From: amanda@INTERCON.COM (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Education
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:22:03 GMT

oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
> Don't forget the students too.  Everyone seems to always forget 
> about them.  They're responsible too.

This is true, especially once they reach adulthood, but the younger a child, 
the more the parents and community have responsibility for its upbringing, 
including education.

> Very lovely and commendable sentiments.  But you'll never change 
> human nature.

No, probably not.  And I have to say, I spent a while 


> Without an exceptional amount of motivation, many
> students would not be capable of learning as much as you suggest 
> they should.

I disagree.  i've never met a kid, even with bona fide learning disabilities, 
that wasn't interested or able to learn.  Some of them have been burned out 
by school per se, but they still have plenty of enthusiasm for learning in 
contexts where they *do* get rewards (if only from their peers).  The lack of 
motivation (and often outright negative motivation) is something I blame 
squarely on the surrounding social structure.

> I wonder how other countries get such high ratings in education?

Simply speaking, their social structures values education in ways ours do 
not.  Now, at the graduate level, the U.S. has the best educational system on 
the planet, because it is highly valued by the social system.  Taking a 
broader view, I think this is a symptom of some deep problems our social 
system has with children themselves, but that's getting even farther afield.

> IMO, if your curriculum was adopted, the drop-out rate would soar 
> and many people of average intelligence would have trouble, those 
> of slightly lower than average intelligence would be tortured.

Without any other changes in the educational system, you are quite right.  I 
don't know what the solution is, but it would have to be systemic, since the 
problem is also.

> I don't think it would be fair.

Questions about whether "fairness" is a reasonable expectation aside, it 
would be a lot more fair than what we have now in public education.  I'm not 
suggesting we simply raise expectations--the resources available to the 
students (teacher time, materials, etc.) also need to be raised.

> A little tolerance is in order.

I agree.  On the other hand, it'll never change if no one cares...

> No offense but you 
> remind me of people who naturally wake-up early every morning 
> and then make out like its an incredible virtue.

Heaven forbid :).  Now, I do realize that I have much greater learning skills 
(and  perhaps native ability) than most people.  However, this is itself part 
of why I'm concerned.  *I* can handle my own education without societal 
infrastructure--I'm not the one who's affected adversely.  It's the people 
who don't find it so easy, and who end up being explicitly conditioned *out* 
of using their learning and problem-solving ability that are the victims.

> Our society 
> already tends to measure people's worth too much in terms of 
> iq and academic achievements.

I'd have to say "yes and no" to this one.  Standardized testing is pretty 
worthless, and academic achievements certainly don't have any bearing on 
anyone's worth.  However, communication and learning are basic human gifts, 
and I consider stifling them to be a case of genuine harm.

> There are many people with 
> good hearts who will never be on top of the heap.  Don't forget 
> about them.

I'm not--it's those very people I care about.  The top of the bell curve will 
do OK no matter what.

> What is this doing in alt.magick, anyway?

Uh, it's been kind of a roundabout route :), although I tend to think of 
learning and magic as *very* closely related.


Peace,

Amanda