Education

Someone:
"The education system you proposed was opt-in, right? Wont this lower the level of education in the country? I mean I can assume that there will be many parents who fail to properly homeschool their children considering the fact that they never went to a school for teahing, or to the subject that they are teaching. Also are the yearly in-person checkups supposed to be a sure fire way of making sure kids are happy or missing out? I assume that your country has school counseling which is always available for students, yet quite frequently kids are still bullied, left out or unhappy. Also is it safe to leave survey data to past students, who might want to leave bad reviews because they think its funny? Also the thing about parents contributing to the system, I'm not quite sure if I understood it right, but having education quality  based on how much the parents of the child can contribute could lead to classist segregation."

Me:

"it wont lower the overall level of education, no.

What former students think is more important than what the managerial class think

No, I said so they're not freeloading unaffordably

So they're not just pumping out babies and abandoning them. 

That might be unnecessary to say, but the point is to protect the unborn and children's rights, while also not just letting someone pump out kids for the system to no end

What is education good for, really?

What does it matter if I never played the flute and read Charles Dickens when I can learn what is actually productive and useful to me?

 There might not be a magic fool proof way (to check on kids who aren't attending), but the points system will regulate the engagement that schools have with kids, including messaging them and encouraging them to attend, and offering services even such as meals and beds if they don't have a good home situation and if that is a path a school has taken.

The check-ups are mostly for kids who aren't attending.

Of course bullying will be prevented by the normal systems put in place by head teachers and staff behaviour."

All of the political parties in the UK have had stupid ideas on education. You can check their websites. From Greens to "Reform", they have nothing, yet they think they're gonna save the country. The Conservatives haven't even been conserving the British people, the Liberal Democrats aren’t liberal except for themselves, and the Labour party isn’t the party of real labour. The Awesome Party is the real liberal, conservative, labour and reform party, all in one. We’ll be green, too, because outside is home. Scottish nationalism isn’t necessary if you can fix the brainrot inherent in the political class.

The "education system" is too narrow a focus, and should be more so the 'child development system'. "The education system" even prevents a lot of self-education that would be extremely important for the country. This results in more pushes to get people working, which would not be necessary if children's special abilities were recognised and nurtured towards their future utilisation, instead of completely ignored along with their health.

The state (democratic status quo) has a tendency to produce problems due to its intervention, which are then used to justify more intervention to fix the problems which were caused by the state in the first place, resulting in less nurturing and increasing tyranny – because the power-seeking are prone to raising up ‘mini versions’ of themselves, at the expense of everyone else, much like the Hitler Youth. Leadership is supposed to be the lubricant and combiner of the people’s will - not merely the will of the leadership. Simply being elected does not magically absolve someone of their self-serving nature. Oops! Forgive them. Being smart is hard, and believing in the system is easy.

POINTS-BASED EVOLUTION

The technique of 'reinforcement learning' should be applied to the strategies that underlie the operation of schools, perpetuating strategies that produce more positive life outcomes. The "strategy" of a school is to be a document detailing the plan of what the school is intending to offer children, and how.

The purpose of a school strategy is to produce a physical and social environment and system that leads to high points, indicative of flourishing. Designers and staff of strategies that reach new high scores should be rewarded financially for it. A school operating a relatively low-points strategy would have its strategy replaced by a high-points one. "The influenced", as follows, means those who have interacted with the product of a certain strategy (even for just one day) - thus applying mostly to former students. 

The government is to reward points (to strategies) according to success metrics both [1] objective/cultural and [2] subjective/individual:

[1] 1. Less crimes committed by the influenced = more points

     2. The happier the influenced are = more points

     3. Less deaths of despair and good birth rate among the influenced = more points

     4. Better earnings, productivity, fitness and innovations of the influenced = more points

[2] Each influenced can be surveyed every five years regarding each school they attended:

     "From your personal experience of [school], rate it from 1 to 10 on how positively you think it shaped your future."

