[Madness]

Time to respond .

What are your experiences with the actual school system today though? I saw this TED talk by a 13 year old boy who has been learning at home. I do not think this is a solution though, since it probably requires rich parents. Either way it is refreshing to see this boy talk. Only ten minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11u3vtcpaY

Sorry, Royce. I missed this question. I wasn't all to impressed with Skater Boy either. Affluent home-schooling is not the same as effective home-schooling, though they'll no doubt cover some of the same bases.

My experiences with the actual school system is having been indoctrinated, right?

I mean, I know some teachers now from the other side of the mirror - many of my friends are starting their twenty-plus years of chasing the educational dragon. What scares me from these interactions are how often curriculum changes, the arbitrary reasons that it does, and the length of time they are given to succeed or fail (in my opinion not nearly long enough).

They should be able to think critically and for themselves (i know, i said that already but yes, it is that important).

What does "think critically" mean, for the sake of our discussion?

Unfortunately, a lot of education today seems to me to be geared toward "just learning for the next test, independent of the whole picture" instead of "get my knowledge interconnected between topics so that i can use everything everywhere".
To be fair though, to achieve tha latter thing is veeeery very hard (if i had an idea how to really do that, i'd probably be filthy rich ).

Lol - I don't think the next educational paradigm and "getting rich" are necessarily the same?

And "learning for the next test" - which I agree with you is absolutely ridiculous - ensures "the way things are" have people who can meet deadlines, produce some-kind of quality rigour, deal with those stresses. So it isn't fruitless if we're bent on producing cogs?

By the way, I realize the history and the research has been around for a longtime (and probably is especially apparent to our European members) but has anyone else read the nice consolidation in The Curiousity of School by Zander Sherman?

I agree though that if someone really needs therapy, we should not be so judgmental. I think it is a strength of character to admit that you need help. So stop the "you're weak" bullshit.

Segue:

This makes it difficult? How do we decide? For instance, the DSM for all it's flaws is still pretty much the most-balanced artifact available? Obviously, there are vested-interested that go into doses kids with therapy/drugs but...

Not especially - what you want would be largely a result of previous sociatal structure, in your theory. Therefor what the previous generation (and generations before that) constructed would largely inform what 'we want'. We'd form no 'right angle turn' to what the past did and only alter by a few degrees the current momentum of culture.

Oh yeah? And how would you know? Why is your idea more "right" than Royce's theory?
And just because our society moves like that atm does not mean that it always will  move like that or that it always has. There have been quite strong changes in societal structure at times in the past...so i guess right angles are definitely possible.

I'm not sure that social evolution is as rigid as Callan makes it sound?

On the other hand, i think we might be close to one such jump. Not sure if we will live to see it...but i think that the way our western society "behaves" atm, there will soon be a lot of jump-energy ... (but that's another topic, i guess).

Culture is (not) your friend is that thread, isn't it ?

To the "can i make a difference" - it seems every teacher asks him/herself that question, eh?!
I think that we all do make a difference...maybe not a huge one, but every small difference is one that is worth it, right?! For me, to know that i impart young people with knowledge is a very good feeling.

So even if i am not completely satisfied with the field of education as it stands, i would not change my job for any other.

But would you change how your job is done? Idealize then make practical... this is the place.

So, our final year students are close to graduating, they will be doing their final exams in a month's time, because of the Easter break they have already been graded, most students have stopped going to school (19-year-olds have much better things to do on a nice April day, right?). Yesterday I had a lesson with three students, we started chatting and I heard a very nice thing from one of them. She said that with me it's impossible to say whether I personally like a given student or not, because I treat everyone the same. And I was happy to hear that because I strive to be as objective as possible.

Haha, I remember being one of those students who wasn't there. Congratulations on the balance reflected, Alia.

I tend to think that motivation is key. I was never motivated in school as a kid, and as we all know that is not the kids fault. In retrospect I can say that none of my teachers even asked me once what I really liked to do.

Would it have mattered if they did? Teachers, especially elementary school teachers, don't have time to coddle each child. And, in fact, from what I've learned this year, it's hard enough to simply achieve the curriculum requirements while keeping the children engaged in the task at hand.

