5 ms·

I wan unclear. No it does not require it and I would be happy to import that part alone. But that part alone is not enough to make me favor the Japanese school

by Iv 6y ago

I wan unclear. No it does not require it and I would be happy to import that part alone. But that part alone is not enough to make me favor the Japanese school system that comes with a lot of issues IMO.

donw 6y ago
Oh, absolutely. It does prompt the question: what education systems do you favor?
- Iv 6y ago
  I have been disappointed by both the French and Japanese education. I'd love to give Montessori and Freinet style of education a try. But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. The system we have was based around a scarcity of books and a need for the production of standardized workers. I suspect the education system's main constraint is not the needs of kids but the possibility/will of the current teachers.
  - omegabravo 6y ago
    The education system is a complex organisation. Having the will to change means little if everyone wants to change differently. Education reinventing itself radically needs a goal. The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal, which is a real consideration.
    - donw 6y ago
      > The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal Oh no it hasn't. California averages $12k per student on an annual basis. Illinois averages $15k per student. Both are more than the median for private schools, and in a private school, you're getting a smaller classroom size as well (average of 19 vs 25 students). Now, this wouldn't be a problem if the results were in-line with costs, but they aren't, not by a country mile -- public schools drastically underperform, and by a wide margin. I know why, but find that immaterial next to the outcome, which is this weird sort of social Darwinism which sorts students into roughly two buckets: "wealthy with a largely successful peer-group" and "poor with a largely unsuccessful peer-group".
  - em-bee 6y ago
    the argument that i keep hearing is that school was designed to create obedient factory workers. montessori has all the things you liked above and more. cleaning up after yourself, and serving food, working with various household tools are apart of the curriculum. they are not just chores, but already in kindergarten kids are learning these things playfully. kindergarten age kids are interested in the adult world, so for them, cutting fruit is an interesting activity just like learning to count. i can trust our kids with sharp knives and scissors, because they learnt how to handle them. i don't know about the older levels, but cleaning up the classroom would be a natural continuation of kids cleaning up after themselves.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    > But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. Long version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education Short version: The existing system is good for those who win at it, so they have no incentive to change it. The important thing about schools is not education, but certification. Spend five years doing difficult but ultimately meaningless tasks at school; the school will certify you "this person is smart and hard working and obedient", and the employers will prefer you to people without such certificate. Improving education would go against the goals of the current system. Imagine that you can make learning 100% fun -- how would you now distinguish between obedient people, and those who are only doing it because it is fun? Imagine that you can explain things in a way that literally everyone could easily understand -- how would you now distinguish between really smart and average people? The fact that many kids fail at school is a feature, not a bug. The purpose of the school is to select elite employees. Their knowledge is less important than their character traits (intelligence, hard work, obedience), because if you employ the right kind of person, they can learn everything they need at work. Make no mistake, even startups who want to disrupt everything, don't want to have their own workplace disrupted by the same personality type. So... if you want to be an employee, and you are smart, hard working, and obedient, the current school system is great, because it will give you a certificate that gives you an advantage over your competition. If you want to be an employer, the current school system is great, because it will certify for you the kind of employee you want. And if you are neither rich nor smart, the system works against you, but that's okay because your opinion does not matter.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    What's wrong with the French system?

by Iv 6y ago

donw 6y ago

Oh, absolutely. It does prompt the question: what education systems do you favor?

Iv 6y ago
I have been disappointed by both the French and Japanese education. I'd love to give Montessori and Freinet style of education a try. But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. The system we have was based around a scarcity of books and a need for the production of standardized workers. I suspect the education system's main constraint is not the needs of kids but the possibility/will of the current teachers.
- omegabravo 6y ago
  The education system is a complex organisation. Having the will to change means little if everyone wants to change differently. Education reinventing itself radically needs a goal. The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal, which is a real consideration.
  - donw 6y ago
    > The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal Oh no it hasn't. California averages $12k per student on an annual basis. Illinois averages $15k per student. Both are more than the median for private schools, and in a private school, you're getting a smaller classroom size as well (average of 19 vs 25 students). Now, this wouldn't be a problem if the results were in-line with costs, but they aren't, not by a country mile -- public schools drastically underperform, and by a wide margin. I know why, but find that immaterial next to the outcome, which is this weird sort of social Darwinism which sorts students into roughly two buckets: "wealthy with a largely successful peer-group" and "poor with a largely unsuccessful peer-group".
- em-bee 6y ago
  the argument that i keep hearing is that school was designed to create obedient factory workers. montessori has all the things you liked above and more. cleaning up after yourself, and serving food, working with various household tools are apart of the curriculum. they are not just chores, but already in kindergarten kids are learning these things playfully. kindergarten age kids are interested in the adult world, so for them, cutting fruit is an interesting activity just like learning to count. i can trust our kids with sharp knives and scissors, because they learnt how to handle them. i don't know about the older levels, but cleaning up the classroom would be a natural continuation of kids cleaning up after themselves.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. Long version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education Short version: The existing system is good for those who win at it, so they have no incentive to change it. The important thing about schools is not education, but certification. Spend five years doing difficult but ultimately meaningless tasks at school; the school will certify you "this person is smart and hard working and obedient", and the employers will prefer you to people without such certificate. Improving education would go against the goals of the current system. Imagine that you can make learning 100% fun -- how would you now distinguish between obedient people, and those who are only doing it because it is fun? Imagine that you can explain things in a way that literally everyone could easily understand -- how would you now distinguish between really smart and average people? The fact that many kids fail at school is a feature, not a bug. The purpose of the school is to select elite employees. Their knowledge is less important than their character traits (intelligence, hard work, obedience), because if you employ the right kind of person, they can learn everything they need at work. Make no mistake, even startups who want to disrupt everything, don't want to have their own workplace disrupted by the same personality type. So... if you want to be an employee, and you are smart, hard working, and obedient, the current school system is great, because it will give you a certificate that gives you an advantage over your competition. If you want to be an employer, the current school system is great, because it will certify for you the kind of employee you want. And if you are neither rich nor smart, the system works against you, but that's okay because your opinion does not matter.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  What's wrong with the French system?