Right
because a thirteen year old should posses the capacities of discernment and informed choice as to whatever path (of enlightenment) is sensible or interesting.
Most would concur that basics of a simple education (some refer to as fundamental facts; ie, dates, locales, names of parties involved, or rules re: language skills, mathematics, biology, geology, etc.) establish a foundation from which to operate on a purely and rudimentary functional level
but numbers, dates, and proper grammar/spelling do not lend anything beyond a data dump. The most vital aspect of teaching anyone anything of value and merit is how to use that basic information in a way that is useful in educating oneself outside of a classroom. In essence, to learn how to learn
more.
I think people, even children, are creative enough to discover ways to use basic information.
Besides, I'm not arguing that people should not get the inspiration to be creative and use the knowledge they've received, I just don't think it should come from school. I see that as part of the job of the parents. School should only support that by not hindering it.
One cannot learn how to learn if one already doesn't know how to learn. I don't think learning is something we have to be taught, it is innate. If anything, all we can do to that ability is to hinder it.
So akin to, but not a replica then of the Muslim Model? So, more like
what then?
That's not for me to determine. I'm not an education expert. I was simply stating that
obviously the model we use doesn't work. Facts prove this.
So it would make sense to seek expert help. Whether they be Americans, or Finnish, or Dutch, etc.
Oh, I see. Like the home-schooling methodology that is practiced by religious adherents here, that deny (or shield their kids from) the veracity of modern cosmology, biology, geology, physics, and unpleasant societal realities re: homosexuality, gender roles/bias of equal pay, equal representation, and equal access to legal health care (etc) that are perceived by them as in conflict with their own personalized and dogmatic rote religious beliefs? And no, Im not talking about just the Amish, and you know it.
And how do those people perform out in the real world? Do they go to college? Do they succeed on test scores?
If you're going to use an example, use one that is relevant. Unless, of course, you think the example the Congressman refers to is comparable to the Amish?
Thats a popular canard (and consistent claim) primarily espoused by advocates of such institutions as being preternaturally superior to public counterparts in education. I invite you to cite the numerous studies that both (albeit marginally) support and (predominantly) debunk such claims, and perhaps an unbiased conclusion might arise from those proffered evidential studies.
I'm not claiming the institutions are preternaturally superior, but that in many cases (at least ones that I have observed) such institutions do produce more-educated graduates.
The reasons behind that are beyond me. As I said, I'm not an expert. I'm simply not so willing to condemn someone who says "we should look at the model that is used" in places that consistently produce a more well-educated result.
Graduation rates are widely biased in and of themselves, as each and every state establishes the standards of what qualifies as successful completion of mandated coursework and curriculum. And let us at least ponder the consequences that private institutions (funded and expensed by individuals) must confront and suitably answer if/when their failure rates are comparable to (or even worse than) those realized within their competing public institutions. Im not forwarding any conspiracy theories, Im only suggesting that a healthy dose of skepticism be lent towards any business that dispenses education on a profit-based model, vs. one that is most decidedly non-profit and under constant duress to even remain afloat within the auspices of promoting the general welfare of all citizens.
Profit-based models produce quality when the customers are informed and provide proper oversight.
Besides, a profit-based model isn't necessarily worse than the fledgling model you describe where quality education is sacrificed to keep the institution afloat within the auspices of promoting general welfare.
I appreciate your candor there, but would care to also anecdotally note that in the public High School I attended and graduated from a class of about 600, we shared strikingly similar results (97% graduation, 84% acceptance and/or scholarships to state and private universities). I specifically recall those stats because they were repeatedly mentioned during the course of graduation ceremonies. Goes to show what a properly funded and well-staffed public education can produce within a local community of middle-class affluence and commitment to educational ideals.
I think that's great. I'm not saying that an institution must be private or religious to produce success. I'm simply noting that we should look at models that succeed,
regardless of whether or not they are religious institutions.
As anecdotal example, yours is not uncommon in numerous locales, but hardly representative of the greater whole. Again, I invite you to dig a bit deeper and investigate the outcomes of the many studies of unbiased comparisons available. Its either disheartening or validating I assure you, mostly dependent upon whatever bias you bring to the evaluation.
I have no need to get deeply involved in such investigation. I'm not an education expert nor do I seek to be. I entered this thread because many condemned the man saying that he was politically done for or that he represents those who would "push their religion on others."
Maybe the guy does represent that, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to do what he suggests, which is ultimately that we look at the model that institutions which succeed use in educating.
And I'm not saying religious institutions are better just because they're religious. I was simply countering your claim that "When any religious doxology...you get as outcome-based result folk with severe limitations of any objective perspective..."
That was the only reason for bringing up my own example. Proof against your claim.
I readily concede that I retain a bias towards a public secular education when our presumedly secular brand of self-government neither favors nor disadvantages any religious influences when the entirety of our society is to be represented in common cause and purposed outcomes.
I'm sorry, but America is far too large for us to all have a common cause and purposed outcomes. Hence why the federalist model exists. There is no way to cleanly enforce a consistent and nationwide system. Because we would all have to agree on what is and is not beneficial. And even among the secular that's impossible.
America is far too diverse and far too populous for us to all be ruled by the singular standards of a federal government.
To be fair then, and perhaps just as remindful, that within many Asiatic and European nations/cultures today employ and enjoy secular, unreligious public education models with outcomes far superior to what we find here as well. What shall or might we conclude from those numerous examples?
All we can logically conclude is our model isn't working. The examples of success we see in the nations/cultures you speak of are examples that we should examine when determining our own model.
A successful education system is one that produces an educated populace. One that sees the needs of the people in terms of education and fulfills that need. There, most likely, isn't one singular answer.