Points are then to be allocated to each school's strategy based on their given rating. Survivorship bias is to be accounted for. So, if an influenced died before taking a scheduled survey, how they died is to be taken into account to consider what rating(s) should be given on their behalf. If they died by death of despair, then it's an automatic 0. If they died in combat, the success of the operation they took part in should determine whether the rating on their behalf should be high (e.g. 7) in the case of victory, or low (e.g. 1) in the case of defeat.

The scheduled points allocation every five years should continue for each influenced until they are or would be 100 years old.

The government has to, to some degree, monitor its citizens to understand whether they are objectively successful according to what humans naturally want. What all organisms naturally want is self-perpetuation and/or the perpetuation of the group that supports them. The human organism is so complex because human society functions as an organism. A system that does not enable specialisation, but instead pushes atomisation, is bound to fail. Children will naturally specialise towards helping each other learn according to their abilities, if provided the freedom, resources, and options to do so, creating community.

A system is blind in developing the next generation, if it isn't based on feedback regarding intended development.

A strategy may get high points in one school, and low points in another. If this happens, different high-points strategies should be tried. If none work, then a new high-points strategy must be attempted to suit that school and those who attend it.

Points-based evolution will be a long-running experiment, but everything is anyway, and it would produce a self-correcting system while inflicting less possible damage on children, due to being an open and good system (as next described) which welcomes and looks out for children, as opposed to mindlessly cramming them into broadly the same experience, which is not reflective of adult life and is neither Christ-like nor "diverse" or "inclusive". "It takes a village to raise a child", not an apathetic social engineering regime – child abuse. We have not reached the end of history. The future will look different. This country is clearly in a death spiral — ageing population, high suicides and drug deaths - and the political elite don't think they're the problem, despite the country being their responsibility and in their hands.

GIFT AND TRADE - FROM CONCEPTION

Education should be ‘gift and trade’ – a marketplace of opportunities – and only then could people everywhere be free.   

An example of a "gift" from school would be that a book is given (or a pair of shoes or a laptop), and then it is in the ownership of the child, with 'no strings attached'.

Examples of "trade" between school and a child:

• They are allowed to use school computers in a room, so long as the facility is treated well as a quiet environment, and primarily used for study.

• They are allowed to follow a course, so long as they attend regularly and follow instructions.

• They are allowed to use a sports hall or library, so long as it is used as intended.

People will apply to make their own "trade" activities and spaces of whatever size, type, rigidity and pupil acceptance, and then seek approval to get public funding and permission. They'll do the same for "gifts".

Public approval will come primarily from the councils of awesome dudes and mothers, national and/or constituency, depending on the scope (e.g. multi-school or not) of the proposition and funding needed for it.

Punishment doesn't inherently teach against bad behaviour. It only postpones bad behaviour. Prevention is preferable to treatment, containment or cure. The real societal cure is societal prevention, and it goes way beyond individual experiences.

It should not be that children serve the system’s desires more than the system serves children’s desires. That would be wasteful.

In order to make a child fit for development using school in the first place, school is to be there for a child from before they’re born - gifting and trading to the mother what it can for the unborn, given limited budget. School is to be there for children also before they’re conceived, by enforcing that parents, whose children use school, proportionally contribute to it and/or their children’s development, as opposed to being sexually irresponsible, which would be unaffordable to the system and immoral.

A child in the area of a school must attend it at least one day per year, to be sure that they know what school offers, preventing missed opportunities — meaning that, for all ages up to 16, it is compulsory that school (child development system - not school as it is previously known) is attended for at least 5 hours yearly - where attendance means only physical attendance - such that, in a case of only 5 hours of yearly attendance, school staff will, during those hours, approach, interact with and offer opportunities to that child in particular, given their lack of attendance, and thereby their possible ignorance of the system, and academic ignorance.

A child's desire to do something within the public school system (as potentially expressed during those five hours) would legally override an opposing desire of their parent.

