Bill Nye thinks Socialization > Science Education

eMachine
reply to post by boncho

 

There are actually science fairs for homeschoolers all around the country.

Anyway, I brought up Michio Kaku, because you were lamenting the homeschoolers inability to take advantage of public school resources. I thought I should point out that young Michio Kaku chose not to take advantage of those resources and opted to prepare his project at home instead. Pretty simple point I thought I was making there. I don't have to backpedal, I just have to repeat myself using different verbiage since you misunderstood.

Well actually, he did take advantage of those resources, technically.

So, I took out the garbage and I went to Westinghouse and I got 400 pounds of transformer steel, 22 miles of copper wire, and we wound a 6 kilowatt, 10,000 gauss magnetic field on the high school football field. I put 22 pounds of copper wire on the goal post, gave the wire to my mother. My mother ran to the 50-yard line, gave the wire to my father and he ran to the goal post, and we wound 22 miles of copper wire on the high school football field. Finally, it was ready. It was my proudest achievement, this 400 pound, 6 kw, 10,000 gauss magnetic field in a 2.3 million volt electronic accelerator.

bigthink.com...

There are actually science fairs for homeschoolers all around the country.

Which, with collective governance could change the structure of schooling. But they are not the status quo. So for every place that has one, there is one that doesn't have it. You can't generalize and say that each city has a program that is going to be adequate compared to the current school system. (Not at this time anyway.)

You have Non-Profits like SSP that back high school science fairs etc, but are bankrolled by Intel. Which, isn't really that bad. In a sense, the private sector and professional organizations could take responsibility and influence a new standard for education, but I feel too much control would only fund activities and learning that was applicable to them. And in the long run create a system with a life of its own only serving their interests.

But alas, the associations that promote scientific learning are doing so in both public and homeschool education. And more of it is focused on public.

It goes without saying, in a general statement, one cannot make a sweeping assumption that a home school program is going to be better or on par for learning in sciences.

Not to say it's impossible to outdo the public school system, but the very comment, asking Bill Nye about it, shows that most people don't know where to get their curriculum, and others are parroting that stating as much!

Thanks for the semantics.

When I was in high school I learned a bit in science class, especially with chemistry, but my real and best learning was making a hobby of anything science related, so I made my own lab at home in the vacant basement we had and learned much more by my own "homeschooling" than I ever learned in a team environment. This branched out my interest into space science, and I had a big volume of books on the space program, and every kind of space science known at the time..

Working in a team environment doesn't mean you must be in the presence of others in order to understand the importance of teamwork. It doesn't mean this person that is home schooled will be a misfit later in life only because he was home schooled.. That thought is typical of the narrow mindedness of the progressive mindset too.

. That same mindset is always thinking of what everyone else is doing instead of themselves. Anything that isn't approved by them is condemned it seems..

Encouraging kids to be interested in what they are doing is the hard part sometimes, but is also the most important factor that can affect their interest intensity which having more of that , will translate to learning more.

For a great example of this: I have to show my wife even after 10 years how to find a file using windows explorer..I have lost count now of how many times I have to show her simple things. She absolutely dislikes computer things, but likes to receive the benefits of a computer usually on a silver platter.
Because of little interest by her as related to the mechanics of computer related things, she just doesn't learn.
it's because of not having any interest in it..

When a kid becomes interested in something, they go hog wild and soon know more than the adult sometimes..
Just get them interested in the right things and you will always win.

Based on all of this is why I feel that Mr. Nye's statements were totally wrong and just reflecting his affiliation with that collective team speak. He is moderating his speech to represent those progressive views.

reply to post by boncho

Homeschool can also be completely unstructured. They call it unschooling. I don't imagine you would approve of that, but you don't have to.

The point is that Bill Nye could contribute to a science curriculum and improve the situation for secular homeschoolers who want to learn science without religious bias. His response was to rebuke them for not involving their kids in a social school setting (whether they work with a co-op or not).

He sets himself against religious dogma, yet he shrugs off the idea that he could save secular homeschooled children from having to use science curricula that may be colored by religious dogma. It just isn't consistent.

reply to post by alienreality

People don't retain information they're not interested in or don't have an immediate use for, generally. Will it be on the test? That's what students usually want to know. And after the test, it's not useful anymore. I've been told by college students things like "After I took my mid-term, I could finally relax and get rid of all that crap in my brain to make room for everything I'll need to remember next semester."

