From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 16:05:34 BST
Mati & Arlo
Thanks Mati for your insights on education, especially since they come
from one who is professionally involved and experienced in field.
In several instances you indicated public education in the U.S. lacks "fiscal
support." Among nations the U.S. is at the top for K-12 spending, yet only
middling in comparative academic achievement. In 2001 the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC) spent $15, 122 per pupil, well above the average
of $8,745, yet DC students are at the bottom of national rankings in
performance. There's lots of similar evidence that money isn't the problem,
including the decades-long record of Catholic schools vs public schools. I
would suggest that not money but lack of discipline and parental involvement
is the system's Achilles heel. What do you think?
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure I have a concept of that worked out yet. But, your answer that
> publically supported education has the purpose of skills beginning with
> reading, writing and arithmetic, gets me back to the question of "when" we
> drop public support. By most accounts, these basic skills can be learned by
> around 6th grade, or maybe earlier. Should we drop public funding at that
> point?
>
> Mati: My feeling the actually intellectual development of children starts
> about 6th grade in which they use the basic skills to develop the
> intellectual values.
I think Mati is right. It takes lots of drilling and practice at the
higher grades to learn how to write a decent paragraph, much less a 1000
word paper. Same goes for other intellectual skills.
> Arlo:
> You see, what I am trying to do is establish first what educational goals a
> MOQ society would have, then draw funding and attendance from that. If the
> goalswould be basic skills, we can make the cut-off say around 12 years of
> age. There is no point to continue to 18. If the goal is an informed
> citizenry to vote (for example), then we'd likely continue longer and offer
> a great deal of history (as opposed to vocational education, hygiene, etc.)
>
> Mati: "MOQ Society"? I think this a dangerous way of approaching education
> or society. MOQ is a tool of understanding not a doctrine in which to
> shape society. Understanding that intellectual values and their
> development in children are our greatest purpose we can attain and is vital
> in our renewal of understanding of our meaning of education. You have some
> interesting ideas about attendance and I would like to suggest they are
> somewhat short sighted and fails to take in account the broad scope,purpose
> and funding mechanisms involved in public education. But your interest in
> the topic is important one.
I appreciate Mati reminding us that the MOQ shouldn't be thought of as a
doctrine to shape society. We don't want to use it as a platform for
believing we know what's best for others. It's fun to play "If I were
king." But, thanks to Erin, we're reminded of Pirsig's belief that "The
place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands,
then work outward from there." In Lila (9) he says, "A tribe can only
change it's values person by person and someone has to be first."
Is there any wonder why I celebrate the individual above all? Even a Zen
master is a "person." :-)
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 16:55:30 BST