Can there be any viable alternatives to schooling?

[hallenrm]

I love children, although I have no offsprings of my own.

 

I love to watch them grow, just I do love to see flowers bloom! :phones:

 

Lately I have come across some articles in my newspaper where the authors advocate that schoolong is no longer a relevant mode of education.

 

I somehow tend to agree to the proposition. Schooling was the best mode of education when there were no alternative to communication. Children had to be collected in a place so that teachers can effectively communicate and monitor their mental development. But that is not really the state of affairs today. Internet and forums like HSF offer an alternative for instruction and communication. Children, if they are taught by their parents to be desciplined and communicate through Internet can perhaps learn as much, without the attendant risks and constraints. They may become free to learn in the way they like the best, choose their teachers and at the time when they are best ready for the lessons.

 

In fact, I can envision modes of alternative education which can come close to the ideal of Rabindra Nath Tagore:

 

Where the mind is without fear,

and the head is held high,

where knowledge is free,

where the world is not broken up,

into fragments by narrow domestic walls,

where words come out from depth of truth,

where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection,

where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way,

into the dreary detest sand of dead habit,

where the mind is led forward by thee,

into ever widening thought and action,

[Ganoderma]

Define schooling. I think the word means totally different things in India, Africa, Canada, or here in Taiwan. Example. I find schooling here more of a way to let parents work. The kids are pressured so hard that they must achieve high grades (although that is getting less and less so). I went to school in Canada and in my opinion it was far more rewarding in that they taught more life skills and less of the "textbook" style. I have friends who received their schooling from their parents as well (officially). It has also been shown many times that people are not all the same. When I teach students here, some are excellent at just sitting and studying. They will remember everything and get 100% on their test. Their best friend in the same class might get 15%. Different styles are needed and in my opinion the "classic" style school can't work for everyone, but sure works great for some.

 

I do notice the students that excel in strict text book style studying far fall behind in social and common sense type areas. They know it, but can’t use it.

[IDMclean]

I would argue that there is infact a better model for education than what is currently offered, and used institutionally here in the USA.

 

The interesting thing is this. It is the mirror image to a model of economics that is espoused by some Libertarian Socialist. That is free association.

 

The model I have been playing with recently is like so.

You have a Facility, a physical accessible, public location. It would be gridded out into the main sections like Philosophy, Science, Arts, Business and such. then each main section would breakdown into a number of subsections. In each subsection you would have a class that would be focused on some specific aspects of a given area of study. Like painting, drawing, writting, sculpture, and so on. The students would be able to walk on campus, and walk into any class room at any time during opperation and sit down to study. There would be a number of teachers availible in each subsection for the students to take advantage of.

 

As the student completes self-assigned tasks, they check their work with the school. It is graded and put into the student's portfolio. The school keeps a record of the student's activities. Diplomas would be handed out for students who complete work in a number of areas, that would constitute a major or minor.

 

Councilers would be availible to the students to guide them in learning based upon the needs of the student. The goals would be by-task-need basis. That is if the student wants to study game design, then they would be advised to take courses in a number of areas, and would be directed to the appropiate departments, and faculty specialist.

 

From counciling, discussion with the specialists, discussion with current, past, and future students, and accompaning literature, the student would be guided through a overview and introduction of the topics are suggested to learn for the task(s) the student wants to be able to accomplish during their current educational period.

 

From that the infrastructure of the model would guide the student through a process of self-discovery, and self-enlightenment.

 

Providing the tools, resources, experience, networking, instructions, and knowledge basis that the student needs to come to understand the subjects they seek to understand. While being encouraged to diversify their interests.

 

The students would be encouraged to improve, support, maintain, and run the school. The schools would essentially be a free association peer review facility. Preferably to keep conflicting interestest out of it, the school system would be publicly funded, and students would pay little to no fees. Taxes should cover this like medical care, food, and housing.

 

The emphasis should be towards high efficiency, self-sustained infrastructure. Well insulated walls and ceilings, efficient heating and cooling, Solar power shingles, or arrrays, high efficiency lighting, computer systems, and othersuch. The initial cost would likely be high, but the long term return should be significant. Also the infrastructure should be built with the idea of it lasting 50-100 years, at least.

 

Let information be free, for you and your fellow citizens shall follow.

[Buffy]

UC Santa Cruz and to a lesser extent UC San Diego both look a lot like what KAC proposes. Its fantastic for the unstructured and self-motivated.

