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

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#171

Post by themafia » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:19 AM UTC

> 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.

Yes, but, you attended a school, no? You are more qualified to answer than you think.

> for the average student.

Who is the 'average student?' This is such a non-existent class I'm skeptical of it's invocation.

Not once is class size mentioned. Perhaps putting 30 randomly selected people in a room and then trying to move them lock step through a subject is complete folly?

Your schools are designed for administrative efficiency, not student outcomes, and "average people" simply do not exist.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#172

Post by BurningFrog » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:23 AM UTC

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.

With AIs as most staff, this should be very reachable.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#173

Post by saadn92 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:29 AM UTC

fasterik wrote: post #66

parpfish wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm not sure if it's an issue of the educational system, but for at least several decades there has been a societal push to correct historical gender imbalances by encouraging girls to do well in school, go to college (especially STEM), get a career. This has resulted in kids seeing a lot of messaging along the lines of "Girl Power! Girls can do anything!". Which to an adult looks like a shift in the tides of history…

It turns out that when you level the playing field, girls do better than boys. I don't think it's about the "girl power" nonsense, it's about the ability to sit down, focus on something, and produce work that meets a certain standard of achievement. I would say the more harmful slogan has been "you're okay just the way you are." I'm not saying we go back to harsh discipline and abuse, but there has to be a middle gro…

I disagree. There's cases where girls do better and cases where boys do better. This blanket statement is just as bad as saying that all men/boys are smarter than girls.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#174

Post by falkensmaize » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:34 AM UTC

acdha wrote: post #162

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…

My wife too was a public school teacher for a decade, and resigned from sheer frustration and exhaustion. It became abundantly clear toward the end of her tenure that no amount of effort or technique was going to make the situation better. It’s really a completely broken system.

The primary reason I became a software engineer at middle age was to make enough money and have good enough health insurance that she could have the freedom to leave a job that was killing her mentally and physically.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#175

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC

Rohansi wrote: post #151

WalterBright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lectu…

> What you've discovered is your learning style.

I have difficulty believing that my learning style is uncommon. Consider trying to build muscle. There are techniques that are proven to work best. There are no individual "muscle building styles" that work better, unless the person has a disability.

And I don't believe that in general the kids in classes are mentally disabled.

Yes, I know about ADHD, autism, and dyslexia.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#176

Post by annzabelle » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC

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…

I was lucky to attend a liberal arts college with a large and extremely pedagogy focused mathematics department, and all of my math classes there were like this. Engaging lectures, if I listened and wrote down everything on the board I would be able to get a B on the exams, even if I skimped on practice. Made it all the way to measure theory this way. They included in class group practice integrated with the lectures, which definitely helped.

St. Olaf College for those wondering.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#177

Post by ckw » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:43 AM UTC

SubmarineClub wrote: post #86

fasterik wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out that when you level the playing field, girls do better than boys. I don't think it's about the "girl power" nonsense, it's about the ability to sit down, focus on something, and produce work that meets a certain standard of achievement. I would say the more harmful slogan has been "you're okay just the way you are." I'm not saying we go back to harsh discipline and abuse, but there has to be a middle gro…

> It turns out that when you level the playing field, girls do better than boys. Why is it that when boys/men where outperforming and out-earning women, people were willing to move heaven and earth to correct this terrible injustice, but now when outcomes have reversed (for years at this point) it's considered acceptable to say "Welp, that's just how it goes. Boys just aren't good enough." Hmmm...almost like, it's no…

Approximate shares of undergraduate enrollment by sex:

  Year    Male     Female
  1970    58%      42%
  1975    53%      47%
  1980    48%      52%
  1985    46%      54%
  1990    45%      55%
  1995    44.5%    55.5%
  2000    43.9%    56.1%
  2005    43.3%    56.7%
  2010    43.0%    57.0%
  2015    43.6%    56.4%
  2020    42.7%    57.3%
  2025    42.7%    57.3%

So men have been in the minority for at least 46 years, and the skew is as large as it was in 1970, but reversed.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#178

Post by nicwilson » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:47 AM UTC

psadri wrote: post #14

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…

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 you use other students for that problem instead of other teachers, you'd swap a budgetary problem for a bootstrap problem.

The upshot for this is that the benefit is as much for the student doing the teaching as the one doing the learning. Teaching has a much greater effect on _retention_ than listening reading or even doing, which is the majority determinant underlying the primary school curriculum.

There are a whole host of secondary benefits to this (as well as lots of logistical challenges): the students are doing something useful, teaching, and we pay teachers if you wanted to expend budget there I suspect it would have great effect, as would any other form of ~~bribery~~, I mean, incentivisation; socialising, especially if you have the teaching being done across different classes (which you would want to do because you want the teacher to know more than the student).

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#179

Post by itshossein » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:52 AM UTC

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…

[dead]

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#180

Post by obscurette » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:57 AM UTC

socalgal2 wrote: post #97

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…

There's also this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g1ib43q3uXQ which claims data shows students being forced to "figure it out" is not the best way to learn. Most HNer disagree with this.

As someone who have been teacher for some time - students being forced to "figure it out" is the worst way to learn. For every subject you teach explicitly there is always a ton of knowledge to discover if students choose to do it, but being forced to do it very clearly damages students.

https://scienceoflearning.substack.com/p/no-explicit-instruc...