I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#151

Post by Rohansi » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:23 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #96

freeopinion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walter, I have a great deal of respect for you. Your math skills are much greater than my own. But you have stretched your statement too far. Flash cards can be very helpful in teaching math. Timed tests for math facts can be very helpful. Both of these can be facilitated with computers or tablets. Animations can be a very useful instructional tool. Even taking a picture of the chalk on the blackboard and putting it…

I tried various methods on myself. What works: 1. having a lecture on a chalkboard 2. taking notes by hand. Yes, by hand. Something about the act of writing it by hand fixes it in my brain 3. using pencil and paper to do the problems. 4. and what really works is giving an in-person lecture on how to do it What doesn't work: 1. everything else I've watched many instructional videos. Poof, none of it sticks. I've audit…

What you've discovered is your learning style. It's not the same for everyone so it's an important thing that everyone should discover about themself.

There are visual learners out there. Being a visual learner doesn't mean you don't need to do the work, it means you typically need some visualization for things to click, and then you practice applying it like everyone else. Some people can even manage with just lectures.

This causes some students trouble in school because their needs may not be met by every teacher. It's especially worse if the student hasn't learned what their learning style is yet.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#152

Post by bawolff » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:24 AM UTC

anon-3988 wrote: post #114

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.

> 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. This is a very bold claim. I don't think most kids are curious about the multiplication tables

I think a lot of kids can be motivated for that by having a game out of counting in multiples (e.g . Have them count by 4s, 5s, etc). Which is good enough for practical purposes.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#153

Post by eszed » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:25 AM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #98

tombert wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an art to making learning fun. I thought I had that skill, but I do not, at least not intrinsically. Maybe I could learn it, but since I was only a lecturer for about a year, I never really developed it. I am not going to pretend I know how to make seemingly-boring subjects interesting, but a lot of things do need to be learned that aren't always fun. I've always liked math [1], but I know a lot of people don…

Thing about it is the students should be given an explanations about why each topic is important for them to learn to be able to learn more advanced topics. Maybe briefly show how that adavanced topic will be taught and let them realize they can not possible even start to understand advanced topic because they are missing the more elementary pieces. Similarly why they can't got further without doing their homework. H…

Yes, to all of this.

The pedagogical term for the concept in your final paragraph is "scaffolding", and it's critical. Teachers have to know how to break their subject down into digestible pieces, and then find the proper order in which to build it up again. Advanced mode: be able to break it down and build it up again in different ways, for students with different backgrounds or learning styles.

(This is why many teachers - I was among them - aren't immediately good at teaching concepts or subjects that come easily to them as they may be at teaching things they struggled a bit to learn. If you've had to break something down for yourself then you're ahead of the game when it comes to breaking it down for others.)

For a while I taught an "Improv For Teachers" workshop (I have a theatre background), which was really about listening to your class and being ready to adapt your lesson plan to where they are in their course of work, or even to their mood on the day. It was mostly elementary school teachers, and some of them really resisted that idea. I'm convinced, though, that that's an important skill: the most memorable and successful classes I've taught have happened when I've been able to take advantage of a student question or a student interest and run with it - sometimes not even knowing where it'll go - with the confidence that I'll somehow be able to pivot back to the curriculum. You have to be willing to be a bit vulnerable, and embrace a bit of fear, and risk a bit of failure to do it, hence why the Improv experience is so helpful.

Do you have teaching experience?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#154

Post by vunderba » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:28 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #47

1. the best teachers (of anything) rarely convey information or skills in any direct sense. Instead, they create the conditions where (willing) students will (or are at least more likely) to have experiences that cause them to learn. 2. John Holt (look him up) 3. I always wanted to offer people the chance to both leave and return to K-12 education. Lots of kids want out as teenagers, and we should make that possible…

> 1. the best teachers (of anything) rarely convey information or skills in any direct sense. Instead, they create the conditions where (willing) students will (or are at least more likely) to have experiences that cause them to learn.

When I was an international ESL teacher, this was known as “guided discovery,” the goal being that students organically uncover the rules that govern the specific domain being taught.

