After going thru the government school system, I would prefer to die an unnaturally early death than allow my children to experience what I experienced. A school in the middle of country nowhere, very few facilities, mostly portable classrooms (a fire knocked out 1/2 of the school), a mix bag of teachers, some good, most bad or simply detached/disinterested, a school unable to remove violent students, a school that always ended up going with the lowest common denominator. Since my children are mixed decent, actually I like to say
both Japanese, Australian again I want to shield my children from any racial attacks that where so prevalent at my country high school.
I take a holistic approach to education, the word
education itself normally generates images of something
done to you;
an (unpleasant) event, rather than what education should mean ie. a never ending process, a way of life eg. continuous learning, questioning inquistiveness, skill enhancement etc . The private schools I have currently enroled my daughter and targeted for my daughters future offer a huge range of experiences for my daughters, which will form part of their
ongoing education
The structure of government education has not changed, the focus is in producing workers (factory or white-collar). The focus is on finding students weaknesses and then focusing on those weaknesses (remedial classes) to meet the needs of industry. The future of course is on those who can solve problems, quickly grasp new concepts and skills and most importantly
ask intelligent thought provoking questions (ie Why does this happen like this? Can we do it this way?, Is there a better way?). The future of course is also on those who can exploit their strengths to the fullest. As per the 80/20 rule, why waste time doing the 80% of things you are bad at or simply disinterested in, when you should focus 80% of your time on the 20% of things you are very good at and excel at them at the highest possible level. To have a bright future is to be in the top 1% or top 0.1% at what you are good at.
For example DaleGG is a very respected accountant, lets say he is in the top 1% of accountants and more to the point in the top 0.1% of accountants in regard to IP's structures and tax issues. Lets say, (just guessing) that DaleGG is bad or has no interest in Linux kernel debugging. If the real-world was school, Dale would be taken out of accountancy class and forced into remedial Linux debugging class and made to feel stupid for it. In the real-world I hire DaleGG for his excellence in professional accountancy , I just dont care about if he can debug a Linux kernel.
The schools I send and plan to send my children to use the IB
http://www.ibo.org/ program, in which the students study "unit's of enquiry", they donft just
study the 3Rfs reading, writing, arithmetic as such; they study a subject (e.g. Plants). To understand more, we must ask more interesting questions, and then set about finding the answers; which requires an increased use tools of understanding and communication; eg. Science, English, mathfs are learnt and used ask and solve the questions they have about the subject.
My daughter studied recently the unit of equired entitled "Our green friends", Science type questions like "How do plants grow?", "Do they need water? How much water?" eg. Tomato's were grown in the shade and some in the sunshine and the differences measured, they read fiction books featuring plants, they visited a rice farm and drew pictures of it, they wrote stories about plants, music about plants, tried to play musical instruments made from plants, they looked at why some countries mostly have different food plants (Japan=rice, Aust=Wheat, Europe=Potato's etc).
My point is that the public
education system seems to be focused on controlling the uncontrollable in classrooms, simply teaching the tools (3Rfs), and focusing on weak points (remedial studies) rather than strengths.