Schooling debate and proposed alternatives

[Will T]

Actually, I think I'm an example of a pretty pathetic outlier who gets scores they don't deserve, and are ranked by our educational system way too highly. But yes, absolutely, our current society is based on supply and demand. You have to rank people, so you can select the best ones. ATARs allow universities to select the students most deserving of a place in university. It's actually entirely possible to earn a high wage without university education or even completing secondary education - and the top top earners a lot of the time aren't in fact the top achievers in school.

So yes, our current society is based upon rewarding certain people with higher wages than others, supposedly to provide an incentive to people. If you don't like the fact that some people get higher wages than others, then you are suggesting structural changes to our society. It's fine, I dabble into revolutionary socialism from time to time, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Just spell out and admit that what you're having a go at here are the fundamentals of our society's structure and economic basis, rather the educational system.
Sure, the LOTE scaling is a government initiative to get people to do languages. I'm happy to question the legitimacy of that, but from there to conjecture that the only subjects which are supposedly worth doing are languages (and Spesh) is pretty baseless. The subjects with the highest enrolment figures include Further, Pscyhology, HHD and Business Management. And people with very high ATARs do those subjects.

Of course my own personal views are intertwined with my arguments against education, but I wasn't attempting to disguise my socialist (and largely anarchist) philosophies? I know very well that our society is based on supply and demand, but this causes an awful flow on effect where people's self-worth becomes horribly intertwined with their educational experience, which I think is an awful thing.

I actually don't know where I conjectured that the only subjects that are worth doing are Specialist and Languages? I actually recall that I was arguing quite an opposing line before in my first post? At any rate I certainly think the people who want to study mathematics should be encouraged to study mathematics, and those who aren't that way inclined shouldn't be forced through many painful years of academic frustration and should be allowed to pursue whatever subjects they have a genuine interest in. Which of course is very natural and something that I think most people would agree on.

[Professor Polonsky]

You think school ranks students, you think it's unfair that people are ranked, so you have a go at school. It really just plays the best possible role it can given the needs of today's society. By the way, even socialised industries very rarely maintain "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You have to provide incentives for people to innovate and progress, which is why different salary levels are needed.

You claimed that the system only encourages people to do languages and Spesh, which is what I was disagreeing with.

[Will T]

6) Certain amounts of memorized and 'unthought' knowledge is useful. I find that being able to multiple and manipulate algebraic equations without deep concentration is necessary in understanding many concepts that  I encounter.

Sure? But don't make it a curriculum requirement and don't punish people for not being able to memorise things??

The old system used to have take home assessment (I think they were called CATS). SACs are only meant to be done during school time.

Okay well.... I've certainly had at least 2 major English SACs that were done at home (or could be drafted by tutors outside of school for students to reverberate for good marks), the same with Chemistry, where one SAC was done entirely at home. I'm sorry if it's not the same elsewhere but I would imagine it is? These types of tasks should be abolished wherever they crop up for obvious equity reasons.

11) No, attendance requirements (when a student) are there because otherwise people will waste their time and get up to no good.

And you're sure of this.... I find it more probable that students would gravitate towards things that they are interested in.

12) You do know there are alternative schools that offer things like this.

Name them?

13) Having people accepting authority is good for societal peace. Are you advocating anarchy?

I get the awful impression that you have used the phrases 'societal peace' and 'population control' somewhat interchangeably here. Having people accepting authority that is legitimate is obviously important for societal peace, but copying down what somebody said because they allegedly have higher authority is counter-productive to the main aims of education, which should be to inspire the next generation of innovators. You make no progress in this world by copying down what somebody told you.

15) Funding of private schools is a complex issue. Do you advocate banning all forms of private education (but then isn't the government assuming too much control...)

Yes it is complex and I'm aware that private institutions do the government a service by playing host to a large number of students each year; but these institutions have at their core the mission to promote social inequity, and that is something that must be leveled. As for private tutoring, it's similar in some respects but in many very different. Prices are negotiated, the core mission is learning, and if the student's motivation is to surmount society's hierarchy then that's too bad, but when you have institutions which have been set up to stratify society, it's a very different thing altogether.

19) Or you can see them as a valid form of team building, communication skills, cooperative behaviour as well as teaching people how to behave appropriately in competition (sportsman-like behaviour). I think you are using a lot of hyperbole if you think it is military training.

