I agree with most of what your saying there Mostly Harmless, but a couple of things stand out the most to me as I read:

First, If the community and it's value set are responsible for the success of the student (which I agree with) how do they express those standards and values without the power to actually change them?  I.e: if a community thinks to itself "our public education needs to be changed to happening only in the afternoons, when kids are fully awake" (just an example of a value shift expressed) do they even have the power to mandate that and change it? Or does the state have to change it for them? Or the municipality? What power does a commmunity have to lobby their municipality/state/governing body for education?

Second, where does the consistency in educational values come from? I live far from Chicago, and went to school in a totally different system, but I can tell from your postings that we have similar educational values, and were likely taught them.  How is that consistency to be enforced? Education works great when either a few of the people have it, or ALL of the people have it, and they have it at the same level and quality expressing similar values and ideals.   

 I think we both can thank the Historical British Education system for our "intellectual roots" and the values that are built into that education, and they are Consistent because they are mandated from "above" (the highest level of government).  If the community is empowered to choose it's educational values, how to ensure there are standards for it? -and to boot, without stifling growth and innovation?

Both of these problems are tied to the effectiveness of the democracy we live in. (I know different issue) but with the education system we have today, it can't be separated. (we can thank the greeks for that one)

Yes, human nature being what it is, government as a result of its hierarchical-ness is bound to be rife with inefficiencies. But I wonder that there can be a solution that addresses the seeming inversely proportional relationship between between "big" and "efficient."  What if you could reduce the hierarchical nature of government such that systems could be more community based? I've been thinking about this a bit.

Ancient Greeks sported the first democracy (I think).  One of its characteristics that modern systems don't have is size. The democracy of Ancient Greeks was community based.  EVERYONE came to meeting.  So, here's my idea, and it actually has a plan for action. I doubt it's new or hasn't been thought of before, but it came easily enough to me without reading it anywhere..  It's based on the following premise..

It is not just your right to vote; it is your responsibility.

Populations have been much too large for this to work since the first democracies vanished. Communities have become too large - but the landscape has changed dramatically and in specific ways in the last 10 years. The vehicle for community involvement is technology.  Everyone gets up in the morning, or maybe 1 or 2 days a week, eventually 3 or more, picks up a device of their choice, and votes or participates in some manner. For this to work..

Everyone in the community must have access.

True access, not just the ability to walk five miles to the local library to get in line to use a computer. These days, most everyone has a cell phone.  Optimally, every citizen should have a personal device or be provided with one.

Everyone in the community is required to act on binding referenda

 (maybe non-binding at first). Non-commiting votes are allowed but they must be made to qualify for a tax break. (see below)

Participation is worth a tax break.

The more the participation, the bigger the break  The more people who participate as citizens, the smaller the government.  If you author or co-author legislation (that passes or receives substantial support), guess what?  You get an additional tax break.   Might there be people who participate to the point where they work their taxes down to nothing?  Sure, and why would that be a bad thing?  Currently we PAY our politicians and bureaucrats.  I'm not suggesting we get rid of them.  I'm simply suggesting that people carry more of the burden so we need less of them.

All it takes is one community to start the ball rolling, maybe with just (non-binding referenda) then one community at a time participation increases.  Once full participation is achieved at a county level, the system works its way into that system ..and so on into higher levels of government.  The goal of having decisions made at the highest levels being informed directly from the community level could be possible in this manner.

There, I've done my part and saved the world.. Now I'm going to have a cup of coffee.

A bit of a side issue here, but, biologically speaking, "race" is a more similar term to "species".  We are all one "human race", which means we are all one population which is capable of interbreeding and producing viable, non-sterile, offspring.  For some reason popular culture has grappled onto this "race" term so inappropriately as if to suggest that our human differences are greater then are our human similarities so as to imply that we are distinct races, which we are not.  As we are all one species, and as-of-such one race, morphological and cultural distinctions within the human race is classified by the term ethnicity.  "Race" and "racism" are fake constructs created and primarily reinforced through human ignorance and the media's constant false re-hashing of such terms, but, it really makes no scientific sense.  The correct terminology for differentiating human sub-groups/cultures would be ethnicity, and for showing preference to any one group/culture would be ethnocentrism.  Although, there are other taxonomic distinctions that can be had as well, for instance, the terms which deal with the classifications of the genealogies which led to the differences in human morphology as the human species radiated around the globe and adapted to different environments, including our skin colours, are caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and austroloid.  Still only one human race though.  A different skin colour does not a species make! ;-)

M, I think you meant to write "The more people who participate, the smaller the bureaucracy". In a democracy, the citizens are the government. Correct ME if you think my correction is incorrect.

