Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#61

Post by thrown_22 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

fiftyfifty wrote: post #23

I just don't think I can agree with Gatto's main premise that schools aren't educating students or that a formal education serves no purpose in the modern world. We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy. There are also plenty of counter examples we can find: entire countries…

>We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy.

What does this even mean? The US spends more an education than anyone else and it dominated the world's economy because it's blown up everyone else who tried. This is a tautology. The countries with the schools people who rank schools like best are ranked best. That doesn't mean they are actually best.

Schooling absolutely helps people get out of poverty. But that doesn't mean it's the type of school that dominant in the West. We have a school and university system that's extended day care and teaches both incredibly slowly and way too fast. With smaller classes we could reduce the 12 years of schooling the average child gets today to 4. We never will because the parents don't know what to do with them and there aren't any jobs for 12 year olds.

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#62

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #58

hintymad wrote: post #38

> "just let the kids learn by themselves" This has been the central theme of progressive education movement in the US. IIRC, Jo Boaler has been advocating that kids could discover most of the maths by exploring and learning by themselves. I fundamentally disagree with this belief, though. It took thousands of years for our greatest minds to simplify our maths to its current incarnation. Discovering "everything" by my…

This seems like a bit of a strawman. I don’t know Jo Boaler but I have never encountered the idea that students could rediscover everything from scratch. It’s clearly a dumb idea. A much more common position is that self-paced exploration — but using the latest textbooks and also a variety of teaching styles — could interest students much more than “no child left behind” style common curricula which constrain both th…

"NCLB" curricula focus on the basics for a reason - we're failing to teach those basic skills. Maybe we need a system that's not so terrible for the "average" below-students (as opposed to those who expressly get skilled teaching attention as 'special-needs' cases).

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#63

Post by thrown_22 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

hitpointdrew wrote: post #25

fiftyfifty wrote: post #23

I just don't think I can agree with Gatto's main premise that schools aren't educating students or that a formal education serves no purpose in the modern world. We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy. There are also plenty of counter examples we can find: entire countries…

> We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not schooling.

[flagged]

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#64

Post by emeth » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:29 PM UTC

From the article:

> But I am confident that as they gain self-knowledge, they’ll also become self-teachers — and only self-teaching has any lasting value.

Makes me think of Dorothy Sayer's 1948 article, The Lost Tools of Learning [0].

[0]: https://www.pccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LostToolsOfL...

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#65

Post by LudwigNagasena » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #62

theptip wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a bit of a strawman. I don’t know Jo Boaler but I have never encountered the idea that students could rediscover everything from scratch. It’s clearly a dumb idea. A much more common position is that self-paced exploration — but using the latest textbooks and also a variety of teaching styles — could interest students much more than “no child left behind” style common curricula which constrain both th…

"NCLB" curricula focus on the basics for a reason - we're failing to teach those basic skills. Maybe we need a system that's not so terrible for the "average" below-students (as opposed to those who expressly get skilled teaching attention as 'special-needs' cases).

What are those “basic skills”?

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#66

Post by thrown_22 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #15

> The children I teach have almost no curiosity, and what little they do have is transitory Maybe kids are just not curious about what the author teaches? As a parent, I have to admit that kids are not necessarily curious about what we value. My kids are not curious about STEM, at least not yet. They are, however, are very curious about how to use TNT in minecraft, or how to learn cartwheel. It's unfortunate (or foru…

Teach them about red stone and you're teaming them programming.

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#67

Post by giantg2 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:31 PM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #60

giantg2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just let the kids learn by themselves" This is what companies want. They want a diploma just for the credential, but they don't really train you and just want you to learn on the job.

Sure this works great for things like swimming in the deep end and how to use a firearm without grossly endangering yourself or others. Honestly I'm convinced anyone who believes this stuff has never watched a toddler.

Not sure what you're even trying to say. Sounds like support for my comment - companies don't want the ones who couldn't self teach (as they wouldnt survive according to you).

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#68

Post by dieselgate » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

This is a really well written article though I’m mixed in my agreements with it. Thought it was funny they mentioned the author “growing garlic” in the forward. It’s also curious to read about literacy rates before/after “compulsory” education and how they seemingly dropped - is this potentially because of different “standards” in defining literacy?

I feel everything I’ve ever learned was “taught to myself” even though I’ve spent close to two decades in school. Of course a teacher can catalyze the process by presenting material in an organized way. They say “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” and at first this seemed like an appropriate analogy for learning - but after some reflection is only partly relevant. Peer groups can be beneficial with catalyzing learning as well - of course it depends on the peers.

This is a big topic but found it refreshing to be exposed to some novel (and old) thoughts

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#69

Post by jcz_nz » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

hitpointdrew wrote: post #25

fiftyfifty wrote: post #23

I just don't think I can agree with Gatto's main premise that schools aren't educating students or that a formal education serves no purpose in the modern world. We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy. There are also plenty of counter examples we can find: entire countries…

> We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not schooling.

That’s just laughable. About a billion Chinese might disagree with this.

Re: Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)

#70

Post by season2episode3 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #65

zozbot234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NCLB" curricula focus on the basics for a reason - we're failing to teach those basic skills. Maybe we need a system that's not so terrible for the "average" below-students (as opposed to those who expressly get skilled teaching attention as 'special-needs' cases).

What are those “basic skills”?

I'd venture a guess that they're talking about the "three R's": reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.