4 ms·

I personally would love to see two things: 1. School curriculum structured more like an RPG skill tree. The main point or advantage of this is that students ca

by tabeth 10y ago

I personally would love to see two things: 1. School curriculum structured more like an RPG skill tree. The main point or advantage of this is that students can take any path they'd like to be "Level 12th Grade." Many schools let people into physics who don't know algebra. This, for example, would result not only in kids not learning physics, but also becoming less enamored with learning themselves due to the inevitable total failure they'll experience. . Obviously, as a by-product of this we'd have to get rid of grades. Rather than grades you simply can take courses, and once the "cluster" of requirements are completed you'd be deemed to be "nth grade." 2. School should ideally be intertwined with practicality. For at least K-12 I see little reason why everything can't have a more practical focus. This removal in abstraction will keep students engaged and make more clearly the point that everything they're learning is actually useful. With this being said, schools should actually emphasize teachers less. Kindergarteners/1st years and 12th grades/final years should be the only ones to be taught by teachers directly. Ideally, everyone else would be taught by the year above them. Teachers would be present, but mainly to oversee curriculum development, and keep things on a higher level moving along. This has the nice advantage of making it so that in 2nd - 11th grade, student "teacher" (who's just another student) is 1:1. With this kind of attention most students on the cusp of learning will finally be able to get the individualized attention they need. The main problem with this is if the students aren't smart or knowledgeable enough themselves to teach anyone else. This goes back to (1). Students should be ideally, excellent or out. The idea of passing grades is kind of silly. Passing should be excellence. I wonder why people think it's OK to just get by in school? Everyone is capable. School isn't [that] hard.

huevosabio 10y ago
This resembles largely my experience at a Montessori school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education). While there were "grades" (they had to to be compliant with the Mexican education system), grades were bundled into clusters, so a room would have grades 1-3, another 4-6. For each room, there would be one teacher, whose main goal was to guide the students (in fact we called them "guides", not teachers). Skills and knowledge were containerized and were part of a dependency tree. There were several different areas (biology, math, linguistics, etc) and in each you were expected to reach a certain level at the end of your 6th grade, but you were otherwise free to explore subjects at your own pace and in the direction of your preference. This resulted in kids specializing in certain areas, a certain level of competition and pride in your expertise, and an early grasp of what you liked. Overall, I think the result was very positive, and the most visible difference, at least when I left the Montessori school to a new traditional-style classroom, was that I felt that Montessori kids had a certain genuine love for learning and sharing knowledge, whereas most of my new peers felt that learning was a chore imposed on them. Obviously this is one anecdote, and would love to hear more cases.
Jtsummers 10y ago
> Many schools let people into physics who don't know algebra Where? At least in the 90s, my experience being in VA, GA, and NV, this is not an accurate statement. Algebra was a prerequisite for Physics in high school. > School curriculum structured more like an RPG skill tree. This is already, partially, the way things are, or at least used to be, experiences with different states may vary. Curriculums include prerequisites for courses. You can't take Calculus without trig and/or pre-calc, which require algebra II and geometry. If a school permits students into courses that they aren't qualified for, the school has failed the student and should be called out for it. Hell, I wasn't permitted to take courses I was qualified for because of moving between states and differences in course descriptions/names (until my parents pressured the school).
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
> Many schools let people into physics who don't know algebra. This has good and bad points. My sister went to one school, which let her take physics without the algebra course. She was interested in Physics, but wasn't as good with math. Only.. in the context of physics, it wasn't so much of an issue learning it. It provided context. The same can be said about complementary courses: You can take physics, but you gotta take the complementary math as well. My sister was quite upset when she changed schools and they wouldn't let her take the physics course without the math course. Alternatively, many schools offer 2 levels of physics courses: One has the traditional math-focus and the other is usually labeled, "applied physics", which focuses on the effects of physics on things without the math focus. I think this lets folks understand the world around them without actually having to do the hard science - much like folks learn about chemical reactions and biology - and can understand it - without doing the math that goes along with it. In a way, it is an extention of the school being "intertwined with practicality" sort of thing in the second point.

by tabeth 10y ago

huevosabio 10y ago

This resembles largely my experience at a Montessori school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education). While there were "grades" (they had to to be compliant with the Mexican education system), grades were bundled into clusters, so a room would have grades 1-3, another 4-6. For each room, there would be one teacher, whose main goal was to guide the students (in fact we called them "guides", not teachers). Skills and knowledge were containerized and were part of a dependency tree. There were several different areas (biology, math, linguistics, etc) and in each you were expected to reach a certain level at the end of your 6th grade, but you were otherwise free to explore subjects at your own pace and in the direction of your preference. This resulted in kids specializing in certain areas, a certain level of competition and pride in your expertise, and an early grasp of what you liked. Overall, I think the result was very positive, and the most visible difference, at least when I left the Montessori school to a new traditional-style classroom, was that I felt that Montessori kids had a certain genuine love for learning and sharing knowledge, whereas most of my new peers felt that learning was a chore imposed on them. Obviously this is one anecdote, and would love to hear more cases.

Jtsummers 10y ago

> Many schools let people into physics who don't know algebra Where? At least in the 90s, my experience being in VA, GA, and NV, this is not an accurate statement. Algebra was a prerequisite for Physics in high school. > School curriculum structured more like an RPG skill tree. This is already, partially, the way things are, or at least used to be, experiences with different states may vary. Curriculums include prerequisites for courses. You can't take Calculus without trig and/or pre-calc, which require algebra II and geometry. If a school permits students into courses that they aren't qualified for, the school has failed the student and should be called out for it. Hell, I wasn't permitted to take courses I was qualified for because of moving between states and differences in course descriptions/names (until my parents pressured the school).

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

> Many schools let people into physics who don't know algebra. This has good and bad points. My sister went to one school, which let her take physics without the algebra course. She was interested in Physics, but wasn't as good with math. Only.. in the context of physics, it wasn't so much of an issue learning it. It provided context. The same can be said about complementary courses: You can take physics, but you gotta take the complementary math as well. My sister was quite upset when she changed schools and they wouldn't let her take the physics course without the math course. Alternatively, many schools offer 2 levels of physics courses: One has the traditional math-focus and the other is usually labeled, "applied physics", which focuses on the effects of physics on things without the math focus. I think this lets folks understand the world around them without actually having to do the hard science - much like folks learn about chemical reactions and biology - and can understand it - without doing the math that goes along with it. In a way, it is an extention of the school being "intertwined with practicality" sort of thing in the second point.