As if your brain has limited storage capacity like a HDD... when really if you make good memory connections and exercise them regularly, you can retain most of it for a very long time. The public school curriculum tries, they make you review things from the year before, to try to build those memory connections. The students don't find it interesting or useful when it's presented, so it doesn't work.

Bill Nye does know how to make it interesting. If he made a curriculum, the material could be used by homeschoolers and schools alike. You may be right about his brick-in-the-wall bias though.

reply to post by eMachine

As if your brain has limited storage capacity like a HDD... when really if you make good memory connections and exercise them regularly, you can retain most of it for a very long time. The public school curriculum tries, they make you review things from the year before, to try to build those memory connections. The students don't find it interesting or useful when it's presented, so it doesn't work.

Part of that is learning to process information and present it. Wether or not you will remember each thing you work on with clarity. It's much easier to re-learn something too, then learn it for the first time.

3 benefits I can think off the top of my head.

I can put together a few thousand words into a cogent paper, not because I was born with the ability, but because I've had to do it so often.

But the same thing you are citing in public school is even worse in university. You never heard of "cramming"… ??

reply to post by eMachine


Bill Nye is an actor who is out of touch with reality. Here is some control for your experiment brah.

reply to post by boncho

Yes, I was referring to "cramming", as I specifically mentioned college students. College students who are only learning to pass tests and get a degree, and not actually retaining much of the knowledge they're being offered. I don't believe they actually learned how to learn in a way that helps them retain the information.

reply to post by LOSTinAMERICA

I've seen stats like those before. Thanks for sharing.

Most Americans know how to read words and sentences, but their comprehension of the words/sentences is lacking. I know many people who say they read books very quickly, but they're really just looking at the words page after page without thinking about any of it. That's not literacy.

eMachine
reply to post by boncho

 

Yes, I was referring to "cramming", as I specifically mentioned college students. College students who are only learning to pass tests and get a degree, and not actually retaining much of the knowledge they're being offered. I don't believe they actually learned how to learn in a way that helps them retain the information.

And PhD programs? Since they are all practical…

Is Oxford having trouble pumping out dummies lately or something?

-

I think the whole premise you should be arguing is politics and influence in the school system. Beyond that I can't even discern what your point is.

If the entire world switched to home schooling tomorrow, would it be better or worse? And I mean immediate and short term. It is not to say the educational platform cannot be adjusted over the years, into a better system. But it's also not to say that everyone should switch to home schooling, or various alternative programs that have no evaluation of success, simply because there's a problem in current academia.

reply to post by boncho

The point, as I've repeated here a few times, is that people want a good secular science curriculum for homeschooling and The Science Guy didn't even consider it. I'm not sure how you missed that every time. It's all good though, you're welcome for the clarification.

People can homeschool. People can go to public schools and private schools. They all have different pros and cons. No one is going to bring an end to public schools and it would be very difficult to bring an end to homeschooling. We don't have to go to extremes like that. All those secular homeschoolers want is a good science program and somehow I think Nye probably has some spare time and could use some more money. But whatevs. Lol

eMachine
reply to post by LOSTinAMERICA

 

I've seen stats like those before. Thanks for sharing.

Most Americans know how to read words and sentences, but their comprehension of the words/sentences is lacking. I know many people who say they read books very quickly, but they're really just looking at the words page after page without thinking about any of it. That's not literacy.

How's this for literacy. You took a quote from someone, which they made in a Q&A session about creationism and creationism in schools, about home schooling, where the person replied in a neutral manner favouring public school systems, claiming you were disappointed by his response. Since it would be a good project for him under your assumptions. Also inferring it was a slap in the face to people involved in homeschooling.

Now, before making a judgement on it. You could take the time to realize while he has produced educational materials, it's mostly in entertainment form. He's not an educator besides doing a few lectures a universities, speaking engagements, the kind of teaching that's pretty open.

If in fact you wanted to see someone produce a good homeschool curriculum, it wouldn't be him. Since his engineering and science background has no educational foundation, he'd probably make a good collaborative partner though.

Lastly, he does have his political bias. But who really gives a _____.

If he came out vocally about the ills of homeschooling, on a blog, on his personal website, on TV, etc. You might have a bone to pick with him. In which, you could point out his errors. You could explain how homeschooling has many advantages to any dedicated parent who is willing to make the effort. But since he didn't and you didn't…

If we want to really get into the debate of public schools vs. home education, I suppose the best thing to do would be to go back, way back, to the very first days of education in North America.

