6 ms·

"To his bafflement and frustration, he has become a remarkably polarizing figure in the education world." There's kind of a reason for this. If you're going to

"To his bafflement and frustration, he has become a remarkably polarizing figure in the education world." There's kind of a reason for this. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a specific academic agenda, one even more focused on the standardized testing that parents, students, and teachers alike tend to loath, and geared towards preparing kids for jobs rather than educating them (look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like), he should at least educate his own kids in that way. Instead he seems to defy his own investment by sending his children to a school that emphasies no testing, a big focus on the classics and letting kids do their own thing and become well rounded. As a student of history this sort of line of thinking looks interesting, though I wouldn't want to replace our entire history curriculum with it. Perhaps as an elective, though at this point Bill attempting to touch education is just asking for trouble...

ryangittins 12y ago
(look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like) Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you implying that this is a bad thing? Don't get me wrong; I'm a voracious reader and I love the classics, Shakespeare, poetry, and all the like. They should certainly be taught in English classes, however you seemed to imply that the other things listed don't have a place in English class. I think that newspaper articles can give great insight into how to read and interpret news and information, how to be aware of biases in journalism, and how to write journalistically. As for speeches, I think rhetoric is also a fantastic skill to learn. People should know how to listen to a speech, understand a politician, and learn to speak publicly. Public speaking skills provide a whole slew of benefits both in the workforce and in life, with confidence being a big one. Yes, perhaps rhetoric, public speaking, debate, argumentation, journalism, and the like shouldn't have heavy focus in a common-core, freshman English class, but I think they should certainly be touched on. There are some very important life and work skills in there, and it would be a shame not to give everyone a little taste of them.
- jcomis 12y ago
  Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. They should be touched on and are of course very important. Sheltgor is saying they are going far beyond this at the expense of literature.
  - sheltgor 12y ago
    Exactly this. From what I recall, and from what I hear from several relatives and acquantances who have been teaching for years, is that traditionally the ratio was roughly 70-30 'fiction'-'non-fiction; the latter being novels, poems, plays, etc. ranging from classical to contemporary sources, the former being speeches, news articles, think pieces, analysis of literary or rhetorical techniques, etc. Common core essentially reverses this, putting a much higher emphasis on what the group of reformers behind if feel are more practical, and importantly which contribute more to test scores, whereas many teachers vigorously oppose the notion that the latter sources should be given precedence. At least in my own readings on the matter, and from speaking with individuals who are involved with the movement in the Seattle School District to block implementation of a lot of the new measures, educators tend to feel that the older ratio contributes better to a well-rounded individual, and has a better impact on long-term educational development.
    - ryangittins 12y ago
      I think that what constitutes being well-rounded is somewhat subjective. It would certainly be lovely to have a society full of people that can appreciate poetry, can quote and enjoy Shakespeare, etc, but there is a point to be made about teaching kids how to be successful. Part of success is being able to make enough of a living to be comfortable. Yes, part of it is also being happy and understanding the world, which reading the classics contributes to, but I don't know if I agree with that 70/30 ratio. One criticism of some schools with very classical education is their lack of preparation for the "real world". Many schools didn't bother teaching computer skills until years after the rest of the world had started, despite having the means (i.e. money) to do so. Learning the classics, learning Latin, and learning poetry can make someone an excellent guest at a dinner party, and that's great, but I think the average person would be better off with a little more practicality. Einstein said, "Education is what is left after you've forgotten everything you've learned." Isn't it all about teaching a sort of... meta-skill? Teaching people to learn how to learn? When they no longer remember what Lord of the Flies was about or not being able to recite The Raven, they should still be able to retain the skills required to go back, look at the writing, and figure it out again. I would argue that it should be the same for things like rhetoric. When you're 26 and you have to give a speech at work for the first time in ten years, you should remember some stuff from high school. You may forget the lame topic you were assigned to give a speech on, and you may forget what sources you used, but the skills of doing that research, preparing that speech, and talking in front of others all helped you. Not only do they help with that speech at work, but also in normal, everyday conversation. I really think there's a good case here for teaching some more practicality, despite my love of all the things I learned in my English classes. Of course, it should be noted that I am not in the educational field and I am a complete layman on this topic.
tptacek 12y ago
It is not true that any education solution that works for Bill Gates' family will work at scale across a hugely diverse population. It's possible --- likely, in fact --- that it's impossible to effectively (and cost-effectively) deliver the education Gates' kids get to the entire country. With that in mind, I'm not sure how Gates' own school selection impacts his ideas about education. It seems rather like it has nothing at all to do with his ideas, in which case the appeal to Gates' own actions is fallacious. Where do I have this wrong?
- sheltgor 12y ago
  I've read interviews previously where Gates has spoke wonders of the benefits of the school allowing kids more freedom for things like coding, of a well-rounded background in things like English as opposed to using the class more for non-fiction purposes, etc. This is in regards to his own education at that same institution. So my point is essentially that his ideas about what helped lead to his own success, and the educational model he likely believes will be good for his own children, differs fairly substantially from what he funds for the majority of the country. I do agree that a single solution is not the answer, but the issue is that Common Core actually is much more along the lines of creating a one size fits all model, rather than a community focused model. Much of what Common Core focuses on is actually being very well received in some areas, particularly in low-income, 'troubled' schools. However, the problem is that it is being applied, and that it is being preached by Gates and others, to the entire country, where kids with a more stable environment don't benefit as much from the same structure.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Gates' kids are probably exceedingly smart. Giving them freedom is probably a good idea. Giving the average high schooler freedom is definitely /not/ a good idea.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - walterbell 12y ago
