3 ms·

> Every public-school kid has to learn exactly the same things, in the same timeframe, in the same order, at the same pace. Standardization isn't a bad thing.

> Every public-school kid has to learn exactly the same things, in the same timeframe, in the same order, at the same pace. Standardization isn't a bad thing. If there are no standards, then how could the state identify poor educational outcomes and fix them? If there's no way of identifying them, what's incentivizing schools and teachers to do a good job? I get that a lot of people (teachers especially) aren't fond of standardized testing, but the alternative sounds like an administrative clusterfuck

pylua 2y ago
Standardization of testing is different than standardizing the rate of learning.
- rhelz 2y ago
  Well, having no money isn't the same thing as not having a yacht, either, but the one can impose substantial constraints upon the feasibility of the other.
xyzzy123 2y ago
It's hard to get across in a drive-by comment, but most of the advantages IMHO of alternative schooling methods are locked up behind increased parent engagement. You need standardised testing and close teacher evaluations etc if your operating model for learning is that you turn your child over to the school system and that system is then responsible for the complete education and safety of the child with minimal parental oversight or engagement. If you are passing on responsibility completely to the state then yes, the state needs "industrial tools" to be able to manage this at scale. With the closer involvement of parents and their acceptance of some responsibility for outcomes then a wide variety of more humane and personalised approaches to learning are possible.
- matrix87 2y ago
  The way you describe it, it sounds like the problem is a lack of parental involvement and not necessarily the schooling system itself
  - rhelz 2y ago
    IMHO, 80% of the problems with public schools would go away if they were not funded from property taxes, but paid by the state out of its general budget. If the rich parents knew their kids would get the same education as poor kids, you bet average educational achievement would skyrocket. And the other 80% of the problems would go away if parents spent 2 hours a day on their kids education.
    - matrix87 2y ago
      I feel like actually getting rich people to behave in ways that benefit the general public is a lot less straightforward Suppose schools get funded like that. There's several other ways that the rich could ensure that their kids get a better outcome while still maintaining the relative advantage
      - rhelz 2y ago
        Baby steps. Don't let the ideal be the enemy of the real.
- rhelz 2y ago
  Well thanks for this comment, because it makes a good point. Holding teachers accountable? Sure. Holding parents accountable?? A lot of parents would like to do more, but these days, if you want to afford a house which has a bedroom for the kid, both parents have to be working. In the Bay Area, it's not even enough for both parents to be working--both parents have to be killing it very stressful jobs which require very long hours. It's so much easier to convert the guilt about bad parenting into anger at Teachers. Especially if you are continually worried about being laid off, while teachers have tenure. Especially if you have only 2 weeks vacation a year while the teachers get summer break. Especially if your employer is making unreasonable demands, while teachers have a strong union to advocate for them.
rhelz 2y ago
Good standards are good. Bad standards are bad. The current standards are more towards the good end of the spectrum, at least IMHO. But they do have the side effect of keeping public school teachers from using bottom-up, student-directed techniques. The kids and the teacher are going to be evaluated by the standards, so the lessons have to be top down and at a very fast pace, or there would be no time to teach what the standards require. Maybe a net win, maybe not, but we should at least be aware there are trade offs.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > bottom-up, student-directed techniques Personally I'm kind of skeptical of "bottom-up" anything. People only bring it up in a negative sense whenever they're criticizing some "top-down" system but the alternative is never well defined

pylua 2y ago

Standardization of testing is different than standardizing the rate of learning.

rhelz 2y ago
Well, having no money isn't the same thing as not having a yacht, either, but the one can impose substantial constraints upon the feasibility of the other.

xyzzy123 2y ago

It's hard to get across in a drive-by comment, but most of the advantages IMHO of alternative schooling methods are locked up behind increased parent engagement. You need standardised testing and close teacher evaluations etc if your operating model for learning is that you turn your child over to the school system and that system is then responsible for the complete education and safety of the child with minimal parental oversight or engagement. If you are passing on responsibility completely to the state then yes, the state needs "industrial tools" to be able to manage this at scale. With the closer involvement of parents and their acceptance of some responsibility for outcomes then a wide variety of more humane and personalised approaches to learning are possible.

matrix87 2y ago
The way you describe it, it sounds like the problem is a lack of parental involvement and not necessarily the schooling system itself
- rhelz 2y ago
  IMHO, 80% of the problems with public schools would go away if they were not funded from property taxes, but paid by the state out of its general budget. If the rich parents knew their kids would get the same education as poor kids, you bet average educational achievement would skyrocket. And the other 80% of the problems would go away if parents spent 2 hours a day on their kids education.
  - matrix87 2y ago
    I feel like actually getting rich people to behave in ways that benefit the general public is a lot less straightforward Suppose schools get funded like that. There's several other ways that the rich could ensure that their kids get a better outcome while still maintaining the relative advantage
    - rhelz 2y ago
      Baby steps. Don't let the ideal be the enemy of the real.
rhelz 2y ago
Well thanks for this comment, because it makes a good point. Holding teachers accountable? Sure. Holding parents accountable?? A lot of parents would like to do more, but these days, if you want to afford a house which has a bedroom for the kid, both parents have to be working. In the Bay Area, it's not even enough for both parents to be working--both parents have to be killing it very stressful jobs which require very long hours. It's so much easier to convert the guilt about bad parenting into anger at Teachers. Especially if you are continually worried about being laid off, while teachers have tenure. Especially if you have only 2 weeks vacation a year while the teachers get summer break. Especially if your employer is making unreasonable demands, while teachers have a strong union to advocate for them.

rhelz 2y ago

Good standards are good. Bad standards are bad. The current standards are more towards the good end of the spectrum, at least IMHO. But they do have the side effect of keeping public school teachers from using bottom-up, student-directed techniques. The kids and the teacher are going to be evaluated by the standards, so the lessons have to be top down and at a very fast pace, or there would be no time to teach what the standards require. Maybe a net win, maybe not, but we should at least be aware there are trade offs.

matrix87 2y ago
> bottom-up, student-directed techniques Personally I'm kind of skeptical of "bottom-up" anything. People only bring it up in a negative sense whenever they're criticizing some "top-down" system but the alternative is never well defined