5 ms·

I agree with the general premise of the article (that school's purpose should be to help children become adults who know their talents (and have talents)), and

I agree with the general premise of the article (that school's purpose should be to help children become adults who know their talents (and have talents)), and will ignore the notion of "discovering" purpose (as acknowledging it requires that we discuss whether purposes are created or found, which I don't care to discuss beyond this cursory treatment). However, the pragmatics of it all are quite a bit messier. Helping each individual student discover his/her individual talents and skills and passions requires that we restructure schools almost entirely. 1) The current system of 22+ students per class means that, in a 50 minute class period, each student can get a maximum of just over 2 minutes of personalized time, assuming a minimum of time wasted. Over the course of a school year (180 days), this works out to be about 6 hours. Hardly enough time for direct individual feedback or for solid relationships. (I understand that there is a lot more to it than simple contact time, and also that small groups can be more efficient than 1-on-1 interaction). If all you are doing is lecturing, it does not matter how many people are in a room so long as their behavior is not disruptive (or so long as their behavior can be controlled). If you are hoping to deal with their ideas, though, there is a definite point beyond which it's impossible to do much meaningful work. 2) The school system, as it is, is mostly designed to get as many kids through as possible. Again, individualization plays only a cursory role, typically only with students who are "exceptionalities" (read: who have IEPs). Not the environment needed for the type of learning the author describes. 3) In order for the changes the author wants to see happen to actually happen, students (and teachers) will need a lot more autonomy. This means freedom to set one's own schedule to at least some amount, freedom to at least somewhat choose one's own learning, and access to all types of competent and caring adults and older peers who can help guide the student. Personally, I'd love it if a student who was very talented in music was able to spend 4 or 5 hours a day practicing and learning those skills, and the other 3-4 hours per day doing the other bits of learning necessary to be a competent adult (literacy, numeracy, scientific and historical thinking, and so on, as well as reflective and metacognitive thinking). Conclusion: the current system was built by people who see students as points of data and entries in a gradebook, and needs to be rehauled dramatically to provide the freedom and opportunity necessary for the type of individualized teaching the author suggests.

sthomps 16y ago
This is a brilliant look at the system. And you are of course correct. There is an entire overhaul needed if we ever want to make learning more individualized. This will probably never happen. However, I included one link to a school trying it out, you would probably like it: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-littlest-schoolhouse/8132/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-litt... Your conclusion is bang on, and yes the current system is set up in such a way that it classifies students as data in a system.
aik 16y ago
I agree with you mostly. On point 1: I don't think there is much that is more important than personalized time. I don't think 2 minutes of 1-on-1 time a day is ideal, though it's 100x better than what we have now. Something better may be if each week a teacher spends 10-15 minutes of quality time with each student, rotating who to spend time with from week to week. Still, naturally we need to try to have less students per classroom. On point 3: Ideally there would be more autonomy, though as a first step to be significantly more successful, some slight bending of rules would do mounds. On your conclusion and mine: I believe a major re-education of teachers would solve a lot of the issues. Most teachers think their main job is transferring knowledge in whatever subject they teach. However, in today's world where practically all knowledge is freely available, that job has been mostly taken care of. I believe a teacher's role is being a mentor for each student - assisting each student in discovering the world and their respective subject, inspiring them, freeing their minds, passing on curiosity and intrigue.
- sthomps 16y ago
  Very interesting how you see the role of the teacher. I never thought of it that way, but it's so true. With "free" learning available anywhere, their jobs are more to do with mentoring and less with transferring knowledge.
xenophanes 16y ago
I think you make a good point. To add to it: Take those 2 minutes of personal time. Halve them because teachers don't try to maximize personal time (I suspect that's still high). Then multiply by 6 classes per year on average for 16 years. That makes 288 hours. Such a small number for such a long education. It's less than 2 months full time work. It's so little. This does not even begin to approach the estimated 10,000 hours it takes to actually get good at something.

sthomps 16y ago

This is a brilliant look at the system. And you are of course correct. There is an entire overhaul needed if we ever want to make learning more individualized. This will probably never happen. However, I included one link to a school trying it out, you would probably like it: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-littlest-schoolhouse/8132/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-litt... Your conclusion is bang on, and yes the current system is set up in such a way that it classifies students as data in a system.

aik 16y ago

I agree with you mostly. On point 1: I don't think there is much that is more important than personalized time. I don't think 2 minutes of 1-on-1 time a day is ideal, though it's 100x better than what we have now. Something better may be if each week a teacher spends 10-15 minutes of quality time with each student, rotating who to spend time with from week to week. Still, naturally we need to try to have less students per classroom. On point 3: Ideally there would be more autonomy, though as a first step to be significantly more successful, some slight bending of rules would do mounds. On your conclusion and mine: I believe a major re-education of teachers would solve a lot of the issues. Most teachers think their main job is transferring knowledge in whatever subject they teach. However, in today's world where practically all knowledge is freely available, that job has been mostly taken care of. I believe a teacher's role is being a mentor for each student - assisting each student in discovering the world and their respective subject, inspiring them, freeing their minds, passing on curiosity and intrigue.

sthomps 16y ago
Very interesting how you see the role of the teacher. I never thought of it that way, but it's so true. With "free" learning available anywhere, their jobs are more to do with mentoring and less with transferring knowledge.

xenophanes 16y ago

I think you make a good point. To add to it: Take those 2 minutes of personal time. Halve them because teachers don't try to maximize personal time (I suspect that's still high). Then multiply by 6 classes per year on average for 16 years. That makes 288 hours. Such a small number for such a long education. It's less than 2 months full time work. It's so little. This does not even begin to approach the estimated 10,000 hours it takes to actually get good at something.