Sunday, October 25, 2009

Government-school 'edjikation' ~ By Patrice Lewis

From WorldNetDaily
Patrice Lewis By Patrice Lewis Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 A few months ago, a homeschooling friend called in tears. The curriculum she'd purchased for her three children was patently unsuited to her 16-year-old daughter, Jane. Jane was rebelling for the first time. "She tells me she doesn't want to learn physics," my friend sobbed. "Does Jane know what she wants to do when she grows up?" I asked. "Yes. She wants to be a paralegal. She's wanted to do that for years." "What's wrong with being a paralegal? That's an excellent career choice." "Nothing. I'm proud of her. But she won't know any physics." "What does a paralegal need with physics?" I asked. My friend was silent a moment. "Nothing," she admitted. After a lengthy discussion, my friend decided her daughter was mature enough to choose her own studies, which she could tailor toward her career choice. End of rebellion. This conversation led me to give some serious thought about the purpose of education, especially for older teens. Is it to cram every subject down every adolescent's throat, despite his natural talent, interest, or future career plans? Or is it to prepare a teen to enter the adult world as a useful, productive member of society? Needless to say I'm inclined toward the latter, not the former. Obviously, there are things children must know. I happen to think it's useful if a 12th-grader knows where the United States is on a map and can multiply 12 x 12. I believe a working knowledge of history and science come in handy no matter what career they choose. I believe the ability to communicate in English, verbally and in writing, is critical. These are the foundations for education. But most children eventually reach an age – like Jane – when the foundations are achieved. What's left is higher learning in various subjects. Then what? If your daughter wants to be a paralegal, is it necessary – really necessary – for her to know physics? If your son wants to be a physicist, is it really necessary that he knows the imports and exports of Zimbabwe? I know a lot of you are sputtering right now, particularly the physicists. Doubtless some of you think I'm an unedjikated troglodyte, unappreciative of the finer points of a sound education. Let me assure you that my husband and I both have master's degrees in the sciences and a passion for history. Our admiration for academics is second to none. But I believe most kids, given sufficient time to think it through, have a pretty good idea what they want to be when they grow up. After the foundations are achieved, why not let them decide what areas they should study? Why make them miserable forcing them to "learn" subjects they may grow to hate because they're being, well, forced? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Bookmark and Share

No comments:

Post a Comment