Given that the school system can involve any approved "trade", it may even "trade" basic meals and accommodation to the child, such that they don't have to rely on their parents at all. Thus, the child will be exploited by neither their parents nor the state.

However, if a child relies entirely on the school system, it should be expected that the parents contribute proportionally e.g. paying tax or otherwise serving the state. The more that someone has children that the state raises without their direct involvement, the more that they should contribute to the state e.g. in taxes as an increasing percentage of their income. 

This means that, while all children will be treasured, preventing abortion and preventing extinction and enabling the expansion of the species, the system won’t be gamed by wealthy or heartless people.

Discipline is only necessary in the case of abuse.

If someone is disciplined despite not being an abuser, then, they will grow to be an abuser. They may abuse themselves, abuse drugs, abuse others..you name it.

You cannot get the most out of someone by controlling them, unless they lack their own will, and they will to obey. If they will to obey, you cannot know how to best develop them without first knowing them.

If stupidity or misbehaviour is noted and responded to, providing tailored learning or discipline, while intelligence or submission is not equally responded to with tailored learning or reward, then the system is broadly calling children stupid and misbehaving, and this will backfire.

School should:

1. Develop basic knowledge and skills (communally)

2. Provide resources and opportunities for further development of said knowledge and skills (communally and individually)

3. Identify talents and desires of students, to further their talents and desires (individually)

Basic knowledge is understanding: nutrition, places, dangers, objects, how trade works, medical aid, health issues, reading and writing and listening and speaking, basic mathematics, how to use basic items such as computers and compasses, and other such essential understanding, and understanding that could, to a broad range of people, be highly useful. For example, bikes are more broadly used than algebra.

There is a place for qualifications: to show school-certified abilities to potential employers, and there can be courses towards qualifications, and qualifications in the form of custom, individual-level certifications of ability/achievement. However, potential employers can simply test ability. The state doesn't need to spend taxpayer money doing what employers can do.

IT'S FUNNY HOW YOUR VALUES OF "LIBERTY, COMMUNITY, AND NO-ONE BEING ENSLAVED BY CONFORMITY" MAGICALLY DON'T APPLY TO THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

Almost like those values of yours are SHALLOW, just like every other low testosterone party that's been taking this country for a ride.

If you have to say "REAL HOPE. REAL CHANGE" that shows that you are not, in fact, offering real hope and real change.

You are "plans" are 1. spend more taxpayer money 2. abolish stuff and replace it with who knows what

Because, the life chances of our young people are just that great under this system, that we need to import more lives to make up for the lack of new lives being internally generated for the system.

If your people are fucking dying off, you're doing something wrong. Stop being weak. Stop being dense. Let's start offering actual opportunities instead of pretending that pieces of paper and an assortment of various unimportant bits of knowledge is what sets up civilization for success.

Like, if I'm going to be a hardcore programmer, why the fuck do I absolutely need to learn about all the various sciences, and about cooking, and about English literature, and about advanced English, all at certain times of day with certain people. Why can't I simply acknowledge the potential for me to learn these things, and make my own informed choices about what I want to do, and about what is actually good for my life chances and trajectory, which is not the same as everyone else's.

When I was 10, I would have absolutely loved to just learn programming for 8 hours a day at school, and also play much more team dodgeball. I would have been programming from before then, actually, had I had access to computers in primary school.

Now I know, I should have had the chance to do all that. That would have set up my life WAY DIFFERENT. I'd be WAY HEALTHIER and WAY WEALTHIER.

It's not as though the system was bad for me but is good for most people. If it was bad for me, it's bad for everyone. If it's bad for anyone, then it's bad for everyone.

You failed the wrong guy. And now, this system is finished. I don't care if it's "already changing". I have seen what my cousins are being put through currently. It's not changing fast enough, if it is truly changing. I will make damn sure it changes to how it should be. The political system can't stop me, or at least it can't stop smart people reading this.

All the abuse will end. Kids will do what is right for them, not what is right according to a bunch of managers who are objectively destroying the world entrusted to them.

