Re: LOGO-L> real life learning?

["Dale R. Reed" <dale-reed@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>]

Tom Woods wrote:
> 
> Dale wrote:
> >But that rich learning environment is available in real life....
> 
> and
> 
> >Score one for street smarts (etc.)
> 
> I'm slowly beginning to get a handle on this philosophy, but I want to be
> sure. Are you saying that rich non-school learning environments exist for
> all children and the proof is in the street smart homeless girl who scored
> 9th in a field of 700,000?

No the proof is in the literature some of which I have referenced.  I
probably should not of included the smart-homeless-girl article in my
message.  I just thought it was interesting and timely but I hoped you
would not make too much of it.  I realize she is a rare one.  And of
course I do not recommend living on the streets for anyone.

But I do believe that most children should not start school until they
are at least eight years old and then only for particular subjects such
as math or violin or LOGO or…geography.  That most children are very
eager and competent learners when they are 1 years old and 2 and 3 and 4
and then the change that occurs after a few days and then weeks of
kindergarten is very sad to see.   For most children.
 
> If I were to argue Michael Maveal's point, that these environments are not
> available out of school to large numbers of children would you disagree? 

They are available now as the literature, some of which I have
referenced, indicates.  In fact I observe that many children and young
adults use the other 19 hours in each day including their weekends and
summer vacations very profitably even now.  I know I did and so did my
two sons.  And we cannot ignore the 1.5E6 homeschoolers/unschoolers in
the U.S. and Sudbury Valley School and all its copy cats where the
students are self directed and...  But I expect that the quantity and
quality and variety of learning environments will dramatically increase
as we phase out the GRTF(Government Run Tax Funded) schools.

> Or would you agree and say that it is up to the kid, and/or his or her family
> to find and utilize it -- it's not the community or the government's
> responsibility.

Yes this is what I advocate.  And with the return of the $6000/year(or
maybe only a third of that for taxpayers without children pay school
taxes also) of school taxes they have paid over their life times it will
be a snap.  Especially after we(the public, you and I Tom) indicate very
very strongly that it is the families(parents and students)
responsibility to provide the education.
 
> >Public schools are welfare schools...
> 
> Usually when I think of the term 'welfare' I think first of the destitute
> and disabled. I think second of that hot-button word that points accusingly
> to freeloaders and milkers of the system. In this sense, I'd say no. public
> schools are not welfare.

You will sooner or later now that I have put that idea into your head. 
Especially when the term is applied quite rightly in my opinion to
Corporate welfare such as the huge government bucks that support very
prosperous companies and farmers and... old geezers like me that are
supposed to sign up for Social Security even though we have comfortable
retirements and lots of Microsoft Stock and...

> But when I think of the overall objective of public education: to promote an
> informed populace; 

Actually they were originally established to Christianize the Catholics
that were immigrating in large numbers into the United States to escape
the potato famines in Ireland or something like that.  Better study your
history Tom.  And what do they promote now?  Well I am running for
School Board again for the third time this Fall and I have attended
hundreds of School Board meetings and the meetings are never about
informing the populace but they are about health clinics, and school
uniforms and... and contracting with the hot dog and ketchup suppliers
and...   I don't want to go into this sad state of affairs on this
forum.

> and when I think of the preamble to the U.S.
> constitution, 'to promote the general welfare...", I'd have to say yes.
> Public schools exist to promote the welfare of all of us (even though this
> is generally a responsibility left up to the individual states). Schools may
> be far from perfect, but that's the philosophical underpinning.

We are not forced to use any other welfare program. In fact the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to chose our own
moral code without having the majorities(governments, communities etc.)
values crammed down our throats.  The State School Systems violate the
First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and some brave family is
going to take this issue to the Supreme Court one of these days and
POOF! No more State Schools.  Read Stephen Arons 1983 book "Compelling
Belief, The Culture of American Schooling," and his fine new 1997 book
"Short Route fo Chaos, Conscience, Community, and the Re-Constitution of
American Schooling."

> I have no problem with home-schooling, or private schooling, but I think a
> lot of people would lose if that were all we had. I fear that if we did not
> fund public schools, we'd have to fund jails instead. <snip>

I obviously disagree.  I think the reason there are so many people in
prison is because too many people were turned off of a prosperous happy
honest life full of the pleasures of creating beautiful LOGO fractals by
the present GRTF school system.  

And there are just too many d...d laws.    Dale
-- 
$  dale-reed@worldnet.att.net   Seattle, Washington U.S.A.  $

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.