2 Answers

  1. If you want to understand why something works this way and not otherwise, ask the economics of the question.

    You are talking about why there are no subjects in public (universal) school education that go far beyond the needs of the average adult, but in reality you are asking why you, and not the conditional Petrov and Vasechkin, were not taught this. The answer is quite simple : the public education system is designed to ensure the functioning of the economy, and not to make you a scientist from the cradle. Actually, this is one of the reasons why education is divided into “primary”, “secondary”, and “higher” stages, and there are academic degrees. To create some kind of educational “pipeline”.

    I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in most SRS of the world, the education system is similar to a conveyor with schedules, with subject teachers (who are taught to teach only their subject), and the main factor in the formation of classes is the age of the student (as if the most important thing is the date of production of the blank). In some places, the situation is worse (when the team does not even change depending on abilities and there is no ranking of classes by performance groups), in some places it is better (as in Western countries, where there are multi-level lessons). However, there are high costs involved in both cases. For example, in such a system, it is impossible without the quality control department, which considers the permissible percentage of defective goods in the produced batch.

    Unfortunately, your question does not deviate at all from the very paradigm of the “industrialized school”, but simply wants to push some additional subjects into the already overloaded program, and simply because you like them, and not because they are really useful (why not cram Bayesian logical inference into the program instead of Boolean algebras? Or, for example, the study of relational algebras? – for me, your choice of subjects is also not obvious, as for you – mine).

    School, in fact, is 80% a place where minors can be sent to stay under adult supervision while adults work. And 20%, maybe, they will be able to learn something there, and of these 20%, another 80% – they will learn from communicating with each other (and not always “good”), and 20% – something that the teacher explained.

    And I would not say that the second ” 80%” is something bad (about the fact that they learn to interact).

    Another methodological mistake that is made especially strongly in Russia today is that school sometimes degenerates into formal teaching of subjects. The cult of the “Unified State Exam” (I have nothing against the exam itself and believe that it has more pros than cons) It consists in the fact that the effectiveness of a school's work is measured solely by the results of the school's Unified State Exam (what is their average score, whether there are school students, etc.).

    In such a paradigm, in general, the only skill that schools try to develop in schoolchildren is “passing the Unified State Exam”, it is not even necessary to master something if it is not in the Unified State Exam, but is in the program. Well, to achieve the maximum average, for example, you can neglect some tasks that almost no one will solve in a secondary school (such as everything that is higher than C2 in mathematics) in order to increase the percentage of correctly completed tasks in Group B.

    Against this background, such skills that should probably be laid down at school, such as the skill of cooperation, initiative, creativity, the ability to negotiate, and the ability to work together, are lost.

    The school, instead of encouraging people who are profitable for the economy and form a large part of transactions (to form a society of entrepreneurs), forms a society of performers, and with a deeply schizoid accentuation.

  2. Dear Vyacheslav,

    Thank you for your valuable question!

    Based on my experience and observations in the education system for 30 years:

    A. Understanding as a process is a difficult thing for a school teacher;

    B. Understanding things is even more difficult for everyone, including scientists;

    B. Semantics and Boolean algebra are bad helpers in understanding and developing thinking (they were not useful in life!);

    G. Philosophy-yes! Studying it might help. There was a professor in the United States, Matthew Lippman, who studied philosophy with children.

    I hope you understand that even in lyceums and gymnasiums in Russia, there are no cadres who are ready to engage in all these things with children at a normal level…

    They don't cook!

    As for the “development of thinking”…

    It can be developed without Boolean algebra, semantics, and philosophy.

    You only need to use the “4 children's questions” method.

    For example, to understand Understanding:

    1. From where, from what need of a person does Understanding arise?
    2. Why does a person need Understanding?
    3. How does Understanding work and what does it consist of?
    4. What is Understanding?

    And further, in order for the answer to be systematic, it is necessary to understand the misunderstanding:

    1. Where does a person's Misunderstanding come from?
    2. How does Misunderstanding work?
    3. What gives a person a Misunderstanding?
    4. What is a Misunderstanding?

    The practice of applying the method shows that the cyclic process of working out 4 questions allows you to significantly advance in understanding any complex entity.

    If you feel like it, try it on yourself…

    An even stronger tool for developing thinking is contradiction!

    Thinking that overcomes contradictions-imagine, this is possible even in children.

    I think you understand that such “subjects”are used in school

    there is simply NO ONE to do it.

    And there's no need. The school, as is now becoming increasingly clear, performs a certain function, curtailed by the modernizers.

    At the same time…

    Anyone who dares to engage with children in Understanding different entities can create a Modern Academy. And like the great teachers of the past, cultivate outstanding scientists and generals.

    All of the above has been tested by me in classes with schoolchildren, students, entrepreneurs, and parents.

    Smart decisions!

Leave a Reply