I often find myself waxing philosophically about this. Children - people - are motivated by interest. However, it seems necessary to frame a child's environment so that they do achieve some specific learning, as children are learning constantly - I mean, that's what a teacher does with a lesson-plan is provide pieces for insight constrained within certain conceptual considerations. This is possibly also the same aspect of environment that is leveraged in paradigms advocating vibrant pictures of numbers and orchestral music, etc...

I do not really know much about how this system works, but it seems like the main point is just to "get people through it", and to me that is not "education" at all. You "learn" ,then forget, and suddenly you are finished. It is like you are sucked in and spat out.

I went to a psychologist many years ago and I had a very weird experience. The guy was way too young! He could not help me at all, because he had no real experience with the issues I had. I guess he had top notch grades and all, but that did not matter at all.

I was lucky enough to have a gap after I dropped out of high school. I can't imagine the lives of the mes out there who had a stable home environment and went directly from high school to university... Those guys are probably all assholes.

I've been World-Slapped a couple times. It definitely helps shape some choice personality characteristics.

But this has been my gripe with university. I've jumped through the flaming bullshit hoops that you describe and in my last year have even engaged and succeeded in it. However, the education I wanted from the beginning only truly begins now - I'm hopeful that I've secured the chair as my honours supervisor and I'll try to nurture a mentorship with another professor who I've found has much to teach me about things in which I am interested.

What did it take? Me shaping myself to their mold for a year. And what did that leverage? Enabling me to learn from my obvious betters for the next year and beyond - an adventure I'm not sure they are entirely aware of or ready for. But the past four years were mostly a joke to get to this point where I fit their mold enough to shatter it.

Intellectual apprenticeships are an interesting thought.

Segue continued: I was discussing with my roommate over the past month the idea of constraining departments at universities by social research. My first thought was the community of 150 (whether or not this is true is irrelevant, it's a placeholder, as there absolutely could be described the ideal crux). What if you limited your faculty and students to 150 and started teaching individuals when they were prepared intellectual to learn and they finished when they satisfied the same curriculum requirements? It strikes me that this might produce graduates at a faster pace eventually, as social influx is a phenomenon that is controlled for after all - the existing paradigms are timed to make sure that graduates (colleges, universities, vocational students) replace cogs as fast as they lose them.

I think the same goes for many teachers. It is just a paycheck. They do not really care about real education, no passion for the subjects they are supposed to be experts on. So the students become like them(great imitators those kids!). No passion, no motivation, but I got to "get through" to get a job.

In the end the whole culture suffers. An entire culture with no passion, no motivation(except paycheck motivation). If you do not have paycheck motivation, you are a "loser", and the coin suddenly flips upside down all of a sudden. The "loser" has no motivation, no passion to "contribute" to this delightful culture of wants and needs. We frown upon those folks. Can it be that they have passion that is not based on money?.

+1 for thoughts. I don't think money should play a traditional role as facilitator in these discussions but accreditation definitely should (as it legitimizes your education for employers).

To close this highly biased rant, I will suggest that a curriculum with much/heaps/mountains of more choice, and no grading at all could help. Really get down to business to take each kid under your wing and make a sincere effort to really listen to what he/she says. To that we need teachers with lots of motivation, passion for the art of teaching and educating, not just people having a job to get payed. So there are definitely some major structural issues that needs to be addressed.

Not enough teachers for this . Unless we redefine the distribution of education?

[Kellais]

They should be able to think critically and for themselves (i know, i said that already but yes, it is that important).

What does "think critically" mean, for the sake of our discussion?

Well to be a critical observer of all they see and also of everything a teacher says or instills. I guess "thinking for themselves" sums it up. Not only learning what is taught but trying to integrate that into their own "web of knowledge". The funny thing is...this has to be learned as well. Who will tech them that and especially...without bias. It's a devil's circle.

Unfortunately, a lot of education today seems to me to be geared toward "just learning for the next test, independent of the whole picture" instead of "get my knowledge interconnected between topics so that i can use everything everywhere".
To be fair though, to achieve tha latter thing is veeeery very hard (if i had an idea how to really do that, i'd probably be filthy rich ).

Lol - I don't think the next educational paradigm and "getting rich" are necessarily the same?