It wasn't hard to become a teacher in those days. Anyone who could read or write was allowed to teach, as long as they believed in the Church, were loyal to the Crown and kept out of trouble. Often the schoolmaster had to do other things in the town, too, such as digging graves, running errands or leading the choir. Colonial schoolmasters were not paid very much and sometimes received a cow, a pig, apples or some other food for their teaching. In winter, the teacher's fee was sometimes paid with wood for the school fireplace. Children who didn't bring their share of wood had to sit in the coldest part of the room!

*

While paying a teacher with apples seems better then paying taxes, and getting your dead grandma buried after school, I hazard to guess the quality wasn't that great.

Before the advent of schools, many taught there kids at home, so long as they had they themselves had basic knowledge, but, around then only 20-35% of people were literate. This is reflected all over the world.*

And you have the rich vs. poor:

In the South, the children of rich planters were taught at home-- usually by tutors from England. Poor children were usually apprenticed to a craftsmen.

It was around the late 1800s when public schools popped up throughout the US and not that long after they became mandatory. While some might argue that literacy was at its peak in 1870, 95%… The definition of literacy at that time for many people was simply being able to sign ones name. Someone who didn't know how to write would leave a mark on the page.

Now, figures cite about 70% of people graduating high school.* Which isn't that bad. I presume much better than back when teachers were paid with apples and had no qualifications but I could be wrong.

In any case, there is a definite problem with public schools, and learning, which I will address at the end.

…

Taking a cue from the rest of the world, China decided to modernize.

Since the 1950s, China has been providing a nine-year compulsory education to what amounts to a fifth of the world's population. By 1999, primary school education had become generalized in 90% of China, and mandatory nine-year compulsory education now effectively covered 85% of the population

Now touting a 95% literacy rate.

While the improvement seems great, there is a hidden side to the changes:

While education is a priority in China, it is also highly competitive. Scholastic achievement is stressed throughout the nation's schools, which are highly rigorous institutions with strict hierarchical restrictions towards secondary studies. In this case, all Chinese youth are provided access to primary education, but subsequent middle school and university study is much less accessible. Only about one-third of all primary school students in China receive access to middle school education and less than one tenth of one percent have the opportunity to study at the university level.

*

A highly competitive system, that in the end will favour a small portion. This is important, which I will address in a second.



I really can't be bothered to cite every source I have read on the subject, or go searching to find sources for my talking points, but I will summarize my opinion none-the-less.

Conclusion:

The history of schooling and education is important for many reasons. The public system in the US has major problems. But, it's not to say it is entirely with the schools.

If you look at the systems around the world, and the history, you realize education for hundreds and thousands of years aided a select few and was a major contributing factor for earning power & wealth, and of course maintaining it. From the advent of legalese, which only a lawyer can understand, which in the past had to be spoken the exact way it was meant to, or the argument would not be heard, it would limit the courts power to only those that knew it.

From ancient China whose confucian teachings meant the difference of an Imperial position, to toiling in fields or fighting for a warlord, one's prowess for learned speak meant they had power and used it to humiliate people in public. Imperial charges were much worse for the lowly uneducated than for one educated in confucian thought.

Or consider the church, which had most of the schools before the advent of public school. Was it for learning or was it for indoctrinating kids at a young age and killing two birds with one stone? Seems the founders had an opinion on this since they separated church from state and were proponents of public education.*

Or consider how the poor previously were sent to apprentice as soon as they became of age.

Now, to sum it all up, some of this can be considered symptoms rather than a cause or purpose. But at the end of the day you have winners and losers. The biggest problem with the public school system probably has nothing to do with school in my opinion.

In fact, it likely has more to do with consolidation of wealth, lack of small business, and the disparity in wealth. Which large multi-national corporations being the dominate business in America, which efficiency improving, it's quite hard to create jobs for everyone that can use anything they learned in school.

In fact, an illiterate from the 17th century could probably accomplish the same job. So… A little bit ironic!

It's disingenuous to say that everyone could benefit from homeschooling if the entire population switched tomorrow. It's disingenuous to say that alternative school would solve all our problems too.

I could set up a con school, focused solely on learning the art of conning people (and stay within the limits of the law to not get caught), and the graduates could all go on to be really great assholes. It does not mean it will work as a national objective. And we see that in the times before public school, the chance of actually getting an education, relied solely on socio-economic status.

Now, at least there is a small chance for many of people that didn't have it before. In truth, anyone can excel in academia, but the most important thing is that not everyone will. Anyone means any odd person. Regardless of who they are or where they are from, as long as they outdo everyone else. In the past, they would have to seek alternative means.

This, if anything, is the closest you are going to get for equality.

