Structured curriculum vs. child-directed learning

[athon]

Athon, are you saying that homeschool is a dangerous option?

Perhaps 'risky' is the word I'd use. For parents who choose it feeling it's simply better than the system, it could fail simply as a result of their inadequate resources, time pressures, and distance from socialising. I dated a girl once who was fortunate enough to have the necessary self-discipline when it came to the study side (her parents chose homeschooling, however mostly because of her pressure to remove her from school, and had no real interest in helping her otherwise), and yet she had great trouble socialising (long story on how I met her).

Most parents do put the time in as those who would choose homeschooling would typically also be those who would have the time, knowledge and dedication to put into it. Therefore its weak points are potentially the same as those in a system environment, with additional inherent risks.

Do you feel the same about, say, private schools based on religion that have few state-mandated constraints?

I'm not sure on why you're asking this. I don't see the connection. To answer anyway; I have big problems with any system which does not entitle a citizen to the level of education which will provide them with the skills to contribute to; have freedom to learn and develop; and be happy within the community. An example of a school system which does not do this is (this is as of several years ago, so could stand corrected) Christian Outreach in Australia, which did not offer state biology due to its refusal to reach evolution. Any student who studied biology there could not use it to apply for tertiary studies which required senior biology.

What do you think of France, where the idea of citizen was born? Could a parent raise a girl to be a young woman while wearing the head-garb, and still have her learn the math and science? How free is your thinking? In the US we are still exploring these questions. I think your posts sound very "state" and "society" oriented, what's best for the masses must be best for the nation. Please don't interpret my response as negative or aimed at you. These are big issues. Maybe it boils down to how much a society or government or nation trusts its citizens, or how much it wants to create citizens for its own purposes.

Initially I'm wondering if I worded my responses in some bizarre manner. Perhaps.

'What's best for the masses is best for the nation' is what I take exception to, I guess. Society needs to be free to change and evolve, flexible in how it changes and be structured in a way that the people within it are happy. Education is the means to which this can happen; future citizens need to be able to fit into the community. If it was a separate body - apart from the state - who decided this, my position would be no different. Consistency with flexibility is the key.

If a student wants to be a doctor, a garbage collector or a left-wing pacifist who wants to petition government, they should have the skills to be able to do any of these things successfully, and then change to another vocation should they so desire. An education system should provide that for all of its citizens. In my view, 'unschooling' as an equal option to a school system is potentially inferior to this approach.

Athon

 

[athon]

I am very curious as to your number of reasons -- not the number itself, but the reasons .

A school needs to reflect the needs of the community. It should be more than a place of academia, but one where those who are going to be responsible for the community in years to come are included realistically in learning how it operates. Healthcare, security, financial responsibility, community support and activities are all central to a community's sense of wellbeing. Parents should be included in knowing and deciding on how their children's school is run. Police should be visible and open to students to demonstrate a level of trust and sense of security. Healthcare should operate closely with schools to both maintain a level of health and adequate nutritional care. Sports, carnivals, cultural activities, arts festivals etc. should all play a massive role in an education system to ensure that a strong sense of these things remains in the community.

Academia plays such a minor role in education; it's unfortunate that this is what people think about when the word 'school' comes to mind.

Story time:
In our town, the school is very definitely the center of community interaction, with the church a close second (or maybe they're tied). We have a wonderful (and very small) school system, and I think that the community's identification with the schools (even the people who have no direct stake in them) is the driving force behind their excellence.

For my family, as homeschoolers who live miles outside of town and aren't Catholic, we have to make an extra effort to stay involved and relevant to our neighbors. But we are as expected at school and church activites as everyone else -- the school and church are seen as belonging to and benefitting from the entire community. And I'm darn glad we have something to bring us together.

Good to hear.

But I can't see how you could have this community/school bond, and the mutual benefits, in more densely populated areas, like the one I grew up in. Would your ideal include a restructuring of public schooling to be more geographically community-based? Could we create jobs for parents that didn't require long commutes away from these school-centered communities? I could see how people would work toward that kind of ideal. But I still want to hear your reasons.

mommyrex

Yes, I've wondered the same. I grew up in Brisbane's western suburbs, where the going was tough (very working class) but there was a tangible sense of community. When I lived in a large country town for a while, the community sense was even stronger.

