Scouting and "Myth of the Teen Brain"

[GaHillBilly]

As I've noted before, I and my son are new to Scouting. But my wife and I are long time homeschoolers, and have been thinking about how to raise and teach adolescents for years. For a number of reasons, we've both come to believe that the lack of peer "socialization", which has been a primary criticism of homeschooling, is, on the whole, a great benefit.

 

My recent involvement with Scouting has given me a new perspective from which to rethink and refine this conclusion. In particular, I've come to suspect the problem is not precisely peer association, but rather peer association in groups and activities not structured or shaped by adult direction and value systems.

 

Of course, my basis for these conclusions has only been anecdotal evidence and personal observation and analysis . . . till now.

 

Recently, articles reporting on research by a Dr. Robert Epstein have been appearing within home school periodicals and web publications. Dr. Epstein argues -- based on apparently extensive research -- that the phenomenon of 'adolescence' is entirely a creation of recent Western culture, writing that, "Anthropological research reveals that teens in many cultures experience no turmoil whatsoever and that teen problems begin to appear only after Western schooling, movies and television are introduced."

 

I haven't had a chance to receive his complete book yet, much less read it. But from what I've been able to gather, much of his research would support, to a rather extraordinary degree, the youth development philosophy behind Scouting.

 

Perhaps the most accessible place to start, if you are interested in reading more, is with this interview:

http://www.crosswalk.com/homeschool/11551480/print/

 

A full PDF of the article that appeared in "Scientific American Mind" can be downloaded from this link:

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20TEEN%20BRAIN%20-%20Scientific%20American%20Mind%20-%204-8-07.pdf

(if clicking the link doesn't work, copy, and remove word-wraps => the URL must be ONE line)

 

If you want to read the PDF eventually, you might want to download it now. I'm not sure what the copyright and reprint agreements are, but the same download costs $$ from Scientific American.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[Its Me]

Interesting

 

I liked the part at the end where the observation is made that the preteens and teens learn more form each other that adults they are about to become. I also agreed that as a society we do infinitial (sp) our children.

 

I think there is a parallel to scouting. One SM may be of the opinion that kids cant teach kids Yet they teach each other complex game skills, skateboard moves, songs and whole list of items.

 

[Venividi]

Itsme,

Good observation. I have had disagreements with my own spouse about what are children are capable of.

 

I see another scouting parallel in the statement from the National web site that is frequently quoted here that implies that scouts if a scout does not fulfill the duties of his POR, it is the adults fault. Society seems to be moving towards fewer expectations of the abilities of youth, rather than the other way.

[jr56]

I have noticed that the youth listen much better to a well functioning SPL than any of the adult leaders. An adult leader is percieved perhaps as just another adult telling them what to do.

While a youth is given more credability.

[GaHillBilly]

Again, I''ll note my experience with Scouting is limited.

 

But, I''ve worked with youth enough in enough different situations to observe all of the following:

 

+ Home schooled youths tend to relate to adults VERY differently than do mass-schooled youths.

 

+ Certain adults are respected and listened to by youths -- pretty much no matter what. My 84 year old uncle is one example: I''m totally confident that I could bring him on a camping trip, and by the end of the trip, not all the Scouts would like him, but they all would listen to him.

 

+ Other adults are pretty much ignored by youths, limited only by their own views of courtesy and obligation. My son who is a Scout has had a Sunday School teacher who is ignored that way. He''s a great guy; tremendous integrity; a hard worker; really cares about the kids, etc. But, he wants to be ''nice'' to everybody, and it takes about 5 minutes for the hard headed kids in any group to discover they can run all over him, which they then immediately precede to do.

 

+ Still other adults are a mixed bag. My 83 year old father is an example. He''s sold bikes for years, and has almost always had, at any given time, a few teenagers who would hang around his shop, just so they could be around him. He likes who he likes, and dislikes who he dislikes, and treats people (including youths) according to how he feels about them. Those he likes, he''d do anything to help. Those he doesn''t, return the favor, by disliking him.