 

For "compulsory education" it falls appart completely. Most of the teachers I know will tell you that discipline is something that teachers create through authority enforced by rules, and that *all* students need to have to *learn* discipline, even those that eventually do best in unstructured environments. For those that would rather be hangin with their homies playing Nintendo, they'll never show up. That's a different sociological problem that should probably be discussed in another thread.

 

An anecdote: I went to a top-tier business school with all the hottest hot-shots that are running your lives now. We had a class called "Nuke" that was an intro to the processes of the school, and my section was taught by one of the more unconventional professors there. One day, he came into class as usual and sat down while everyone continued to chat away. Unlike previous sessions, he didn't at 9am say "okay, lets get going," he just sat there with his usual friendly smile looking around the room and nodding and smiling when he caught an eye, but not saying a word. Long about 9:03, some people started to notice that we weren't starting yet and looked at him. He'd smile back and look around. Eventually the room went dead silent with nervousness. He continued to sit there smiling away. After everyone was suitably uncomfortable, he said, "Well, you know, all you folks think you're hot shots and you don't like structure. I hope this shows you how uncomfortable you all get when you have your structure taken away from you." We all got it.

 

Be careful what you wish for,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

I think that different people learn different ways. And the same person can sometimes benefit from different learning styles. I tend to do well in classes where there is a lot of interaction between the student and the teacher. Structure is very important for me to learn well - which is one reason I do poorly in some classes. I have a tendancy to test very well and not do any homework. I did best in high school in my pre-calc and calc class. My teacher realized what the problem was and he changed the rules for me. Rather than have the ability to turn in work late, my homework had to be on his desk before school started or I got a zero on that assignment. The structure that provided was enough to get me into a routine of doing my homework (for his class, at least).

 

However, I do enjoy the freedom that being able to learn whatever I want can provide. I just want the freedom to learn it in a structured environment.

[IDMclean]

Most of the teachers I know will tell you that discipline is something that teachers create through authority enforced by rules, and that *all* students need to have to *learn* discipline, even those that eventually do best in unstructured environments. For those that would rather be hangin with their homies playing Nintendo, they'll never show up.

 

This is an extrordinary claim in my eyes. Though it is a popular claim to be made, and seems valid according to common reasoning, simply put I have not seen the numbers or studies to back it.

 

It is somewhat offensive to me, as I am a person who in the absense of education will create educational oppertunities, that I am here reading and writting currently should be sufficent proof of that.

 

It is my experience that the existing structure caters to the needs not of the individual, not directly, implicitly, or explicitly, but of the society and of the businesses there in. That is when I go to school it is not an education for the benefit of the individual but an education for the benefit of the company that will one day higher the individual.

 

As for the question of structure? I did not say that the system would be without structure. However part of the learning experience would be in making structure, shaping it and learning to think outside the rules of the system. That is cultivating independent thinking in the students, and the society by proxy. While also cultivating a more social paradigm of co-operative existence.

 

In Studying Engineering by Raymond B. Landis it is noted that you greatest resource is your fellow students. Instructors, professors, advisors and otherwise teachers follow after that.

 

The thing about seeking education is that one does not necessarily know how to structure there life, or their education. Hence coming to apparent, reputable experts. So once again you can build that into the rules of the system to re-enforce the student building those skills.

 

The form of the education is as important or more so than the education itself. Marshall Mcluhan is fameous for his quote of "the medium is the message". In this case the medium is our education system and the message is the form that system takes. I don't know about you people but in my years of being in that system I can tell you, I don't like the message. The message is far from healthy, nor comprehensive. It will not produce the quality of persons that we need for our progressing society, in the volumes that we need them produced.

 

Education is no longer something to be offered to the rich, and wealthy. To the intellectually elite. It is a requirement of subsistence in an informed, free, egalitarian, technologically advanced society.

 

It is the power and responsibility of the citizen to educate themselves, and to take advantage of the resources offered. It is the power and responsibility of the society to offer the communal resources to it's citizens for use.

 

P.S. what I advocate is closer to Anarcho-syndicalism, not direct democracy. Like I said free association. As opposed to the current paradigm of cohersed association. Though that's not to say I advocate Anarcho-syndicalism persay, but that it more closely resembles what I do infact advocate.

[Turtle]

... They [children]may become free to learn in the way they like the best, choose their teachers and at the time when they are best ready for the lessons.

 

In fact, I can envision modes of alternative education which can come close to the ideal of Rabindra Nath Tagore:

 

This is similar to the Montessori method.