No, not at all. I was not trying to imply that. I am just saying that this so called "transfer skills" are very important but oh so difficult to achieve. Edu studies are still trying to find a good way to go with this that works. To be able to teach that in an "easy" manner would be a real gift. That was what i tried to humorously hint at

And "learning for the next test" - which I agree with you is absolutely ridiculous - ensures "the way things are" have people who can meet deadlines, produce some-kind of quality rigour, deal with those stresses. So it isn't fruitless if we're bent on producing cogs?

I agree that this form produces what you say here. And from the point of view of our economic leaders it surely is not fruitless. This is why i think one should ban all influences of our economic world from edu (and i know that this is utopic...as they are the ones funding a lot of education...especially later on on university level etc ).
I think going back to the usus of our ancient greek friends would be the way to go

I agree though that if someone really needs therapy, we should not be so judgmental. I think it is a strength of character to admit that you need help. So stop the "you're weak" bullshit.

Segue:

This makes it difficult? How do we decide? For instance, the DSM for all it's flaws is still pretty much the most-balanced artifact available? Obviously, there are vested-interested that go into doses kids with therapy/drugs but...

Not really sure what you are saying here? Are you asking me something? Or are you agreeing/disagreeing with me?
I know that the first half of my first sentences is kind of an empty thing. The difficult thing is in fact the "know when someone really needs it"...i just think that around here (maybe that is better in Canada?) our society is just too fast with sending everyone to the psychologists and/or psychiatrists and then prescribing them drugs to combat the symptoms (but not the problems). And i hate that automatism that has slowly crept in. And it also lets skyrocket our health-insurance-costs. Another negative side effect of all that "fragile humanity" picture we have around here.

Not especially - what you want would be largely a result of previous sociatal structure, in your theory. Therefor what the previous generation (and generations before that) constructed would largely inform what 'we want'. We'd form no 'right angle turn' to what the past did and only alter by a few degrees the current momentum of culture.

Oh yeah? And how would you know? Why is your idea more "right" than Royce's theory?
And just because our society moves like that atm does not mean that it always will  move like that or that it always has. There have been quite strong changes in societal structure at times in the past...so i guess right angles are definitely possible.

I'm not sure that social evolution is as rigid as Callan makes it sound?

Me either But i kind of agree with him that our western civilisation has not made that big of a move in the last couple of decades. Certainly no 90 degree jumps.

On the other hand, i think we might be close to one such jump. Not sure if we will live to see it...but i think that the way our western society "behaves" atm, there will soon be a lot of jump-energy ... (but that's another topic, i guess).

Culture is (not) your friend is that thread, isn't it ?

Not sure it is That thread is more in-general. But i guess i could turn it into that direction. But wouldn't that also be kind of a thread-jack?

To the "can i make a difference" - it seems every teacher asks him/herself that question, eh?!
I think that we all do make a difference...maybe not a huge one, but every small difference is one that is worth it, right?! For me, to know that i impart young people with knowledge is a very good feeling.

So even if i am not completely satisfied with the field of education as it stands, i would not change my job for any other.

But would you change how your job is done? Idealize then make practical... this is the place.

To be honest, i don't think from the position i am in (normal teacher that stays in front of classes) i can change how the edu system works. I would have to go into the edu part of the university that deals with educating teachers. I do consider that now and again because i think it would be interesting and i would not feel so...powerless. On the other hand i have to be realistic...what can i alone really change there?! If the higher functionaries of those departments do not want to change how it works, one man alone has no chance. I know this sounds kind of defensive and maybe even evasive. But i have fought against those windmills of uni during my studies for more than one time and it is most often absolutely futile. It's a big fucking behemoth that moves so slow and is so not willing to change direction that it'd rather crush you than move.
Sounds kind of frustrated, doesn't it?! Well to be honest, i kind of am in some ways.
Luckily my dayjob is so fullfilling most of the time that i can forget about it.
My privilege is, i guess, that math is one of the topics that is not so loaded with cultural bias and not as tendentious as other topics that i am able to teach my students with a good conscience (and more or less culture-dependent-free).


I'd have some things to respond to Royce's rant () but i think this needs to wait for another time. As a short "positioning" :
First of all : way too many generalizations in it. I am not convinced that that high a percentage is working without passion and is just there for the money. Because, in all honesty, at least on my school-level, if you are in it for the money, you are doing it wrong. I could earn way more in the economic field (banks, insurcance companies etc) as i do as a teacher.
Second of all:

I will suggest that a curriculum with much/heaps/mountains of more choice, and no grading at all could help. Really get down to business to take each kid under your wing and make a sincere effort to really listen to what he/she says.