Yeah that was a hyperbole, but I do not see the value gained out of team sports. If people want to participate in brutal competitions which achieve very little then that's their prerogative, but when it's enforced and it becomes intimidating in nature the mandates need to be removed. I've had several very unpleasant experiences with compulsory sport and I'm sure many others have as well.

20) Students can do this themselves. If they are motivated, nothing prevents them from reading or studying whatever they want. The evidence is that self-motivated learning typically fails, as can be seen in the massive drop-out rates in MOOCs (massive open online courses)

Except for the rather obvious fact that they are forced to be in school all day because of attendance requirements which makes them lose up to 9 to 10 hours a day (if you live far from school particularly). Also, I think your use of MOOCs is highly misleading, as there are a lot of contributing factors which play a role in the drop-out rates. Attributing it predominately to the inherent flaws in self-motivated learning seems to be a rather strange conclusion to come to? I think there's a correlation but it's unlikely to be the predominant cause.

21) This is a terrible idea.

I don't think so, if students aren't getting any value out of their schooling they shouldn't go, on the other hand, if they feel they need to collaborate with others for some activity, then they shouldn't be prevented from flowing in and out of the school environment?

22) Many schools have relaxed dress codes.

Okay well there are also quite a few schools who have strict dress codes? The point is that there's no point to make every wear a uniform and conform to the same standards, it doesn't accomplish anything.

24) I would not trust students. And yes, you don't know what you are capable of until you are tested.

I'm sorry but I absolutely disagree with you on this. I don't know how to prove it to anyone else (and I really shouldn't be required to) but I know what I am and am not capable of.

26) Writing curricula is hard. As said before there is nothing stopping students or teaching from developing their analytic techniques and learning a broader range of content.

The focus is on the core academia, and deviating away from that will cost you marks, which will cost you ATAR points which will ultimately cost you wealth. So there are inhibiting factors that prevent students who would otherwise extend their curiosities.

27) Not all students are native English speakers and even of those that are, a large number have extremely poor [written] communication skills.

Well it's not as if the focus is in improving literacy rates? It's more so on 'complex ideas' in Context, or how much you can pretend a language device actually has an impact on the audience.

29) What? You said before that we shouldn't just focus on which courses are more likely to lead to high income careers.

We probably shouldn't, what I mean is, forcing people to study curricula they have no interest in is a futile exercise? "Scholarship for it's own sake is quaint". The idea that society is better off because we've all learnt how to calculate the volume of a cone is a misleading notion.

[Will T]

You think school ranks students, you think it's unfair that people are ranked, so you have a go at school. It really just plays the best possible role it can given the needs of today's society. By the way, even socialised industries very rarely maintain "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You have to provide incentives for people to innovate and progress, which is why different salary levels are needed.

You claimed that the system only encourages people to do languages and Spesh, which is what I was disagreeing with.

Well I mean the scaling does encourage it? There's not really much you can deny or debate about the fact that the scaling is there as an incentive? Whether or not the majority of the student population chooses to take the government up on their offer is a different matter and is tangential to whether or not the government has created the incentive.
I just don't think you can justify Spec being as outlandish as it is. I would like to see how they actually determine it, because I think it is of highly questionable legitimacy.

Well of course it's going to be hard to embrace Socialist philosophies when students are brought up entrenched in the 'profit-motive' and where common human compassion is rarely publicised or embraced as a motive for human progress and innovation. I think a world without Capitalist incentives is possible, people just need to realise that there's more to humanity than paper currency.

[Professor Polonsky]

Well I mean the scaling does encourage it? There's not really much you can deny or debate about the fact that the scaling is there as an incentive? Whether or not the majority of the student population chooses to take VCAA up on their offer is a different matter and is tangential to whether or not VCAA has created the incentive, which they undeniably have?

Scaling makes things fair, aside from languages in which it is an added bonus. That was actually a government directive, not VTAC's (VCAA have nothing to do with scaling).

[Shenz0r]

I think the main problem with your arguments is that it assumes that all secondary students are motivated and have the capacity to study independently. Some are, of course - but from my experiences at my old secondary school, and my primary school - the majority aren't.

Students must be allowed to educate themselves.The idea that students are incapable of reading textbooks and learning by themselves in their natural environment is an insult to the capacities of the child. Students should be allowed to learn independently and by themselves in the privacy of their own home.

I don't know, some students are able to self-study, but a lot of people need a teacher to clarify material for them. You can't just assume that all students can learn independently...because most can't.

