| | (this post is quite long so if you like, skip to paragraph 3 which begins with the line, 'THE GIST..')
chuck,
i have experience being part of a form of alternative education, free schooling (sometimes called democratic schooling), from which i've learnt how design structures (like the common schools of today) can 'make things more difficult than they need to be'. these are schools in which self-determination is given importance, and which generally end up operating along the lines of the principles you praised, such as self-motivation, seeking advice for oneself in the right places, illich's 'learning webs', etc. in practice, one of the chief differences between free schools and traditional schools is that the coercive element found in the latter isnt present in the former. however, this tends to make things fall apart when too many of the people there aren't really interested in being there, or haven't become accustomed to not being coerced (it can take a while), so they just end up doing nothing or being confused, or even worse, engaging in destructive activity. another difference often found is that in free schools, staff tends to be more passionate about being there than staff at traditional schools, which is generally a good thing. however, this also means they're more likely to be busy-bodies who don't realise that giving kids individual guidance in unsolicited ways can defeat the purpose even more than the standard, mass schooling approach of not giving them enough attention, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. regardless, im very much for non-coerced learning, provided that it takes place in a resource-rich environment, the participants are able to regulate themselves (thereby obviating coercion), and they are free from having to spend too much time dealing with things like bullying, hypocrisy, and confused moral authorities, all of which can be distracting/disturbing. |