Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I cannot fathom how someone would ever think that removing a child's exposure to many other people could ever result in no negative social consequences. For rural people where there are logistical concerns, fine. For one-on-one learning, fine I can agree that there are intellectual advantages should the child's teacher be competent. However I do not see an upside socially whatsoever.
At the begining of University a very wise Professor quoted to me that 90% of what I gain knowledgewise and experiencewise from my University days would come from outside the classroom. Now years after University I have to say that his words are very true. I think the same can be said from my primary school life as well. A lot of that had to do with the vast number of people I got to meet and work with by means of being in a place that happened to have hundreds or thousands of people present. Those connections made, and social skills gained have endured well beyond University and High School and most likely last my whole life.
The true measure of whether or not those social consequences don't rear their ugly heads can only come in adulthood, not whether or not your 12 year old is a perfect little angel getting straight A's, never back talking, and very socialble with the children pre-selected to be their play-dates or peers in their pre-selected extra-curricular activities.
|
This is very true, but something tells me that those parents are trying to protect their kids from that very enviroment.
You may think that you are
normal and
good, but what is normal and good exactly?
Who sets the bar?
Seeing what's going on in the world with all the greed and crime one has to question, have schools done a good job in turning us into good citizens? Maybe we. the
normals have it all wrong, there certainly is a lot to criticize us for.
Just throwing it out there.
