5 ms·

Agreed! I'd like to see a wide variety of ever-improving open source curricula, and students given minimal structure in their day -- maybe two hours max of form

by 75j 10y ago

Agreed! I'd like to see a wide variety of ever-improving open source curricula, and students given minimal structure in their day -- maybe two hours max of formal lecture in core subjects, three hours for socializing / lunch / exercise / play, and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed learning time. Teachers would act more as supervisors and check in frequently to give feedback and gauge their student's progress. Unfortunately American schools are moving in the opposite direction, with massive emphasis on teacher evaluations, discipline, standardized testing, and about 20 minutes daily of highly supervised and sanitized recess (source: twelve years attending public schools and one year more recently working in one).

soufron 10y ago
Are you ready to pay for the teachers to be the interdisciplinary supervisors that you talk about?
- 75j 10y ago
  Sure, and I'd love to pay teachers better too! But why does what I'm envisioning even necessitate an increased number of teachers? The teachers should tend toward being generalists, and part of the school's hiring process would be to attain a mixture of teachers whose skills cover the greatest breadth of subjects possible, but otherwise I don't see any major obstacles to implementing this sort of system. It would be simpler than the convoluted mess that exists now.
  - japhyr 10y ago
    I don't think the parent was meaning you need more teachers. I think they were saying you need really strong teachers across the board to make this model work well. You need teachers who know their subject areas really well, and also how their subject areas fit in with other subject areas. You need teachers who understand people and communication really well. You need teachers who can make sure their subject area is not being lost or minimized in a context. There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.
    - 75j 10y ago
      I agree completely. I did reread GP's post later and notice he probably didn't imply what I thought he did. There are few things more vital than education, and that will pay back to society at a higher rate, so by all means spend a ton on teachers and schools (there's a pretty obvious candidate for reallocation of funds in US discretionary spending). But, I think the approach to education that I glossed over earlier affords its own distinct cost-cutting opportunities, for instance the textbook mafias being rendered obsolete by digitized, open-source equivalents. And teachers will have some of their time freed up too by letting problem kids like me find my own educational pursuits, because I did that naturally as a kid. I also intensely hated sitting in desk 7 hours a day, frequently reprimanded for caving to my compulsion to talk to all the other kids around me. And then there are the many American kids with serious problems at home, who would've benefited moreso from just talking more casually with a teacher and watching Youtube videos all day, rather than pushing them into a classroom. Watch behavioral problems in general improve if you have kids exercising and socializing more, freeing up more time for teachers to work in small groups or individually. And you really don't need experts for anything below 10-12 year old kids.
sylvainkalache 10y ago
three plus hours of self-directed learning time Totally agree, a key here is that student should learn how to learn. There is all the knowledge that you need online, but the truth is that today there is too much information, something wrong, something not accurate. Students need to be able to find, analyze, sort, learn and apply the information they find. By reading the Internet or speaking with their peers or mentors (teachers). As you said, teachers should be here to guide students, not to bring them a piece of knowledge they need to memorize and then spit out a few days later during the exam.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "a key here is that student should learn how to learn." Education is 50% daycare. 80% of students are not really motivated at all, they are doing it because they have to. 'Self direction' is exceedingly rare in youngsters. 99% of educational problems would be resolved if students showed up, paid attention and 'wanted to learn'. Motivation, attention and discipline are problematic. Most teachers and courses are pretty good today.
  - hkt 10y ago
    If self direction is rare in youngsters that is because it is not fostered by their experiences. That's to say, the system needs to cultivate it. I don't know about America, but in the UK teaching as a career path depends on who is in charge politically. The conservatives like to act as if anyone can teach, and value "life experience" over subject knowledge or the development of teaching as a craft in its own right. Labour tend to lean more towards the latter conception, albeit in a bounded and traditionalist way. As the father of a new baby, I am not looking forward to picking schools in the years to come. The root cause of that is that the criteria for success are so poor: encyclopaedic knowledge of grammar is valued over ability to understand and effect change in the world. Facts mean more than projects, procedures are more valuable than their application. It is nuts.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    Education is not even close to 50% daycare. That's how most people, including teachers see it though and that's why they fail. My wife is a public pre-K teacher and it's zero daycare in her class. She runs them like soldiers and they love it. They learn a lot and are way ahead, especially considering they're low income which for some reason seems to often correlate with uncaring families that she has to hound to get to work with their kids at home. Every class she's put out misses her class. She's taught kindergarten and 2nd grade the same way. The "education is 50% daycare" idea is, and I hate to say this but it's true, a white person's viewpoint of education.
rimantas 10y ago
> and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed > learning time I guess you have never worked in education.
- 75j 10y ago
  I said already that I've worked for a year in a school! I worked full-time as a reading tutor in an elementary school, and taught summer school. I've also taught abroad, classrooms with 30+ students. I taught tennis to groups of teenagers for like 6 summers!
- edblarney 10y ago
  Agreed. Kids are not very good at 'self direction'. It takes a lot to get them enthused.
  - zedadex 10y ago
    I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger, yet even if I knew then what I do now, I still think it wouldn't've been something I spent 'my time' doing - not a lot of it, anyway. (Conversely, there are things I was interested in then that I have the resources to learn far mor effectively now, that I absolutely would've loved to have been tinkering with sooner.) It's absolutely highly interest-driven, and while the information can sometimes be neatly standardized and labelled, that interest can't be. It can be cultivated, but figuring out how best to do that takes tweaking and experimentation. As such I'll keep an eye out for Finland's progress on this and look forward to seeing what their findings are.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      "I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger" Same here. When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters! Also - I think that every time you learn something, you get a new 'lego block' that you can use. When you're young, you don't have many blocks, so you can't do much. But as you get older, you have so many blocks (+ money to spend) and you can do so many more things ... it's kind of incentive to learn. The ability to see a larger project through I think would be a great thing to learn. I wish that in school - some projects were worked on that took months to complete, and that the kids had to be involved in the planning. I think that would start teaching kids about 'time horizons' and how complex things get done over time.
hkt 10y ago
I support this kind of thing too. Independent learning is hugely important. I think kids are deterred from independent learning by stultifying practices in the classroom that make them feel that learning has to be bounded and dull. It doesn't have to be that way. Edit: also,schools are vital places for socialising but most teachers insist on silence and attention. I think a better approach would be to allow socialising in a supervised environment, such that a teacher or some other role can suggest not being unkind etc, and in doing so foster constructive social skills. We often forget that social skills can be good or bad: furtive or open. Schools should encourage the right skills.

