6 ms·

> Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of inter

> Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distractible as children, who had difficulty with the formal school curriculum, or who were ostracized by their classmates for one reason or another. Every child deserves attention from good teachers. Good teachers with enough resources can provide a significant benefit to these students and integrate them into a smoothly functioning classroom. Assigning troublesome students to weak or unsympathetic teachers is a tremendous “waste” of human talent.

robonerd 4y ago
Even if you only hire "good teachers" and give them "enough resources", some of those teachers will perform better than others. And the attention of those teachers will be wasted on the students who don't want to be there; better to give it to the students who care.
thegrimmest 4y ago
School was never meant to be "engaging". It's not recreation, it's work. The problem seems to be that we've lost the value of working hard and pushing through things we find dull and uninteresting, in order to attain a greater goal. Instead we expect everything to be engaging, stimulating and entertaining. Real world success is not like that - it's work - so better get into the habit early on.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > School was never meant to be "engaging". That's backwards. A school that doesn't engage its students has failed at its most important goals, and the very best schools have always striven to be engaging. Often this was done in unconventional ways, such as directing the youngest students to memorize their pre-set "lessons" word for word and be able to literally chant them back to the teacher. Similarly "direct" yet effective instructional methods were just as common wrt. practical exercises and problem solving. There was no space for the modern fashionable truism that "constructing" one's education from scratch, with practically no involvement from an outside educator, is the only possible source of engagement.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I guess we're circling around this question: Should schools bend to the natural tendencies of students, or should students bend to the rigours and structure of academic life? Given that society itself doesn't bend much, I'm inclined towards the latter.
    - sealaska 4y ago
      Do you think kids should have recess? If so, for what purpose? Or, what do you think of Montessori education?
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        > Do you think kids should have recess? If so, for what purpose? Sure, for the same reason that adults take coffee breaks. This doesn't seem to contradict what I said. In fact it's a very clear delineation between recreation and work. The problem is when children (or adults) behave as though they're on recess when they're supposed to be working. > Or, what do you think of Montessori education? I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem as though the educator/pupil ratios required to make it work are scalable.
      - chelical 4y ago
        >Montessori education Why do people always mention this like it isn't a niche educational experience that already self-selects for the children of well-off, white parents? Montessori is almost as relevant to the public education discourse as Catholic schools imo.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  If school is work then we need to recognize the children's own agency in school, otherwise it it literally slavery. Forcing children to spend the majority of their lives working against their will leads to problems, especially among non-conformists.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I don't disagree with your characterization, but given children are not agents, and are subject to the whims of their parents, I think it's appropriate. Locking a child in their room is imprisonment, yet is widely used punitively at the whim of parents. Beating children is assault, yet operant conditioning is effective and also widely practiced towards children. It's also permitted in most jurisdictions if undue harm is not caused. > among non-conformists Why do we need these, exactly? What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency?