As far as making changes to improve teaching methods, critical thinking and positive social aspects of schools, there needs to be some major work done. But, I provide this as incite into how the US arrived where it is and the not so rosy colours of the past.

The height of US ingenuity, academia, etc. Was all done when schooling was an important issue, and mostly when public schools were already around.

Other nations may be improving, but they are using the same examples to get there. In some cases, more rigorous, and far less thought to individual welfare.

In any case, my position on homeschool is not that it's bad per say, only that as a primary means of education, it's limited to those who are actually going to do it. Just like people say kids like to learn in the right environment, parents like to teach in the right environment. But overall percentages, academic learning school vs. home, will have a much better outcome with public school. There are too many parents who already ignore their kids, and putting education into their hands would give the child even less opportunity.

Private schooling could take over, but unless parents are paying tuition, business interest or religious, would influence far too greatly.

With this in mind, very heavily emphasizing the examples of "scaling up", it is not hard to see how one might generalize and say, yes public schools are better than homeschooling. Because they don't want to give the wrong impression, or encourage the ones that would pull their kids from school, not because they want them to learn in a better environment, but because they have some personal bias or resentment towards the government.

LOSTinAMERICA
reply to post by eMachine

 

Bill Nye is an actor who is out of touch with reality. Here is some control for your experiment brah.

Which one is homeschooled?

reply to post by boncho


Wow you are posting like me now....
That's an impressive amount to read, will have to sit down a few minutes for this.

See what Emachine does to people?

Don't feel bad she did it to me too.


PS- Nye isn't neutral when he 'takes sides'.
He wasn't extremist in his bias or anything like that, but he was condescending with marginal bias.
(Ok gonna read the rest of your mini-novel hehe).

boncho

LOSTinAMERICA
reply to post by eMachine

 

Bill Nye is an actor who is out of touch with reality. Here is some control for your experiment brah.

Which one is homeschooled?

edit on 12-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Apparently none of them, as it seems to be "High School" scoring ?
If I am wrong please correct me. Thanks.

reply to post by muzzleflash

PS- Nye isn't neutral when he 'takes sides'.
He wasn't extremist in his bias or anything like that, but he was condescending with marginal bias.
(Ok gonna read the rest of your mini-novel hehe).

I admit highly biased. But, in the same time you have to account for the Q&A being on creationism, the use of "secular" in the question, and the fact that Ham and others promote homeschooling with creationist "learning materials" which is actually gaining a lot of steam.

Regardless, it might just be his biased opinion. But he's entitled to it.

He's not out producing materials used in school curricula, he's an entertainer. He promotes science as a popular topic which is good for encouraging young people to get interested.

Beyond that it feels like people are being butthurt for the purpose of being butthurt.

reply to post by boncho


It was in context to the US in general. I can even go on to say that most Americans do go to public schools. The numbers are still relevant. His idea of home schooling isn't worth a #.

Tell Bill to stick to kid science shows and STFU.

It's true. Bill Nye basically said that teamwork is very important.

That's what he really said there. Teamwork, working together on projects. You don't get that if you're homeschooled.

LOSTinAMERICA
reply to post by boncho

 

It was in context to the US in general. I can even go on to say that most Americans do go to public schools. The numbers are still relevant. His idea of home schooling isn't worth a #.

And your basing it on a bunch of countries with public school system themselves, which a few of them were far lower on the list until they adopted the US system. Just because the public system in the states isn't ideal, does not mean the problems will be solved with homeschooling, or that homeschooling is better than public school.

For one, you would need homeschool statistics across the US of everyone in them, how they did in school and after, to justify the opinion.

Instead you are comparing it to a bunch of countries with public schools, different social values, different everything. It just doesn't add up to anything.

reply to post by boncho


I can see how society is because I live here. Those statistics just help backup what I already know. I see the news about public schools and the theft that occurs. I see the children indoctrinated into a subclass mechanized cog to keep the machine running. I see and talk with young people and many cannot read or comprehend what is going on with anything. That is unless it is some reality show or bull# they see on the television. Give them the tools to survive and not to be complacent working for someone who doesn't give a # about them. Public schools are useless to a just cause. I may be wrong in your eyes but there are many who would agree with home schooling. If you are worried about the children not fitting into a social setting, have them take up a sport or take them somewhere to mingle. We both have opinions and that is what makes the world worth living in. I have an open mind but I do not want to hear some guy on television think he's god gift to education. If he cared all that much he would have become a teacher instead of an actor on a kids show or working for the news.