Telling one truth just has to lead to telling other truths until the worldview is consistent. We do have the answer. Most kids have to go to school because the actual and opportunity cost of homeschooling is usually too expensive or often neither parent is qualified to provide a better or even acceptable education. When homeschooling is workable, going to school is often still a better aspect exactly because having a huge amount of experience with both the good and the bad of social settings is incredibly valuable as an adult (and that most adults have such experience is one of the main reasons adult society does tend to be less nasty IMO - people get fed up with it).
If you can be honest and tell kids "the real world isn't like school", why can't you be honest and tell them the real reasons they are nonetheless made to put up with it?
Just curious, but what are the "real reasons they are nonetheless made to put up with it"? If your child says "I'm being bullied at school and no one is doing anything about it. My teacher ridicules me because I don't understand Algebra. I'm not learning anything in literature class except how to fill out worksheets. Can't we figure out something better?" what do you say?
The truth is kids get bullied because adults don't care and look the other way. If an adults hit another adult the police will get involved. When an adult hits a kid or a kid hits a another kid they've got practically no recourse. It's just grossly unfair, and there is no solution. So you tell them that. And you repeat that if they don't go to school they won't be able to get into higher education, which in turn won't allow them to get a good job. So their current situation sucks but the alternatives they have are even worse. It's a truthful description of a shitty situation.
Adults don't have to have a solution to everything. But kids should expect us to talk to them in a forthright manner. Spare them one-liners like "you'll understand when you get older" and other condescending nonsense.
Isn't it wrong to say there's no solution? Wouldn't it be better to tell them about the game, to learn about it (because that's what school is for) and try to better their situation for themselves?
When kids are stuck in school until their twenties or so with basically no money or independence then most of them are going to be pretty unhappy. As a kid you're trapped in a way most adults are not (except those trapped by poor health or poverty). Changes can be made to improve the situation of an individual kid, but the nature of the situation doesn't change: children have fewer rights and freedoms than adults, in daily life and by law.
The irony in your post is that the vast majority of adults are also trapped with basically no money or independence. You're given just enough as a wage slave. Perhaps the problem isn't in schools, but how we structure society today.
"Look kids, you will want that high school diploma. I know it's an awful experience at times, but you gotta survive it. There's nothing wrong with you; high-school just messes with people's mind. Some way more than others, but these experiences will make you stronger. Your old & out-of-touch dad doesn't know much about today's teens, but I do know that skipping highschool will cause problems for you later on and you'll regret it. Sure some people are hugely successful without HS-diplomas, but that's not the norm. Don't drop out. Talk me or your mom about the issues. We might not be able to fix it but talking about things help and perhaps we have a similar story to share about our school experiences."
Sidenote: I don't know if this was a Nigerian-culture thing or just me and/or my parents, but when I was growing up the concept that I could drop out of highschool or even not go to college never entered my mind. It was mandatory from the get-go. In fact, it wasn't until my 2nd year in college when I noticed some people missing & asked around that it fully dawned on me - less than 100% of the people in my highschool graduated and went to college.
Could be that my dad's dad was a teacher, so education was a huge thing.
There is some very good thinking in this thread, and maybe there are some really good answers to your questions. For a fast answer:
For algebra, that's easy: I'll show you how that works right away. Basically you are doing the same arithmetic you've already done for years but are doing it with letters instead of specific numbers, that is, with 'variables'. Here's how a 'variable' works: There is a number. Call it x. Now, let's see what we can say about x. Suppose we are told that
2x + 3 = 9
Now the equality will remain if we subtract 3 from both sides, so let's do that and get
2x = 6
Now the equality will remain if we divide both sides by 2. So, let's do that and get
x = 3
Or we could have been told that
ax + b = c
Then, similarly
x = (c - b)/a
That's the main idea in first year high school algebra.
For literature, you already know a lot about it and like it a lot. Why? Mostly 'literature', say, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Dickens to the present is 'storytelling'; nearly all of movies and most of TV is storytelling; and you have no trouble understanding and liking a lot of movies and TV shows, right? For Shakespeare, if you can't read the original (tough to do if only because it's in Old English that would get a grade of F today due to bad grammar), just read the appropriate Cliff Notes or some such that just clearly explains, no doubt from experts, just what the heck is supposed to be going on in Shakespeare. Maybe the guy who wrote Cliff Notes was the last guy who actually read the original Shakespeare? Maybe not, but Cliff Notes are a much easier start than the original. Cliff Notes are easy, and it would be tough to get that much out of the original on your own. Using Cliff Notes is not cheating and, instead, is just making good use of a library or bookstore -- standard smart work.
