[fatbird]

The curiosity we see in children at play rarely translates to the kind of self-directed learning that Nabeel holds up as an ideal. This is not the education system's fault--ask any teacher and they'll tell you that they'd love for children to be engaged and curious, and they're frustrated that it frequently feels like leading them by the nose and making them drink.

But there's another side as well: Watch children at play, and you'll see that children frequently sort themselves into leaders and followers. Children are often curious, but very often they're also looking for someone to give them cues and direction and structure. Children are complex; people are complex.

[Cushman]

> they're frustrated that it frequently feels like leading them by the nose and making them drink.

And aren't they? I mean, isn't that exactly what we are talking about?

> Watch children at play

This also cuts to the core of the issue. It seems to me like children are curious all the time, and they don't seem to occupy states like "playing" and "working". That's basically what our industrial-age public school system is supposed to teach, right? Number one lesson, sit down and be quiet-- you're not playing, you're learning, and it's serious.

[fatbird]

Number one lesson, sit down and be quiet-- you're not playing, you're learning, and it's serious.

This is nonsense. Teachers talk endlessly about methods of engaging children and teenagers that are the exact opposite of that, and they're constantly trying things. This sort of Prussian, militarized school setting is a dystopian fantasy.

It seems to me like children are curious all the time

They're not. Some are, some aren't. Some are curious in ways that are useless for education. And I haven't even started discussing some of the practical issues that affect pedagogy, like poverty and bullying, that mitigate against creative, free-form "unschooling".

You're treating children like noble savages, with all the fallacious reasoning that entails.

[betterunix]

"Teachers talk endlessly about methods of engaging children"

Unless they are faced with a child who spent all of their time learning instead of doing mind-numbing homework assignments. Then you'll hear teachers talk about how they have a student who is wasting his talent and how shameful it is that someone who can handle more advanced material is getting failing grades (even though they are the ones giving the grades). Teachers may talk about trying to get students to think "outside the box," but when a student actually does so they are punished for it.

Our education philosophy is based on attacking independence and ensuring compliance, and our teachers show it. Rigid structures are enforced everywhere in school, explicitly and implicitly. Assignments are rigidly structured. Classrooms are rigidly structured. Daily schedules are rigidly structured. Grades, which become the purpose of school for many students, reflect how well students follow instructions more than how well they understand the material.

"This sort of Prussian, militarized school setting is a dystopian fantasy."

Well, maybe so, but in dystopian fiction the hero is typically one a small group of people who can recognize that anything is wrong with the system; everyone else believes they live in a utopia. Perhaps school truly is dystopian, and only a minority of people can actually recognize the existence of a problem.

[Cushman]

> Teachers talk endlessly about methods of engaging children and teenagers

Step 1: Force all children to go to a big building eight hours a day for twelve years "to learn".

Step 2: They aren't learning. Figure out a way to make the average child interested and engaged by this circumstance.

Step 3: Who knows?

I'm sure teachers are, by and large, intelligent, caring people who really want to help pupils to fulfil themselves. But that doesn't help much if (as is being proposed) the education system itself is founded on flawed principles.

> Some are curious in ways that are useless for education.

Can you give me an example of such a form of curiosity? As I define it curiosity means wanting to know more; I can't make that be not useful for education in my head.

[DanBC]

> Can you give me an example of such a form of curiosity?

Boys like learning lists of names and stats. You'll have met boys who can give you a very long list of dinosaur names or pokemon or supercars. But that's just rote recitation of facts; there's nothing in there about why things are how they are. Feynmann gives an interesting anecdote about his father talking about birds and trees. He'd rarely give just the name, but he would talk about why the tree had broad leaves or such.

[Cushman]

Sorry, are you implying that there are kids out there who are drilling a list of dinosaur names every night without any interest in what those dinosaurs looked like, or sounded like, or ate?

Every kid who's ever wanted to tell me about all the X she knows hasn't been able to wait to tell me all kinds of facts and details about each X, and was eager to hear if I knew something interesting about X.

That's not rote recitation; that's knowledge.

[fatbird]

The problem with Step 1 is "all". The whole point of my initial post is that children vary, and the methods by which they're educated need to vary as well. "All children will be lead into the forest by an experienced guide who will let their curiosity guide them in a journey of self-exploration" is just as wrong.

Can you give me an example of such a form of curiosity?

My friend's son is endlessly curious about dinosaurs, so much so that he refuses to invest any time in math homework. In general, curiosity leads to specialization, which is great only to the extent that it doesn't preclude some time being exposed to other subjects. Curiosity is like having a favourite food: Children need to learn a balanced diet, lest they die of malnutrition for eating nothing but candy.

[Cushman]

> The problem with Step 1 is "all". The whole point of my initial post is that children vary, and the methods by which they're educated need to vary as well. "All children will be lead into the forest by an experienced guide who will let their curiosity guide them in a journey of self-exploration" is just as wrong.

It's not just as wrong, and I think that's the friction we're having. The original premise is, "Our one-size-fits-all approach is obviously not working, we need education to be more self-directed." I hear you saying, "Some people might not be able to learn in a self-directed way, we need some other director." That may well be true, but it still leaves our current system undirected which is definitely worse.

> My friend's son is endlessly curious about dinosaurs, so much so that he refuses to invest any time in math homework. In general, curiosity leads to specialization, which is great only to the extent that it doesn't preclude some time being exposed to other subjects. Curiosity is like having a favourite food: Children need to learn a balanced diet, lest they die of malnutrition for eating nothing but candy.

Sorry, that just sounds like speculation to me. If you can demonstrate somehow that forcing everyone to study arithmetic is necessary for us to have a happy, productive society, I'll accept that; as it stands, I know a lot of people who were forced to study arithmetic for many years and still struggle with basic math. Is it possible that we just wasted a bunch of their time?