[fatbird]

I've said nothing about education beyond "children are complex", that we need a variety of educational methods, and most crucially, we need to identify what the best variant is for any child--that's currently the great failing. You're the one handing out an absolute truth about education--like Cushman, you're indulging in a myth of the noble savage.

[Cushman]

Since this is the second time you mention it: The noble savage trope is about the innate goodness of indigenous peoples, particularly in their connection to nature and the spiritual. It's a pretty weak analogy here— may I suggest you instead reference the cult of childhood, a trope that idealizes and idolizes the youthful innocence of children?

[fatbird]

Fair enough. The (metaphorical) point I was trying to communicate was that, in discussions like these, you constantly get this image of a child as a boundlessly curious creature who would learn all they need to know if we just give them space and time and whatever else they need.

I find this trope to be self-serving in the extreme, and deeply ignorant of the practical realities of education, poverty, and parenting.

[Cushman]

I'll strongly agree with that: The foundational problem with our public education system is that its primary utility to us is not education, but dealing with issues with poverty and parenting that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I remember reading during the Chicago teachers' strike that with public schools closed, many poor kids would not eat lunch, or possibly at all. That is messed up in a way that transcends any thoughts we might have about the best way to educate.

[fatbird]

Thank you for acknowledging this. I'm so angry right now at jrogers65's blithe dismissal above of the problem of poverty and poor family life that I'm not even going to respond to him.

Yes, it is a messed up situation all around, and the roots of the problem lie far outside the realm of education; yet no teacher can be successful at their goal of educating children, now matter how they go about it, without dealing with those problems.

[jrogers65]

Apologies for causing any distress, it's not my intent. My contention is that these are separate issues and that educators should concern themselves with providing the best level of training possible as opposed to being concerned with the kids' home lives.

I grew up in somewhat unfavourable circumstances myself and did not do well at school. Then I taught myself a profession using the "problem first thinking" approach. It has yielded great results. I wouldn't have wanted the teachers to account for my disadvantages by giving me a crippled education. I do, however, wish that there was some organisation which would have addressed the problems I was having.

Like I said, I agree that the issue must be tackled - just not by teachers. Why should someone who is trying to teach calculus waste their time on adressing emotional needs? A psychologist doesn't concern himself with teaching IT skills, after all. I would agree that it's the teacher's job to raise a red flag if they notice something odd, but let someone trained in the field deal with resolving it. Most people barely master one field, let alone two.

[fatbird]

If I'm being oversensitive, I apologize. My wife teaches at an inner-city high school. I'm very familiar with the kinds of problems caused by poverty and poor family life.

That said, I disagree with you that these are separate issues. If nothing else, a teacher can't reliably evaluate a student without acknowledging the role external issues play. Is it fair to flunk a student who can't concentrate because they're hungry all the time? Is it fair to flunk a student who doesn't turn in homework because they're working all the time to pay the rent that their parent can't? You can argue it various ways, but as a teacher you're confronted by these issues, and importantly, that you're in a position to turn a student against education by handling the situation badly.

You call it a "crippled" education. I call it avoiding the trap of causing the student to think that school is irrelevant or hostile to them because they're being punished for their circumstances. And when you say that you wish there was some organization which would have addressed your problems, you're ignoring the most obvious candidate, I think. My wife has participated in charitable food distribution programs through her school. Recently, we bought a hundred dollar gift card for a student who was kicked out by her foster parents.

Ideally, a child's education would be completely orthogonal to their circumstances. Until it is, school will necessarily have a role to play in social welfare.

This whole conversation about education tends to focus on the individual, and how school helps or hinders her. It tends not to discuss another role of school, which is to prepare children to participate fully in civil life. We ignore that aspect at our peril, and the peril of the children involved.

[jrogers65]

I would argue that in circumstances where they are not unfairly burdened, children are indeed naturally curious.

The problems they inherit from poverty or poor family life are not resolvable through education in the first place. That is a separate issue which requires just as much attention, but it's not a teacher's job to do so.

Giving those children a route where they can skip learning how to think and instead memorise everything is putting a bandage on the wound, not healing the illness.

Moreover, when we talk of different learning styles, it does not mean that one human is robotic in their thinking while another is not. Learning styles are about how to communicate information - i.e. through visual, auditory or kinesthetic means. There is not one person who would not benefit from learning how to think for themself, just as all people benefit from learning how to use their emotion and intuition to inspire creativity.