|
Post by notme on Jun 29, 2012 20:46:24 GMT -5
The problem with revolutions is that if you don't think things through carefully you will eventually re-construct the system you were born into. This can be seen in the Russian communist revolution. Actually, it can probably be seen in any revolution. It doesn't only apply to politics... just change in the general structure of anything. I'd argue its inevitable over a long enough time line, that you can only prolong it as long as possible, but that eventually even in the best plans corruption will creep back in; Nietzsche phrased it akin to 'each new truth reinvents the world in its own image' Well, IMHFO, we face compounding the problems-- the first is that people in many walks of life really are not equipped for the world around them, that we as a society are pretty frigging dumb (although I think that is going to hold true for any mass grouping). Second, I'd argue that many subjects require a base to build off of, I could teach you to hack, but first you need to learn to program, which first requires some understanding of computers.. etc. I agree overall, but what are you proposing? we ask each perspective student and then develop curriculum around them? I'm a little lost here as to what you mean exactly.
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 29, 2012 20:47:13 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of some of the danger of revolutionary movements, but there is a real dilemma with providing the super-structure to an organic quest for knowledge and understanding. Self-direction education can be done at any time, by anyone. What I am suggesting we try to provide is the framework for a more participatory and smoother functioning democracy than what we have going on now. Part of the problem with a lack of knowledge and understanding is that the "student" in this case, might not know what they do not know. While it would be theoretically impossible to provide a form of education for everyone based on individual goals, we could provide a framework that will not only enhance an individual's capacity to further their own education, but also to participate more fully in the processes we outline here. For those reasons, it should first be general in nature, and graduated in complexity. Not to mimic a decrepit system, but to allow people to bypass areas where they already possess competency, and to build upon previous knowledge/experience. Just because we want to reform our system of governance does not mean an examination of previous forms/attempts are an invalid study. Furthermore, it also means that in order to really understand the forces that motivated these previous iterations at democracy, we would have to look at the intellectual/religious/social/economic/etc realities of those times and places. If we were to teach discourse; there would be certain historical examples to look to; and the same if we were to discuss resistance movements across history. My point becomes even more plain if we are talking about highly specialized or technical skills, where a basic foundation must be achieved before moving on to more complex procedures. iawtc
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 29, 2012 20:53:45 GMT -5
IAWTC. I wouldn't want to force people to learn much of anything. Forcing people to learn X just teaches them to hate the subject and/or the school in many cases. Also, since we don't run a municipal school district let alone a nation-state, we can't really force anyone to do anything. This being the case, it is necessary to make it as appealing as possible to gain knowledge that everyone (including the student) feels will enhance one's ability to participate productively in the horizontal decision making process. In short, I think the basic premise should be more carrot ("Meetings will suck less and produce better results if you read this and do this exercise a few times!") and less stick ("We won't accept your input in this process that already kind of sucks until you read this and do this exercise the number of times that we feel is appropriate!"). I totally agree overall, the only thing I'd be hesitant about is how to handle it in order to allow for higher-order classes; I mean great so you took this other thing but didnt really do anything and came for the social aspect and didnt learn what you needed to, but in order to allow for this other class to make sense you sorta need this foundation? I guess so long as the person wasnt disruptive its really no problem to me, but I don't see how without some formalization it would really work to be anything.
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jun 30, 2012 9:30:06 GMT -5
Okay, I guess the soul crushing education system topic is my fault. I think it's important to note how much influence public education has on us and our society. It is important to remember the system was designed for the industrial age, & we are well past that now.
Maybe we are talking about two or more different things. I was starting with a philosophy & suggesting some methodology. I don't think the ideas were necessarily new or untried. There are schools that do this. I went to one or two.
We're also talking about content, which is totally different. You can deliver content using a number of different methods. It sounds like the desired outcome is that people are able to understand issues and make informed decisions. Critical thinking would be one, but you teach that by having students think, research, & decide about content, which could be anything. It seems that people are interested in liberal arts & technical training. Anyway, that is definitely something that needs to be decided. Curriculum design should begin with the desired outcome. Think critically yes, about what?
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jun 30, 2012 10:43:13 GMT -5
elisawrote: The problem with revolutions is that if you don't think things through carefully you will eventually re-construct the system you were born into. This can be seen in the Russian communist revolution. Actually, it can probably be seen in any revolution. It doesn't only apply to politics... just change in the general structure of anything.
NotMe: I'd argue it’s inevitable over a long enough time line, that you can only prolong it as long as possible, but that eventually even in the best plans corruption will creep back in; Nietzsche phrased it akin to 'each new truth reinvents the world in its own image'
Elisa: Oh, funny, we’ve now involved Nietzsche & Foucault (part about public schools creating docile bodies)… Of course, we hope that instead of prolonging things only to have them self-destruct, ideas & people will continue to evolve.
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jun 30, 2012 17:49:44 GMT -5
Elisa ....I am suggesting that instead of generic curriculum, there should be a democratic, non-invasive, self-directed approach. Eliminate the division of knowledge into subject areas. Eliminate the imposition of knowledge onto the student. No specific order is necessary in learning. NotMe: Well, IMHFO, we face compounding the problems-- the first is that people in many walks of life really are not equipped for the world around them, that we as a society are pretty frigging dumb (although I think that is going to hold true for any mass grouping). Elisa: I agree. I don’t feel particularly well-equipped for the world around me, and yes, we as a society are pretty dumb & I suspect we are encouraged to stay that way. NotMe: I'd argue that many subjects require a base to build off of, I could teach you to hack, but first you need to learn to program, which first requires some understanding of computers.. etc.Elisa: I think for you to teach me to hack, I would not first have to take Computers 101 & then Programming in I dunno, by the time I’d get around to it, it would probably be C +1 cubed…. Instead I could just learn what is necessary for the purposes of hacking. Instead of having three classes just to learn how to hack, you could have one class or subject area or project. You can divide knowledge any way you want. You don’t have to observe the traditional categories. I read an article by Sergey Bratus on how to teach security to IT professionals. He seemed to advocate sort of an immersion approach into the culture of possible intruders as opposed to classroom teaching & textbooks. So, access & exposure as in the kiosks is important. This is how I interpreted it. I should mention, though, I have a very hard time understanding him In fact, it is painful. Perhaps instead of teaching me to hack, you can teach me to understand his writing?
|
|