I am not sure this really works. It's a nice picture, but it is also very much looked at with rose-tinted glasses. Putting the choices into the hands of kids is not the way to go, imo. It sound nice and sweet, but i guess it also ignores the fact that children are very volatile creatures (and the should be, mind you! Not saying this is something bad) and that they "change favourites" as often as their underwear. Also, no grading at all...not sure that is reasonable. I mean in the end, a good and as-unbiased-as-possible edu is something to be wished for...but not at the expense of not providing the growing soon-to-be-adults with what they need to "survive" in the adult-world. Life out there is a competition, and if you are not ready for it you'll have a fucking hard time of dealing with it.
Now sure, we can go into the basic argument about if we should not also change that fact. And maybe we should. But atm i just think edu is something embedded into the rest of our world...and changing the whole of society as it works today is another thing entirely from changing the edu system to something more...sensible.

Okay, it got longer than i expected I guess it will do for the moment.

[Madness]

Well to be a critical observer of all they see and also of everything a teacher says or instills. I guess "thinking for themselves" sums it up. Not only learning what is taught but trying to integrate that into their own "web of knowledge". The funny thing is...this has to be learned as well. Who will tech them that and especially...without bias. It's a devil's circle.

I can see how this will get complicated quickly.

What exactly do you teach someone to make them a "critical observer?" What is "thinking for themselves?" Do you teach preceding understanding of "web of knowledge" to frame their experiential journey?

How do you qualify or quantify these statements?

No, not at all. I was not trying to imply that. I am just saying that this so called "transfer skills" are very important but oh so difficult to achieve. Edu studies are still trying to find a good way to go with this that works. To be able to teach that in an "easy" manner would be a real gift. That was what i tried to humorously hint at

Lol - unclear analogy perhaps? I honestly feel like there is more potential for an individual to be persecuted for fucking with the educational status quo than to become rich... though, private schools but this defeats the purposes of this thread for me .

I agree though that if someone really needs therapy, we should not be so judgmental. I think it is a strength of character to admit that you need help. So stop the "you're weak" bullshit.

Segue:

This makes it difficult? How do we decide? For instance, the DSM for all it's flaws is still pretty much the most-balanced artifact available? Obviously, there are vested-interested that go into doses kids with therapy/drugs but...

Not really sure what you are saying here? Are you asking me something? Or are you agreeing/disagreeing with me?
I know that the first half of my first sentences is kind of an empty thing. The difficult thing is in fact the "know when someone really needs it"...i just think that around here (maybe that is better in Canada?) our society is just too fast with sending everyone to the psychologists and/or psychiatrists and then prescribing them drugs to combat the symptoms (but not the problems). And i hate that automatism that has slowly crept in. And it also lets skyrocket our health-insurance-costs. Another negative side effect of all that "fragile humanity" picture we have around here.

Are you familiar with the term segue ? Sorry, again, stream of consciousness thoughts, Kellais. My mind is a fractured plane?

How do we decide "who really needs help?" The DSM is one document that is used in North American and in conjunction with other documents internationally to diagnose mental health. It's the collaborative product of a large population of academics trying to offer some kind of consensus on mental health. It is flawed but the alternatives are mostly jokes - we might as well start weighing ducks and witches again .

I do agree with you that it is a tool used by a system that over-medicalizes everything (I realize that isn't a word ). However, I don't think it's the diagnostic (or recognizing dysfunction) tools that cause the issues.

To the second bold, I think that might be more of a crux in this situation. Which again, leads us back to the stigma towards issues in mental health.

On the other hand, i think we might be close to one such jump. Not sure if we will live to see it...but i think that the way our western society "behaves" atm, there will soon be a lot of jump-energy ... (but that's another topic, i guess).

Culture is (not) your friend is that thread, isn't it ?

Not sure it is That thread is more in-general. But i guess i could turn it into that direction. But wouldn't that also be kind of a thread-jack?

Well, if you think that thread isn't appropriate, don't thread-jack . If the one you make ends up being similar, then we can combine them later.

To be honest, i don't think from the position i am in (normal teacher that stays in front of classes) i can change how the edu system works ...