 

+ And then there are the adults that assume that because they are older, they know more than the youths, and then proceed to treat the youths as if they were as incompetent as infants, but much less ''cute'' . . .

 

There are a LOT of adults like that!

 

 

I''m pretty sure youths are treated differently by youths, as well. The former SPL in my son''s troop, who is a self-absorbed and very bright kid with poor social skills, was liked, but ignored by the younger scouts. The new SPL is just beginning to grasp the job, but he has incredible social skills AND is willing to learn, so the kids do not ignore him.

 

So, while there may be general rules that often apply to how Scouts relate to SPL''s versus adults, I think it still has a lot do do with who the adult is, and who the SPL is.

 

GaHillBilly

[Aquila]

>>+ Home schooled youths tend to relate to adults VERY differently than do mass-schooled youths.

[acco40]

Teens have brains? That is a myth!

 

Okay, I''m going to start trouble here but here goes ...

 

I found in my experience, those that wish to home school their children many times fall in to the "I need to protect my children from the outside world" camp.

 

Aquila - you had your son moved out of his patrol? That is not Scouting. That is your prerogative, but that is not the Scouting program. Your son should make that decision, not you.

 

My boys and my daughter have picked up things from the media, their peers, myself and their mother. Is it all good? No, but they need to learn to deal with it. My job is to provide a safe environment as much as I can - just like Scouts. As Scoutmaster, I let them fail (a learning experience) as long as it does not jeopardize health and safety.

 

Yes, boys and girls learn differently and may be distracted by each other in a learning environment. But guess what, we live in a co-ed world and they need to learn how to handle that. My children need to learn how to handle bullies. They need to learn how to handle temptation, peer pressure and a myriad of other phenomenon.

 

I had a parent of twin Scouts in our troop who always sheltered her sons. We had a meeting where we did "indoor" rock climbing. Her boys, both about 16, she didn''t want them to try because they might fail and she didn''t want them to experience failure in front of the troop. I didn''t force the issue but as a parent I know that I would much rather have my kids experience failure at a young age and learn how to deal with it than experience it for the first time away from home at college or at their place of employment. I''ve worked with twenty-somethings who don''t have the maturity to handle failure. It is sad.

 

When my mother grew up (1930s) females were girls and treated as such and then poof - they became women. You could tell in their dress, demeanor, associations, etc. which side of the fence they were on. There was no real transition period. One went from a little girl and then they were a young lady and expected to act as such. Now, we seem to baby our kids and they get a l o n g transition period from boys/girls to men/women that lasts from about 13 years of age to nearly 25 or so! (Of course, one of the benefits of being male is we never have to really grow up! :-)

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

"Teens have brains? That is a myth!"

 

Trouble? Yeah, I guess posting in such a way could cause trouble, in a forum where quite a few posters care about facts and reasons.

 

Let''s start with your ad hominem attack on Aquila. Now, I have no idea whether he did or did not move his son in or out of a patrol. But, that issue is so totally OT in this thread, as to boggle the mind, or at least the minds of those who have brains! In case you are unfamiliar with the term ''ad hominem'', here''s a link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=ad%20hominem

 

But, the Wikipedia definition (as of today, anyhow) is excellent: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem, ... consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

 

Yep, that''s it.

 

My original post was about a book and a thesis argued by a (I believe) secular psychologist that adolescent incapability is not intrinsic, but a by-product of modern Western culture. The issue of "negative peer association" is precisely OT, because Epstein argues that Western adolescent peer culture is one of the primary means by which adolescent incapability and irresponsibility is created. He notes that in most cultures even today, and certainly throughout history, teenagers primarily associated with non-age peers, mostly adults.

 

There is an irony here.

