Questions and Answers
Q: This sounds like so much change. Too much, even. Isn't it too radical?
A: If the changes, individually, seem sensible (as I hope), they may be implemented at any tempo desired. That being said, we should really ask ourselves: why wait?
Q: This sounds expensive.
A: Making any change costs money. Making lasting, functional changes can indeed involve high costs. As stated at the beginning of the proposal, I trust the reader agrees on the necessity of this investment.
Q: This sounds technologically difficult.
A: Governments have funded more advanced systems in other sectors (defence and healthcare come to mind). And private companies are (often worryingly?) far beyond the requirements of this proposal. Between the both of them, they should manage.
Q: Isn't this giving up on weaker or less motivated students?
A:
Q: What about elective/non-mandatory subjects? Should they be as readily repeated?
A: It seems sensible to give precedence to first time candidates when selecting, however further spaces should indeed be open to repeatists.
Q: When do you graduate?
A: That's the beauty of this system. If truly integrated into an unbundling of high schools, technical colleges, universities etc. there would never need to be a moment of graduation where everyone is kicked out due to their age and that's it. Instead, your educational profile remains open forever, regardless of whether you never add to it again after compulsory schooling or indeed whether you keep going higher and higher to the headiest academic heights in a certain branch of courses imaginable and, naturally, on offer in your catalogue (potentially all the while deciding to go back and dip into more basic skills of things you never tried before!).
Q: Is there an age limit for going back and reskilling?
A: Ideally, no. Why should an interested 25-, 45- or 75-year-old not be able to share in a literature seminar or engineering workshop with 16-year-olds? It would, however, be understandable that precedence be given to younger students.
Q: What if students, misbehaving in class, get referred to base camp and continue misbehaving?
A: The counsellors do their jobs as they would at a summer camp: try to connect on a human level and, failing that, call the parents to pick them up. Group dynamics can be managed by moving such cases to other base camps. All the while, violence should of course be referred to the police. Persistent misbehaviour which is clearly beyond the family's control (perhaps due to psychology, deprivation or otherwise) should be referred to social services. Everything can proceed as it should or otherwise would. The key difference being IT IS NOT HAPPENING IN A CLASSROOM. Ask any teacher what a gamechanger this is.
Q: Why put that burden on the consellors/guides/coaches, though?
A: It's in the job description. It's a generous job (flexible times, playing games and chatting the entire time) that's fairly easy to get into with very little training required to get your foot in the door. The most important element is the human factor, which is surely the number one element to hire for and monitor as the individual progresses in the job.
Q: What about administrators and bureaucracy?
A: Student welfare. Standards development and checking. Looking after infrastructure for institutions that continue as such. There is more than enough to be done. Unbundling, automating and so on should not lead to some exodus of bureaucrats. If anything, they will have more practical tasks and fewer meetings and busywork.
Q: What about the disabled?
A: Extra preference for extra tries, locations, times etc.? So much could be done, precisely due to the flexibility provided by the system. This includes special general and/or foundational courses reserved for those with special learning needs.
Q: This sounds like there will be some students who really concentrate their time and organisation and power deep into certain branches of trees. Will this create imbalanced learners who can solve advanced equations but do not even know who Van Gogh was?
A: In extreme cases, perhaps, however it seems most likely that to reach standards in, say, advanced branches of Mathematics, there will have been enough opportunities and extra non-Mathematics gaps to fill in the student's career that some rounding is unavoidable. Not to mention general knowledge and social learning in situations like base camp quizzes etc.
A: If the changes, individually, seem sensible (as I hope), they may be implemented at any tempo desired. That being said, we should really ask ourselves: why wait?
Q: This sounds expensive.
A: Making any change costs money. Making lasting, functional changes can indeed involve high costs. As stated at the beginning of the proposal, I trust the reader agrees on the necessity of this investment.
Q: This sounds technologically difficult.
A: Governments have funded more advanced systems in other sectors (defence and healthcare come to mind). And private companies are (often worryingly?) far beyond the requirements of this proposal. Between the both of them, they should manage.
Q: Isn't this giving up on weaker or less motivated students?
A:
Q: What about elective/non-mandatory subjects? Should they be as readily repeated?
A: It seems sensible to give precedence to first time candidates when selecting, however further spaces should indeed be open to repeatists.
Q: When do you graduate?
A: That's the beauty of this system. If truly integrated into an unbundling of high schools, technical colleges, universities etc. there would never need to be a moment of graduation where everyone is kicked out due to their age and that's it. Instead, your educational profile remains open forever, regardless of whether you never add to it again after compulsory schooling or indeed whether you keep going higher and higher to the headiest academic heights in a certain branch of courses imaginable and, naturally, on offer in your catalogue (potentially all the while deciding to go back and dip into more basic skills of things you never tried before!).
Q: Is there an age limit for going back and reskilling?
A: Ideally, no. Why should an interested 25-, 45- or 75-year-old not be able to share in a literature seminar or engineering workshop with 16-year-olds? It would, however, be understandable that precedence be given to younger students.
Q: What if students, misbehaving in class, get referred to base camp and continue misbehaving?
A: The counsellors do their jobs as they would at a summer camp: try to connect on a human level and, failing that, call the parents to pick them up. Group dynamics can be managed by moving such cases to other base camps. All the while, violence should of course be referred to the police. Persistent misbehaviour which is clearly beyond the family's control (perhaps due to psychology, deprivation or otherwise) should be referred to social services. Everything can proceed as it should or otherwise would. The key difference being IT IS NOT HAPPENING IN A CLASSROOM. Ask any teacher what a gamechanger this is.
Q: Why put that burden on the consellors/guides/coaches, though?
A: It's in the job description. It's a generous job (flexible times, playing games and chatting the entire time) that's fairly easy to get into with very little training required to get your foot in the door. The most important element is the human factor, which is surely the number one element to hire for and monitor as the individual progresses in the job.
Q: What about administrators and bureaucracy?
A: Student welfare. Standards development and checking. Looking after infrastructure for institutions that continue as such. There is more than enough to be done. Unbundling, automating and so on should not lead to some exodus of bureaucrats. If anything, they will have more practical tasks and fewer meetings and busywork.
Q: What about the disabled?
A: Extra preference for extra tries, locations, times etc.? So much could be done, precisely due to the flexibility provided by the system. This includes special general and/or foundational courses reserved for those with special learning needs.
Q: This sounds like there will be some students who really concentrate their time and organisation and power deep into certain branches of trees. Will this create imbalanced learners who can solve advanced equations but do not even know who Van Gogh was?
A: In extreme cases, perhaps, however it seems most likely that to reach standards in, say, advanced branches of Mathematics, there will have been enough opportunities and extra non-Mathematics gaps to fill in the student's career that some rounding is unavoidable. Not to mention general knowledge and social learning in situations like base camp quizzes etc.