However, the potential for a sense of community was strongest in the one place I least expected it. London. I worked for long periods in two London schools on the edge of the city, and for short periods in the city centre. Notting Hill was crying out for a sense of community in its schools, as the comprehensive schools were full of working class kids who had no sense of belonging anywhere. If 'community' was to be found anywhere, this was to be it.

In Dagenham, right on the edge of where London meets Essex, the school was actually improving in terms of social bonding. The administration worked hard at it, and were rewarded in the improvements that were made in interaction between community members and the school's families.

It would be hard. But that's no reason to think it has no merit.

Athon

 

[BPScooter]

Athon, thanks for this. Your last 2 paragraphs (last post but one, in reply to me) are full of wisdom for me and more or less what I was probing for in my previous posts. If indeed we as a body politic are seeking citizens in the sense we both seem to understand, we are on the same track.

*edited to clarify*

 

[Wavicle]

Context is evident in this generalised case. Please, define a set of observable parameters that could be used to equivicate 'adjusted' for an individual. We know what it means; how would you objectively describe an adjusted individual? What observable descriptors would you look for?

Why don't you tell me what it means in the 'general case' context and I'll bet I can tie it back to the specific case. The fact that you know what it means suggests you already have have some notion of parameters that define 'well adjusted' but can't verbalize it.

I would say start with the exact opposite and narrow down from there. What would a completely dysfunctional individual be? Violent? Immature? Rude? Sociopath? We could probably start looking at things like non-violent, mature, polite, and socially conscious to describe a person who was 'well adjusted' and then narrow our definitions of 'mature' 'polite' and 'socially conscious' from there.

I'll try to find it at uni; otherwise, is there an online copy?

Tragically, as with most peer-reviewed journals, an online copy is available only to those willing to pay. I personally think it's ridiculous to protect any journal article over 5 years old, but they haven't called to ask me yet.

That's hard to support, but it's possible. I'm saying that the environment supporting homeschooled individuals would be of equal advantage in a systemised environment. Obviously many schools are underfunded and poorly resourced, with bad social environments. This is not a result of being a system, but of the administration itself. I argue that a homeschooled student if put into a properly resourced system-based educational facility would be just as successful, if not potentially more so.

What is this environment supporting homeschooling that could be used in a systemized environment? Is it the parent-child relationship? The 1-on-1 educational style? The increased number of contact hours? How would a systemized environment replicate this? Is this environment something else? Please disambiguate what you are saying.

Who makes that decision? I'm not suggesting that homeschool cannot work, but rather the touted reasons for its superiority relate to resources and not the concept of systemised education.

If systemized education cannot provide the same resources (which again, I wish you'd make more concrete what you mean by 'resources') as homeschooling, then the reasons for homeschooling's superiority could both be the resources it can provide AND attack systemized education at the same time.

But this is all hypothetical anyway. In the real world very few school districts have the resources to compete, nor the infrastructure to come close. I've always scratched my head at the "we just need to improve the system" argument. Great idea... how? Throwing more money at the problem so far just creates a more corrupt system.

 

[athon]

Why don't you tell me what it means in the 'general case' context and I'll bet I can tie it back to the specific case. The fact that you know what it means suggests you already have have some notion of parameters that define 'well adjusted' but can't verbalize it.

I know what I intend the term adjusted to imply, when generalised. Of course, it's not an objective description, not in the way I can describe somebody as having brown eyes or even exhibiting a very specific behaviour. As a sociological description, it is a collection of behaviours that would have to be stated in a study to be an equivalent.

I would say start with the exact opposite and narrow down from there. What would a completely dysfunctional individual be? Violent? Immature? Rude? Sociopath? We could probably start looking at things like non-violent, mature, polite, and socially conscious to describe a person who was 'well adjusted' and then narrow our definitions of 'mature' 'polite' and 'socially conscious' from there.

You seem quite hung up on this one point, and I'm not sure why. I'm simply saying the term 'adjusted' relies on a set of behaviours that are not strictly defined. If you define it, we can explore your definition of it. I would need to do the same for any study, assuming of course they have outlined the behaviours observed.

