Aside from previously mentioned suggestions, I have two other major qualms about
Duchess' "solution"
First, it presupposes that human nature can be changed through educaiton and indoctrination. The only other major societal systems that hold to that, that I am aware of, are the communism/socialism ones. Although displaying some short-term viability, long term such systems do not seem to prosper
Secondly, she seems to take the position that there is One Right True Way and that dissenting world views are to be elminated. Perhaps not by force, but apparently by eliminating them from education. My own position is that if one is not free to make wrong decisions, one is not free at all. Since innovation comes as frequently, if not more so, from the fringes, crazies, and dissenters I think subjecting everyone to a wholly uniform educational machine would cause a long-term diminishing of such innovation.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The children would be relatively free to do what they want outside of completing their studies; again, there's no indoctrination as such going on here. You get up at a certain time of day, shower, eat, go to classes, PE, whatever; then you go back to your dorm or some meeting halls and some arranged activities. Maybe you watch TV in a common room or check out a book from the library. Nobody is going to be there lecturing you in morality. The staff would enforce the rules and provide assistance for those emotionally in need. Unless you think that parents have the right to teach their children to break the law, this should not be a problem.
Yes, it is a problem - how regimentated is this? Must children get up at the same time
every day, or are they ever allowed to sleep in? Must one shower before eating, or could one chose to shower after eating? Must one shower in the morning - is evening showering an option? I don't know about you, but those were items that in my own family's setting were negotiable at very young ages. If a child prefers to eat first then shower, or shower then eat, most families are accomodating. In fact, most families would probably encourage such diversity in order to prevent traffic jams in the bathroom(s).
You assume arranged, formal activities after studies - why? Don't children have time for self-directed play and interests? Isn't deciding what to do with one's time an important part of learning to make decisions? What if a child doesn't want to read or watch TV - maybe the kid wants to skate board or paint or some entirely different.... in a family there can be much greater latitude for children choosing a direction (which is then subject to appropriate parental supervision) than in such a regimentated set up as you propose. In order to save the children with the most impoverished home environments you will deprieve those children with better than average intellectual stimulation at home of
their environment and drag them into a much inferior situation. I question if there is truly a net gain.
And how will you deal with bullying? A home and family becomes a refuge for children who are victims of this - in a boarding school they will
never be free of their tormenters. What an unmitigated hell
that would be!
I simply don't think that even the best education system in the world would do one whit of good if the kids were still coming home each and every night to parents who told them that everything they heard at school was a lie, and that is what a very large number of parents will be doing if you reform the school system in the way the majority of you want it reformed, and in fact what a large number of them already do.
And why do you assume that children believe everything they were told by their parents?
The Amish, as just one example, have a pretty good indoctrination system - they have their own separate school system, and they restrict access to external influence not only through the ban on TV, radio, and phones but also through a language barrier, clothing and customs. Yet they lose 1 out of every 4 children to the wider world around them. I'm pretty sure the percentage of people in the mainstream world who reject large portions of their family indoctrination is considerably higher than that. For that matter, quite a few are going to reject the indoctrination presented in your solution.
I see nothing totalitarian in boarding schools
As they presently are, there isn't - but that's because they're VOLUNTARY. Under your system, they would not be.
Furthermore, sensible diet and exercise regimens could be instilled in children from a young age in such circumstances, which might result in considerable economic savings from reduced healthcare costs later in life.
What about children with special needs? Kids who need restricted or limited diets? How accomodating will your system be? In a family there is much closer supervision of children, offending food stuffs can simply not be brought into the home, and so forth.
What about children who need medications? Ask any parent with an asthmatic child, or a diabetic child, or any children needing regular, daily medication what a nightmare it is to get ANY school system to cooperate in the dosing scheduled need
for the particular child rather than trying to shoe-horn their biology into time slots convenient for the bureaucracy. Do you think this will somehow become
less a problem?
I think compulsory boarding schools is a
horrible solution on so many levels. Because it's compulsory, it's essentially stealing kids from their parents to make them servants of the state.
but that doesn't change the fact that now that they are the way they are, you cannot change them...
That's pretty fucking insulting to everyone who has ever managed to make a better life for him or herself. People CAN change. People do change.
Of course, I also have to ask why you feel a particular person MUST change to accomodate YOUR wishes, but that's getting a little off topic.
Anyway, much more peer contact is more likely to help people in the long run than contact with their family, since it prepares them more for the social settings they will face as adults.
Only if we continue to segragate people by age once the are adult. Only if we never expose them to people with differing backgrounds and viewpoints.
My peers - whether considered as those I work with or those I choose to associate with socially - are not restricted to those within one or two years of my age.