School should be drop-in. Along with the abolition of attendance requirements, students should be allowed to come and go as it suits their educational needs, not forced to come as it fits the needs of the school.

Yeah no...secondary school =/= university.

I think most secondary students (with the exception of senior VCE students) would just fall into a disorganised mess if they were in complete control of their attendance. Most people just won't show up to class at all.

Besides, when students move through the secondary years, most schools give them free periods and early leaves. That's already more than sufficient imo.

Tests should be administered by students for students. There should be no mandates for any form of testing or assessment. Even the idea of tests in the first place is an insulting concept, because it implies that students aren’t even able to know what they can and cannot do.

Without assessment, how can you rank students? How can you determine their progress? And really - students administering tests? Sure, students should test each other as a form of revision, but I definitely do not think they should not be marking and giving grades on other people's works.

[Lolly]

I do not see where the criticality and analysis is in English? Perhaps my school is unique in this regard, but all the teachers and students operate under a parrot-like mechanism where the students reverberate whatever the teacher says and that constitutes English classes. Hardly analytical.

You just admitted that your experience was subjective. How  can you generalise an entire education system based on your own personal experience? English teaches you really important critical thinking skills. In fact, whether you acknowledge it or not, you're attempting to employ persuasive devices right now, which for the record aren't convincing me at all. You just edited your post after you decided it was too extreme .This shows that you have knowledge of how language affects the audience differently, depending on word choice, phrasing and vocabulary. This is critical thinking at work. English has clearly taught you something.

An anarchist education system would be a very, very bad idea. It would fall to shit. To pull an example out of my head, as soon as they removed discipline and hierarchy from the Russian army in WW I after the 1917 Revolution, their war offensive failed utterly.  Also, I don't think you actually take into account the value of  learning within a /community/.  Uniforms and attendance are a part of maintaining this sense of belonging, of identifying with a greater whole. Literally, we become socialised by our school experience and this experience is intrinsically valuable in and of itself. I just got back from a house performing arts festival, I have a choir Eisteddfod on Monday and an Autumn concert next Thursday. These experiences aren't achieved by myself, but with other people.  I couldn't do this if I wasn't part of a school community providing such opportunities. In mainstream school systems we build key skills that are needed in today's society. Sure, perhaps this environment isn't for everybody, but don't think for one second that being part of the crowd is mutually exclusive with being incapable of thinking for one's self. Individuals flourish in communities.

[Will T]

You just admitted that your experience was subjective. How  can you generalise an entire education system based on your own personal experience? English teaches you really important critical thinking skills. In fact, whether you acknowledge it or not, you're attempting to employ persuasive devices right now, which for the record aren't convincing me at all. You just edited your post after you decided it was too extreme .This shows that you have knowledge of how language affects the audience differently, depending on word choice, phrasing and vocabulary. This is critical thinking at work. English has clearly taught you something.

I would have to disagree? What I said was untrue, I deleted it for that reason. I maintain that English as it has been taught to me has been a useless exercise.

An anarchist education system would be a very, very bad idea. It would fall to shit. To pull an example out of my head, as soon as they removed discipline and hierarchy from the Russian army in WW I after the 1917 Revolution, their war offensive failed utterly.  Also, I don't think you actually take into account the value of  learning within a /community/.  Uniforms and attendance are a part of maintaining this sense of belonging, of identifying with a greater whole. Literally, we become socialised by our school experience and this experience is intrinsically valuable in and of itself. I just got back from a house performing arts festival, I have a choir Eisteddfod on Monday and an Autumn concert next Thursday. These experiences aren't achieved by myself, but with other people.  I couldn't do this if I wasn't part of a school community providing such opportunities. In mainstream school systems we build key skills that are needed in today's society. Sure, perhaps this environment isn't for everybody, but don't think for one second that being part of the crowd is mutually exclusive with being incapable of thinking for one's self. Individuals flourish in communities.

To tell me I'm generalising from personal experience and to then go on to generalise from well, your personal experience, isn't necessarily a fantastic argument. Okay you want to sing in a choir? Great. All I'm really saying is, leave me out of it.

[mark_alec]

Okay well.... I've certainly had at least 2 major English SACs that were done at home (or could be drafted by tutors outside of school for students to reverberate for good marks), the same with Chemistry, where one SAC was done entirely at home. I'm sorry if it's not the same elsewhere but I would imagine it is? These types of tasks should be abolished wherever they crop up for obvious equity reasons.