'Literature' is mostly a case of 'art', and that is mostly
'the communication or interpretation of human experience or emotion'. So, it's about humans and especially their 'experiences' and their emotions, heavily from their 'experiences'. Does literature actually tell you a lot about people? Well, sometimes there are still no better substitutes, but now commonly can get much more solid information from, broadly, 'clinical psychology'.
'Storytelling' can be regarded as an 'ancient Greek mind trick' because it was the ancient Greeks who, apparently first, discovered that the main techniques of 'storytelling', which maybe now we can call 'formula fiction', are a sure fire way to get and hold the attention of an audience. So, sure, TV dramas use those techniques to keep people watching long enough to see the ads.
Why Shakespeare? Because, while maybe you will like it, lots of other people do like it, and for the rest of your life you will be expected to know some of the main points and quotes from Shakespeare or be regarded as 'uneducated'.
Anything actually useful in Shakespeare? Mostly we have better sources now, but sort of: There's a lot in Shakespeare about how humans feel about various parts of life; so can learn something about humans. Can see a lot of bad or dumb behavior from humans, disloyalty, deception, manipulation, self-deception, etc.; again, generally we have better sources now, but, say, Lady Macbeth was one nasty woman. For a good, short introduction to Lady Macbeth, sure, just use the Internet and, sure again, Wikipedia, say,
If you like movies, then with some help from Cliff Notes and the Internet, you can like some Shakespeare. Really, Shakespeare is some of what they had instead of movies long before movies. You enjoy movies; enjoy some Shakespeare.
Literature, mostly just storytelling, is simpler than one might guess. So, usually there is a 'protagonist'; that is the main character in the story. Commonly the story starts out introducing this character in a way that makes him seem real and likable. Then, BOOM, somehow suddenly the protagonist gets a problem of some kind. Now as a reader we get concerned about this character and what happens next, that is, we 'identify' with the character (ancient Greek mind trick). We don't want to walk out after the first one third of the movie, right? So, the story has 'captured our interest'. Or the story has a 'hook' to capture the reader's interest.
Then we get to see how the protagonist handles the problem. At the end the protagonist is usually successful solving the problem. In cowboy movies, the protagonist, say, the Lone Ranger, gets the bad guys. In a lot of movies, e.g., 'Back to School', he gets the girl. So, usually at the end the protagonist is successful solving his problem and the reader or audience is left happy because the audience 'identified' with the protagonist.
For a lot on how to write such stories, see, from an expert, say,
>When homeschooling is workable, going to school is often still a better aspect exactly because having a huge amount of experience with both the good and the bad of social settings is incredibly valuable as an adult (and that most adults have such experience is one of the main reasons adult society does tend to be less nasty IMO - people get fed up with it).
No, the most capable students should be homeschooled if you have the opportunity. They'll end up better-adjusted and will be able to learn more material more thoroughly.
>No, the most capable students should be homeschooled if you have the opportunity
I disagree. Your mileage may vary, but i was homeschooled and the end of elementary and beginning of jr high. It was absolutely devastating to me socially. Socialization is honestly the most valuable thing i learned in high school.
I honestly don't think that you can learn that many adults are horrible people without high school, and at least in high school there is limited damage that can be done, say, economically (of course there is always, on rare occurrences, and god forbid, potentially fatal emotional harm).
I sadly think that it may be that the younger these kids learn about society, the better. Humans are evolutionary beings, we have innate desires and drives, many of which are extremely anti-social. The sooner we learn that the better in my opinion.
A compromise solution is to combine homeschooling with deep involvement in other social activities like sports, bands, choirs, church youth groups, boy/girl scouts (or other similar things), etc. Homeschooling really does have advantages, and I hope its possible to overcome its disadvantages.
Well, as you allude to, I don't think there's a general solution; even a bunch of school teachers who are all different people are likely to have come from a group with fairly homogenous views. I suspect some parents who homeschool do it because they can teach to their own biases, while some do it without awareness of the problem, and others actively attempt to find ways to expose their children to things outside their biases. Those in the first and third groups probably think their way is better than the imperfect delivery of government-mandated biases (for better or worse).
If you can be honest and tell kids "the real world isn't like school", why can't you be honest and tell them the real reasons they are nonetheless made to put up with it?