 

Here in the US, homeschooling is a popular alternative to public schooling, although such students still must take State prescribed tests and submit a curriculum to the State. We also have 'magnet' schools which focus on music or science for example, and parents may choose to send their children to a school of their choice. :hihi:

[HydrogenBond]

ALthough many people can learn with alternate teaching and learning methods, traditional school probally still works best for the majority. I personally liked summer vacation the best. I needed to be forced to go to school to learn things. I didn't like it at the time, but always felt I had learned a lot when the next summer vacation occurred. I was more creative but could memorize and test well if forced.

 

Home study would be good if the parents are motivated to teach. But how many students are willing to sacrifce the life of their parents so they can avoid school. Instead of the parents sacrificing their time, they could be using that time to pursue their own dreams. But even if a parents loves to do this, let us talk about agenda driven education. For example, if the mom is a tree hugger, the industrial revolution was an evil occurance with polution all along the way. At least in school one year you get a tree hugger and the next an industrialist. This allows the student more opportunity to become objective and think for themselves. Besides, few parents are experts in everything. This is why a range of specialty teachers give the students the deepest insights along the whole spectrum of learning.

 

Open campuses where one is giving the liberty to come and go and take any class, works for some. Most will use the freedom to play or do only what interests them. But sometimes things you don't like are exactly what you need. For example, many scientist hate writing and avoid it if possible. After they graduate and begin to work, they wish they had been force to take writing courses.

 

What is wrong with traditional schooling is that it has become a beaurocracy with the power taken away from the people in the trenches, i.e, teachers. All the ignorant experts that control from afar, have turned public edcucation into something everyone now think is no longer affective, i.e., can anyone see the problem.

 

I would reduce admintrative overhead to 10%. I would also give the teachers the powers of a school congress with the principle the president. The head of advisorary commitees would be the star teachers whose students excel in regional testing. The lame brain new school method experts would have to become teachers if they wish to input their advice, i.e., prove it in the field instead of on admin-paper.

[Buffy]

This is an extrordinary claim in my eyes. Though it is a popular claim to be made, and seems valid according to common reasoning, simply put I have not seen the numbers or studies to back it.

I'll admit glossing over a key detail which I assumed but should have been more explicit about: its clear that some need more assistance with learning how to learn than others, but all will benefit.

 

I'm only making the claim of course based on my sample of about 100 personal friends who are teachers at all levels, and its almost big enough to be statistically significant when the mean is so high (90+ percentile) saying that its a good thing.

 

I'm not saying you've missed the boat without it, but I will say that you are 99.9th percentile in motivation and discipline and obviously can do without it, and as a result, have a good excuse to find fault with a system which--especially at the compulsory level--is skewed toward mediocrity. I think that makes your experience untypical, and not broadly applicable to rearranging our educational system at all levels and for all purposes.

 

For those elites, as I said, there are numerous examples of exactly what you're talking about and they are *highly* successful. I recommend them strongly!

It is my experience that the existing structure caters to the needs not of the individual, not directly, implicitly, or explicitly, but of the society and of the businesses there in. That is when I go to school it is not an education for the benefit of the individual but an education for the benefit of the company that will one day higher the individual.

And is there something wrong with that? I'm no Communitarian, but I think we all benefit as a society from compulsory education. I remember so many of my friends in high school (basically the lower 50% come reunion time), questioning why we had to take history or economics because "I'll never use that in real life." And of course we wonder why we "get the government we deserve."

 

It has its faults, but I think its principally a good thing because it does result in a better democracy, and yes, more efficient businesses because people understand and agree about how the--often imperfect--mechanisms should work to benefit everyone.

However part of the learning experience would be in making structure, shaping it and learning to think outside the rules of the system.

...and most of my teacher friends would agree. In fact its been pointed to as a hallmark of American education that we "teach students to think for themselves" as opposed to places like Japan which emphasize nothing but rote memorization (something that is changing there slowly, because they've seen the downside).

Education is no longer something to be offered to the rich, and wealthy. To the intellectually elite. It is a requirement of subsistence in an informed, free, egalitarian, technologically advanced society.

Yep! So to deal with the fact that so many people do not do what is "required for subsistence" unless forced to do so, its hard to justify as a society that:

It is the power and responsibility of the citizen to educate themselves, and to take advantage of the resources offered. It is the power and responsibility of the society to offer the communal resources to it's citizens for use.

...and leave it at that. Its good for all of us--including the folks who just want to slide through life--to do whatever is necessary to educate everyone to a certain level whether they want to or not. (You may not disagree with what I'm saying here, so I'll apologize for making sure that the audience who may misinterpret it doesn't miss the point.)

