6 ms·

As someone who's worked in EdTech for around two decades, I know why people think this. It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is fail

As someone who's worked in EdTech for around two decades, I know why people think this. It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. Just like money, you can't just throw tech at education and expect it to solve anything. There are too many profitable incentives to poor education that are conspiring to perpetuate it. An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. Power generally resides with those who benefit from an ill-educated populace, so anything that would actually help educate children and people at large is discouraged. I'll repeat what others have said here. Giving teachers the means with which to properly work with their students, and investing in students at a more individual level, is what's needed. Sadly, my refrain with regards to public education is that is has become little more than glorified babysitting. Those that succeed do so in spite of the system, and not because of it. Meanwhile, students that suffer from one or more disadvantagements (poverty, disability, social issues, mental or physical health issues, and so much more) tend to just...suffer more. And then they fall into cycles where preventable issues repeat or enhance into the next generation. They'll still spend all of their little income excessively, so profit is still to be had, or they'll end-up in prison, which, again, thanks to privatization, is also immensely profitable, so no problem there, right? The system is setup to fail because that's what's profitable in the long run for those seeking such profits. And because they can lobby, and use their wealth to influence politics, it won't change. Something else needs to happen first.

bbor 2y ago
Well put, all around! If it makes you feel better, state-funded education has, as a rule, pretty much always been babysitting. As we fight together for a brighter future, I think it’s important to know that we’re building something new and glorious, not restoring some natural status quo. Tho I’m no history buff. Maybe some civilization had really great public schools? Designating only a small portion of your population as True Pure Citizens does tend to help with stuff like that
Yhippa 2y ago
> There are too many profitable incentives to poor education that are conspiring to perpetuate it. An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. Power generally resides with those who benefit from an ill-educated populace, so anything that would actually help educate children and people at large is discouraged. I want to believe this but I can't honestly imagine someone actively thinking about this and dedicating part of their work to misinforming the poor intentionally.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  In the US, it's easy to imagine, or just see, politicians actively opposing expansion of the currently-poor education system. Some actively seek to further defund it (see school vouchers). As for actively misinforming poor people, that is the day job (campaigning) for countless politicians, who usually spend less than half their time drafting or voting on legislation.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Why did all the civics classes go after the Vietnam protests?
- mbesto 2y ago
  > actively thinking about this and dedicating part of their work to misinforming the poor intentionally. I'm reminded of the quote > “No one involved in an extralegal activity thinks of themselves as nefarious. I'm a businessman, okay?" - Quark, DS9 S6E25 I don't believe anyone nefariously sits there and says "lets make sure people aren't educated" but I genuinely believe there are people who say "I did this thing and people keep voting me in to keep doing that thing or keep paying me to do that thing, so I'm going to continue doing it that way"
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    You are 100% correct, people mostly follow incentives. The problem is that, for many politicians, "this thing" in "I did this thing and people keep voting me in, so I'm going to continue doing this thing" refers to the starving and/or defunding of education.
mbesto 2y ago
> It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. To expand this more globally - anything that requires human interaction fails at scale. Healthcare, trade skills, education, housing, etc. is all "failing" to some degree no matter how much technology we throw at it. The costs continually go up and the value isn't paired to it.
- jppope 2y ago
  Seems like you're listing highly regulated industries not human interaction.
  - consteval 2y ago
    These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      Part of that is questionable, because the state gets to set the means by which the quality of education is measured. However, a more objective measure is the extent of education; certainly, the introduction of national education has always produced a much greater literacy rate.
      - consteval 2y ago
        The thing is extent and execution are intrinsically linked. Meaning, unregulated markets mean the extent will be limited because people will just choose not to get educated. Which makes sense, if they themselves are uneducated they don't have perfect reasoning skills or future outlook. A market relies on the participants having visibility and ability. They need to see the alternatives, understand them deeply, and have access to them. Turns out you can't do that in a bunch of markets, education being one of them. So, it can never be a true free market.
    - 2y ago
kortilla 2y ago
I don’t think this is the case for several core reasons: - higher income people spend more money. The middle and upper class is by far the largest market and source of tax revenue. - poverty generally turns areas into low trust higher theft spots that need expensive security. - high income places generally have good public schools because a majority do know how important education is - this requires a pretty vast conspiracy of people saying “keep people dumb so we can profit”, which I haven’t heard of at all I think the much simpler explanation is that there is no accountability for inept pockets in the education system. Schools can’t really be punished for sucking and parents can’t move their kids in most states without just switching to private. There is no feedback loop for broken schools.
fny 2y ago
> An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. This is a reactionary take. Math, science, and basic language skills do not lead to political upheaval, and are incredibly valuable skills to the capital class. Leadership would be more apt to propagandize social studies and suppress dissent. China easily comes to mind as a counter argument. I'd apply Hanlon's razor: education languishes due to poor funding, lack of competition, and low salaries that attract mediocre teachers. We don't even properly fund development for blue collar jobs! Also the problem compounds since one generations students become the next generations teachers.
- soarerz 2y ago
  > China easily comes to mind as a counter argument. I mean, cultural revolution was still going on 50 years ago lol
- dehrmann 2y ago
  If the US electorate had better economics education, they would have thought both the [2024] candidates were economic idiots.
  - krapp 2y ago
    If the US electorate had better economics education, the 2024 candidates might have been forced to present sane and reasonable economic platforms, because doing so would have actual political value. Dare I say at least one of those candidates wouldn't even have made it to the primaries. Which I leave as an exercise for the reader. They aren't economic idiots, they just know most American voters mistrust any economic concept more complex than "taxes bad. China bad. jobs good."
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I think it's worse. Regardless of the amount of education, they would have to care about policy enough to read and act on candidates' policies.
    - 2y ago
tqi 2y ago
"There are too many profitable incentives... Power generally resides with those who benefit... The system is setup to fail because that's what's profitable in the long run for those seeking such profits. And because they can lobby, and use their wealth to influence politics, it won't change. Something else needs to happen first." Who exactly are you talking about?
- krunck 2y ago
  Google?
wintermutestwin 2y ago
Focusing solely on the “babysitting” aspect of your post: Since babysitting is essentially required in our current social framework, why do we need physical schools with in person teachers. It seems to me that we could have babysitting facilities spread to lots of small commercial spaces with in person babysitters for kids who are doing school on computers with synchronous teachers online. I realize that the model I’ve laid out here is simplistic, but it would solve so many problems that it seems worthwhile to flesh it out and mitigate the issues.
- panzagl 2y ago
  You've just described half the charter schools around here.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, Very wrong. Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it. And then part of education is indoctrination to trust authority (eg. trust the science). That said, basic education reading/writing/simple math/science is indeed valuable.
- dwater 2y ago
  "Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it." You are arguing that low intelligence is innate, unchangeable. Which sounds very much like saying stupidity is genetic.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    Yes, it is innate, with a high degree of heritability. No one questions physical traits are innate, but some how when it comes to IQ it become highly contested... Why, do think otherwise?
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Trying to quantify genetics and intelligence is fraught because of history and ethics. We cannot put one twin in a box of food and water and the other in schools of varying quality. We also cannot clone Einstein and put them in various schools then test them. Everyone has to live and grow within unjust societies. Some groups will suffer from racism, others may benefit. So it's going to be hard to prove much of anything without a lot of twins and decades of natural experiments. The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo. Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too.
      - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        >The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo. I know this. >Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too. The IQ test may be flawed, but is the concept flawed? Can you see any downside in not acknowledging differing intelligence among individuals? (we know the downside of acknowledging it - right from the Natzis, to individuals who may not try hard enough to achieve something) And oh well - there are both twin studying and studies on kid adopted by their non-biological parent. Given the taboo, it may not be easy to find them.