I'm sorry to cut off the rest of that quote but you misunderstood my question, I think. Say, for instance, I'm opening a new kind of school: How do you want to teach math? You wouldn't make any changes to how you function in the day to day?

Trust me, those educational theorists aren't doing us any favours .

[Royce]

My experiences with the actual school system is having been indoctrinated, right?

Yes. Can we reprogram?

Would it have mattered if they did?

That is one of those questions that is rather difficult to address But for me it depends, it would certainly have made my schooldays more interesting if they did, but I am also convinced that all is learning.

Not enough teachers for this . Unless we redefine the distribution of education?

With the present system....no. I think there will be a lot of redefining to do if/when the shit hits the fan. I will come back to this addressing Kellais.

First of all : way too many generalizations in it. I am not convinced that that high a percentage is working without passion and is just there for the money. Because, in all honesty, at least on my school-level, if you are in it for the money, you are doing it wrong. I could earn way more in the economic field (banks, insurcance companies etc) as i do as a teacher.

If you take away the aspect of money, how many are left doing what they do? Almost no one. The point being that money is the reason we all work. If you do not, you will starve and freeze to death. Everyone of us knows this, but few see the chains around their wrists. The point here is: If you take away the fundamental element of money, would people still work as they do out of passion for their work? To me this shows that money directs you way more than it should. In the west this shines through very clearly IMO.

So what I really would like to talk about is real education(whatever that is:)) What would you do if there where no money involved? Would everything fall to pieces? Maybe. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. This culture will gradually decline anyway, so in the end it will be important to prepare future generations on change. I mean real structural change. If we can agree that(for most people) money(at some level) is the key motivation in almost every walk of life, what will motivate people when profits is thrown out the back door?

I will also point out that while I was writing that rant, I was in a bad mood:) It is funny how a mood reflects the world I perceive. Bad mood=bad world:). As you can see from this post, the mood is slightly bad today also:)

One last thing. I did not imply that kids should choose their own curriculum Kellais:) I am talking about young adults. To gain a more nuanced perspective, there should be more choice IMO. In Norway you have to get through 12 years of schooling before you have more choices. Many people are sick of it by then.

When it comes to grading, I do believe that it creates more "losers" than "winners". I also read awhile ago that (in USA) it is a huge problem that teachers give pupils better grades than they deserve so the overall result of the class looks better. Teachers can of course point out what is good and bad in a test, but I do not see the need to grade them more than that.  I know of people who have ended up with various drug issues because of stress with grades(amphetamine to stay awake etc).

[Madness]

My experiences with the actual school system is having been indoctrinated, right?

Yes. Can we reprogram?

It is my hope that I am always reprogramming.

Would it have mattered if they did?

That is one of those questions that is rather difficult to address But for me it depends, it would certainly have made my schooldays more interesting if they did, but I am also convinced that all is learning.

Indeed - I mean, I understanding cultivating a child's predispositions but... somewhere there might be a consensus on what exactly children need to learn?

Not enough teachers for this . Unless we redefine the distribution of education?

With the present system....no. I think there will be a lot of redefining to do if/when the shit hits the fan.

One of the best ways to redefine is to have a better system prepared to step in when shit hits the fan, rather than waiting until then to plan.

[Royce]

It is my hope that I am always reprogramming.

I guess since no moment is the same, we all "reprogram" all the time:)

Indeed - I mean, I understanding cultivating a child's predispositions but... somewhere there might be a consensus on what exactly children need to learn?

Yes. Isn`t that to fit in and behave in a way? To learn reading, writing and act "normal" etc. That seems to be the consensus where I live anyway. With normal, I mean, do what you are told and behave.

In Norway and probably many other countries, there are private schools which are called "Steinerskolen". These are schools based on the ideas of Rudolph Steiner, who is one of the big ones in the field of theosophy. I am not well read in that area, but anyways these schools seem to focus more on the creative aspect of our existence. I know one guy who went there and he is a self centered, egomaniac, cannabis wreck, and generally a dickhead:) So I am not sure that works any better than ordinary schooling:)

One of the best ways to redefine is to have a better system prepared to step in when shit hits the fan, rather than waiting until then to plan.

