It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder

As I ponder the uniqueness of educational systems, and their fallibility, I try to focus on symptoms that make our grammar schools horrible and our universities great. Makes no sense - does it? Let's investigate this closer.

Why American elementary schools put out such poor over-all grade carrying students:

Maybe it's because American kids are socially immature - In all the world, America has the greatest proportion of its kids in jail!

Also, many American kids are "rich", thus, they develop empathy slowly.

American elementary and high schools are operated by an odd mixture of despotic administrators.

American kids are "more" focused on sports, entertainment and "drugs and rock and roll" than their other-world counterparts.

And finally, many poor American kids do not eat breakfasts. For perhaps thirty years, before the federal government requirement that grammar schools provide breakfasts for impoverished students, many kids had their first meal at lunch. [There is statistical evidence that breakfast is essential for effective morning learning.]

Lastly, and perhaps most in disagreement, Is the list of knowledge and skills kids are expected to learn /have to enable them to graduate from secondary school. For example, is it essential for kids to know about World Wars, to know where Bosnia is, and why A and B can equal C?

I claim not. I am one of few educators who have this attitude, let me be clear about that.

While scholars have argued for decades about the supposed relevance of specific skills needed, not one scholastic paper has ever compared the successful integration into society of school drop-outs to average high grade-earning students!

Also, when our little Johnny and Janey ask "What good is this to me now?", educators respond "Because we say so!" An argument some educators put forward is "You never know when this Information will be useful." Another argument submitted by educators of teachers, is that by forcing children to learn [these and other not immediately usable bits of knowledge], testers find that children both gain study skills and increase their memory.

The problem with this logic is, the same can be said for the instruction given in a prison to an inmate; "Stay behind this line" [or we will drop you with a night stick to the back of the head].

It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder'

Also, many American kids are "rich", thus, they develop empathy slowly.

American elementary and high schools are operated by an odd mixture of despotic administrators.

American kids are "more" focused on sports, entertainment and "drugs and rock and roll" than their other-world counterparts.

And finally, many poor American kids do not eat breakfasts. For perhaps thirty years, before the federal government requirement that grammar schools provide breakfasts for impoverished students, many kids had their first meal at lunch. [There is statistical evidence that breakfast is essential for effective morning learning.]

Lastly, and perhaps most in disagreement, Is the list of knowledge and skills kids are expected to learn /have to enable them to graduate from secondary school. For example, is it essential for kids to know about World Wars, to know where Bosnia is, and why A and B can equal C?

I claim not. I am one of few educators who have this attitude, let me be clear about that.

While scholars have argued for decades about the supposed relevance of specific skills needed, not one scholastic paper has ever compared the successful integration into society of school drop-outs to average high grade-earning students!

Also, when our little Johnny and Janey ask "What good is this to me now?", educators respond "Because we say so!" An argument some educators put forward is "You never know when this Information will be useful." Another argument submitted by educators of teachers, is that by forcing children to learn [these and other not immediately usable bits of knowledge], testers find that children both gain study skills and increase their memory.

The problem with this logic is, the same can be said for the instruction given in a prison to an inmate; "Stay behind this line" [or we will drop you with a night stick to the back of the head].

It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder

Lastly, and perhaps most in disagreement, Is the list of knowledge and skills kids are expected to learn /have to enable them to graduate from secondary school. For example, is it essential for kids to know about World Wars, to know where Bosnia is, and why A and B can equal C?

I claim not. I am one of few educators who have this attitude, let me be clear about that.

While scholars have argued for decades about the supposed relevance of specific skills needed, not one scholastic paper has ever compared the successful integration into society of school drop-outs to average high grade-earning students!

Also, when our little Johnny and Janey ask "What good is this to me now?", educators respond "Because we say so!" An argument some educators put forward is "You never know when this Information will be useful." Another argument submitted by educators of teachers, is that by forcing children to learn [these and other not immediately usable bits of knowledge], testers find that children both gain study skills and increase their memory.

The problem with this logic is, the same can be said for the instruction given in a prison to an inmate; "Stay behind this line" [or we will drop you with a night stick to the back of the head].

It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder

Also, when our little Johnny and Janey ask "What good is this to me now?", educators respond "Because we say so!" An argument some educators put forward is "You never know when this Information will be useful." Another argument submitted by educators of teachers, is that by forcing children to learn [these and other not immediately usable bits of knowledge], testers find that children both gain study skills and increase their memory.

The problem with this logic is, the same can be said for the instruction given in a prison to an inmate; "Stay behind this line" [or we will drop you with a night stick to the back of the head].

It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder

It is a further fact that all people learn better when the topic is of interest to the learner! It is also a fact that all people learn better when they are able to use recently learned data [often] in their immediate lives.

Educators fear the proclamation of parents "We will teach that [subject] at home" when schools want to teach things about one's sexuality, or "How to best live with, cope with those things around where one lives."

Rather than sending notes home to parents [and other stake holders], it is more effective when educators seek stake holder's opinions when designing curriculum considered important to all parties.

Thus, in time, after Johnny has learned about his body and Janey about where the nearest fire department is, et al, Johnny and Janey might be more receptive about learning about which nations were involved in which wars and why.

Even such school games as "Where is this place in Asia, and who ruled there 2,000 years ago" to, "Why are some types of businesses located here and not there [zoning]" are valuable data after a child has decided he wants to learn.

There are classes in budgeting [for a home purchase and renting an apartment]. There are a few classes about "Buying groceries", and "Turning on one's utilities", and "How to save/conserve money and other resources."

For some reason, those use- it- now critical courses do not exist in elementary American education.

Kids get dunned for not knowing, during test time, where some African nations are, or the difference between Muslims and Catholics, or what a war machine is and how it differs from the US military. These kids are more concerned about their parent's smoking and drinking and other social concerns. Thus, the idea of "What do we need to know now?"is more relevant than "Where is this nation located?"

There are, of course, those kids, who can slide away from the hassles of daily life and can "mentally process" the rote material forced on them, thus, achieving "high marks." Those are not the average kids, They are a minority. I do not see in the next hundred years, any American grammar school changing their old focus and becoming willing to find out what is relevant to the lives of kids.

NOW for the colleges and universities; the world's best!!

Is it the caterpillar syndrome [all living things evolve]? Is it an ability to be force-fed? Is it sex?

Or is it a bit of the above and more? I say it is all the above.

If we agree that education is a facet of society - can we accurately say that religion and politics are major components of education? When a child goes to school, he/she is a Christian, Or Buddhist or Atheist or whatever while being a student too and he/she perhaps involuntarily, sees things through a religious filter!

When we enter college, we have also passed through some additional qualifications or gates, if you will. We have physically matured more, we have learned more and perhaps participated in, sex, may have voted, may have been fiscally employed, have traveled, hav