Thingol wrote: M, I think you meant to write "The more people who participate, the smaller the bureaucracy". In a democracy, the citizens are the government. Correct ME if you think my correction is incorrect.

Absolutely.  Thank you for catching that.

I was thinking that the system could be tested in even smaller communities like school districts.  E.g. using just the parents of children who matriculate in those schools.  Issues would be restricted, but it would be a star and introduce people to the process.

berickf wrote:

A bit of a side issue here, but, biologically speaking, "race" is a more similar term to "species".  We are all one "human race" ... ... ... Still only one human race though.  A different skin colour does not a species make! ;-)

The problem is entirely one of "I perceive the difference, and therefore act differently towards ..." (and specifically in this case, negatively towards).   That's racism.  

People can really only keep track of 3-500 person communities before they are totally overwhelmed.  So they create "others" based on differences. 

ratsy wrote:

berickf wrote:

A bit of a side issue here, but, biologically speaking, "race" is a more similar term to "species".  We are all one "human race" ... ... ... Still only one human race though.  A different skin colour does not a species make! ;-)

The problem is entirely one of "I perceive the difference, and therefore act differently towards ..." (and specifically in this case, negatively towards).   That's racism.  

People can really only keep track of 3-500 person communities before they are totally overwhelmed.  So they create "others" based on differences. 

Good point Ratsy.  Evolutionary theory lately has taken a turn away from 'survival of the fittest individual' more towards 'survival of the fittest group'.  Humans act favorably towards those in their group.  The interesting thing is to sort out who do you consider part of your group.  It could be a visual determination, or based on your work colleagues, your sports team, you city, your chess club etc or all of the above at once.  To eliminate negative bias towards others you must find a way to make everyone feel part of the same group.  The limitation though, is that as Ratsy noted, there seems to be a limitation on how many people a human wants to consider part of their group based on our neural network.  The sad summary is that humans may be 'wired' to always want to differentiate other humans as part of another group and treat them with a negative bias. 

It's our reliance on heuristics in the biological and psychological landscape that make us differentiate others.  After a certain sample size, it becomes too improbable that our "rules of thumb" will work for everyone anymore.

Point here being that our educational values are determined be the group we belong to. But the real questions is weather or not that group can determine those values for themselves. And if they should or not.

I'll just toss in here that as an educator in tertiary education (i.e. ZERO actual training in teaching), the level of discourse here from people who are either actual teachers or take an active interest in it gives me serious hope for the future. 

and for those who are teachers - your students are totally lucky to have you.

Xrayjay wrote:

I'll just toss in here that as an educator in tertiary education (i.e. ZERO actual training in teaching), the level of discourse here from people who are either actual teachers or take an active interest in it gives me serious hope for the future. 

[Clapping]  +1

http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/open-letter-education-system-please-stop-destroying-students#sthash.XmFUrNbE.dpbs

I still want to be a unicorn wrangler... and I'll fight you if you insist I can't.

That being said, a standard amount of cynicsm should come along with higher education - because you realize at some point that nobody is in control, nobody is "pulling the strings" or "planning it all" and that the systems that hold society together are super tenuous at best.  This makes an educated person cynical - as well as the flip side - hopeful. 

There is hope that things can actually change, that people can actually act reasonably and that not everything in the world is out to get you. Which you realize right alongside realizing that it's not fair, doesn't really make sense from most perspectives and that there are alot of smart people out there doing/allowing really stupid things to happen. 

It's the hopeful part that allows for the curiosity, and that little bit of wonder I get every time the universe teaches me something new.  I wish schools could tap into that. 

This thread is the best I've seen, literally, anywhere on the web. I'm probably going to jump in and try to rekindle this thing, but I have to read the entire thread two or three more times to see if I have anything original to contribute.

KillDawg wrote:

This thread is the best I've seen, literally, anywhere on the web. I'm probably going to jump in and try to rekindle this thing, but I have to read the entire thread two or three more times to see if I have anything original to contribute.

You do realize the primary reason most of us are here is to conquer the world, right? 

How ironic that so many of us are teachers.

I am an administrator now so I am certainly on my way to conquering the world/being part of the problem.

ratsy's post #54 should be framed. 

Amidon37 wrote:

I am an administrator now so I am certainly on my way to conquering the world/being part of the problem.

ratsy's post #54 should be framed. 

 

The beauty of that post for me was how much I laughed when I first saw it. Afterwards when I completed reading the thread and once I got to the article in which his joke was referencing, I laughed way harder. I damn near fell out of my seat.

I frigging love this thread. Hope Ratsy comes back soon to drop some more wisdom on us.

Thanks for bumping it.  Good people here at Wargear.