bbor 2y ago

Well put, all around! If it makes you feel better, state-funded education has, as a rule, pretty much always been babysitting. As we fight together for a brighter future, I think it’s important to know that we’re building something new and glorious, not restoring some natural status quo. Tho I’m no history buff. Maybe some civilization had really great public schools? Designating only a small portion of your population as True Pure Citizens does tend to help with stuff like that

Yhippa 2y ago

> There are too many profitable incentives to poor education that are conspiring to perpetuate it. An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. Power generally resides with those who benefit from an ill-educated populace, so anything that would actually help educate children and people at large is discouraged. I want to believe this but I can't honestly imagine someone actively thinking about this and dedicating part of their work to misinforming the poor intentionally.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
In the US, it's easy to imagine, or just see, politicians actively opposing expansion of the currently-poor education system. Some actively seek to further defund it (see school vouchers). As for actively misinforming poor people, that is the day job (campaigning) for countless politicians, who usually spend less than half their time drafting or voting on legislation.
lesuorac 2y ago
Why did all the civics classes go after the Vietnam protests?
mbesto 2y ago
> actively thinking about this and dedicating part of their work to misinforming the poor intentionally. I'm reminded of the quote > “No one involved in an extralegal activity thinks of themselves as nefarious. I'm a businessman, okay?" - Quark, DS9 S6E25 I don't believe anyone nefariously sits there and says "lets make sure people aren't educated" but I genuinely believe there are people who say "I did this thing and people keep voting me in to keep doing that thing or keep paying me to do that thing, so I'm going to continue doing it that way"
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  You are 100% correct, people mostly follow incentives. The problem is that, for many politicians, "this thing" in "I did this thing and people keep voting me in, so I'm going to continue doing this thing" refers to the starving and/or defunding of education.

