educational theory

[Advocate]

The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.

[commonsense]

The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.

Ad, please expand on your one teacher theory. For example, what do you want to say about one teacher v the need to teach disparate subjects such as algebra and foreign language?

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=592933 time=1661888176 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=592351 time=1661702222 user_id=15238]
The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.
[/quote]

Ad, please expand on your one teacher theory. For example, what do you want to say about one teacher v the need to teach disparate subjects such as algebra and foreign language?
[/quote]

Do it like the medical profession, bring in specialists from time to time, but from the community. Anyhow, this is for the basics, where people are mostly learning the knowledge by rote. It's the other things they should be learning about themselves and each other that are getting left by the wayside. Disparate knowledge needs can be accommodated easily enough.

I'd be well interested in doing a deep dive into best practices for something like this if anyone's interested. I haven't thought it through thoroughly yet. It takes a village.

Bonus; elementary schools, animal shelters, and old folks homes should be the same place.

Plus teachers at most levels are experts in education, if anything, moreso than any subject per-se

[Immanuel Can]

The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.

There has to be something hidden behind such an utterance, because on face value, it makes no sense. It doesn't reflect anything that is possible within a public education system.

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them. And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy...not for a public education system.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=592971 time=1661895428 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=592351 time=1661702222 user_id=15238]
The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.
[/quote]
There has to be something hidden behind such an utterance, because on face value, it makes no sense. It doesn't reflect anything that is possible within a public education system.

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them. And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy...not for a public education system.
[/quote]

Public education as we know it is a relatively new thing. Schools all used to be one room, one teacher. There's no reason at all it couldn't be that way today, but i'd imagine some kind of hybrid thingie, especially since we have the internet now.

[copequally]

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them. And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy... breakout game not for a public education system.

The concept of public education as we know it today is a comparatively recent development. In the past, each classroom in a school had a single instructor. There is no reason at all why it couldn't be that way now, however i'd assume some kind of hybrid thingie, especially now that we have the internet. There's no reason at all why it couldn't be that way today.

[Immanuel Can]

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them. And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy... breakout game not for a public education system.

The concept of public education as we know it today is a comparatively recent development. In the past, each classroom in a school had a single instructor. There is no reason at all why it couldn't be that way now, however i'd assume some kind of hybrid thingie, especially now that we have the internet. There's no reason at all why it couldn't be that way today.

The problem is specialization. Today's education is composed of rather specialized subjects, offered at an increasingly higher level. A generalist teacher can handle the curricula for normal kids in grades 1-8. But beyond that, the material gets too technical and specific for most generalist educators, and certainly for most parents.

But the internet does offer some possibilities. One thing it won't offer is the experience of an engaged and enthusiastic subject-specialist teacher. At most, it can only offer the video equivalent, minus the genuine interpersonal contact and the live experience of being guided through the learning process by an embodied person whom the learner has come to know and trust.

Is the trade-off worth it? Maybe. But I suspect it depends on the particular situation and the particular learner.

[Age]

The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system.

There has to be something hidden behind such an utterance, because on face value, it makes no sense.

But it makes perfect and full sense.

'you', "Immanuel can", once again, just failed completely at seeing and understanding here.

When "authority figures" judge, ridicule, and/or punish children/others without knowing the full extent of what the "other" has/is experiencing, then 'this' is just 'injustice', itself.

But, because 'you' believe that 'you' are an 'authority figure' "yourself" "immanuel can" this is why 'you' continually fail to see and understand things like this here.

It doesn't reflect anything that is possible within a public education system.

Therefore showing and highlighting the very 'thing' Wrong in the 'current' so-called 'education system', in the days when this is being written.

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them.

And, when children are not being listened to and heard, then so-called "educators" can not know what children have experienced.

And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

Therefore, the actual 'injustice', which was clearly and blatantly being pointed out and shown in the opening post, and which CAUSES/CAUSED the 'offenses' becomes even MORE OBVIOUS.

Which, by the way, 'you' believe made NO sense anyway, and were only 'uttered' because of some believed by 'you' 'hidden agenda', "immanuel can".

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy...not for a public education system.

But "teachers" MUST 'know children personally' is NEVER an argument for home schooling nor family therapy at all. So, why 'you' would bring such a deflective and devious claim, only a 'devilish person' would know, for sure.

For "teachers" MUST 'knowing children personally' is so that "teachers" NEVER make the mistake that a lot of 'you' "authority figures" have grown up making, which is; judging, ridiculing, and/or punishing "others".

Also, and by the way, why introduce the 'public' educational system here only? So called "christian teachings" often make the most 'injustices' in Life. As 'you' have proven irrefutable here "Immanuel can".

In fact, are 'you' even aware of just how biased, narrowed, and/or closed 'your' views really are "immanuel can"?

[Age]

Parents can know "what children are experiencing at home." Public educators can only know what the children or parents tell them. And public educators have skills only in their subject fields, not in family therapy, psychology, medicine or sociology.

So if teachers must "know children personally," including "what they are experiencing at home," then this is an argument for home schooling or for family therapy... breakout game not for a public education system.

The concept of public education as we know it today is a comparatively recent development. In the past, each classroom in a school had a single instructor. There is no reason at all why it couldn't be that way now, however i'd assume some kind of hybrid thingie, especially now that we have the internet. There's no reason at all why it couldn't be that way today.

The problem is specialization. Today's education is composed of rather specialized subjects, offered at an increasingly higher level. A generalist teacher can handle the curricula for normal kids in grades 1-8.

Who and what are so-called 'normal kids' "immanuel can"?

But beyond that, the material gets too technical and specific for most generalist educators, and certainly for most parents.

But the internet does offer some possibilities. One thing it won't offer is the experience of an engaged and enthusiastic subject-specialist teacher. At most, it can only offer the video equivalent, minus the genuine interpersonal contact and the live experience of being guided through the learning process by an embodied person whom the learner has come to know and trust.

Is the trade-off worth it? Maybe. But I suspect it depends on the particular situation and the particular learner.

And, absolutely every 'learner' is different.