My thoughts can be confusing

Admittedly, I'm not the best writer. That alone can cause problems if I try to share my thoughts. Because I tend to form my thoughts from the ground up, what I have to write can be even more confusing.

Education is a good example of where I might confuse readers. We are deeply entrenched in a model that I outright reject. If I write about topics such as fluid scheduling, most people will struggle to understand how my suggestions can function. This is because they are looking at how they could function within context of the conventional model. I'm looking more at how these schedules would work within context of a learner-centric educational facility.

There's one word that I want to point out from that last paragraph, fluid. What does this mean? In short, it's the idea that education should be loosely structured and learner-centric to maximize the ability to meet drastically different educational needs. In the case of scheduling, we should allow variability in schedules since a common schedule will never be ideal for every single student.

This is another issue, terminology. The words and meanings I use don't always match how others use the same words. In many cases, I create my own terminology to simplify topics. At some point, I have to stop repeating my definitions just to ensure I can get to the points I'm trying to make. Sometimes, I will even assume that context is sufficient for readers to understand.

I should probably mention that this is not a one-way issue. I struggle a lot with the terminology used by others. If terms are used widely enough, I can generally understand what it means, even if usage drives me nuts. For example, you can forget what you memorize, but you do not lose legitimate learning. From my perspective, learning loss is a nonsensical term. Similarly, I understand how it's easier to accept having special needs than having a learning disability. When you identify students with learning disabilities as students with special needs, you imply that those without learning disabilities do not have special needs. As unique individuals, we all have special needs. This terminology is seriously problematic.

This furthers my interest in my own terminology. Look at the concept of student-centric learning. This is primarily an argument to reduce class sizes. The idea is that smaller class sizes lead to more one-on-one time, although one-on-one time is frequently used more to change students rather than better meet their needs. Essentially, this is a teacher-centric approach to student-centric learning.

By contrast, I frequently discuss learner-centric education. Instead of focusing on teachers, I start with the students who should be learning. I want to shift more of the responsibilities related to education to the people who should be most responsible. Shifting these responsibilities means that teachers are less important in the process, and I am open to more learners per formal teacher. Keep in mind that a lot of the teaching process is actually designed to control and restrict the educational process. I'm not against cutting back investments in educational constraints.

When it comes to my terminology, you might not understand what I mean by linear learning, the minimum standards approach, or educational dependence. I honestly have never heard anyone else using these terms. I have my own definitions. I have tried explaining these terms, but there's a good chance that people will be confused when they encounter terms built around my personal beliefs. This is one of the reasons why my writing can come off as seriously confusing at times.