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

161–170 of 559 posts

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#161

Post by doctorpangloss »

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…

> I just assume that they've never actually taught anyone anything

I care about teaching my students leadership, because all real problems are political. What exactly is the "test" for this?

To me, revolutionizing school looks beyond "problem solving," because the parents and students who are excited about the thing they call "problem solving" - it's invoked in the article, it's talked about by many of the other comments - basically solves no real problems. The revolution will redefine what "problem solving" means.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#162

Post by acdha »

falkensmaize wrote: post #127

If your goal is high academic achievement, the only real answer is a stable home life, parent-enforced discipline and high parental expectations (note I said expectations not involvement - highly “involved” parents can be worse than the neglectful ones). That’s it. That’s the big secret. Show me a school full of tired/neglected/hungry/unruly students and I’ll show you a school full of students that are going to be al…

I find it endlessly frustrating that this doesn’t get more prominence - there are studies from the early 20th century showing that the biggest factors in performance were things like housing and food stability, dentistry and glasses, etc. but fixing those problems drags up enough unpleasant societal choices that a lot of people prefer not to talk about it.

My wife is a public school teacher and I’ll never forget the time early on that an administrator tried to say she could deal with a kid who was absent more than half the time by making her classes “more engaging”. That kid reported rarely sleeping more than two nights under the same roof.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#163

Post by eszed »

ai_critic wrote: post #67
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.

Real talk: which kids have you interacted with? What social class? What ethnicity? What household structure (nuclear, multigenerational, single parent, single parent plus intermittent partner, divorced with shared custody, dirtbag but grandparent covering)? I've found that the people who are more optimistic about kids tend to live in a particular category of socioneconomic bubble.

Ignoring whatever you mean by injecting "ethnicity" into the question, I've interacted kids in all of those socio-economic situations and think both that GP's point about innate curiosity is true, and that GGP's unwilling / coaxable / eager concept is a reasonable framework. That's not to say that I'm necessarily optimistic - socio-economic difficulties create absolutely enormous challenges to learning - just that I've never encountered a group of kids, regardless of background, where there weren't students in each of those (unwilling / coaxable / eager) sets.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#164

Post by kelseyfrog »

Animats wrote: post #157
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.

Yep, known as Bloom's Two Sigma Problem[1]. Like most hard problems we know the solution, but lack the appetite to implement.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#165

Post by groundzeros2015 »

nhinck2 wrote: post #122
fhe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There has been a shift towards too many jobs requiring a tertiary education. But good luck reversing that trend.

This is not true. There has been a shift in requirements to combat credential inflation. The average person is not smarter or more capable.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#166

Post by anon-3988 »

nostrademons wrote: post #134
anon-3988 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The claim was that "virtually all young kids love to explore and learn things", not that "virtually all young kids love to explore and learn multiplication tables".

I can easily claim that most kids are not interested in anything economically valuable. Probably most adults as well.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#167

Post by BobbyTables2 »

kitchi wrote: post #158
fhe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 implemen…

Problem is when one mixes kids who don’t want to be there with one’s that do, they all suffer.

Makes a lot of teacher not want to be there too!

The schools also have little interest in spending time and money on the higher performing students. They teach the minimum and focus resources on the failing ones to raise school averages.

Currently, tertiary education is where a lot of real learning takes starts to happen.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#168

Post by keithnz »

necovek wrote: post #135
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…

I never taught myself, so take this with a grain of salt (though I do think it is extremely hard to do well). I did, however, have a teacher who taught an advanced subject and I found his instruction so good that I did not have to bother with homework and assignments if I was happy with B grades — as I wasn't particularly motivated, only occassionaly did I put in the effort for an A. I could, however, see the level o…

schooling has to be designed around "average" teachers. Having someone who is gifted at teaching is great, but there wouldn't be many teachers if that was the standard. I often think when people idealize what schooling should be like it always seems like they are imagining teachers who are gifted.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#169

Post by necovek »

keithnz wrote: post #168
necovek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never taught myself, so take this with a grain of salt (though I do think it is extremely hard to do well). I did, however, have a teacher who taught an advanced subject and I found his instruction so good that I did not have to bother with homework and assignments if I was happy with B grades — as I wasn't particularly motivated, only occassionaly did I put in the effort for an A. I could, however, see the level o…

schooling has to be designed around "average" teachers. Having someone who is gifted at teaching is great, but there wouldn't be many teachers if that was the standard. I often think when people idealize what schooling should be like it always seems like they are imagining teachers who are gifted.

I think in this case, it was a teacher who is motivated, committed and focused on efficient, effective direct instruction followed by practice.

But I believe your point is great — we usually focus on average vs non-average student, and you are absolutely right that we need to focus on an average teacher just the same: what is the most effective way for a possibly non-motivated, less capable teacher to provide instruction with?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#170

Post by eszed »

cmptrnerd6 wrote: post #103
pianopatrick wrote: post #99

Ya know, one way we could "revolutionize schooling" that would make sense for our modern world is to set up schools that make sense when both parents work. Like have school open from 7 - 6 with the same amount of teaching but lots more recess so that parents can drop their kids off in the morning and pick them up after work. Also, have schools available in the summer so parents can drop the kids off while they go off…

All the schools in my area have before and after school programs for parents that both work or single parents or any other reason you want your kids to be at school longer. I recall my school as a kid had it as well. There isn't traditional class work but it serves as additional recess before and after school as well as lets age groups mix. There is a lot of social learning that happens in that setting that is good f…

I agree with all of that. The problem in our area - I realize every local (US) school system is different, which itself seems to me to be a problem - is that the after school program is enormously expensive. Our kid is skipping (public) TK to stay another year in his private (all day) pre-school because TK + after-school is only, like, $50 / month cheaper. Not sure why three hours of after-school costs the same as 7.5 hours of Montessori, but it does.
Post reply on HN