3 ms·
I'm not sure how it would cost a lot more. I would think it would cost way less, unless you're referring to "tracking" them in everything they do. I believe ol
by hereme888 7y ago
I'm not sure how it would cost a lot more. I would think it would cost way less, unless you're referring to "tracking" them in everything they do.
I believe older children and teenagers have the ability to choose material that comfortably challenges their own ability better than any software or person.
Students aren't lazy by default. They're just lazy and unmotivated when forced to focus on what their brains consider boring.
As for more/better teachers: the best education is already available for free online (such as Khan academy). I'm all for face-to-face interaction, but that could happen almost for free with older student mentors, and ocassionaly with paid professors.
Also, if maximum benefits mean "highest scores" or "highest efficiency of time", I'd rather youngesters learn to rest and have more down-time.
I'm not suggesting "I have solved the education problem". Just thinking outside the tiny box our system has been stuck in for decades too long.
- shantly 7y agoHigher cost mostly because you need better teachers, and probably more of them (20+ kids per teacher makes it hard to give all of them what they need). Tracking would help contain the costs because it's easier to teach 20 kids roughly on the same "level" in a topic than 20 kids some of whom are operating about three grade levels behind, and others three grade levels ahead.
- Kaiyou 7y agoYou need zero teachers if kids are motivated and have access to the Internet. All teachers have done in my schoollife could easily be replaced by playing back a video.