle form of dictatorship known as parenting? Kids need structure like AC needs snarky comments.
But lets take another example. How much creativity do we encourage on the highway? Do stores operate on the honor system? What about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? Society is all about conformity. So is nature, for that matter.

The failings of the public school system are myriad. However, I think there might be more to the Village School story. Our local paper in Northfield covered it a month or two ago. There were other issues about the basic level of oversight at the school -- an alleged assault in gym class that school officials did not report to the police or did so after a delay, truancy, etc. I know that the local police had complaints about the management of the school.
Clearly there were folks who didn't like the looseness of the program at Village and were looking for any excuse to shut it down, but I think there were also legitimate questions about if the kids were learning anything at all, or just being baby-sat until graduation.

It's the parents job to teach their kids discipline, manners, "conformity" as it were. The schools need not impose those sorts of things and I agree should build on kids' natural curiosity as the basis and measure of schooling. If you have to force a kid to learn something, your probably doing something wrong. In a perfect world, kids would run from home to the school when the bell rings, not the other way around.

Hey, if somebody's parents completely failed to teach them how to function in society, we'll leave the light on for them in a jail cell.

I think we can all agree that the "one size fits all" form of government run schooling no longer works for our society.

Mitch most likely is invloved with his kids and can tell whether they are learnign and have the natural curiosity to thrive in such and environment. No all parents are.

On the flip side, many conservatives are very wary of touchy-feely circulums. We have seen test scores drop for years and often reject anything that sounds like it might be watering down the circulum.

We need a private school system, publicly funded with vouchers. That way Mitch can send his kids to a creative school with looser standards and I can send mine (hypothetically) to a more rigid school that stresses the fundamentals.

I didn't even throw in the liberal variable that teaches kids about diversity and racism before they learn anything else.

Sniff, sniff...I detect the distinct aroma of a baited hook in these waters Mitch.

Either that or the fetid odor coming out of assclown's pie hole has trancended the need for air and can now be transmitted across the digital divide.

Spake Swiftee: "Sniff, sniff..."

Back on the model glue, not-so-swift one?

Kermit, I think you're reading into things a bit too liberally as far as the schools allowing the kids to do whatever they wanted. I spent some time reading through the links that Mitch offered and the various schools allow children to study what inspires them within a particular topic. For example, if it was the hour for American history you could choose to study any topic in American history that you found particularly interesting *after* the teacher had covered whatever core topics they wanted you to know.

Basically what they are doing is pushing choice downward in the school system. Instead of writing the occassional paper on topics that interest you the kids get a wide range of choice on every assignment. My grades went up starting in 10th grade and continued to do so because in college you have a lot of choice.

Fair enough. I was getting that "we have to let the children follow their hearts" vibe. Mitch is a recovering liberal and you never know when a relapse may occur.

Michael,

The links were interesting; I'm familiar with most of the schools that were linked, and they have some wide variations on the basic theme. But it's interesting stuff.

Kermit,

Actually, it's my conservatism that draws me toward these alternative programs.

What is conservatism about? Individual responsibility. And becoming a conservative requires a lot of critical thought; liberalism comes to people, especially children, a lot more naturally, since it is basically about the satisfaction of base demands rather than higher-level thought (Merry Christmas, Angryclown!)

Now, if a kid spends 12 years having their every schoolbound moment planned FOR them, being told when and where to be, what to do, what to read, when to do it and read it, everything planned by a curriculum committee and pounded into heads with all the thought of a rubber-stamp machine, where is the individual responsibility? (Because merely going where one is supposed to go and doing what one is supposed to do isn't "resonsibility" so much as "trainability"), right? And if the whole goal of "education" is to regurgitate what one is told onto a test, on cue and close enough for county work, where is the thinking?

If a child is told "learn what you want - but by the time you're 18, you need to be able to explain why you're ready to go out into the world" - in other words, made *responsible* for learning what he/she needs - the experience at places like Sudbury indicate that they not only *do* it, but do it better than students at most traditional schools.