 

When I went to Amazon to order the book, I found something very interesting. The reader reviews fell primarily into two groups. Either they considered the book great, (and several reviewers reported professional experience in related fields) or they thought the argument great, the writing great, the research great, the reasoning great, but the book terrible, because he suggests that corporal discipline is shown to be effective and helpful. In other words, the book was bad, because it reached a conclusion unacceptable to them.

 

My impression is that Epstein''s thesis may be unacceptable to you, too. Why that would be is not clear to me. You write, "my job is to provide a safe environment as much as I can", but then berate home schoolers for wanting (supposedly) to "protect (their) children from the outside world". It would seem the difference is only in degree, and you apparently think they go too far in doing what you yourself also claim to do!

 

But, let me respond more directly to your ridiculous initial statement.

 

For over 20 years, I was involved in providing support to commercial swimming pools. These pools are typically staffed by ''kids'' aged 15 to 20, have very complex equipment that baffles ''the adults'', and complex social demands, as well as complex safety demands. In those years, I have proved -- REPEATEDLY -- that those ''kids'' COULD operate such facilities well if

1) they were trained to do so (which I did),

2) supported in doing so (which I did), &

3) expected to do so. (and there''s the rub!)

 

I saw operations crash and burn repeatedly because ''the adults'' did not think they could do it, and thus, did not expect them to do it. The facts are otherwise: many teenagers -- even Western teenagers -- CAN and WILL rise to the challenge of serious responsibility if they are supported in doing so. I know this to be true and I''ve demonstrated it to be true repeatedly.

 

It would, and should, stun many to learn that the lead on the Linux 2.4 kernel, when Linus shifted focus to the (then) new 2.6 kernel, was a Brazilian teenager! Now, I''m no expert on kernel hacking, but the reports I''ve seen indicate that he has done a very good job . . . maintaining a operating system kernel used by thousands and thousands of operations world wide to carry out mission critical tasks!

 

Less exceptionally and more personally I have, more than once, had to manipulate and connive to keep the ''adults'' and the ''board'' from messing with, and screwing up, the kids. I''ve repeatedly bypassed the ''chain of command'', so I could deal directly with the responsible kid on the deck rather than the irresponsible, arrogant, ignorant, and unwilling-to-learn ''adult''. I got by with it because I was paid for the results, and the ''adults'' didn''t want to have to go back to trying to get those results themselves!

 

So, your claim that teen brains "are a myth" is a statement of blind religious faith, without factual support. But, I''ll grant that you may know your own kids, and that they may be truly anencephalic. Nevertheless, I doubt it. Unless they actually do suffer from a physical defect, in which case you and they have my sincerest sympathy, I''m going to guess their inabilities have more to do with your parenting and educational choices, than with their intrinsic lack of brains.

 

All parents screw up their kids in one way or another, but being proud of it is something else altogether. Regardless, many, many teenagers are not brainless. And, giving them opportunities to have more responsibility is NOT ''sheltering'' them.

 

Some of your other statements, I can''t even respond to now. I''ll only say that I sincerely doubt that you''ve EVER experienced the sort of bullying and torment that many teenagers are force to endure, without help or support from ANYONE. To suggest that people "need to learn how to handle" such bullies suggests either a brutal callousness or else a see-no-evil ignorance that is hard to credit in a Scouter. Nature has never been so ''red of tooth and claw'' as in a group of privileged, popular, and savage teenagers, freely allowed by ''tolerant'' adults to brutalize those weaker and less cool! I know that many adults avoid association with the older adolescents and young adults who are the products of such brutalization, because these people are too ''awkward'' and weird. ''Normal'' adults find it uncomfortable to be around them, and so, out-of-sight, out-of-mind. (But, before you attack again: neither of my boys has experienced bullying of that type, but they''ve both seen it take place!)

 

Epstein''s book and material fascinates me, because he essentially argues that my limited experiences in a recreational environment were not an aberration, but what rather an example of what SHOULD be the norm. It''s too late for me to apply his insights to my 20 year old (who''s actually the one that pointed the article out to me!), but it''s not too late for my 12 year old.

