Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

scotthyoung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 559 posts

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#51

Post by HDThoreaun »

madrox wrote: post #2

I was a horrible student as a child, and in my 20s I strongly held the belief that education was broken. Now that I'm a few decades older I wonder if my problem was not education but life. I did not fit in at most schools, and that had a negative effect on my desire and ability to learn. That's what led me to teach myself computers as a teenager...education and online socialization combined. Win/win. I think the auth…

So the issue with this take imo is that one of the primary goals of schooling is to socialize kids and force them to interact with others they dont get along with. There needs to be some conflict among the students so that they can gain and practice conflict resolution skills that are absolutely vital. I agree that the current system can be improved, it's just not clear how.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#52

Post by jltsiren »

FloorEgg wrote: post #33
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. I have a real issue dividing kids up along these lines. I've found that virtually all young kids love to explore and learn things, and if anything schooling can extinguish this innate desire when it becomes a source of stress.

While my experience relates to learning in higher-ed, I completely agree with those three categories... Though a helpful nuance may be that it's a spectrum, not hard boundaries, and every subject/exercise can have a distinct relationship with the learner and context. When rubber hits the road with a learning objective, I think the two most important axis are: how much does the student want to learn (this), and how ea…

When I was involved in higher education, people talked about three motivations: passing the class, being good at whatever is being measured, and learning the topic. Those were not distinct categories but separate axes, and they were understood to be situational rather than inherent qualities of the person. We didn't care much about the people who scored low on all three axes. Education was free, and if you didn't have the motivation, you were probably better off doing something else.

In any case, people who wanted to learn were easy to deal with. The other two motivations could be used to coax the person to learn, but they required different approaches.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#53

Post by FloorEgg »

jltsiren wrote: post #52
FloorEgg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While my experience relates to learning in higher-ed, I completely agree with those three categories... Though a helpful nuance may be that it's a spectrum, not hard boundaries, and every subject/exercise can have a distinct relationship with the learner and context. When rubber hits the road with a learning objective, I think the two most important axis are: how much does the student want to learn (this), and how ea…

When I was involved in higher education, people talked about three motivations: passing the class, being good at whatever is being measured, and learning the topic. Those were not distinct categories but separate axes, and they were understood to be situational rather than inherent qualities of the person. We didn't care much about the people who scored low on all three axes. Education was free, and if you didn't hav…

That sounds right to me. I like that model and will remember it, thanks.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#54

Post by protocolture »

>General problem solving abilities are neither learned nor taught... students learn these methods better when they’re explicitly taught...

what.

You can teach anyone over the age of 12 the PAIR troubleshooting process. I have seen people with drug abuse related mental health problems cope with it. Kids are sponges. Soooo I guess I am agreeing with the back half of this section not the front half.

>In short, whenever we have high-quality evidence that rigorously compares two teaching methods, the research invariably favors strong, direct instruction plus practice.1 Or, in other words, the exact stereotype of schooling that so many of the people asking me about school reform despise.

Yeah it all goes back to Mastership learning, which modern schooling doesnt look anything like, because scaling to it would be madness.

>project-building or acting like a scientist, it will probably be worse...Students are unmotivated.

I feel like a lot of the systems being criticized here are designed to motivate children. And then all your N=1 people talking about their successes online, convincing people to approach things like this are related to having very motivated children.

>Having never taught in a classroom or worked for even a single day in education, it’s a question I’m totally unqualified to answer.

Guy has at least 5 blog posts and a whole book on something he admits hes unqualified in.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#55

Post by rootusrootus »

jplusequalt wrote: post #41
rootusrootus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation that I’ve seen floated is behavioral. Boys are active and physical and don’t focus as easily as girls, who are more amenable to sitting quietly and paying attention. The idea is that the current predominant K12 style favors students in the latter behavior group. I have two kids in K12 and I don’t think it’s that simple. Not that I have a good explanation of my own, mind you.

