I know some misguided people will come out and claim that not everyone can teach, but teaching is in fact merely another skill that can be taught or learned; with your belief that everyone should be college educated and that tracking is bad - I get the impression you feel everyone should be taught the same material because we all have equal capabilities - the idea that not everyone can learn to be a good teacher is unarguable.
So we have all the teachers we need and tracking is unneccessary since everyone will be taught well enough to learn all they need to know at each point in their education. How fortunate that we all have equal capabilities and needs, or we wouldn't be able to do this.
I know you're talking about a system that I don't know much about so I don't want to get involved in that debate but I didn't really understand what you meant with some of your more general comments.
Do you really think that everyone is capable of learning exactly the same things in exactly the same way and that it's merely effort that decides how successful they are? I couldn't quite tell if you were being sarcastic at times. Perhaps what you really meant was to highlight that everyone is different and needs to be taught accordingly.
Just because someone expresses a distaste for a particular form of learning or subject doesn't mean that they're being lazy, there are a number of possible reasons that a particular method will not work for someone.
One of the big challenges in creating an educational system is trying to make it able to adapt to suit the needs of every student, the "one size fits all" approach will never work to effectively educate everyone (though it might work for the majority, which many people may feel is acceptable).
The short version of this is that I agree with what you've stated in this post. To elaborate on its contents...
I was being fairly sarcastic throughout that post, but especially in the section you quoted. To your first question, I don't feel that way at all, rather the opposite. I feel it does everyone a disservice to disregard a clear difference in capabilities and either teach weaker students at the pace the stronger ones are capable of or teach the stronger students at the pace the weaker ones are capable of.
As far as I can tell, the person I was responding to felt differently; I got the distinct impression that they only saw one group being treated differently than another and felt it was unfair, rather than that the groups were being catered to based on demonstrated ability. Is it the case that some students end up in the wrong groups? Undoubtedly, humans are prone to error, so any system involving humans has flaws. That doesn't mean the idea itself is wrong.
The system I suggested... I honestly don't know if it would succeed or fail. I don't think everyone is capable of teaching many students, but it may be that anyone that has a good understanding of a subject can teach a small group of students that are well-prepared to understand that subject.
Regarding learning vs laziness, I feel that most knowledge can be learned by most people, if they devote enough effort (and in the right way) to it. The terribly complicated stuff, perhaps not, but most knowledge can be learned by most people, so far.
In the future, that will change. There are definitely things out there beyond the capabilities of human understanding - humans encountered at least one of those decades ago and have been struggling since to deal with this problem; I refer to software and the ongoing attempts to develop better ways to express our thoughts with e.g. higher-level languages and proof systems and the like. Next time you use a large piece of software, think about the fact that there is probably not one individual that understands it in its entirety; it has been tested a bit and it seemed like it worked well enough, but tests cannot prove the absence of bugs.
I realize my posts have probably come across as arrogant to some, but I was only attempting to express my opinion that we are all different and should be educated according to our abilities. I believe everyone deserves the opportunity to learn to the best of their capabilities - actually, I consider it a waste for humanity when this does not occur - but it is best to recognize the differences between students and try to shore up their weaknesses and improve their strengths.
The problem is that such things take time, and we don't have enough qualified teachers for the task. Ideally, everyone would have their own personal tutor or even multiple tutors, but is that feasible? Perhaps AI will take over that job, if it is every actually created.
I suspected that might be the case but I wasn't entirely sure.
I do agree that a person could learn almost anything with the right method, though what's right for one won't necessarily be right for another.
You make a good point about the potential lack of teachers, although I don't think a teacher is always necessary to learn. Perhaps a focus on teaching students how they can acquire knowledge and providing resources could reduce the need for teachers. That said, having a good teacher available is usually the ideal situation.
I do wonder if humans have a limit to what they can learn or if we're capable of learning to overcome any limit. I guess that's a big question, the answer to which remains to be seen (if we survive long enough to figure it out).
All systems nominal.
Education is probably one of the most important things someone can have. But since we are on the subject of schools, I honestly learn more by watching how things are done in life, learning from mistakes or going out of my way to learn a specific skill or subject. Yeah, schools are important for growth and development but they're obviously doing something wrong if half of then things they teach are forgotten within a year of leaving.
Just living life