Hacker News Reader

Although they obviously have room for improvement, rigid schools do not lend themselves to a more flexible approach like this one.

To use a more extreme example, let's say a general wants to introduce more flexibility in the way his military is run. How far can that really go?

View on HN

That's exactly the point of constructionism (the epistemological school that the article's author subscribe to). The objective of the educational system is to form citizens capable of critical thinking and independence, something that a soldier is very much discouraged to do, so your analogy is exemplary of an incorrect approach for the educational system (which is our current rigid model, of course).

I don't oppose constructionism at all, but I believe state-run schools are fundamentally incompatible with real flexibility. The author's website suggests he is a Marxist -- I don't know if that means state socialist or anarchist in this case, but if it's the former, he would probably disagree with me.

I take a libertarian stance on that too man. But I also follow a pluralist approach on how people organize their own systems, so if people want to trust the government (specially in very miserable and risk intense areas I do believe the government can play a very important role to set up a framework that could be built by incremented the individuals).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com