by 75j 10y ago

soufron 10y ago

Are you ready to pay for the teachers to be the interdisciplinary supervisors that you talk about?

75j 10y ago
Sure, and I'd love to pay teachers better too! But why does what I'm envisioning even necessitate an increased number of teachers? The teachers should tend toward being generalists, and part of the school's hiring process would be to attain a mixture of teachers whose skills cover the greatest breadth of subjects possible, but otherwise I don't see any major obstacles to implementing this sort of system. It would be simpler than the convoluted mess that exists now.
- japhyr 10y ago
  I don't think the parent was meaning you need more teachers. I think they were saying you need really strong teachers across the board to make this model work well. You need teachers who know their subject areas really well, and also how their subject areas fit in with other subject areas. You need teachers who understand people and communication really well. You need teachers who can make sure their subject area is not being lost or minimized in a context. There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.
  - 75j 10y ago
    I agree completely. I did reread GP's post later and notice he probably didn't imply what I thought he did. There are few things more vital than education, and that will pay back to society at a higher rate, so by all means spend a ton on teachers and schools (there's a pretty obvious candidate for reallocation of funds in US discretionary spending). But, I think the approach to education that I glossed over earlier affords its own distinct cost-cutting opportunities, for instance the textbook mafias being rendered obsolete by digitized, open-source equivalents. And teachers will have some of their time freed up too by letting problem kids like me find my own educational pursuits, because I did that naturally as a kid. I also intensely hated sitting in desk 7 hours a day, frequently reprimanded for caving to my compulsion to talk to all the other kids around me. And then there are the many American kids with serious problems at home, who would've benefited moreso from just talking more casually with a teacher and watching Youtube videos all day, rather than pushing them into a classroom. Watch behavioral problems in general improve if you have kids exercising and socializing more, freeing up more time for teachers to work in small groups or individually. And you really don't need experts for anything below 10-12 year old kids.