 

Can it be done better? Indubitably! Lets talk about those...

 

How to Read a Book, :phones:

Buffy

[IDMclean]

I needed to be forced to go to school to learn things.

 

I think that makes your experience untypical, and not broadly applicable to rearranging our educational system at all levels and for all purposes.

 

And is there something wrong with that? I'm no Communitarian, but I think we all benefit as a society from compulsory education. I remember so many of my friends in high school (basically the lower 50% come reunion time), questioning why we had to take history or economics because "I'll never use that in real life." And of course we wonder why we "get the government we deserve."

 

It has its faults, but I think its principally a good thing because it does result in a better democracy, and yes, more efficient businesses because people understand and agree about how the--often imperfect--mechanisms should work to benefit everyone.

 

It not that there is something wrong with the model so much as the model does not serve to promote the overt goals of the overall system of people.

 

The system does not necessarily recognize at current that it is best served by the attainment of higher quality individuals than many low quality individuals.

 

Also I am not arguing against the compusolry education of the citizens of our collective world, but arguing in favor of making the system more attractive. That Hydrogenbond and many of my generation didn't like to go to school, myself included, is testimate to the weakness of the current system.

 

I can envision school as a hotspot, a place to hang out talk and share information. Play games, socialize, communicate and otherwise learn. A warm welcoming, enticing enviroment even.

 

For me learning was instilled as a fun activity. School has threatened that love of learning a number of times. My experience of the Authoritarian system is that it served to attack my curiousity, creativity and individuality in favor of silent content obediance. I don't know how many people have had the pleasure of touring the countries elementry systems, but I have. I have been in school in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and Texas.

 

All of them have the same underlying paradigm regarding the nature of children, learning and motivation.

 

That is without ridged enforced controls the children will become slothful, and weak minded. That they will be come deliquent and are forever in the danger of falling to hoodlumism. There is an almost silent undercurrent in the methods, codes and othersuch of the education system in america that wants to shout but knows it's not proper "Children don't want to learn, so we must force them."

 

Is a wonder that the adults produced are indoctrinated into believing that they must be forced to do things that they would otherwise do naturally? It is a system of ridged enforced control, subtle but stifling none the less.

 

Research shows, and even common observation shows that children have a number of needs, that people have a number of needs. That we seek information innately, that we are curious creatures. We are social creatures, who want a place to interact with other people, to talk and learn.

 

I mean look at hypography. An example if I ever saw one. In short people want to know. Children want to know. There is no substantial emperical evidence that shows that people given the choice would do nothing. Infact I would say that there is significant, non-trivial evidence to the contrary.

 

People don't need to be forced or cohersted into doing things. They will do things anyway. Given the resources and oppertunity people build things, socialize, and otherwise go out of their way to be active participating members of society. By themselves.

 

Now as for the "never use x in real life." comments, and other such nonsense beliefs. Simple. Show them why and how they will use the skills they are taught. Not only that, but have real world people (students of the programs) show them how what they are learning is relevant.

 

Ultimately what we do in the society is relevant, even when we do it primarily for ourselves. What benefits me, benefits you and vice versa. Simple principle of universal benefits, and universal morality.

 

So I would question the data, if there is even data availible. So far what I have seen in the discussion of education is that, in the majority, the data is lacking. That the refutations of the various models of education, governance, economics and so much more is based on slim to no evidence. That the refutations are often based in emotional irrationality, and indoctrination. Fear of leaving the familar structure for another, but the thing about being overly cautiuos is this.

 

You will never know what you are missing if you never had it to lose in the first place.

 

P.S.

For those elites

 

To me this term, Elite, is used to friviously. Someone who is elite in my book is one who goes above an beyond what is required. Someone who puts more effort and time forward, for their personal inquiry than others. Often times the term is associated with knowing more, but in a world where information is subject to change, it can not and does not denote one's elevation in status, as an elite. That is the latter association is highly variable and unpredictable. The form is consistent and constant, making the retention of the status of elite a life long goal.

 

What I mean, I suppose, is that what is the use of "elite" in this context? Who is an elite? Am I an elite? If not me then you perhaps? Who is to say who is elite and who is not? What are the traits of elite persons and why does (or doesn't) the populus have these traits?

[Turtle]

... To me this term, Elite, is used to friviously. Someone who is elite in my book is one who goes above an beyond what is required. Someone who puts more effort and time forward, for their personal inquiry than others. Often times the term is associated with knowing more, but in a world where information is subject to change, it can not and does not denote one's elevation in status, as an elite.