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      > What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency? This ideology sounds an awful lot like fascism to me, or maybe some kind of psychopathy. If you start looking around at the highest-leverage contributions to humanity throughout history, a disproportionate number of them come from people who weren’t “appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self sufficiency” (typically without getting anything for their trouble beyond satisfying their own curiosity). So if all you care about is some kind of personal benefit, then someone (often a teacher) nurturing and encouraging those people has been directly responsible for a significant part of your material well being. But many of us recognize humans as ends in themselves, rather than tools for our personal aggrandizement or slaves to the collective.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        I don't think it's psychopathic or fascist to expect that individuals be able to sustain themselves. Nor do I believe it's right to enslave the collective in order to provide a cushion on which those who fail to do so may land. I don't think it just to mandate the protection of people from the full consequences of their own misfortune, failure, or inadequacy. This is the domain of (voluntary) charity. If you take a harder look at the disproportionate contributors you mention, you'll find that they were motivated to persist at problems for very long hours, often for many years without respite, and for very little reward beyond satisfying their own impulses. None of this indicates poor work ethic, or a reluctance to take responsibility for one's own actions and their consequences.
- EddieDante 4y ago
  So, you're saying that school is an unpaid bullshit job and ought to remain that way? Why do you think that's acceptable? It's almost as if you want today's kids to suffer the same way that we had to when we were their age.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > School was never meant to be "engaging". If it aims to be effective at education, it should. > It's not recreation, it's work. That's very true of what a lot of schooling is, largely because it evolved from a model aimed at indoctrination of a compliant population rather than education. But, nominally at least, the goal of the modern system is not to be work as a means of indoctrinating people to work. > The problem seems to be that we've lost the value of working hard and pushing through things we find dull and uninteresting Or, maybe, the problem is that while it is easy to make material dull and uninteresting, that's far from optimal from an educational perspective. > Real world success is not like that - it's work Real world success is mostly been born on third base and constructing a narrative about the hard-work of hitting a triple.
dpbriggs 4y ago
Surely you had a class with a disruptive kid? They can suck the education value out of a lecture by forcing unnecessary context switches for the students who are paying attention. It would be ideal if each class was so engaging as to enrapture each student but that just isn't realistic.
dahfizz 4y ago
> It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting Murder, rape, and eating your children is natural. That's not a good justification. Perhaps there is a way to help children rise above these base instincts instead of giving into them?
- jacobolus 4y ago
  You think 6-year-olds not paying attention to a boring classroom is comparable to rape and cannibalism?
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    No, I think "it's natural" is a bad defense of both.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      Trying to prevent small children from squirming and getting distracted when they are bored and don’t have enough active outlet for their energy is pretty well impossible. Even harder if the kids don’t get enough sleep, aren’t eating enough or healthily enough, have to deal with strong emotional challenges at home, etc. Kids are on varied biological rhythms, and some times a kid is in a place where they simply do not have the physical capacity to sit and focus.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        You don't need to make sure kids stay 100% still and focused 100% of the time. But you should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. You should build up a work ethic and the ability to be productive. The idea that you should stimulate kids to the point where boredom is impossible, or that we should excuse harmful behavior if the kid was bored / upset, is just silly. It only sets the kids up to fail; to live a life where they can't focus on tasks and they lash out whenever they are in a bad mood.
        4y ago
charlieyu1 4y ago
The teacher only has so much attention to give for a class of 20+ students. And if a student doesn’t get enough attention they tend to ask for more.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