The necessary change has gotta be done. Someone's gotta come out and tell the smooth-brained bureaucrats how it is and get the job done.

(unintelligent) feedback from someone (and my responses), having read the education policy (minus the added explanation after "A child in the area of a school must attend it at least one day per year, to be sure that they know what school offers, preventing missed opportunities —"):

"The Awesome Party is the real liberal, conservative, labour and reform party."

 - Big claim! Give your top liberal, conservative, labour and reform policies.

  E.g. "We are conservative because we really want to conserve the best aspects of the country. In particular, our country's generosity of spirit is something to be cherished, and our social policies are supportive of this spirit."

  (This is just an off-the-top-of-my-head fictional example, and even I don't think it's specific enough!)

A:

I don't like yapping. I like meaningful structure.

"The state has a tendency to produce problems... which are then used to justify more intervention..."

 - Big claim. Give the best example of this. Preferably something recent!

A:

The South Korean state raising up children to not have their own children, and then panicking and declaring a national emergency and spending even more taxpayer money to get people to have children. (fundamentally self-serving politicians)

"...much like the Hitler Youth."

 - Which of your opponents are you comparing to Nazis? All of them? Some in particular?

See Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

A:

All of them.

Points-Based Evolution

 Lots of big ideas in this section.

 - Could do with a short (1-sentence) summary describing the big picture of what you're hoping to achieve.

 I did wonder, when reading this section, how it would scale up from individual pupils to a whole education system. (Google says there are 10 million pupils attending schools in the UK.) If there is an art in politics, I'd say it's devising something that works at the large scale.

A:

That's true. Politicians have been incapable of devising anything. What I describe is clearly meant to work at scale.

Last paragraph in Points-Based Evolution ("...will be a long-running experiment...")

 - This paragraph identifies a lot of problems, but doesn't seem to offer any solutions.

A:

The solution is everything I've written. You have to connect the dots.

Gift and Trade.

 - What is the goal of the market? To guide pupils towards good behaviour? Something else? Is it worth spelling out the goal explicitly?

A:

Connect the dots. The goal of the 'marketplace of opportunities' of a school is to abide by a school's strategy, and that strategy is to the end of getting 'high points', which the government will allocate to strategies based on the life success and feedback of former students.

 "Discipline is only necessary in the case of abuse."

 Perhaps define what you mean by "abuse", for the sake of clarity & to avoid misunderstandings?

A:

For example, if someone agrees to do a job, and is able to do it, yet doesn't do it, that is an abuse. Abuse is primarily betrayal and lack of consideration for others. There is not much to abuse if there is not much agreement.
Say that a large number of people have agreed to follow certain rules, and someone enters their space and breaks the rules that the outsider is reasonably expected to know, then there is an abuse.

 "...potential employers can simply test ability."

 - As an employer, during candidate interviews, I did!

 However, I also found qualifications useful in allowing me to form a quick (pre-interview) judgment of a person's (a) intellectual capacity and (b) ability to apply themselves.

 Forcing employers to do this over and over seems much less efficient.

A:

Employers aren't forced. Employers technically don't even have to exist. Either employers will face "inefficiency", or the taxpayer will face it. There is definitely a lot of inefficiency in making a child get qualifications only for him to die of a drug overdose or suicide within ten years. As an employer, you don't think about that. As a leader, I do.

You know who's immune to the lie of the education system?

Selfish kids.

That gives them a huge upper hand if they're intelligent and stay out of school to work on their talents, as I would have done from the age of 10 (when I knew my passion), had I known that the education system is a disgusting machine that does not care to give kids the challenge they need (unless they're disabled), and had I remembered that culture is generally awful, which I knew when I was 5, having learned of WW2, having seen all the litter when I moved to Scotland, and having been loved, yet still not treated with enough consideration, by my parents.

So, it's no wonder that immoral hackers are so powerful and able to hack retailers. They do it because they live in an immoral world anyway, which surely treated them very badly when they were growing up, and they can do it because potential good cyber security experts instead be "good" and stay in school and don't bother their superiors.