It works quite well because it transforms what would otherwise be a passive curriculum from more of a spectator sport into an active, participatory learning experience.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#155

Post by bawolff » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:29 AM UTC

WarmWash wrote: post #112

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will bet that the number of adults who ever engage in coloring or painting as adults is extremely small. Probably less than the number of full time scientists, engineers, finance professionals etc. Yet no one complains that we are forcing students to do art in school, even when many students don't particularly like doing art. Why? Because we recognize that developing general artistic ability in humans is important,…

Math is a tool for solving problems, and people will do work to create value that they will share with you for helping them solve a problem which will ultimately create even more value. In short, math is a powerhouse tool for carrying society forward. Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward" In shor…

> Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward"

Idk, the soviets didn't invest in socialist realism propaganda for nothing.

Less sarcastically, art has had an outsized influence on society and culture. Take any social movement you want, and there was probably some novel or work of art that galvanized it.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#156

Post by aaron695 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:31 AM UTC

tombert wrote: post #70

I'm not the first person to state this, but it bears repeating: nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't. I'm not exempting myself from this. I was an adjunct lecturer for two semesters. I did have some fun with it, but it was way harder than I thought it would be, and I think that university is probably considerably easier than elementary or high school. I had students that…

[dead]

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#157

Post by Animats » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:35 AM UTC

tombert wrote: post #70

I'm not the first person to state this, but it bears repeating: nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't. I'm not exempting myself from this. I was an adjunct lecturer for two semesters. I did have some fun with it, but it was way harder than I thought it would be, and I think that university is probably considerably easier than elementary or high school. I had students that…

We know what works: a 1:5 staff to student ratio. At that ratio, method matters less. Beyond that, it's a productivity problem.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#158

Post by kitchi » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:35 AM UTC

fhe wrote: post #110

tombert wrote: post #70

I'm not the first person to state this, but it bears repeating: nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't. I'm not exempting myself from this. I was an adjunct lecturer for two semesters. I did have some fun with it, but it was way harder than I thought it would be, and I think that university is probably considerably easier than elementary or high school. I had students that…

based on your description, one reasonable way to 'revolutionize' school might simply allow people (who don't want to be there) to leave.

Depending on what you mean by "school" I'd disagree. Voluntary tertiary education makes sense, not all chosen professions may need or benefit from a degree.

But primary education needs to be a requirement for every child. Coming from a country with a large illiterate population, it's easy to see how hard their lives are compared to folks with an education but similar socio-economic backgrounds.

Now obviously implementing universal primary education and the details can be debated and need to be context specific.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#159

Post by bawolff » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:36 AM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #82

WalterBright wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When young people ask me why they should learn math, I point out that managing your money requires math, and there are plenty of people who will steal from you if you are unable to recognize it. An inability to understand compound interest is classic.

But that's basic arithmetic, and we have calculators to do that. Totally agree that understanding the problem and being able to frame a solution are also needed, but again, that's not hard maths. I think we're more talking about algebra or, really, anything "higher" in maths than arithmetic. Does a solid knowledge of, e,g, Set Theory, give any benefit later in life? And also, if we think that basic financial manageme…

> But that's basic arithmetic, and we have calculators to do that.

I would disagree. How to minimize a function, how to calculate interest, first derrivative are all pretty useful in finance, and a bit beyond basic arithmatic.

> I think we're more talking about algebra

"Algebra" as a term covers a lot. Being able to solve for x is a very useful skill and often what people mean by algebra.

If you mean understanding groups, rings, fields, or whatever, then sure that is probably not very useful to the average person's day to day. However i dont think that is usually tought in high school.

> Does a solid knowledge of, e,g, Set Theory, give any benefit later in life?

Pretty sure nobody in high school is getting a solid understanding of set theory. That is more university level.

> And also, if we think that basic financial management is a good thing for kids to learn, why don't we teach that?

I guess it depends on where you live, but i had to take a class on that in high school.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#160

Post by abdullahkhalids » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:41 AM UTC

WarmWash wrote: post #112

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will bet that the number of adults who ever engage in coloring or painting as adults is extremely small. Probably less than the number of full time scientists, engineers, finance professionals etc. Yet no one complains that we are forcing students to do art in school, even when many students don't particularly like doing art. Why? Because we recognize that developing general artistic ability in humans is important,…

Math is a tool for solving problems, and people will do work to create value that they will share with you for helping them solve a problem which will ultimately create even more value. In short, math is a powerhouse tool for carrying society forward. Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward" In shor…

I cannot support such thinking. Art is foundational to human experience. People crave that their free time is filled with good food, good music, good books, good movies and shows in beautiful houses with beautiful gardens. All of these are various forms of art.

There were humans for tens of thousands of years before there was high technology. But there were hardly any humans around before there was art.