 

At the very least, some commonality in education is desirable for making any progress. For example, learning what a dictionary is and how to use it is worthy of teaching to everyone, lest everyone simply defines terms as they see fit as Clown has with the term 'elite'.

:phones:

[Buffy]

It not that there is something wrong with the model so much as the model does not serve to promote the overt goals of the overall system of people.

 

The system does not necessarily recognize at current that it is best served by the attainment of higher quality individuals than many low quality individuals.

 

Also I am not arguing against the compusolry education of the citizens of our collective world, but arguing in favor of making the system more attractive.

I wholeheartedly agree. I didn't think you wanted to argue against compulsory education, but it could have been misconstrued that way by others: I was just clarifying!

I can envision school as a hotspot, a place to hang out talk and share information. Play games, socialize, communicate and otherwise learn. A warm welcoming, enticing enviroment even.

I agree, and in my unusual grade school experience--Southern California public school in a fairly well-to-do district--it was exactly that. Structured, lots of requirements, but lots of independent study opportunities, AP classes and teachers that challenged the smart ones and the slow ones to *all* think. And intellectual freedom--our screeds against the administration idiocy bordered on libel--in spades: I fear this sort of environment is less so today, looking at my daughter's experience in a similar district. It would be fabulous if all schools go in this direction, but society has not desired to spend the money, and--as those teacher friends of mine will tell you--has gone nuts on "teaching the basics and no more" (unless you're in a high-end school system). This is a major failure in our society, and I definitely understand the frustration you've expressed.

 

We need to do a whole lot better.

That is without ridged enforced controls the children will become slothful, and weak minded. That they will be come deliquent and are forever in the danger of falling to hoodlumism. There is an almost silent undercurrent in the methods, codes and othersuch of the education system in america that wants to shout but knows it's not proper "Children don't want to learn, so we must force them."

I think this is an extreme, minority opinion, although I would bet popular among current political appointees at the Department of Education. Its not true, and the teachers will tell you so. Even in the most depressed environments, there are many who are motivated to learn, and even the unmotivated can be made so, but its about *how* they're taught, and the "teaching to the standardized test" has forced uninteresting and unmotivating methods that teachers *hate* with a passion. No Child Left Behind has left most children behind across the entire spectrum of "motivation."

 

Now as for the "never use x in real life." comments, and other such nonsense beliefs. Simple. Show them why and how they will use the skills they are taught.

Exactly, the only real challenge is to get them to sit through the argument, and that can take some "force" when the attitude is already there. Once they're past that, then that innate curiosity does indeed start to take over. There is some force involved though, purely as a practical manner.

Someone who is elite in my book is one who goes above an beyond what is required. Someone who puts more effort and time forward, for their personal inquiry than others.

I think my definition is pretty much the same as yours here. The point being that "elite" very explicitly does not include "most" from any point of view, and thus programs designed for the elite probably won't work as well as for the "masses," and that's the only area I think you need to be careful. When I was a kid, there was a lot more money spent on the "gifted" programs, which have for the most part gone away except for AP classes. You want gifted, you need to be able to afford to pay for it either in private school or ritzy school districts. Thus, we end up with this situation where "elite" equals "rich" which is totally sucky.

 

As a society we've got to start realizing that education is our most important investment.

 

Do good for all,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Its not true, and the teachers will tell you so.

I am not saying this is the overt line, the one which is consciously used. I know from experience that often enough the teachers themselves don't realize the total effect of the system. There is a difference in playing the game and analyze it objectively. When in the game, one will often attach emotional importance to aspects of the game. That is one will define meaning and purpose for their participation.

 

This can lead to blindness of the system and the underlying content created by the system.

 

I approach this problem from both the stand point of an exceptional student, whatever that means, and from the perspective of a problem student, and all shades of gray and the myriad of colors in between.

 

I have been a student of the modern education system for the past 15 years. I have been from high to low, best student to worst student. I have examined it and discussed it with a number of people in my life. From principles, administrators, teachers, students, and parents to psychologist, councilors, college instructors, and even your average person.

 

The conclusion I have drawn in all my time, experience, research and studies, is that the school system itself, the methods used, the policies in acted all are based around a fundamental, implied belief that children don't want to learn. That people don't want to learn.

 

Now those of us who know a little about information, will recognize quickly (I would hope) that garbage in is garbage out. You teach the teachers to deal with the students like the students don't want to be there, and the teacher teaches the students like they don't want to be there. Then you indoctrinate the teachers and students, and the system itself (by self-reference) to believe that people don't want to learn.

