Live data from Hacker News

The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

afterbabel.com

391–400 of 528 posts

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dropped out and became an engineer at almost the exact same time. I've thought about going back for a degree but I was always so horribly bad at school that it's scared me off. I was bad at it mainly for undiagnosed ADHD reasons that I'm now getting successfully treated, but I'm still worried that if I went back the same things would just happen again. I'd join a class, I'd already kind of know what they're teachin…

WGU is a real and legit, and probably one of the top things I would consider if needed to get a bachelors degree while working as a now middle aged adult.

I'm not sure I'd call it legit. As someone who hiring for low-to-mid level IT roles the caliber of WGU students vs. real brick and mortar schools is vast, like vast.

There are edge cases, but if you didn't have the grades and SATs to do real college you're not going to be competitive in this market. I'd take a WGU grad but would put that degree under a VA Tech, RPI, UC Davis, etc. for sure, and way under Stanford or MIT (or Cambridge, or one of the better IIT campuses, etc.).

Honestly this whole thread seems like submarine ads

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#392

The problem with edtech is they make the key mistake of taking the curriculum intended for pen / paper / chalkboard and they just put it on a tablet and expect it to work. Seymour Papert wrote "Mindstorms" about this very topic in the 80s when PCs were being put in classrooms. Back then, teachers took the multiplication tables they had been doing with pen and paper and just made kids do them on the computer. Teachers…

Yes, there was also a thing known as the Great Media Debate in the 90's iirc. MOOCs have a less than 10% completion rate. Media by itself is not the answer. What makes a big difference is teaching techniques and things like superhuman spaced repetition and system adaptation. See how Math Academy does it: https://www.mathacademy.com/pedagogy

I have yet to take a MOOC that is marginally engaging and teaches something new.

My only guess is that they are there for the certs.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#393
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's "equity" for you. We can't be unfair and give someone something that makes them better. It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up.

To be fair, it is less about "keeping top kids down" and more about "let's use our very scarce resources helping the bottom kids". Put that way it seems less malicious, and more like probably the right thing to do over all, while still being extremely frustrating if you are, or are the parent of, a 'top kid'. I know that in Seattle, I've been very frustrated with all the talk and promise of our school to provide enri…

> I know that in Seattle, I've been very frustrated with all the talk and promise of our school to provide enrichment to kids like mine who are able to learn quickly and are ready for more advanced learning opportunities, only to discover that it is haphazard, often in name only, and there isn't time or interest in providing more.

Seattle used to have one of the nation's best gifted programs. Back in the 90s it was ran in a racist fashion, gifted schools only existed in wealthy neighborhoods and poor and minority families had to fight like hell to get kids into the gifted program.

The easy solution was to offer gifted classes in schools throughout the city, and to offer free gifted program testing to all students in the district.

Washington state actually recently passed the later into law, all students can get tested for free during the school day, removing one large barrier to entry. The law was passed just in time for the Seattle School District to dismantle the city's gifted program.

On top of this, the city got rid of their bussing program, moving back to a neighborhood schools model. While this saved the district money on bussing, it is also a return to a racist system that was dismantled for good reason generations ago. Is it actual segregation? No, but you don't have to squint very hard to see how it looks awfully similar...

> But it's not because of some drive for 'equity'. I've talked with teachers (as friends, not in a school setting).

The school board's removal of the gifted resources was driven by "equity".

That "equity" drive has also seen the test scores of disadvantaged minority students continue to decline. Not only that, now the kids who have a real opportunity to escape generational poverty, are no longer being given those resources.

I say this as a kid who grew up in Seattle in the 90s to a family that was working class poor, and as someone who benefited immensely from Seattle's once great gifted program.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Montessori worked on this problem, and did a fairly good job, but somehow it's still under the radar that we could revolutionise our educational system according an already proven model.

Montessori is more of a brand. People definitely perceive it to be the way you are describing, but really, if there were something old and certain, it would be widely used. On the flip side, there are lots of pedagogical practices that are proven, and this article is trying to show you how they are probably being disrupted by cell phones.

A brand? You have a lot of successful people coming out of those schools.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#395
post #227
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it is less about "keeping top kids down" and more about "let's use our very scarce resources helping the bottom kids". Put that way it seems less malicious, and more like probably the right thing to do over all, while still being extremely frustrating if you are, or are the parent of, a 'top kid'. I know that in Seattle, I've been very frustrated with all the talk and promise of our school to provide enri…

> "let's use our very scarce resources helping the bottom kids" So why does the richest country on the planet have "very scarce resources" only when it comes to educating its kids ? Of course, that very same public school has a stadium that is easily several times larger than facilities provided for Olympic level athletes in a poor country like India. That same school has a music program with a huge ballroom, recordi…

> That same school has a music program with a huge ballroom, recording studio, fancy musical instruments...bass sax, harps, bassoons and contrabassoons, double bass, violas...

Seattle has cancelled a bunch of their music programs as well.

A couple years ago they also cancelled, a very successful, STEM program in schools that primarily served economically disadvantaged students, because the school district couldn't afford to pay their portion of the program's cost.

There was a court ruling in Washington state a decade or so ago that said the state government has to fund schools and that school districts and cities are forbidden from raising more than a pittance of additional funding for teachers and academic activities.

This was good for the first few years, all schools in the state finally became fully funded, not just the schools in rich areas, but recently the state has been underfunding schools and now every major school district in the state is having financial problems.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#396
post #145
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. To expand this more globally - anything that requires human interaction fails at scale. Healthcare, trade skills, education, housing, etc. is all "failing" to some degree no matter how much technology we throw at it. The costs continually go up and the value isn't paired to it.