>who are more amenable to sitting quietly and paying attention Is this explanation not making a blatant assumption here that girls are statistically less hyperactive and distracted than boys?

Is that controversial (assuming otherwise normal children, excluding anybody with ADHD, etc)?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#56

Post by programjames »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #30
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time you try to randomly assort 30 children of the same calendar age into a room with a single (or even several) teacher, it's going to be bad for nearly everyone except those in the very middle of the curve. A very narrow portion of that middle too. It can't not be. And if the teacher tries to cater to the slow kids and the "gifted" kids even a little, then the middle-of-the-curve children will suffer for that t…

Isn't this just solved by better student teacher ratios, which you could totally have in public schools if they were funded better and societally we valued teachers more? What are private schools doing that you couldn't implement in public schools with adequate political will and money?

Your question is easily resolved by looking up how much American schools are funded, compared to historical funding, other countries' funding, and their relative successes.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#57

Post by hunterpayne »

bigthymer wrote: post #46
freeopinion wrote: post #10

IMO, the best questions around revolutionizing school should address whether children should be coerced into learning something. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant. I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to de…

Having multiple parallel tracks for different types of students is controversial. Schooling tends to be cyclical with periods with more tracking is popular shifting to periods of less tracking and more classroom mixing. It really depends on what you want to optimize for. More tracking benefits the highest achievers. Less tracking raises the bottom and the average but at the cost of not maximizing the outcome of the t…

"Having multiple parallel tracks for different types of students is controversial."

It shouldn't be. The research overwhelming says its a good practice. The type of people who say this type of thing are the exact type of ideologically motivated people who are destroying school systems in blue districts. Ironically this group both hates private schools and creates the environment that pushes parents to pay for private schools. I've personally seen the bad consequences of schools that do this and I know people who aren't here anymore because of it. So please, for the love of god, stop talking about topics you know nothing about.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#58

Post by parpfish »

bwhiting2356 wrote: post #45
freeopinion wrote: post #10

IMO, the best questions around revolutionizing school should address whether children should be coerced into learning something. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant. I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to de…

It's hard to convince kids why they should learn advanced abstract math, beyond what is necessary to calculate the tip on a restaurant bill. The number of high school students who will use advanced math beyond high school is very small, but those that do will have high impact, which is both in society's interest and their own interest as high earners. The kids that study and apply themselves, I don't think it's so mu…

re: not teaching math to kids is a pet peeve of mine.

the number of adults i've met who cannot add two fractions together is depressing.

at some point each of them had decided "i'm just bad with numbers, hahaha" and they gave themselves permission to stop trying math. worse, society gives you a pass at not knowing math. we need to apply the same constant social pressure to mathematics skills that we do for learning to read.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#59

Post by arjie »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20
freeopinion wrote: post #10

IMO, the best questions around revolutionizing school should address whether children should be coerced into learning something. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant. I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to de…

> I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. I have a real issue dividing kids up along these lines. I've found that virtually all young kids love to explore and learn things, and if anything schooling can extinguish this innate desire when it becomes a source of stress.

I’m curious about homeschooling and alternative methods of schooling so this is of interest to me. By “virtually all” I assume you mean “all but those developmentally delayed”. Have you run a program that uses your principles or have you tested your thesis in some way that you are willing to share?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#60

Post by hunterpayne »

Vinnl wrote: post #32
psadri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had the budget for two teachers, I’d utilize them as one teaching in the traditional way, and the other spending 1:1 times with each student (20 students in a class → 1-1:30 hr / student).

If we had budgets that allowed for one teacher per ten students, I imagine many problems in education would already be solved.

There is no correlation between better educational outcomes and higher teacher pay. Washington has the highest teacher pay and the smallest classrooms yet is below average in educational outcomes. Stop this canard, it just isn't true. US Schools have plenty of money, they just don't spend it wisely. In fact, both Mississippi and Louisiana have better outcomes than Washington state despite the fact they have half the spend per student.
Post reply on HN