 

GaHillBilly

[Aquila]

Thanks GA. Your support and comments are appreciated.

 

Yes, *WE* had my son moved out of the influence of a particular child. He''s 13 and still a boy. Bad company still corrupts good morals. Scouting does not mean parents forgo their authority; it''s about training boys to become men who are good citizens. It means offering him protection while giving him enough responsibility to grow. A sapling that is trained and protected while growing ends up a much stronger and straighter tree than the one left to blow in the wind and fend for itself against disease, bugs, and the elements.

 

BECAUSE he''s homeschooled, I know *exactly* where his maturity level is. Part of the reason we do homeschool is that we WANT our boys to live in the real world -- one where they interact with people of different ages, stations, professions, and backgrounds. One where they learn from their elders, take joy in that learning, and apply it to their lives. It''s in stark contrast to artificially segregating them by age in an institution that by necessity teaches to the middle, and cannot afford to pursue individual interests.

 

You might try visiting one of the homeschooled troops in your area. Your mother of twins is far from the norm.

[Kudu]

GaHillBilly writes:

 

"from what I''ve been able to gather, much of [Dr. Robert Epstein''s] research would support, to a rather extraordinary degree, the youth development philosophy behind Scouting."

 

If by "Scouting" you mean the program as it was written by its inventor, Lord Robert Baden-Powell, then you are correct to a rather extraordinary degree!

 

At the first campfire at Brownsea Island and later in the first chapter of Scouting for Boys, Baden-Powell impressed upon his Scouts that his invention of Boy Scouting was inspired by the 38 boy cadets who served (under the command of 13-year-old Sergeant-Major Warner Goodyear) during the 217 day siege of Mafeking:

 

I said to one of these boys on one occasion, when he came in through a rather heavy fire: "You will get hit one of these days riding about like that when shells are flying." And he replied: "I pedal so quick, sir, they''d never catch me." These boys didn''t seem to mind the bullets one bit; they were always ready to carry out orders, though it meant risk to their life every time (Baden-Powell, "Camp Fire Yarn No.1: Mafeking Boy Scouts," Scouting For Boys).

 

I use the movie "Master and Commander" to illustrate this experience of teen competency to my Patrol Leaders (and more importantly the Troop''s adult leaders). The story includes a group of 13-year-old midshipmen ("squeakers") each of whom commands his own adult gun crew during battle. As the title implies, every frame of "Master and Commander" is about leadership, and the film includes a number of scenes in which the captain teaches this craft to the young midshipmen. My list of sample questions for use in a discussion following the film during a Patrol Leader Training campout, and a source of used copies of the "Master and Commander" DVD for about one dollar can be found at The Inquiry Net:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/training/movies.htm

 

In real Boy Scouting, a Scout''s mastery of Scoutcraft skills (those that are not unique to combat: observational skills for instance) is equal to that of B-P''s adult scout soldiers, and is field tested at each Award level though a series of increasingly difficult adult-free wilderness excursions called "Journeys."

 

For example, the BSA''s version of Baden-Powell''s "First Class Journey" read:

 

Make a round trip alone (or with another Scout) to a point at least seven miles away (14 miles in all), going on foot, or rowing a boat, and write a satisfactory account of the trip and things observed.

 

Early BSA Advancement (called "Progressive Training in Scoutcraft" in B-P''s program) was, I think, a pretty good test of the personal competency and responsibility of a First Class Scout.

 

However, the BSA''s implementation of Baden-Powell''s Patrol System (leadership competency and responsibility) is an entirely different matter.