Seems like you're listing highly regulated industries not human interaction.

Regulations are neutral. Some are bullshit. Some are written in blood.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WGU is a real and legit, and probably one of the top things I would consider if needed to get a bachelors degree while working as a now middle aged adult.

I'm not sure I'd call it legit. As someone who hiring for low-to-mid level IT roles the caliber of WGU students vs. real brick and mortar schools is vast, like vast . There are edge cases, but if you didn't have the grades and SATs to do real college you're not going to be competitive in this market. I'd take a WGU grad but would put that degree under a VA Tech, RPI, UC Davis, etc. for sure, and way under Stanford or…

I'm not sure I know what a "submarine ad" is.

I don't really know any other WGU graduates in person, so it's hard for me to say the quality of student is "worse" and than anywhere else.

Obviously I am biased, but I don't think I'm appreciably dumber than the average student who went to a brick and mortar school, but admittedly I'm a pretty weird dude who did use WGU as a "rubber stamp" school for me. I finished quickly, though I don't feel like the work was "easier" than when I was learning shit at Florida State, outside of me being a decade more experienced in it.

I'll agree there's definitely selection-bias with WGU for students who underperformed in high school, which can translate to poor work performance. Hell, I underperformed in high school due to at the time undiagnosed Major Depressive Disorder, so I am grateful for something like WGU existing.

It's tough to say. I think if you're in a position like I was, WGU is fine. It is there to demonstrate that you have a Bachelor's worth of CS knowledge; if I were 18 again and had had medication for depression, I would probably apply to some of the nicer public UK schools (e.g. University of York, Manchester, etc.), if I'm being honest, but until someone invents a time machine I'm stuck with the world as it is, not how I want it to be.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and more like probably the right thing to do over all It’s only the right thing if you assume equity as a starting position though. We already know, rather robustly, that the weakest and most disruptive students can consume far more than their share of limited resources and produce correspondingly limited outcomes. Another theory goes that we should provide more resources to the best and brightest students so that th…

> Another theory goes that we should provide more resources to the best and brightest students so that they go on to become great leaders and experts in their fields and then improve society for everyone. I'd call it "trickle down" theory. Or "horse-and-sparrow theory" (feeding a horse a huge amount of oats results in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat)

This has been the strategy used by families around the world for thousands of years.

Have some kids, pick the one that seems like they'll be the most successful, put all of the family's limited resources into that one kid. If that kid goes on to become successful, they are expected to help lift up the rest of the family.

Another view is that I've paid back in taxes alone, many multiples of what my education cost the city.

> feeding a horse a huge amount of oats results in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat

Yeah well the current strategy being employed is starve all the horses and leave the bodies in the field to rot.

The harsh truth is bell curves exist. Some people are just better are things than others.

Imagine a scenario with three classrooms:

One classroom is full of kids who can be taught 3 years of a subject in one year

A second classroom has kids who can be taught 1 year of a skills in a subject in 1 year.

The third classroom is kids who are remedial and if great effort is put in, they'll be taught one year of skills in two years.

The no-shit-sherlock strategy is to assign a teacher to each classroom.

What we are doing instead is one of two strategies:

1. Mix all the students together, and watch as the kids who would be advanced drop out of school due to boredom, and the kids who need remedial help drop out because they aren't learning anything.

2. Fund classroom 2 as normal, take resources that would've been spent on classroom 1, and give it to classroom 3, causing incremental improvements, and again failing the kids who would be in classroom 1.

Both strategies are downright stupid and inefficient.

Not only that, these strategies also cause funding problems. Now the parents of kids who would have been in classroom 1 pull their kids out of school, causing a reduction in funding for everyone. Next, parents who would have kids in classroom 1 don't even move to the city, causing a reduction in the overall economy for the city, so now there is even less money for social and academic programs to help disadvantaged students.

To be clear, I'm not naming the subject here because students should be independently evaluated on each subject. Someone may need remedial math help but be great at writing.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#399
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WGU was a customer when I was at Learning Objects, they always impressed me visionary and outcome oriented. glad to hear a positive anecdote more than 10 years later.

I'm sad WGU is only for US citizens. I hear lots of good things about it but can't join in.

I saw a blog post a few years ago about a Canadian dude getting an exception to go to WGU. You might just email WGU and ask if you can get an exception.

https://miguelrochefort.com/blog/cs-degree/

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's "equity" for you. We can't be unfair and give someone something that makes them better. It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up.

Nonsense. Equity is not to blame. Finland has arguably the most equitable education system in the world and it's ahead of the US. There are plenty of problems with the US education system -- among them this typically SV $$$-eyed idea that "tech solves everything" -- but investments to raise up the educational standards of low-income or underserved communities is not one of them.

> Nonsense. Equity is not to blame. Finland has arguably the most equitable education system in the world and it's ahead of the US.

Finland has one of the most equitable societies in the world.

This means the amount of effort it takes to "raise up" a poor kid in Finland to have the same resources as a well to do kid is much less than it is in America.

> but investments to raise up the educational standards of low-income or underserved communities is not one of them.

School districts cannot solve structural issues within American society, but we expect them too.

If kids are starving, or being beaten, or otherwise abused, the teachers get judged if those students do poorly on standardized tests.

The problem is kids who don't get enough to eat, the problem is that there are kids who stay awake at night scared for their lives.

But as a society we've chosen to ignore all of that and worry about test scores instead.

Post reply on HN