mbesto 2y ago

> It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. To expand this more globally - anything that requires human interaction fails at scale. Healthcare, trade skills, education, housing, etc. is all "failing" to some degree no matter how much technology we throw at it. The costs continually go up and the value isn't paired to it.

jppope 2y ago
Seems like you're listing highly regulated industries not human interaction.
- consteval 2y ago
  These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    Part of that is questionable, because the state gets to set the means by which the quality of education is measured. However, a more objective measure is the extent of education; certainly, the introduction of national education has always produced a much greater literacy rate.
    - consteval 2y ago
      The thing is extent and execution are intrinsically linked. Meaning, unregulated markets mean the extent will be limited because people will just choose not to get educated. Which makes sense, if they themselves are uneducated they don't have perfect reasoning skills or future outlook. A market relies on the participants having visibility and ability. They need to see the alternatives, understand them deeply, and have access to them. Turns out you can't do that in a bunch of markets, education being one of them. So, it can never be a true free market.
  - 2y ago

kortilla 2y ago

I don’t think this is the case for several core reasons: - higher income people spend more money. The middle and upper class is by far the largest market and source of tax revenue. - poverty generally turns areas into low trust higher theft spots that need expensive security. - high income places generally have good public schools because a majority do know how important education is - this requires a pretty vast conspiracy of people saying “keep people dumb so we can profit”, which I haven’t heard of at all I think the much simpler explanation is that there is no accountability for inept pockets in the education system. Schools can’t really be punished for sucking and parents can’t move their kids in most states without just switching to private. There is no feedback loop for broken schools.

fny 2y ago

> An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. This is a reactionary take. Math, science, and basic language skills do not lead to political upheaval, and are incredibly valuable skills to the capital class. Leadership would be more apt to propagandize social studies and suppress dissent. China easily comes to mind as a counter argument. I'd apply Hanlon's razor: education languishes due to poor funding, lack of competition, and low salaries that attract mediocre teachers. We don't even properly fund development for blue collar jobs! Also the problem compounds since one generations students become the next generations teachers.

soarerz 2y ago
> China easily comes to mind as a counter argument. I mean, cultural revolution was still going on 50 years ago lol
dehrmann 2y ago
If the US electorate had better economics education, they would have thought both the [2024] candidates were economic idiots.
- krapp 2y ago
  If the US electorate had better economics education, the 2024 candidates might have been forced to present sane and reasonable economic platforms, because doing so would have actual political value. Dare I say at least one of those candidates wouldn't even have made it to the primaries. Which I leave as an exercise for the reader. They aren't economic idiots, they just know most American voters mistrust any economic concept more complex than "taxes bad. China bad. jobs good."
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I think it's worse. Regardless of the amount of education, they would have to care about policy enough to read and act on candidates' policies.
  - 2y ago

tqi 2y ago

"There are too many profitable incentives... Power generally resides with those who benefit... The system is setup to fail because that's what's profitable in the long run for those seeking such profits. And because they can lobby, and use their wealth to influence politics, it won't change. Something else needs to happen first." Who exactly are you talking about?

krunck 2y ago
Google?

wintermutestwin 2y ago

Focusing solely on the “babysitting” aspect of your post: Since babysitting is essentially required in our current social framework, why do we need physical schools with in person teachers. It seems to me that we could have babysitting facilities spread to lots of small commercial spaces with in person babysitters for kids who are doing school on computers with synchronous teachers online. I realize that the model I’ve laid out here is simplistic, but it would solve so many problems that it seems worthwhile to flesh it out and mitigate the issues.

panzagl 2y ago
You've just described half the charter schools around here.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

>An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, Very wrong. Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it. And then part of education is indoctrination to trust authority (eg. trust the science). That said, basic education reading/writing/simple math/science is indeed valuable.

dwater 2y ago
"Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it." You are arguing that low intelligence is innate, unchangeable. Which sounds very much like saying stupidity is genetic.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  Yes, it is innate, with a high degree of heritability. No one questions physical traits are innate, but some how when it comes to IQ it become highly contested... Why, do think otherwise?
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Trying to quantify genetics and intelligence is fraught because of history and ethics. We cannot put one twin in a box of food and water and the other in schools of varying quality. We also cannot clone Einstein and put them in various schools then test them. Everyone has to live and grow within unjust societies. Some groups will suffer from racism, others may benefit. So it's going to be hard to prove much of anything without a lot of twins and decades of natural experiments. The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo. Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too.
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      >The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo. I know this. >Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too. The IQ test may be flawed, but is the concept flawed? Can you see any downside in not acknowledging differing intelligence among individuals? (we know the downside of acknowledging it - right from the Natzis, to individuals who may not try hard enough to achieve something) And oh well - there are both twin studying and studies on kid adopted by their non-biological parent. Given the taboo, it may not be easy to find them.