 

In the article cited by GaBillBilly, "The Myth of the Teen Brain" (Scientific American Mind), Dr. Robert Epstein writes:

 

"The teen brain fits conveniently into a lager myth, namely, that teens are inherently incompetent and irresponsible. Psychologist G. Stanley Hall launched this myth in 1904 with the publication of his landmark two-volume book Adolescence....Hall...believed in ''recapitulation''--a theory from biology that asserted that individual development (ontogeny) mimicked evolutionary development (phylogeny). To Hall, adolescence was the necessary and inevitable reenactment of a ''sage, pigmoid'' stage of human evolution. By the 1930s the recapitulation theory was completely discredited in biology, but psychologists and the general public never got the message."

 

This recapitulation theory will be familiar with anyone who has read the early editions of the BSA''s Handbook for Scoutmasters. The BSA firmly embraced the theory of G. Stanley Hall, and flatly rejected the basic premise of teen leadership competency and responsibility as practiced in Baden-Powell''s Patrol System.

 

In its place the BSA introduced the "Six Principles of Boy-Work." These BSA "Principles" required the "Scout Master" to distrust the judgment of the Patrol Leader and to control the activities of the Patrols himself. In addition, the Scoutmaster was instructed to systematically undermine the Patrol Leaders'' authority by delegating decisions to the entire group rather than to the Patrol Leaders!

 

The Patrol Leader and the Scout Master

 

Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader. There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately swelling the ordinary boy''s head. The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader, and if the Scout Master wants to delegate the work of the patrol and troop, the whole group should reach a decision in regard to the plan. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/index.htm

 

The BSA finally introduced a watered-down version of the Patrol System called the "Patrol Method" in the 1920s. This "new method of troop management" was implemented nationally by a young BSA professional named William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt who had practiced real Scouting in Baden-Powell''s Patrol System as a teenager in his native Denmark only a few years earlier.

 

Hillcourt''s Patrol Method is a good example of how the findings of Dr. Robert Epstein''s research could again someday be implemented in BSA Scouting. In Hillcourt''s six month Patrol Leader Training course the Scoutmaster acted as the Patrol Leader of the "Green Bar Patrol," and by example taught his Patrol of Patrol Leaders how they were to conduct their own Patrol Meetings without adults, conduct their own Patrol Hikes without adults, and conduct their own Patrol Campouts without adults. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

This era of BSA Scouting embraced real Scouting: adults teach the most responsible and competent Scouts how to lead their Patrols in the field without direct adult supervision, and individual Scouts undertake Journeys of increasing difficulty without adult supervision to prove their mastery of Scoutcraft skills.

 

On the downside, the BSA''s "Patrol Method" never allowed the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Council) to actually run the Troop. The powers over Advancement that boys administer in Baden-Powell''s program were in the BSA handed over to the adults in the form of Scout Spirit requirements, Scoutmaster Conferences, and Boards of Review. The BSA would later call this subtraction from B-P''s Patrol System the "Adult Association Method."

 

The very important First Class Journey also disappeared during Hillcourt''s tenure and the camping aspect of the program continues to degenerate. The last token required overnight Journey, a three-mile backpacking trip for Camping Merit Badge was made optional so that any Scout can add Eagle Scout to his business resume without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back! What is next? A First Aid Merit Badge "float trip" option for Scouts who don''t like CPR or serious bleeding?

 

Leadership requirements for Advancement appeared shortly after Hillcourt''s retirement from the BSA and in 1972 his program went into a sharp decline with a new subtraction from the Patrol Method called the "Leadership Development Method." Leadership Development downgraded the Patrol Method to what I call the "Troop Method." Patrols no longer functioned independently of adult supervision, but served as little laboratories in which to practice abstract leadership theory.

 

The Senior Patrol Leader was no longer elected by the Patrol Leaders in Council (an important function of a PLC) but in a popularity contest called a "TROOP Election" in which even the youngest untrained Scouts were allowed to vote for somebody to boss the Patrol Leaders around. The new leadership requirements fueled these "TROOP Elections," usually conveniently timed to put all of Patrol Leader positions up for grabs in order to provide "leadership opportunities" to Scouts who need a Position of Responsibility (POR) for Advancement, regardless of their actual responsibility.

