Antiquated Learning

I love new information. I love the ideas and structure of one expressing themselves in complete complex literary thought. My normal night tends to be watch Tavis Smiley then go to bed. My friends call me an old man b.c I do this routine every night. But I watch in hopes to learn something without having to read a book. It's not that I can't read but for years it has been labor to read. Tonight Tavis is interviewing a man named John Cochran who was illiterate until he was 48 . Now I know reading is sometimes difficult for me but 48 years without reading, WOW! Not only could he not read, but he went to college and was a high school teacher.
The more he talked the more insecure I became within myself. I felt his fustration. I felt his embarassment within. As a child reading was very hard. They thought I had a learning problem. I went to speech classes. I got better as I praticed to slow down my brain. I was smart but few tried to understand how I learned. I wasn't the best student but b.c I was nice I got second chances to do work and moved up, yet I never truly learned.
I hated reading but loved words. I couldn't pronounce them correctly. A dictionary became my friend. My teachers cared but didn't understand I was weak. I didn't understand many concepts but was smart enough to figure out patterns to give the teachers to get a grade. I was learning but learning to get over. I was good. I won spelling bee's and everything. Yet it was not until my 7th grade year that I really learned to read. My 7th grade teacher, Ms Hardin, taught me how to not just say words but understand what I'm reading. context clues. She spoke my language. She was fluent. She didn't care about the formality and structure of learning, but cared I was comprehending the information and able to apply it.
In education do we care more about the principles of how we teach and learn? Or do we care if what we are teaching is applicable to the learning? How bout no more grade levels? Radical? Exactly! How about we teach until the student gets it? Promote by subject not grade.
The idea of Applicable learning does not dismiss the fact a student shouldn't have a grasp of a concept by a certain time period. Yet the idea of Applicable learning encourages a child to grow as fast as they can in the development of known strengths. This would enable educator focus on targeted learning program. The students stays and gets help and is able to develop a foundation of strength in known weakened areas( i.e. I'm great in math and suck in reading. I'd advance faster in my math matrix. But would slowly work out the kinks in my reading matrix. I would move up in my reading matrix once I had a full grasp of the area. This would not hold me back from advancing in math.).
The idea that from fall to spring we should have learned everything is a farce. We all learn a different speeds depending on the area. We spend more time fighting our learning insecurities( which retards our strengths) while trying strengthen a strength. It takes too much energy. Moving from grade to grade intellectually is lopsided. This learning paradigm is the reason students give up on school and learning. What is really being learned? Nothing! We can help this by tag team teaching. Specialized learning with lesson plans developed around what every teacher is teaching about. For example math can talk about linear lines. They could incorporate the history teachers lesson on Roman weaponry. And the science teacher could talk about kinetic energy of shooting an arrow from a bow. Some schools and programs already do this, but it should be done in a broader measure. This enables a child to have context in his/her learning. We damage brilliant thinkers by only distributing info and say learn. But learn how they learn and then teach. We then create a foundation for a student to launch into their own galaxy.