robonerd 4y ago

Even if you only hire "good teachers" and give them "enough resources", some of those teachers will perform better than others. And the attention of those teachers will be wasted on the students who don't want to be there; better to give it to the students who care.

thegrimmest 4y ago

School was never meant to be "engaging". It's not recreation, it's work. The problem seems to be that we've lost the value of working hard and pushing through things we find dull and uninteresting, in order to attain a greater goal. Instead we expect everything to be engaging, stimulating and entertaining. Real world success is not like that - it's work - so better get into the habit early on.

zozbot234 4y ago
> School was never meant to be "engaging". That's backwards. A school that doesn't engage its students has failed at its most important goals, and the very best schools have always striven to be engaging. Often this was done in unconventional ways, such as directing the youngest students to memorize their pre-set "lessons" word for word and be able to literally chant them back to the teacher. Similarly "direct" yet effective instructional methods were just as common wrt. practical exercises and problem solving. There was no space for the modern fashionable truism that "constructing" one's education from scratch, with practically no involvement from an outside educator, is the only possible source of engagement.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I guess we're circling around this question: Should schools bend to the natural tendencies of students, or should students bend to the rigours and structure of academic life? Given that society itself doesn't bend much, I'm inclined towards the latter.
  - sealaska 4y ago
    Do you think kids should have recess? If so, for what purpose? Or, what do you think of Montessori education?
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > Do you think kids should have recess? If so, for what purpose? Sure, for the same reason that adults take coffee breaks. This doesn't seem to contradict what I said. In fact it's a very clear delineation between recreation and work. The problem is when children (or adults) behave as though they're on recess when they're supposed to be working. > Or, what do you think of Montessori education? I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem as though the educator/pupil ratios required to make it work are scalable.
    - chelical 4y ago
      >Montessori education Why do people always mention this like it isn't a niche educational experience that already self-selects for the children of well-off, white parents? Montessori is almost as relevant to the public education discourse as Catholic schools imo.
SamPatt 4y ago
If school is work then we need to recognize the children's own agency in school, otherwise it it literally slavery. Forcing children to spend the majority of their lives working against their will leads to problems, especially among non-conformists.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I don't disagree with your characterization, but given children are not agents, and are subject to the whims of their parents, I think it's appropriate. Locking a child in their room is imprisonment, yet is widely used punitively at the whim of parents. Beating children is assault, yet operant conditioning is effective and also widely practiced towards children. It's also permitted in most jurisdictions if undue harm is not caused. > among non-conformists Why do we need these, exactly? What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency?
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    > What benefit are individuals who have not been appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self-sufficiency? This ideology sounds an awful lot like fascism to me, or maybe some kind of psychopathy. If you start looking around at the highest-leverage contributions to humanity throughout history, a disproportionate number of them come from people who weren’t “appropriately conditioned to work, suffering, and self sufficiency” (typically without getting anything for their trouble beyond satisfying their own curiosity). So if all you care about is some kind of personal benefit, then someone (often a teacher) nurturing and encouraging those people has been directly responsible for a significant part of your material well being. But many of us recognize humans as ends in themselves, rather than tools for our personal aggrandizement or slaves to the collective.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      I don't think it's psychopathic or fascist to expect that individuals be able to sustain themselves. Nor do I believe it's right to enslave the collective in order to provide a cushion on which those who fail to do so may land. I don't think it just to mandate the protection of people from the full consequences of their own misfortune, failure, or inadequacy. This is the domain of (voluntary) charity. If you take a harder look at the disproportionate contributors you mention, you'll find that they were motivated to persist at problems for very long hours, often for many years without respite, and for very little reward beyond satisfying their own impulses. None of this indicates poor work ethic, or a reluctance to take responsibility for one's own actions and their consequences.
EddieDante 4y ago
So, you're saying that school is an unpaid bullshit job and ought to remain that way? Why do you think that's acceptable? It's almost as if you want today's kids to suffer the same way that we had to when we were their age.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> School was never meant to be "engaging". If it aims to be effective at education, it should. > It's not recreation, it's work. That's very true of what a lot of schooling is, largely because it evolved from a model aimed at indoctrination of a compliant population rather than education. But, nominally at least, the goal of the modern system is not to be work as a means of indoctrinating people to work. > The problem seems to be that we've lost the value of working hard and pushing through things we find dull and uninteresting Or, maybe, the problem is that while it is easy to make material dull and uninteresting, that's far from optimal from an educational perspective. > Real world success is not like that - it's work Real world success is mostly been born on third base and constructing a narrative about the hard-work of hitting a triple.

dpbriggs 4y ago

Surely you had a class with a disruptive kid? They can suck the education value out of a lecture by forcing unnecessary context switches for the students who are paying attention. It would be ideal if each class was so engaging as to enrapture each student but that just isn't realistic.

dahfizz 4y ago

> It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting Murder, rape, and eating your children is natural. That's not a good justification. Perhaps there is a way to help children rise above these base instincts instead of giving into them?

jacobolus 4y ago
You think 6-year-olds not paying attention to a boring classroom is comparable to rape and cannibalism?
- dahfizz 4y ago
  No, I think "it's natural" is a bad defense of both.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    Trying to prevent small children from squirming and getting distracted when they are bored and don’t have enough active outlet for their energy is pretty well impossible. Even harder if the kids don’t get enough sleep, aren’t eating enough or healthily enough, have to deal with strong emotional challenges at home, etc. Kids are on varied biological rhythms, and some times a kid is in a place where they simply do not have the physical capacity to sit and focus.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      You don't need to make sure kids stay 100% still and focused 100% of the time. But you should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. You should build up a work ethic and the ability to be productive. The idea that you should stimulate kids to the point where boredom is impossible, or that we should excuse harmful behavior if the kid was bored / upset, is just silly. It only sets the kids up to fail; to live a life where they can't focus on tasks and they lash out whenever they are in a bad mood.
      - 4y ago

charlieyu1 4y ago

The teacher only has so much attention to give for a class of 20+ students. And if a student doesn’t get enough attention they tend to ask for more.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]