Tragically, as with most peer-reviewed journals, an online copy is available only to those willing to pay. I personally think it's ridiculous to protect any journal article over 5 years old, but they haven't called to ask me yet.

We can dream. One day it will be different... *sigh*

What is this environment supporting homeschooling that could be used in a systemized environment? Is it the parent-child relationship? The 1-on-1 educational style? The increased number of contact hours? How would a systemized environment replicate this? Is this environment something else? Please disambiguate what you are saying.

I thought it was clear enough, especially as you've more or less stated it here. Increased tutor-to-student ratios are definitely improved in a home environment, however in a well resourced, properly organised school this is not a problem. There is the added advantage of having access to resources most home environments may not have, such as science and sports equipment, workshops, etc.

Increased contact hours offer little advantage unless they are diversified. And nobody is suggesting that student's lives could not be enriched by participating in more hours of systemised education if they are extracurricular, which most schools I know of offer.

The problem is that many schools do not have the funding to enable reduced class numbers and excellent resources. That said, many do, and I consider these far superior to homeschooling.

If systemized education cannot provide the same resources (which again, I wish you'd make more concrete what you mean by 'resources') as homeschooling, then the reasons for homeschooling's superiority could both be the resources it can provide AND attack systemized education at the same time.

Resources: textbooks, teachers, teaching assistants, electronic equipment, media equipment, science equipment, chemicals (which often require licenses and proper storage), sports equipment, multimedia, career and community databases, community networks, art consumables, cookery equipment and consumables... just to rattle a few immediately off my head. Of course, I'm sure there are a few homes that have access to some of these things, and even a rare few with access to all of the ones a school could offer. In general, however, schools are far better resourced than homes.

That leaves increased contact time as the central difference, where many schools are typically under resourced as far as that goes.

I never said that schools cannot provide the same resources, only that often schools are underesourced to be able to give adequate attention to all students. Again, this is not a consequence of it being a system, but rather of state funding.

But this is all hypothetical anyway. In the real world very few school districts have the resources to compete, nor the infrastructure to come close. I've always scratched my head at the "we just need to improve the system" argument. Great idea... how? Throwing more money at the problem so far just creates a more corrupt system.

Corrupt? Strong accusation. I'm not doubting it exists, but to describe the system as corrupt would require some strong evidence.

Underresourcing is unfortunately a reflection of the government's focus on how significant good resourcing is in education. I've worked in districts and boroughs which go to both ends of the scale; the poor and the well resourced.

The school I taught at in Brisbane was incredibly well resourced, and I had the pleasure of working closely with the kids (and their families). Homeschooling would have been a disadvantage for children who opted out of that environment.

Athon

 

[BPScooter]

Original Post asked us to consider the "how" of teaching. The "where" and "why" were specifically excluded. Mrs. Scooter noted the digression.

mommyrex originally asked us to talk about pedagogical methods. Structured vs. less-structured.

 

[athon]

Original Post asked us to consider the "how" of teaching. The "where" and "why" were specifically excluded. Mrs. Scooter noted the digression.

mommyrex originally asked us to talk about pedagogical methods. Structured vs. less-structured.

Digression noted. My apologies for following that train of discussion, although in some ways that's at the core of my argument.

'Structure' in the school system is not necessarily as strict as people make out. Schools individually have a degree of flexibility in how they approach individual learning styles. Whether they choose to do so or not, it is their call. And as I've said, I've worked in extremes on either end.

Consistency in outcome is the real focus and globally many systems are pushing towards more transparent assessment schemes that dictate the foundation skills all students will need, yet beyond that are increasingly devolving responsibility. Queensland's state system has had that as a goal for the past decade. Western Australia is struggling to implement an outcome based assessment system (see skeptic.com education forum for more details on that).

In the UK, recent changes to the KS3 and 4 science curricula have reflected small changes towards giving teachers the freedom to choose how to assess various skills their students have gained, demanding only that evidence of this skill is presented. From what I understand of a number of US school boards, similar moves are being made there.

A structured system with flexibility which acknowledges the diversity of its students, gives power to the teacher to address this and - importantly - encourages professionalism in the profession, is superior to a non-structured approach which cannot have the potential for the same resources, same diverse learning opportunities and same range of options available to the student.

Athon