Easy with the same philosophy.

Those that agree on politics may be like Book and Ann Coulter, though. But those that have the same philosophy started at the same place, they didn’t just arrive at a similar political position called conservatism or Leftism or any other ism.

I would rather trust and drink with an enemy that has the same philosophy that I do, then to do the same with a Benedict Arnold that is supposedly on my side.

Such understandings are rare in our modern wars of ineffective lawfare and protections for soldiers/civilians that only end up protecting pirates and terrorists. Although Petraeus pulled such a rarity from the Triangle of Death. Something for Sanchez to write about in his memoirs I believe.

No we don’t know how to do this – we’re not the experts in that field.

It is always hard to judge who is actually an expert in a bureacratic or desk jockey environment. In war, it is rather simple. Victory and/or survival can give you the signs. A war waged through numbers and the education of entire generations… now that has a slower feedback system.

Enough rant; I’m doing what I can for my kids (my wife and I have acquired a library of about 5000 children’s books and a slough of workbooks, educational materials, and projects) and try and help the families we know. I’ll try and make myself an expert and fix it when I get back from here.

Like Tim Larkin said, if you can reduce the principles of joint breaking down so that a 8-12 year old can understand and apply it, then you know you got something that is workable. A lot of this critical thinking stuff can be learned simply by taking any subject and upgrading the student’s proficiency in it from beginner to higher and higher levels. You could do this by teaching general principles or specific techniques that apply to math or chess.

The principles by which one learns to play chess better is the same principles by which one learns history better or math better. There are always the specific “scenario based” conditions and what not, but why bother spending time learning specifics when you can learn principles that apply to everything?

A child doesn’t need hours to know the context of why safety and hunting are important. Avoiding pain and getting food are context enough not to need complicated explanations. Nature will motivate the child for you. All this abstract stuff, though, needs a systemized method of explanation. No motivation=no productivity. I don’t care how much money is being thrown out there. But, of course, comprehensive instruction requires that the instructor understand it himself, which is rarer than should be.

Greg as usual has got it right.

Indeed. Great minds do think alike, Book.

SGT Dave
“There is no try, there is only do or do not.” – Yoda

because the teachers themselves don’t understand the larger picture.

And DQ, I think you have a point. I was thought in that same fragmented manner, but then I think teachers were taught to do a better job, and all the improvement was legislated out of them. I know as an Education major (who earned a BSE in 1969) I was taught to teach by units rather than following the text from beginning to end. That way, the vocabulary complements the stories and well, you get the idea. Teachers are not autonomous in their classrooms. That’s the problem plain and simple.

For the first time, my son is participating in a debate club, and they’re learning Lincoln-Douglas style. For weeks he was lost until the coach had some experienced kids do a debate in front of the class. Suddenly he could see the point of the work he’d been doing. If the coach had scheduled that demonstration on the first day of class, my son would have covered more ground at a quicker pace.

Bookworm, your argument is also one of the reasons I’m a big fan of teaching history chronologically. That, along with a timeline, really helps kids — and adults! — see the big patterns and flow of history.