 

BSA Patrol Leader Training was abandoned to make way for "Junior Leader Training." This did away with teaching the specific skills a Patrol Leader needs to run his Patrol in the field without adult supervision and in their place offered "managers of learning" skills that would in theory be as useful to the TROOP Librarian, the TROOP Historian, and the TROOP Bugler as to the Patrol Leader!

 

Therefore, Scoutmasters began to think of their role as teaching a constant stream of newly-elected boys how to be "leaders" in an institution that by necessity now taught to the middle ("everybody is a leader") rather than to the practical needs of the most gifted, competent, and responsible Scouts.

 

Lacking specific instruction in how to camp independently, Patrols now camp nearby each other (rather than the 300 foot distance recommended by Baden-Powell) so that Patrol Leaders can practice their "11 Leadership Skills" and/or other trendy corporate management fads under the watchful eyes of the TROOP adult leaders and a "chain of command" that undermines the untrained Patrol Leaders authority by making them subordinate to an untrained mini-boss called the TROOP SPL.

 

One justification for the BSA''s downward spiral of increasingly dumbed-down standards is that due to the influence of electronic media, the "minds" of 21st century boys are "different" than those of their parents or grandparents. This really boils down to lazy adults not awed by nature insisting that "modern" Scouts do not find the wilderness interesting either, so we must find new ways to achieve the so-called "Aims of Scouting." This ends up as chin bars rather than backpacks to meet the "Fitness Aim" of Scouting :-/

 

All is not lost. The BSA still allows Patrol Campouts without adults. So it is possible to use the older William Hillcourt and Baden-Powell training materials and practice Traditional Scouting within the BSA with those Patrol Leaders who exhibit competency and responsibility. If you support Scouter.Com by purchasing the back issues of Scouter Magazine, check out my article about such a Patrol Leader in the Winter 1997/1998 issue.

 

Kudu

 

[GaHillBilly]

Very interesting summary of how BSA ended up with the youth developmental philosophy it currently exhibits!

 

Assuming that you are accurate in all you write (and I have no reason to assume otherwise), those sort of tensions explain some of the patterned inconsistencies that I seem to have glimpsed in the BSA as I''ve experienced it. Keep in mind that my son and I have only been in Scouts since March 2007.

 

Speaking only for myself, I''m not interested in being ''true'' either to Baden-Powell''s vision OR to the modified US version (any of them!) of the Boy Scouts. Rather, I''m interested in what will actually and effectively most help my son, and the boys around him, live lives in accordance with what is actually true. This doesn''t mean I''m trying to ''deconstruct'' Baden-Powell''s vision, or any of the competing versions.

 

Rather, it is my intention and commitment to ''go along'' as with local council practice so far as I may, but at the same time attempt to both measure and modify practices and ideas according to what appears to be true and accurate. Epstein''s work fascinates me, because it suggests that there may well be a strong observational basis supporting a number of ideas and suppositions that were already floating around in my head. His analysis appears to greatly extend some ideas I was already considering, so I''m going to be examine those closely to see whether his conclusions appear to be valid. The pattern of Amazon reader reviews already strongly suggests that they may be correct, since virtually all of the negative reviews appeared to come from individuals who validated his research and analysis, but found his conclusions very distasteful. Since it''s my personal belief that the truth, when it comes to most of us, will OFTEN be found to be rather distasteful, these reviews seem at least as corroboratory as the positive ones!

 

One tension that may exist -- I''m not sure, because I''m not sure I understand Baden-Powell''s vison well enough -- is that Epstein seems to say that youth can successfully carry tremendous responsibilities *in the context of adult supervision and mentoring*. Keep in mind that Epstein (as far as I''ve read him to date) seems to say that observation leads to the conclusion that the pathologies of adolescent behavior arise when youths are primarily in the company of their peers, and are avoided when youth are primarily in the company of adults. I''m not sure that this observation supports the Patrol Method as you''ve outlined it. I may be wrong, since I''ve not yet read either Epstein''s book, nor any of Baden-Powell''s.

