“Why are we, as a country, so willing to force children into a seat for 6 hours a day and yet so unwilling to make a decision about what they need to learn?”
So asks Erin Johnson, posting to the interesting dialogue about the pros and cons of compulsory education over at Bridging Differences. Great question.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
“Why are we, as a country, so willing to force children into a seat for 6 hours a day and yet so unwilling to make a decision about what they need to learn?”
Straw man.
Better sentence: why do we, a country made up of different cultures, economies, and geographic areas, have a desire to learn different things? Duh! I would be crazy if we didn’t. Next there will be cries for the Amish to learn bioengineering for one hour a day. Hey, they farm, right?
I would have stopped at Why are we, as a country, so willing to force children into a seat for 6 hours a day? Hard truth: we certainly will never agree to the answer to this question.
Nor should we.
I disagree that this comment is a strawman.
One of the most couragous, inspirational aspects of Core Knowledge is the acknowledgement that time is precious and that we as adults need to make a definative decision about what our children need to learn. And yet, these curricular decisions need not be all encompassing, in that a large portion of the curriculum and learning time can be determined by individual teachers and/or schools.
Our schools are so poorly structured that they focus solely on “seat time” and not learning. How does this benefit our children?
We could certainly devise a high quality, functional school system that allows both flexiblity and quality instruction, unlike our current school structure. Childhood is precious and we should treat that limited time with respect.
Erin Johnson.