This is an issue with your school.

And you're sure of this.... I find it more probable that students would gravitate towards things that they are interested in.

Like CoD and drugs. Do you honestly think that if you gave all teenagers the choice to attend school (and ignore any pressures from parents) that many would attend? Even at university there can be a very poor attendance rate (with negative learning outcomes).

Name them?

Steiner. Montessori. The "Candlebark School". Don't assume that everywhere is the same as your school

Yes it is complex and I'm aware that private institutions do the government a service by playing host to a large number of students each year; but these institutions have at their core the mission to promote social inequity, and that is something that must be leveled. As for private tutoring, it's similar in some respects but in many very different. Prices are negotiated, the core mission is learning, and if the student's motivation is to surmount society's hierarchy then that's too bad, but when you have institutions which have been set up to stratify society, it's a very different thing altogether.

As I said before, you seem to be anarchistic in that you don't want people following authority (school uniforms, attendance rates), yet you seem very happy for the government to have a complete monopoly on education. The alternative schools are private schools (and could not exist otherwise).

Yeah that was a hyperbole, but I do not see the value gained out of team sports. If people want to participate in brutal competitions which achieve very little then that's their prerogative, but when it's enforced and it becomes intimidating in nature the mandates need to be removed. I've had several very unpleasant experiences with compulsory sport and I'm sure many others have as well.

The fact that you have had a bad experience with sport is of little bearing.

Also, I think your use of MOOCs is highly misleading, as there are a lot of contributing factors which play a role in the drop-out rates. Attributing it predominately to the inherent flaws in self-motivated learning seems to be a rather strange conclusion to come to? I think there's a correlation but it's unlikely to be the predominant cause.

Yes, there are multiple reasons for people dropping out of MOOCs, (compared to traditional tertiary courses) but it amounts to the they have no pressure to do the work (both because it is only online and they have not invested their own money in it).

Okay well there are also quite a few schools who have strict dress codes? The point is that there's no point to make every wear a uniform and conform to the same standards, it doesn't accomplish anything.

This is a decision made at the *school* level. The parental body has a lot of influence over this.

I'm sorry but I absolutely disagree with you on this. I don't know how to prove it to anyone else (and I really shouldn't be required to) but I know what I am and am not capable of.

So you know how fast you can run before you're timed?

The focus is on the core academia, and deviating away from that will cost you marks, which will cost you ATAR points which will ultimately cost you wealth. So there are inhibiting factors that prevent students who would otherwise extend their curiosities.

Issue with your school. I had teachers that were happy to explore extended or broader ideas, as was I. It will not cost your your 'wealth'. Good students can more than just learn the curriculum.

Well it's not as if the focus is in improving literacy rates? It's more so on 'complex ideas' in Context, or how much you can pretend a language device actually has an impact on the audience.

Umm, I guess you've never seen what amounts to an 'essay' from many students. Improving literacy rates is one aspect of it. Once again, it seems like an issue that you have with your school. At my school, the students who did well in English by and large deserved it, because they were highly analytical individuals with great writing skills.

We probably shouldn't, what I mean is, forcing people to study curricula they have no interest in is a futile exercise? "Scholarship for it's own sake is quaint". The idea that society is better off because we've all learnt how to calculate the volume of a cone is a misleading notion.

At the VCE level there is choice. Below that level it is sensible to have most people covering the same material, in preparation of later subjects.

On the whole, it seems that a lot of your views appear to come from the fact that the school you attend is not the right one for you.

[mark_alec]

Oh, and regarding scaling. With the exception of the LOTE bonus (which I disagree with), scaling is not to provide an incentive but to make comparisons between students possible. The reason that specialist maths scales up so much is 1) it is *objectively* harder than both methods and further 2) the cohort of students that does specialist maths is much stronger than any other (with the exception of perhaps Latin). Students, schools and parents who think you should choose subjects that scale up in order to maximise your ATAR are misinformed.

[brenden]

Uniforms aren't a conformist conspiracy... They're an equaliser for wealth. They protect poorer students. Sameness isn't always a bad thing ... If we had no uniforms, you'd have some kids rocking up in straight up expensive, branded clothing and others rocking up not so well dresses. All of a sudden an experience that's been shown to influence the self-esteem and psychological well being of teenagers because of the comparative nature has just been given another point of comparison. I'd also tentatively hypothesise as Polonius has done that it would negatively influence behavioural standards. But this is not my argument.