 

But, for myself, I''m inclined to think it will take some extensive and focused adult mentoring before a Patrol will be capable of even selecting leaders effectively. Some other current threads on Scouter.com appear to provide strong anecdotal support for this conclusion. Nevertheless, I''m very ready to accept that the *goal* of this mentoring is to develop youth leaders, and that if there is a danger of too little mentoring, that there is also a serious danger of too much hand-holding.

 

Perhaps fortunately for all, my control of the situation is fairly limited for now!

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[Beavah]

Keep in mind that Epstein (as far as I''''ve read him to date) seems to say that observation leads to the conclusion that the pathologies of adolescent behavior arise when youths are primarily in the company of their peers, and are avoided when youth are primarily in the company of adults. I''''m not sure that this observation supports the Patrol Method as you''''ve outlined it.

 

Yah, I''m not sure. I think it is as long as you use "traditional" or mixed-age patrols. In that environment, kids aren''t completely with same-age peers, but rather have older boys to learn from by observing, and younger boys to show things to, care for, and lead.

 

I''''m inclined to think it will take some extensive and focused adult mentoring before a Patrol will be capable of even selecting leaders effectively.

 

Of course it will. If it takes some explaining and demonstratin'' and coaching and supervision to learn how to use a knife, naturally it takes explaining and demonstrating and coaching and supervision to select leadership. Doesn''t come built in at da factory, eh?

 

Beavah

[scoutldr]

So, how do we explain the millions of kids who go through the public schools and still manage to turn out OK? I can think of four fine examples...myself, my wife and two sons. When you talk of public schools as being a bad environment...that's my family you're talking about.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Beavah]

Yah, scoutldr, I don''t think it''s just public schools they''re pickin'' on. I think it''s all age-based/grade level schools.

 

But we gotta be careful. It''s also not "nobody can get a good education" in such places. Rather it''s "there might be better ways to do it." Given the weakness of U.S. students compared to international peers, or da high numbers of dropouts, teen suicides, school violence, teen alcohol & drug use, etc. maybe Epstein''s got a point worth considerin''.

 

Problem is economic. We''re not willing to commit that many adult hours to raising kids. Better to pay a few adults to keep large groups of kids busy all day so that the rest of us can do our adult jobs without havin'' the hassle of young people around.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

Brain development continues well in to the twenty-somethings for many persons, I think we used to call them late-bloomers or something like that. This is well-known but it doesn''t seem to be what it being discussed in this thread. I think Acco40 was trying on a sense of humor with his ''teens have brains?'' remark, at least that''s how I viewed it.

 

The discussion seems to be less about neurophysiology/development and more about the relative merits of certain educational environments. That topic is full of personal and political agendas as well as a great deal of variation in quality of education and outcomes. Home-schooling in particular seems to be on the mind of some respondents. To some, home-schooling is a way to protect their children, to others a way to give them the best education available. In practice home-schooling effectiveness is dependent on the home and the student, both quite variable. I see the outcome at the college level. That is also quite variable.

One of our technical programs is considering a special remedial program to help certain students who are not prepared for college-level math, physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, etc. This new program will consume extra resources that will take away from other parts of the overall program.

Without passing judgement on the merits, or lack thereof, for this new program, I have heard whispers from the people who keep the statistics...that the majority of these needy students were home-schooled. We seem to be afraid of putting all this out for a public forum and I can understand why, given the political currents of this country right now. If, in fact, home-schooling has caused a new program to help marginal students in technical fields, I am glad for it because it will also be available to other students who might not have had access to those resources otherwise.

Me, I''d like to see issues like this addressed, for once and for all, without the burden of politics and religion. However, it is too much, I''m afraid, to wish for.