Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Whatever involves an emotional role of the teacher should be left to every school’s discretion provided the program is made publicly available as well as the drills and evaluation material.
Edit: and for the record, I do not think that Man-made Global Warming is a science, neither is history: if today’s news are fake, I would never agree to have historical researchers being shut up.
I'm against common programs because I think if someone can do it better/faster/cheaper, they should do it better/faster/cheaper. I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing, but only as a measuring tool, it should not be tied to funding whatsoever. Education would be improved so much in the US if there was competition and worthless people could be fired, and troublemakers and slower students could break away on their own path. Let excellent people excel. I also think more trades should be taught around the 6th grade and on level, and schools should give actual advice on careers and do cost benefit analysis when it comes to going to college. I also think if education is payed for at all by tax payers it should be in the form of tax deductions to people with children in education and then the parents pay it themselves.
I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing
If I'm an engineering employer, I want to make sure someone I hire can be an engineer. Before we had standardized testing ("certifications" are the "I know how to be an engineer" standardized test), we would look at someone's work to determine if we liked it. If that wasn't available, we would talk to people to assess their hireability. If they don't know enough about engineering when I talk to them and they have no work to show me, I don't give a fuck what they got on a cert exam.
as a measuring tool
What are we measuring? Why are we measuring? Is someone who gets a better score on an SAT going to make a more productive person? Will it make them a better person? Will it make them a more contributing member of society? Do any of those questions even matter?
We have standardized testing because the Rockefellers et al wanted to create workers, not thinkers. Standardation is what you want to build the Machine. It has nothing to do with life.
I'd say for measuring performance, just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one. And I don't mean keep the standardized tests we have now, those are garbage, they'd need to be rewritten. I'd just want some kind of score or index to measure the performance of a school, but maybe that opens up too many problems; it's a hard thing to measure accurately. I'm in software development and I'd agree with you that certs are not all that, talking with someone for like 30 min gives me a much better idea of what they know, but I'm talking more elementary and high school level here so I don't know that interviewing students is a solution.
Maybe a better performance metric would be student outcomes in the job market, but that would have a pretty big lag time, I don't know.
just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one.
Why? Why is that the way? Why are we always measuring dicks? Education needs to change completely. I don't mean we need to be more open minded, less restrictive, I mean we need to move away from creating the Machine and moving towards understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves.
In anything we need to know, there is no "standard" to which we need to be measured. Almost everything we currently think matters (everything on these tests) is just part of creating or maintaining the Cabal Machine.
Our education builds The Matrix. We need to learn to appreciate exactly what that really means.
Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
Well, school was supposed to be about the three R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic. Since they got only one of three spellings right I suggest it’s best they stay away from other things like social science and biology.
Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Whatever involves an emotional role of the teacher should be left to every school’s discretion provided the program is made publicly available as well as the drills and evaluation material.
Edit: and for the record, I do not think that Man-made Global Warming is a science, neither is history: if today’s news are fake, I would never agree to have historical researchers being shut up.
I'm against common programs because I think if someone can do it better/faster/cheaper, they should do it better/faster/cheaper. I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing, but only as a measuring tool, it should not be tied to funding whatsoever. Education would be improved so much in the US if there was competition and worthless people could be fired, and troublemakers and slower students could break away on their own path. Let excellent people excel. I also think more trades should be taught around the 6th grade and on level, and schools should give actual advice on careers and do cost benefit analysis when it comes to going to college. I also think if education is payed for at all by tax payers it should be in the form of tax deductions to people with children in education and then the parents pay it themselves.
If I'm an engineering employer, I want to make sure someone I hire can be an engineer. Before we had standardized testing ("certifications" are the "I know how to be an engineer" standardized test), we would look at someone's work to determine if we liked it. If that wasn't available, we would talk to people to assess their hireability. If they don't know enough about engineering when I talk to them and they have no work to show me, I don't give a fuck what they got on a cert exam.
What are we measuring? Why are we measuring? Is someone who gets a better score on an SAT going to make a more productive person? Will it make them a better person? Will it make them a more contributing member of society? Do any of those questions even matter?
We have standardized testing because the Rockefellers et al wanted to create workers, not thinkers. Standardation is what you want to build the Machine. It has nothing to do with life.
I'd say for measuring performance, just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one. And I don't mean keep the standardized tests we have now, those are garbage, they'd need to be rewritten. I'd just want some kind of score or index to measure the performance of a school, but maybe that opens up too many problems; it's a hard thing to measure accurately. I'm in software development and I'd agree with you that certs are not all that, talking with someone for like 30 min gives me a much better idea of what they know, but I'm talking more elementary and high school level here so I don't know that interviewing students is a solution. Maybe a better performance metric would be student outcomes in the job market, but that would have a pretty big lag time, I don't know.
Why? Why is that the way? Why are we always measuring dicks? Education needs to change completely. I don't mean we need to be more open minded, less restrictive, I mean we need to move away from creating the Machine and moving towards understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves.
In anything we need to know, there is no "standard" to which we need to be measured. Almost everything we currently think matters (everything on these tests) is just part of creating or maintaining the Cabal Machine.
Our education builds The Matrix. We need to learn to appreciate exactly what that really means.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
I like our disagreement here. I actually love it because what carries us is the need for a common denominator… the basis for universal peace?
Is that a need? Is it even desirable?
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Dear Lady, yes a common denominator is required. We have to assert it together.
they should be taught how to be self sufficient ... gee, wonder why they don't teach that
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
One hour. Done. Now it's time to get creative.
If a curriculum is setup correctly it IS a logical progression.
Disregard the second half of my comment.
Well, school was supposed to be about the three R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic. Since they got only one of three spellings right I suggest it’s best they stay away from other things like social science and biology.