 

Anyone who has learned some history and knows the role of belief in history, will most likely recognize the insidious dangers inherent in this kind of slippery indirect indoctrination.

 

If I tell you over and over again, from age 6 that you don't want to be here, that learning is hard and that only a few will go on to make it big, do you think your likely to reject that? What if your family espouse the same doctrine? Your friends, the society you live in? The TV you watch, radio you listen to, the books that you read?

 

I am lucky in that my mom taught me otherwise. That learning is fun, that I can be anything, that I want to be educated and involved with my education.

 

We create these prisons for our kids and then expect them to just suddenly shed the controls imposed on them? Our current education system institutionalizes our future demographic. That isn't to say that the current system is worse than the past systems, quite the opposite. Just that It is no where near optimal yet.

 

Structure and support are good, they are needed. That is the point of the model I would like seen used. I want people to learn and to have fun doing it. School shouldn't be a place you have to go to. It should be a place you want to go to.

 

Just because you have free association doesn't mean that you are let of the hook for learning. Quite the opposite.

 

Mark my words, if you turn schools into the premier hangout, without compromising their integrity as places of learning, to rival the mall, the movie theater, the theme park, the circus, and the arcade, you will create a society that will go somewhere, that will leap and bound across the borders of understanding.

 

Make them public and publicly funded, so that tuition is payed by each citizen for their right and privilege to have such resources available to them, and we may very well see the next era.

 

Education and Entertainment, it's the only logical jump from where we stand now. Give the people what they want, bread and circuses.

[Turtle]

Turtle, I don't like reading your elitist[math]^1[/math] rhetoric, however I do so to keep up to date on different positions, to keep informed on the state of the system.

 

 

? Using a dictionary is elitist? :hyper: Your Humpty Dumpty approach to words contributes nothing to clarifying the issue of finding viable alternatives to education.

[hallenrm]

Very interesting inputs dear KAC, Buffy and Turtle, let me now add my bit of experience! :naughty:

 

Here in India, often schools of are unattractive to students because of either quality of teachers, the infrastructure, the curriculum or the setup. To the few who somehow like to go to school everyday, it is an opportunity to socialize with others of their own age. Often, there are students who are not too happy with this socialization, because they can't find other students in their class whom they really like. Often they are forced in to learn from a teacher they cannot connect. On the other hand there are teachers they take instant liking for. But, there is no structure that encourages such a mode of learning.

 

Yesterday, after initiating the thread, I googled to find an answer to my question. The articles that caught my attention were unschooling alternative education and alternative schools.

 

But, what I have in mind is a much more flexible structure than a school. My interactions on this forum led me to imagine. I have found that some members on this forum, for example Turtle are instant hits with newcomers, CraigD attracts people like me who are seeking new knowledge and there are many more, I can't remember the names at the moment. Similar are my experiences with children around, children often take instant liking for some persons and they would like to be taught by them, but the school system does not always allow this. Here in India, home tutions are becoming popular because often they give such an option. But the problem is of economic viability and visibility. Not everybody can afford a private tutor, and even if one can there is this problem of finding the right one and the accessibility to him/her. Because, she may not be residing closeby and the time when s/he is available. Internet seems to offer a possibility.

 

e-tutions are becoming popular slowly among students, as are clubs for extracurricular activities for the young. Can they offer an alternative??? I am thinking, I need some inputs, Anybody ready for help ! :)

[Michaelangelica]

I love children, although I have no offsprings of my own.

 

I love to watch them grow, just I do love to see flowers bloom!

 

Lately I have come across some articles in my newspaper where the authors advocate that schoolong is no longer a relevant mode of education.

 

I somehow tend to agree to the proposition. Schooling was the best mode of education when there were no alternative to communication.

I enjoyed listening to this very wise, intelligent, caring woman

Ockham's Razor - 6 May 2007  - Those who have ears

 

It will only be there for a few more days. I think it is best listened too rather than reading a transcript

I have sent the link to all my teacher friends

Listen Now - 06052007 | Download Audio - 06052007

 

Brisbane educator Jennifer Riggs discusses children who have serious problems with auditory processing. Studies have shown that a third of us are strongly visual-spatial learners and many children cannot learn through being talked at, but will learn better by seeing and doing. The fundamentals of learning are the five senses, but how many of them do we use in teaching?

 

Show Transcript

[hardy5]

Unstructured for those with self-discipline