3 ms·

This has been my point for a while. The tools are largely here ( or at least should be based on money spent - my district just sent flyer they want to issue bon

This has been my point for a while. The tools are largely here ( or at least should be based on money spent - my district just sent flyer they want to issue bonds for 170MM -- and that is only part 1 of their grand plan; they want to empty the coffers for the rest ). And I am almost like.. what is throwing money going to do? It won't help the kids. Kids that want to learn or have parents that enforce standards still excel. There are things a school can do to also enforce standards, but those things are not being done. The opposite appears to be happening.

ghaff 4y ago
Edu-tech has been a promoted thing for decades whether by techno-optimists or by (probably more commonly) companies whose primary mission is to extract money from school systems. Like most other uses of money in secondary schools (subject to probably some limits like class size), it doesn't move the needle much relative to parental involvement. While the availability of the Internet is certainly useful in some respects, overall, I doubt secondary school education overall has improved a lot since teachers were writing on blackboards.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  The trouble with throwing money at education to try to improve it is that the things we know work are, on one side, nothing to do with the schools (home environment—what needs money are social services and shit like universal healthcare, not schools, poverty-reduction is the clearest target here) and on the other, a lot more expensive than we're willing to pay (e.g. Tutorial System, very-small class sizes, that kind of thing). So instead of going after the things we know work—either because it's outside the scope of what a school can address, or because it's far more expensive than we're ever going to pay—what money we do spend just chases a bunch of unproven and unlikely-to-succeed garbage, basically. Schools are like the patient who needs a heart transplant, but can only afford healing crystals.
  - vkou 4y ago
    You've missed 'smaller class sizes' on your list of needed, but politically impossible solutions.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > e.g. [...] very-small class sizes Yep, but increasing the number of teachers 2-3x is indeed politically impossible. Guessing that'd mean like 30-60% higher spending on education (you'd also have to increase wages to attract enough qualified workers, in addition to having way more teachers on payroll, and it'd be a years-long process), which ain't happening.

ghaff 4y ago

Edu-tech has been a promoted thing for decades whether by techno-optimists or by (probably more commonly) companies whose primary mission is to extract money from school systems. Like most other uses of money in secondary schools (subject to probably some limits like class size), it doesn't move the needle much relative to parental involvement. While the availability of the Internet is certainly useful in some respects, overall, I doubt secondary school education overall has improved a lot since teachers were writing on blackboards.

yamtaddle 4y ago
The trouble with throwing money at education to try to improve it is that the things we know work are, on one side, nothing to do with the schools (home environment—what needs money are social services and shit like universal healthcare, not schools, poverty-reduction is the clearest target here) and on the other, a lot more expensive than we're willing to pay (e.g. Tutorial System, very-small class sizes, that kind of thing). So instead of going after the things we know work—either because it's outside the scope of what a school can address, or because it's far more expensive than we're ever going to pay—what money we do spend just chases a bunch of unproven and unlikely-to-succeed garbage, basically. Schools are like the patient who needs a heart transplant, but can only afford healing crystals.
- vkou 4y ago
  You've missed 'smaller class sizes' on your list of needed, but politically impossible solutions.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > e.g. [...] very-small class sizes Yep, but increasing the number of teachers 2-3x is indeed politically impossible. Guessing that'd mean like 30-60% higher spending on education (you'd also have to increase wages to attract enough qualified workers, in addition to having way more teachers on payroll, and it'd be a years-long process), which ain't happening.