When you look at it like that, hacking retailers actually makes a lot of sense. Tit for tat. Why wouldn't you exploit a world that wants to exploit you and your kind?

Heck, I'd hack the government (and school computers) such that they're forced to read this website, if I could. But, most people aren't going to be that selfless. They would just hack for money and let other people suffer as they have, as opposed to trying to take on the powers that be.

It's amazing that a country goes bad and a war happens (Nazi Germany), and then instead of people reinventing their cultural system to fix roots of the problem so that it doesn't happen again, they just go back to the same old way, so that history can repeat itself.

We have to get out of this stupid cycle and become an advanced civilization for the first time.

You really think we can do fuck all with an education system like we have? Anyone reading this think that?

Becoming a spacefaring civilization is impossible with your "good" education system, Scottish Nothing Party.

With these democracies and their self-serving systems, it can't happen.

Look at this: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/schoolchildren-will-be-taught-the-value-of-grit-ministers-vow-qtlj3rh2t

These people (Labour) seriously need to be driven directly into shocking irrelevance.

This is totally undemocratic. Democracy is supposed to be about the wisdom of the crowd. Naturally, the power-seeking are prone to not being democratically-minded, despite living in a democracy.

If the kids are unhappy, then that's your fault, because you're the authority - not theirs.

You're their authority, and they're your authority. Which means if they're not happy with your system, then you shouldn't be either.

Grit cannot be taught. Being gritty within a system is only good when the system actually serves you. Obviously, that flies right over the heads of our indoctrinated elite.

I was the grittiest. And guess what? That fucked me right up. I should have told school to go fuck itself from the age of 10 onwards, so I could teach myself and be myself in ways that'd actually benefit me and the country.

I also could have told school to go fuck itself when I was 5, having been given a colouring-in task which I took as an insult and as an oppressive waste, which it was. In an ideal world, I'd have been free to seek out some actually meaningful educational task, like, about computers. I made the most of the colouring-in task and then the teacher shouted at me for rotating the page. If I was more stubborn, I would have quit school right then and there, in flaming anger at the system for not remotely attempting to actually develop me, not as an individual,  nor as part of a community. It's absurd and unnatural. Of course, the establishment have a trick up their sleeve for brave kids who do speak out - which is to brand them with a brain disorder.

I'll tell you why people are anxious. It's because we're led by people who do not deserve leadership in the slightest. We're led by followers:

Basically, if someone in politics says "tackle" or "mental health", then they're a libtard.

Of course, every single political thing ever, or at least, let's say, from 1900 onwards, has been all libtards. The fascists were libtards. "Libtards" does not mean "liberals". These "liberals" are not liberal. They're libtards, which means they're opressors, and they're so stupid they probably don't even realize it.

Being a good person is not rocket science, but, for some reason, people in power just don't do it very often. They're smart enough to know that an education system is needed, but bad enough to not think of changing it and stupid enough to be unable, thereby thinking that it's just the way it should be. They have no idea how the world works.

When I was younger, I thought I'd be a programmer, and I knew I needed a manager, and I knew I didn't want to be a manger because that'd be boring.

This is the problem with politics. Managers are not smart people. It's the actual workers that are the smart people. The actual workers are too into working to seek management or political power. So, what you end up with is a bunch of power-seeking, unempathetic idiots in politics, because the managerial types are like that.

This is why it's better if the masculine "agents", I'll say, are led by a bunch of like tearful (happy) pregnant women, because they're the only people that you love and that won't oppress you, but will simply help to connect you to your fellow men. That's all that the highest level of leadership needs to be, really, besides the invention of the system in the first place. It's not really leadership. It's just a system of cooperation.

The highest level of leadership should, paradoxically, be the least leading, and actual authoritarian leadership would come under that.

The pregnant women will harbour and combine male ideas, returning the result, similarly to how, in conception, they harbour and combine and sort men's genetics.