Yes, we should start a "school" where we lay out a better system

On a more serious note, I do not have any solution to this of course, but I did hope by creating this thread to at least start to discuss what can be better, and what people think generally works and not. What to keep and what to dispose of in a way. By that I mean, to step out of our cultural programming and reprogram the system into something brilliant and human

[Madness]

It is my hope that I am always reprogramming.

I guess since no moment is the same, we all "reprogram" all the time:)

Indeed - I mean, I understanding cultivating a child's predispositions but... somewhere there might be a consensus on what exactly children need to learn?

Yes. Isn`t that to fit in and behave in a way? To learn reading, writing and act "normal" etc. That seems to be the consensus where I live anyway. With normal, I mean, do what you are told and behave.

In Norway and probably many other countries, there are private schools which are called "Steinerskolen". These are schools based on the ideas of Rudolph Steiner, who is one of the big ones in the field of theosophy. I am not well read in that area, but anyways these schools seem to focus more on the creative aspect of our existence. I know one guy who went there and he is a self centered, egomaniac, cannabis wreck, and generally a dickhead:) So I am not sure that works any better than ordinary schooling:)

One of the best ways to redefine is to have a better system prepared to step in when shit hits the fan, rather than waiting until then to plan.

Yes, we should start a "school" where we lay out a better system

On a more serious note, I do not have any solution to this of course, but I did hope by creating this thread to at least start to discuss what can be better, and what people think generally works and not. What to keep and what to dispose of in a way. By that I mean, to step out of our cultural programming and reprogram the system into something brilliant and human

+1 the bold. And starting a school is entirely practical.

This is what I've been querying Kellais about, I think. He suggested "critical thinking skills" are the object of our curriculum. You've suggested that a school's primarily function is to socialize people...

Perhaps that is what we should be focused on teaching but that is a pretty stark curriculum (and we'd be raising little Dunyain if we solely trained them in understanding emotional content).

[Royce]

This is what I've been querying Kellais about, I think. He suggested "critical thinking skills" are the object of our curriculum. You've suggested that a school's primarily function is to socialize people...

Perhaps that is what we should be focused on teaching but that is a pretty stark curriculum (and we'd be raising little Dunyain if we solely trained them in understanding emotional content).

Lol. That would be an interesting world to behold

This subject of education is very tricky indeed. I would suggest that the fundamental premiss is that no one knows what education is. It can be anything. If we knew for certain what the purpose of our existence was, and that was indeed something that had to be learned at some point, then it would be easy to accept that as education. That is not the case though. It seems like it is all about adapting to a system that needs(for its survival) people who trudge through this process of schooling. Further, I might suggest that this system I am talking about(western empire in general) is on a large scale insane . If the system is insane, are we also insane?.

Morris Berman was interviewing a person high up in the educational system, and the impression he was left with was that all education was about was to please the big corporations in one way or another.

[Srancy]

Education? I just want a decent athletic department that brings in trophies on a yearly basis.

[Royce]

Education? I just want a decent athletic department that brings in trophies on a yearly basis.

Lol.

Let me just elaborate a bit what I mean when I say the system/we are somewhat insane. The global environment is shaped by the sum of what its inhabitants do, which in turn is shaped by how they think. Generally we do not(in the west) train our minds. I think this society would look very different if we added that to the curriculum(As many here has already suggested)

[Kellais]

This is what I've been querying Kellais about, I think. He suggested "critical thinking skills" are the object of our curriculum. You've suggested that a school's primarily function is to socialize people...

Perhaps that is what we should be focused on teaching but that is a pretty stark curriculum (and we'd be raising little Dunyain if we solely trained them in understanding emotional content).

Well i was suggesting that this is something we should teach them. But you can not teach it without context. So i think we still need the normal topics like history, math, foreign languages etc. but we have to interweave them and make connections. Transfer skills! And we do need to show the kids and teenagers, that every information can be "twisted" and used to manipulate. And that they should always try to make up their own mind about stuff given the information they have. Not just accept everything they read or hear as "true words". That is what i mean.

Generally we do not(in the west) train our minds.

Really?! I find that to be waaay exaggerated. We do not train our minds in all possible ways, but to be honest, who on this earth does?! But to say we do not train it at all...that's just not true. We do have an educational system in the west that is more profound than in many other parts of the earth. I agree that there are a lot of "construction sites" in the field of edu, but we also have a field of edu....not everyone has that. I guess that is something, right?!

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "training your mind"?

