2017 California school test scores: Why are they flatlining?

Totally agree. This can be done by 8th grade. In fact, it was mostly done by 8th grade in the US until about 100 years ago.

> But getting everyone reasonably literate and 'through high school' - is probably the #1 thing any nation could do to improve the standard of living in their citizenry.

You say this based on what?

In every high school I have interacted with (usu. as an observer or researcher), high school is largely a holding pen for those who are not college bound (and even for many who are). There is very little education happening in the classroom since the content is largely decoupled from the learners' day-to-day existences (both present and perceived future).

The course content is largely college prep or reheated versions of middle school curricula. The main focus is usually on some sort of preparation for a test (of questionable validity) that the school will be judged on.

As I have mentioned before, schools (esp. high schools) serve most HN folks and their communities to a more or less acceptable standard. The other 70% of the (US) folks... I really don't think so.

We have something of a standard here for how statements need to be supported, and "we already know" and "there are many many signs" falls far short of those standards, and is eerily reminiscent of Donald Trump's instead.

"US citizens being manipulated by false information." How is this different from any other time in history? Are we better? Are we worse? Is it even relevant? It's nearly tautological that it has happened, but how much does it happen? Can an educational system do anything about it? Is it worth it?

"open bigotry." Ok. Welcome to the world. If this is a sign of a declining educational system, then virtually no place anywhere in the history of the world has had a good educational system.

"declining livelihoods of the lower economic class." Really? Support this. And give evidence that "a problem with education" (again, supposedly fixable problem) is at least one of the causes.

"political unrest and populism." Do I even need to at this point?

"educational metrics being substantially lower than other countries for years." Oh my god, finally something that is commonly understood enough to warrant no citation. And something that is probably commonly understood to be linked to "a problem with education." But now, what are you adding with it?

So, you've failed to even make a valid argument with four of your points by not bothering to support them, and the fifth is so commonly known and pointless to reiterate that there is no reason to include it here. So, why, in your mind, does this conversation belong here when we could be talking about all the cool, innovative, and interesting topics that HN was designed to support?

Interestingly, I think that we are in agreement here. Your underlying assumption is that the learner is someone who is already motivated to learn and lives in a community that values education. For these folks, sure, expose them to a wide range of ideas. In the US, that covers maybe 30% of the population. What about the other 70%?

> Giving everyone access to this kind of exploratory environment can yield huge benefits to society.

Again, I think we agree here. Access should be universal. That said, it should also be easily and cheaply accessible outside of the classic timeline (i.e., 5-18 years of age).

Note that providing access and actually having the learners learn are two completely different things. Access is fairly good right now, but learning is really low for a big chunk of the population since the available content lacks relevance for their lives. Note that I am not just talking about skill development for jobs, but also the developing universal critical thinking skills that resonate with the learners within their living contexts.

The resources used for child-care-masked-as-education could be used for post 8th grade learning for people who find themselves in a (often working) community that values things like more-than-basic knowledge of math, science, history, etc.

> I think it is unreasonable to expect that people will come to higher or secondary education on their own. Some will but for a lot of people they may go through life never realizing their potential because nobody challenged them and they never knew what was possible.

I guess my question is why do we think most people need secondary or higher (tertiary) education now. If they don't "come to it on their own", will it matter? For the most part, I don't think it will matter.

As for the "realizing potential" comment, I still think that you are still thinking in terms of people and communities that are already oriented towards higher ed. The other 70% or so go to school because they have to, and many of them will actively snub efforts to help them "realize their potential" because it will alienate them from their community.

Again, I really think that there needs to be cheap/free high quality education available to all throughout a liftetime. That said, I don't think we should force an anachronistic college-oriented curriculum down the throats of those who have no need or negative need for that type of education.