3 ms·

Disclaimer I'm talking about the US, but I believe it applies at least somewhat to most of the modern education system everywhere. The problem of education isn

Disclaimer I'm talking about the US, but I believe it applies at least somewhat to most of the modern education system everywhere. The problem of education isn't the lack of resources it's the lack of purpose. The internet is all the resources you will ever need. Sure AI could augment this a little. Maybe it could re-explain something you can't quite wrap your head around. The problem is that kids know that the education system isn't even kind of preparing them for what's to come. Knowledge work and trades couldn't be further from what public school prepares you for. Having a teacher for every kid wouldn't change this. The problem is so fundamental, and the solution is so destructive that we can't just tack on one more thing to "fix" education. Learning comes from doing, augmented with reflection. Public Schools don't ever do either of those things. The closest you ever get to doing anything that another human could want is building something in shop class. The closest thing you get to reflection is a grade that can only be negative feedback or the lack of feedback, plus there's no time for building on that reflection, just move onto the next thing.

balls187 2y ago
Is your comment based on recent experience? I have two young school age kids, and my experience with them does not align with your assessment. Their schooling is vastly different from the "Sit still, do what you're told" model that was used to train the an upcoming generation of factory workers.
- csa 2y ago
  > Their schooling is vastly different from the "Sit still, do what you're told" model that was used to train the an upcoming generation of factory workers. Not op, but this is an area I know a bit about. 1. You’re right that instruction methods have evolved over time to be less teacher-centered. This might be considered an improvement. That said, good teachers who implement these methods well are mostly in good school districts (no surprise). 2. The issue comes more in secondary ed, imho. The issue is with the curriculum. In 1900, only about 4% of HS-aged kids went to HS. These folks were the elite, and the HS education was preparing them for a 2-year or 4-year program after HS (again, mainly for elites). The curriculum that existed then is largely the same one we have today, and it’s completely absurd. We get odds things like lower level math (non-calculus track) basically being re-heated middle school math. We get four required years of “English” that focuses on grammar (often taught in a dubious, prescriptive manner) and literature largely written by dead people (when there is plenty of good modern lit and poetry to learn about/through). We have science education that largely does not train students to engage scientific thinking (again, except maybe for the honors classes at good schools). To summarize, we have a curriculum designed for college-bound elites that has been ungracefully shoe-horned into a one-size-fits-all train wreck. All of the curricular issues are solvable, but it there will need to be a critical mass of support in local communities to be able to implement change through the inertia of the existing system of education administrators and (to some extent) teachers. Until this happens, imho it’s best to look at secondary ed as very expensive child care for the vast majority of students, with the exception being in better school districts (usually where the elites or elite-ambitious live). Primary ed is ok… the main learning outcomes that folks need are the three Rs. Some folks, especially on HN, seem to think scientific thinking should be included. They’re not wrong, but that only flies in schools/communities of elites.
csa 2y ago
> Knowledge work and trades couldn't be further from what public school prepares you for. Amen! K-12 in the US needs a massive overhaul, but there are (at least) two problems: 1. Deeply entrenched administrators. 2. Parents who put high value on the child care component of school (regardless of whether learning is happening), which became extremely obvious during Covid, and they don’t want to risk losing that.

balls187 2y ago

Is your comment based on recent experience? I have two young school age kids, and my experience with them does not align with your assessment. Their schooling is vastly different from the "Sit still, do what you're told" model that was used to train the an upcoming generation of factory workers.

csa 2y ago
> Their schooling is vastly different from the "Sit still, do what you're told" model that was used to train the an upcoming generation of factory workers. Not op, but this is an area I know a bit about. 1. You’re right that instruction methods have evolved over time to be less teacher-centered. This might be considered an improvement. That said, good teachers who implement these methods well are mostly in good school districts (no surprise). 2. The issue comes more in secondary ed, imho. The issue is with the curriculum. In 1900, only about 4% of HS-aged kids went to HS. These folks were the elite, and the HS education was preparing them for a 2-year or 4-year program after HS (again, mainly for elites). The curriculum that existed then is largely the same one we have today, and it’s completely absurd. We get odds things like lower level math (non-calculus track) basically being re-heated middle school math. We get four required years of “English” that focuses on grammar (often taught in a dubious, prescriptive manner) and literature largely written by dead people (when there is plenty of good modern lit and poetry to learn about/through). We have science education that largely does not train students to engage scientific thinking (again, except maybe for the honors classes at good schools). To summarize, we have a curriculum designed for college-bound elites that has been ungracefully shoe-horned into a one-size-fits-all train wreck. All of the curricular issues are solvable, but it there will need to be a critical mass of support in local communities to be able to implement change through the inertia of the existing system of education administrators and (to some extent) teachers. Until this happens, imho it’s best to look at secondary ed as very expensive child care for the vast majority of students, with the exception being in better school districts (usually where the elites or elite-ambitious live). Primary ed is ok… the main learning outcomes that folks need are the three Rs. Some folks, especially on HN, seem to think scientific thinking should be included. They’re not wrong, but that only flies in schools/communities of elites.

csa 2y ago

> Knowledge work and trades couldn't be further from what public school prepares you for. Amen! K-12 in the US needs a massive overhaul, but there are (at least) two problems: 1. Deeply entrenched administrators. 2. Parents who put high value on the child care component of school (regardless of whether learning is happening), which became extremely obvious during Covid, and they don’t want to risk losing that.