In Norway and probably many other countries, there are private schools which are called "Steinerskolen". These are schools based on the ideas of Rudolph Steiner, who is one of the big ones in the field of theosophy. I am not well read in that area, but anyways these schools seem to focus more on the creative aspect of our existence. I know one guy who went there and he is a self centered, egomaniac, cannabis wreck, and generally a dickhead:) So I am not sure that works any better than ordinary schooling:)

Funny you should mention the Steiner Schule. I was to post something on that as well. Because they do what you asked for in another post. They do not grade during their school time. And as you, i have met some folks who went through such a school and i have to agree with you...this is definitely not better edu than our normal schools. The Steiner Schule people i know are of two kinds: 1) the same as you said above and 2) people totally incapable of "working" in our society...they cave under the slightest pressure in their jobs, they have no way of copeing with the stress and pressure of the adult day-to-day. It's sad, really.

I'm sorry to cut off the rest of that quote but you misunderstood my question, I think. Say, for instance, I'm opening a new kind of school: How do you want to teach math? You wouldn't make any changes to how you function in the day to day?

Trust me, those educational theorists aren't doing us any favours

No problem, Madness. And i also have picked just one of your statements out of the long answer you wrote to my last longer post. I hope i can go back to the rest later. But atm i lack the time.
So to the above: As i said, i think math has a kind of comfortable position as it is not that ladden with bias and political stuff etc. as other topics. I do think the process of learning to think in ordered fashion and see logical structures is indeed important, no matter where you come from. So yes, i think math can stay very similar to how it is atm.
Do i think i am teaching flawlessly? Of course not! There are things i can do better...and if you offer me a new school where i can have big impact on the curriculum and how it's done i surely would change some things...but i guess more in the "administrative" corner...as in "give the pupils more time to work on stuff" ... so upping the hour-dotations math gets. And if i had enough time and freedom, i could also focus more on "how do i approach this-and-that" instead of just teaching formulas. But all in all, i don't think it would look totally unrecognizable for someone who visits a math lesson today.

One thing i would change if we had enough money, space and time for our new school, is class size. I'd do little groups of students with maybe even 2 teachers...more of a personal-coaching thing, than the normal usus. Where you can really dive into the individual problems of every student than just looking to it that the class-average is good enough.

Oh and i KNOW, first hand, that those educational theorists do us no favours. I wanted to sream at many of those professors at uni...but i was able to restrain myself

[Royce]

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "training your mind"?

Lots of ways to interpret this concept, but it goes back to if you agree or disagree with what I stated earlier. I suggested that this system behaves in accordance with how people act, which again is governed by thinking. So, if we act on our thoughts without knowing what thoughts are, we might create something like a beast. I merely suggest that techniques that provide an understanding of what thoughts really are, we would (as a whole) behave very differently. Certain types of deep meditation techniques might provide this.

This is one of those things that are difficult to explain, they have to be experienced to know the impact these techniques have on your understanding of thoughts/mind. Learning to control your thoughts instead of acting out on them all the time. It would be interesting to see how this can be merged with the technologically advanced society we have today. I am all for taking useful aspects of every culture around and create something new and better:).

This is only a valid argument if you agree that the hyper capitalist/globalist culture is something that needs to be slowed down a bit.

[Royce]

“The primary goal of real education is not to deliver facts but to guide students to the truths that will allow them to take responsibility for their lives.” ― John Taylor Gatto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

[Srancy]

Nice video but that music background...

[Kellais]

“The primary goal of real education is not to deliver facts but to guide students to the truths that will allow them to take responsibility for their lives.” ― John Taylor Gatto.

Interesting quote...i guess that goes into the right direction and what i meant by "thinking for themselves"/"critical thinking" ... the only thing i do not like is the biased/ladden-with-meaning expression "truths" (to be honest, i am surprised that you, Royce, did not object to it...you're the anti-truth preacher here ).

Royce, do you mean impulse-control when you say "training your mind"? ... because it kind of sounds like that in your second last post. Not just acting on thoughts and trying to controll ones actions before doing them. I am not sure i'd define that as "training my mind" though. It's more like learning to controll my actions and not just act on impulses. And i guess we are not that bad at it, we modern humans. Not perfect, sure, and not everyone masters it at the same level...but i guess we do have some controll or our world would look a lot different