sylvainkalache 10y ago

three plus hours of self-directed learning time Totally agree, a key here is that student should learn how to learn. There is all the knowledge that you need online, but the truth is that today there is too much information, something wrong, something not accurate. Students need to be able to find, analyze, sort, learn and apply the information they find. By reading the Internet or speaking with their peers or mentors (teachers). As you said, teachers should be here to guide students, not to bring them a piece of knowledge they need to memorize and then spit out a few days later during the exam.

edblarney 10y ago
"a key here is that student should learn how to learn." Education is 50% daycare. 80% of students are not really motivated at all, they are doing it because they have to. 'Self direction' is exceedingly rare in youngsters. 99% of educational problems would be resolved if students showed up, paid attention and 'wanted to learn'. Motivation, attention and discipline are problematic. Most teachers and courses are pretty good today.
- hkt 10y ago
  If self direction is rare in youngsters that is because it is not fostered by their experiences. That's to say, the system needs to cultivate it. I don't know about America, but in the UK teaching as a career path depends on who is in charge politically. The conservatives like to act as if anyone can teach, and value "life experience" over subject knowledge or the development of teaching as a craft in its own right. Labour tend to lean more towards the latter conception, albeit in a bounded and traditionalist way. As the father of a new baby, I am not looking forward to picking schools in the years to come. The root cause of that is that the criteria for success are so poor: encyclopaedic knowledge of grammar is valued over ability to understand and effect change in the world. Facts mean more than projects, procedures are more valuable than their application. It is nuts.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Education is not even close to 50% daycare. That's how most people, including teachers see it though and that's why they fail. My wife is a public pre-K teacher and it's zero daycare in her class. She runs them like soldiers and they love it. They learn a lot and are way ahead, especially considering they're low income which for some reason seems to often correlate with uncaring families that she has to hound to get to work with their kids at home. Every class she's put out misses her class. She's taught kindergarten and 2nd grade the same way. The "education is 50% daycare" idea is, and I hate to say this but it's true, a white person's viewpoint of education.

rimantas 10y ago

> and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed > learning time I guess you have never worked in education.

75j 10y ago
I said already that I've worked for a year in a school! I worked full-time as a reading tutor in an elementary school, and taught summer school. I've also taught abroad, classrooms with 30+ students. I taught tennis to groups of teenagers for like 6 summers!
edblarney 10y ago
Agreed. Kids are not very good at 'self direction'. It takes a lot to get them enthused.
- zedadex 10y ago
  I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger, yet even if I knew then what I do now, I still think it wouldn't've been something I spent 'my time' doing - not a lot of it, anyway. (Conversely, there are things I was interested in then that I have the resources to learn far mor effectively now, that I absolutely would've loved to have been tinkering with sooner.) It's absolutely highly interest-driven, and while the information can sometimes be neatly standardized and labelled, that interest can't be. It can be cultivated, but figuring out how best to do that takes tweaking and experimentation. As such I'll keep an eye out for Finland's progress on this and look forward to seeing what their findings are.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger" Same here. When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters! Also - I think that every time you learn something, you get a new 'lego block' that you can use. When you're young, you don't have many blocks, so you can't do much. But as you get older, you have so many blocks (+ money to spend) and you can do so many more things ... it's kind of incentive to learn. The ability to see a larger project through I think would be a great thing to learn. I wish that in school - some projects were worked on that took months to complete, and that the kids had to be involved in the planning. I think that would start teaching kids about 'time horizons' and how complex things get done over time.

hkt 10y ago

I support this kind of thing too. Independent learning is hugely important. I think kids are deterred from independent learning by stultifying practices in the classroom that make them feel that learning has to be bounded and dull. It doesn't have to be that way. Edit: also,schools are vital places for socialising but most teachers insist on silence and attention. I think a better approach would be to allow socialising in a supervised environment, such that a teacher or some other role can suggest not being unkind etc, and in doing so foster constructive social skills. We often forget that social skills can be good or bad: furtive or open. Schools should encourage the right skills.