The explanation would require a number of posts - posts that I've been mulling over for months, and may start here shortly.

Mitch: There was an interesting article in Harper's within the past 18 months that talked about the education system in the US. The main point was explaining how the system was created. Essentially it was created to find the cream of the crop and educate them "differently" and to "teach" the masses to become workers.

Fulcrum

(Because merely going where one is supposed to go and doing what one is supposed to do isn't "resonsibility" so much as "trainability"), right?

The two are closely related. You didn't address the child's need for structure and routine. Responsibility is absolutely going where you are supposed to go and doing what you are supposed to do, often against your wishes. Is it learned? I think so. Do we train ourselves to be responsible? It surely doesn't come by nature.

"There was an interesting article in Harper's within the past 18 months that talked about the education system in the US. The main point was explaining how the system was created. Essentially it was created to find the cream of the crop and educate them "differently" and to "teach" the masses to become workers."

The American compulsory education system was borrowed from that of Prussia; the Prussian system was intended to teach 10% of the people to be professionals, politicians, military officers, business leaders, etc; 20-odd percent were to be teachers, foremen, NCOs, and so on; the remaining 70% were to be farmers, laborers, enlisted soldiers, that kind of thing. The system was adopted largely to help keep control of "unamerican" ideas among immigrant children.

Kermit:

"You didn't address the child's need for structure and routine."

Another commenter said it well: that's a job for parents.

" Responsibility is absolutely going where you are supposed to go and doing what you are supposed to do, often against your wishes."

With all due respect, I disagree. Going along may be the responsible thing to do given any number of situations - but I'm talking about learning to take responsibility (and use the power therein) to shape one's own life. School does a fine job of beating that out of the 70-80% of students who don't naturally acclimate themselves to marching on command.

" Is it learned? I think so."

I agree. And I cant' think of a *worse* way to teach it than by making kids march about, sit in desks for hours a day, and molding their behavior (and learning) to the wishes of a bunch of curriculum planners. That trains them to rely on others for direction and validation and the basic impetus to learn - which is a great way to train the sort of mindless camp followers liberalism needs. Not conservatives.

" Do we train ourselves to be responsible? It surely doesn't come by nature."

Experience at the alternative schools I cite shows exactly otherwise.

haha, that is a good one, conservatives aren't mindless camp followers....don't forget that the current conservatives in power would rather place more credence on their gut feelings than the information provided to them...

"conservatives aren't mindless camp followers"

Simple fact; it takes more intellectual energy to be a principled conservative than to be a liberal.

"....don't forget that the current conservatives in power would rather place more credence on their gut feelings than the information provided to them..."

Hopelessly vague statement. What gut feelings? What information?

You would seem to be proving my point.

Mitch observed: "Simple fact; it takes more intellectual energy to be a principled conservative than to be a liberal."

Sure, so much reality to ignore. I bet it's quite draining.

So many alternate realities on the left to keep track of!

"Simple fact; it takes more intellectual energy to be a principled conservative than to be a liberal."

That must explain why there are so many conservatives in academia....

Appearing on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" Thursday night, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who announced earlier this week that the Pentagon needs a "fresh start," offered a more detailed critique of Rumsfeld's decisions on Iraq. Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, said that the Bush administration "repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel" when it came toplanning for the war.

and remember good ole Cheney?

Cheney, March 16, 2003: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . .

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

and I wont' even get into global warming b/c as I write this Kermit will respond in 3 seconds with:
"Junk Science."

Fulcrum says: That must explain why there are so many conservatives in academia....

Oh, but there are conservatives in academia...they're the ones teaching engineering, physics, etc. Conservatives are NOT the ones teaching Womyns Studies, Gender Confusion, Multicultural Literature for Dummies, etc.

(Note: the above was cross-posted to Schmaltz und Grieben at http://schmaltz.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/the_mess_in_our.html).

Preved Medved

Preved Medved