The Permanent Recession

>> We've confused education with college prep. <<

To some extent, yes. This is because a basic (2-year or 4-year, depending on field) college degree is now the equivalent of a high school diploma several decades ago. A college degree does not guarantee you a job, but it is a prerequisite for even applying to most non-menial jobs now, whether it is really needed or not; and many employers no longer allow for equivalent experience to count. They are more interested in the paper than in actual ability to do the job. (This is another factor in why the economy is tanking.)

>> Where is the skilled labor going to come from? <<

Much of the economy has crushed out the skilled labor layer, which I think is bad. Now the biggest employer is Wal-Mart and the majority of jobs are retail or service: not enough to support a household, and not work that suits a majority of the population.

But there are still some fields that teach by apprenticeship, and there are some enclaves of resourcefulness that will be there to pick the country off its ass if necessary. I'm very glad to live near a sizable Amish settlement.

>> and we have less money to go around, because so many of us are un- or underemployed. <<

Cash is only useful if there's enough of it for people to meet their needs. If there's too little, or it's too uneven, cash is outcompeted by earlier systems such as barter. People need to remember that cash isn't the only option: you always have your skills, and you often have goods. Barter, share, swap.

>>I wonder if there are many SF writers concerned about this scenario, or if it's too mundane -- plausible, and frightening.<<

Some are. I am, and I know a handful of others. I have scene sketches for a piece of Pagan SF along these lines, but there's not much market for such stories, alas.

You should see the appalling results of activists who aren't SF writers trying to extrapolate the future, though. It makes my fingers itch for a red pen.

Different types of people learn differently. Cramming them all together is bad for the kids and the teachers, and it is not an effective educational strategy. Average kids can learn with average methods. Slow kids need plenty of extra help, and a lighter curriculum; they flounder and give up if pushed toward goals they can't possibly meet. Gifted kids miserate and become destructive if not challenged enough, and they require a far more stimulating environment. Putting them all together meets nobody's needs.

>> All kids are gifted, all kids are slow. <<

No. Really no. Demonstrably no. Mental intelligence and other forms of intelligence are spectral effects, and everyone has things they are better at or worse at, but the different ranges of people move through the world quite differently. Most people are average and behave according to expectation. Slow people have less to work with, more limitations, literally a slower processing speed and fewer knacks. They have to do more things bit-by-bit instead of leaping to correct conclusions ... like somebody going through an obstacle course who can't jump. Gifted people are quicksilver, they think wider and faster and deeper than average. They make leaps that ordinary people can't make or wouldn't even consider ... like somebody going through an obstacle course who can fly. Half the time it's "What obstacle?"

Failure to take these differences into account can cripple or kill.

>> Children who can't thrive under the same conditions as we did, who aren't interested in the same things, don't excel in the same ways, etc., aren't as 'intelligent' as we are. <<

Not necessarily, although that's a common misconception. Intelligence expresses itself in various ways.

>> Intelligence cannot be measured intelligently. <<

It can, it's just not as easy to do that as most people believe. Measuring it on a test is challenging, because high intelligence can be obscured by other factors, such as lack of education, personality issues, divergent culture, or poor test-taking skills. The best gauges I've seen are more holistic, looking at how a person moves through life, summing up a lot of different factors.

>> Too bad our public schools don't search for what makes a child unique, what will make this child happy and encouraged to develop his or her potential; to instill a love of learning, a celebration of our differences, a desire for mutual understanding and cooperation.<<

Now this I agree with, because there are different areas of strength and weakness, and people really need to learn what they are good at and enjoy doing. The schools do almost none of that, and it's what they should be emphasizing from about junior high onward.

>>For instance, some people thrive in a group environment, while I always did better in a one-on-one situation. I rarely had the patience for groups activities.<<

I always did better alone. I might've enjoyed group work if it had been presented properly. Instead, it was one of two things: 1) I did most or all the work, or 2) I did only my share and let the project fail because I wasn't willing to do other people's work for them and I could afford a low grade.

>>And too few educational professionals, then or now, seem able to recognize the difference between a true trouble-maker and a kid who is just acting up out of boredom. Or, perhaps their hands are simply tied.<<

Sometimes the immediate person on the spot doesn't have enough power to be of any help. But in general, the adults have the power, so if they fail to provide an appropriate learning environment and a child causes problems because of that, it is the adults' fault. You don't plant a rosebush under a walnut tree and scream at it for turning brown: it is your fault for putting it there.

>> I have been complaining for years about the "dumbing down" of Americans via our school systems. <<

So have I. It was bad before; it's disastrous now. I found that school got in the way of my education far more often than it helped. The only two exceptions are math, which I would never have studied willingly but was not worth the amount of harangue that came with it; and typing, which I loathed but pursued because I knew I'd need it. Everything else, give me a book and some gear and access to an expert if I need it, and get out of my way.

>>She may not actually be evil. We're not sure.<<

Perhaps wicked, mischievous, or devious would suit better. Or perhaps her ethics haven't finished growing in yet.

It sounds like you were lucky; for instance, being in schools that had gifted programs, because many don't.

Reading non-class books in class was one of the leading things that got me into trouble with teachers. I only had one who gave up after challenging me on that. She allowed as to how, if I was reading The Two Towers, I didn't need third-grade reading class. Of course, she started by not believing I was really reading it, but after I scared the class with an enthusiastic recounting of "The Departure of Boromir," that was sufficient proof of comprehension.