New Education Systems

First of all, thank you. Number one, for agreeing to continue the debate, and number two, for your ideas. I genuinely had no idea when starting this that our proposals would be so similar, yet though they are alike, I'm learning a lot from your ideas as well. The reason I break down specific skills into different age groups has to do with the way the brain develops. For example, before the age of 6, a child will not be able to truly internalize what independence is - before that point they *must* rely on others. Also, the concept of responsibility is foreign to them. I wrote, 'The majority of studies listed should be taught in accordance with that specific attribute, although combining several or refreshing an older attribute is also not a problem,' but do agree with you - those attributes, unless reinforced annually are likely to be forgotten. Having said that, perhaps it should be required to focus on the previous years' attributes as well. Which brings me to another point.... (The one I seem to have forgotten.) In addition to bringing out specific traits within the set curriculum, I believe scenarios should be crafted in order to bring out those traits. As examples, having a classroom pet to teach responsibility and requiring students (as part of students aged 12-14's curriculum) to teach themselves a subject that interests them. As for poetry and creative writing, each allows for expression. One of my major issues with the school system today is that it is very *limiting*. They teach students to conform to conformity itself. Another focus of my system that I didn't mention (and I'm not sure why - this is important) is encouraging students to think outside the box - not to limit themselves, but as some anonymous guy once said, 'to shoot for something no one else can see - and hit it.' My belief is that when we have students whose major competition is themselves essentially - when they have a healthy self esteem, are highly motivated and capable of thinking for themselves - that is an atmosphere conducive not just to the betterment of education but to the betterment of society in general. My point in making no classes mandatory after age 14, (unless someone is weak in a specific subject) was actually assuming that they had completed the necessary studies by that point. Thinking about it though, it may be possible that the required curriculum won't be completed by that time period, (in which case I would have to adjust that slightly.) My criticism of your plan would be that it is too academically focused. Not everyone is academically inclined. It brings to mind how it used to work way back in the good old days. Some children would go to school and others would be apprenticed. While I feel that academics are important, that should not be the main focus of school. You make extracurricular activities dependent on high academic achievement. To me, it would seem that if a student isn't doing so well academically it may be because that's not their mode of learning. A favorite quote emphasizes what I'm trying to say. 'Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its life thinking it is stupid.' -Albert Einstein Some people are better at some things and other people at other things. That's not to say one person is better than another. Nor is it to say that someone shouldn't try something they're not good at. But to hold everyone to an academic standard when that is not the only talent seems a little harsh, I guess. That's it for now. Just as a side point though, (and feel free to disagree with me on this) it seems that the 'correct' answer to this debate isn't necessarily one over the other, but rather a combination of both aspects. That's just me thinking aloud. By the way, I LOVE (with a capital L, O, V, and E) your idea for teaching history in secondary school. That's the kind of critical thinking we need!