[Tomw2]

All of a sudden an experience that's been shown to influence the self-esteem and psychological well being of teenagers because of the comparative nature has just been given another point of comparison.

I agree with this. In a high school setting, where there are a huge number competing priorities and influences, free dress serves as a distraction from the principles that the curriculum and setting is aiming to impart. 

[pi]

I agree with this. In a high school setting, where there are a huge number competing priorities and influences, free dress serves as a distraction from the principles that the curriculum and setting is aiming to impart. 

I dunno, I used to go to Uni High, and I felt that no uniform didn't distract from anything. No-one really cared what anyone wore, and I heard tno comments ever made bagging anyone unless they wore something totally stupid (like pyjamas). I could go to school in shorts everyday, it was fantastic!

Mac.Rob also allows their yr12 to go for most of the year in no uniform and they do alright too


Edit: typo of "to" instead of "no"

[Tomw2]

I was talking generally, clothing is a strong normative influence. But yes, Im sure many exceptions exist.

Also, one could argue uni high and macrob are characterised by unconventional learning experiences, not really comparable to the high school system overall.

[Eriny]

This thread is a giant wall of text! (my post will continue this fashion) I got through most of it, but not all of it, so sorry if I repeat something that has already been said.

I think that criticisms like school stifles creativity, narrows learning, is outcome-based intead of really interested in learning, etc. are all quite valid critiques but you apply them a little simplistically. There is a lot of education theory which suggests all different kinds of things would be best for learning. Here are all ideas that have been posited by someone/some theory: teenages learn better in nature and away from home, kids should be able to do what they want and not pushed to read until they're ready, you shouldn't tell a student information but you should instead encourage a student to discover truths on their own, students won't be able to write unless they've memorised the rules of grammar, students learn better in teams, students learn better with incentives, it doesn't matter what you teach kids as long as they know how to learn, everyone is equally smart just in different ways...and so on. Very few of these ideas have complete salience. Partly because nobody agrees on what is the best way to raise children and young adults, partly because nobody agrees exactly on what education is for (whether it is a public investment in future workers or whether it is so that young people can learn and grow and thrive), partly because different things are better for different kids, partly because of funding issues.

What I think I've experienced in my schooling is a lot of different educational ideas all thrown in together as different teachers have their own philosophies of teaching and learning and also some subjects lend themselves better to different approaches (art, for instance, is always going to be more 'hands on' than say, maths). So, I don't think you can say that school necessarily does X, because there are so many different viewpoints mashed in there that it couldn't always be stifling all the time, even though it sometimes feels pretty stifling.

I think the problem you have isn't in school actually, because it's a very slippery business tring to figure out what schools actually do in the hodgepodge of contesting educational theories, but in outcome-based policies. The fact that it matters so much what someone gets on a standardised test or what they got as their ATAR. There ARE limited metrics for how 'good' a student is makes their learning seem stifling and sometimes unfriendly (in a competitive rather than collaborative environment) and very much narrows the scope of study - you have to be good at VCE Business Studies, not, it's important to develop an entreprenurial mind; you have to be good at writing essays on Shakespeare, not, you learn how to appreciate and creatively respond to literature. I think grading is bad for the same reasons you do, especially on the grounds that grading does seem to be used not so much to identify places where students could benefit from more work, but essentially to rank them. I'm also not so cynical to think that students can be interested in learning if they neither have a carrot in front of them and a stick behind them. The research backs me up on this (here's a easily digestable video to watch: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/09/daniel-pink-drive-rsa-motivation/)

While I think your proposals could change some of the problems with outcome-based learning, I think what you're suggesting is more radical than necessary. Personally, I think the six hour school day can be very valuable time if it's used well.  I think you discount the importance of teachers in education (despite saying that teaching should be better respected) in your argument that school should be 'drop in' and that smart students shouldn't need to go to school. I know that I'm kind of happy tinkering away with ideas by myself, but the direction of an educator is so invaluable simply because often you don't know what you don't know. I'm also kind of confused by the idea that curriculums should be broader but students should only study what they're interested in. I'm also confused as to how students would get a good grip on their interests if they don't study a broad range of subjects. Also, I completely disagree with the idea that learning for the sake of learning is quaint and silly.

Finally, I recommend the book 'Deschooling Society' (here's a pdf: http://monoskop.org/File:Illich_Ivan_Deschooling_Society.pdf) The book has some problems itself but I think you'll really like it and it's great reading.