aaronharnly 12y ago
> in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like A brief clarification: That 70% figure applies across all academic subjects in grades 6-12, not English classes. (It's 50-50 in K-5). If one supposes a student reads 90% informational text in science and math class, and perhaps 60-70% informational in history class, that leaves room for English class to be composed primarily of literature. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the CCSS, and I think it's because the authors did not clearly communicate it at all. The introduction discusses the fact that the NAEP framework makes a 70/30 split, but only clarifies the nature of the split in a footnote[1]. It's unfortunate it's been poorly communicated, but the misconception should be corrected. Quoting from said footnote: "The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational." [1] http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standard... (Disclaimer: I work at Amplify, an education technology company. This post reflects my own views, not theirs.)
- arenaninja 12y ago
  Wow, small world. I just finished writing the code to handle LMC items from Amplify o.o
snowwrestler 12y ago
As I understand it, the basis for the Gates Foundation position on education is that education produces measurable outcomes, so communities should actually measure those outcomes, and then use that data to improve education. I think that point of view should be right at home here on HN. I bet most of us believe that measurement, testing, and iterative development are helpful in producing a good product or service. However, most of the U.S. education does not work that way, and parts of it (teachers' unions) are actively hostile to it. Some schools produce outcomes that are so good that they are "visible to the naked eye". You don't need sophisticated testing regimes to know that Phillips Andover or Bronx Science produce strong graduates. It's no surprise that the richest man in the world has picked one of those schools for his children. You probably would too, if you could. But, most people can't--they rely on public education. And in the U.S., most school districts produce outcomes that are not obviously good, or in some cases are obviously bad. In those situations, a clear set of standards and measurements seem to me like something worth trying. Many teachers don't like it because it puts their jobs at risk, potentially based on outcomes that they have little control over (educational outcomes appear to depend heavily on outside factors). They are also worry that the curriculum will be developed by administrators who don't actually know anything about teaching. Parents don't like it because new currulica don't match what they learned in school as kids. Forgive my bluntness, but I think that is stupid. If there is a better way to do things, we should change. Students, many of them, don't like changes that make them work harder in school. Personally, I'm not very sympathetic to that either.
- sheltgor 12y ago
  One of the big issues with the testing argument is that, the way common core is implemented at least, it produces no real meaningful change from past failed testing initiatives like NCLB. An increased emphasis on tests sadly tends to lead to teaching to the test. I experienced this in the early days of NCLB even in a gifted and talented program where several weeks leading up to the test ate up time outside of normal class in order to prepare for the battery of standardized tests that had little relevancy to much of what went on in the classroom. In schools where instruction is already poor, it tends to take even more focus away and devote it towards this specific niche. The other big issue is more one with common core's implementation itself where Pearson has ultimate control over the incredibly lucrative market, and the various contractors they are working with tend to do a fairly shoddy job of it. Test question writing has devolved to such a poor point, due to endless cheapening and outsourcing in order to lower costs, that a question on a major test may net the writer a few dozen dollars. Forgive the anectodal evidence, but my mother worked for a long period as a freelance writer, and when she considered going back to it recently she discovered that many of the questions, ones that have an enormous impact on education, are going for a pittance. Further, in her current occupation teaching adult basic ed and GED prep (they have to work towards common core too), much of the official testing materials and prep questions for educators have been so poorly designed that neither the students nor the teachers can understand them. So yes, quantitative measurements can certainly be a good thing in order to help support improvement, but the current testing model is horrendously broken and moving further towards it is not really the right way to go.
ageorgia 12y ago
Bill Gates eats Salmon everyday, but his African food assistance programs don't provide Salmon everyday to everyone in Africa. Hypocrite!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kenjackson 12y ago
This makes no sense. Most kids won't inherit millions of dollars with an incredible network of influentials. If Gates pushed what was best for his kids to others we would have an uproar about the fact that most kids can't go from interest to interest with no concern for income at all.
themartorana 12y ago
I wish I could, as the son of two public school teachers, the husband of a public school teacher, and the father of a 1 month old who is already trying to figure out how to keep my kid out of public schools and away from the Common Core, upvote this 1000 times.
electromagnetic 12y ago
I think my biggest issue is that standardized testing is loved so much because it appears to work. UK has significantly higher graduation rates for both High school and for college than the US, and the UK just loves its standardized testing (it's where I grew up). It's great in that those who would be under-performers are held to a higher standard than they otherwise would be. There's no getting a free pass for playing sports. The year I graduated high school, my school ranked as one of the top 5 in the UK public school system (it was also the only one that the examiners made no mention of ways to improve, meaning it was likely the top school in the country) and I didn't even know we had a football (soccer) team that competed against other schools. In fact, the only competition I was aware my school entered for sports was the cross country marathon because one of our class members (son of two Kenyan immigrants, no one was surprised as he used to lap us in track and field) won the competition. However, it's bad in that the over-performers are held to no standard whatsoever. I was an over-performer. I got one of the highest grades in class and did nothing, didn't hand in homework because anything that was to the standardized test I aced. One of my elementary school teachers thought I was slow and wanted me to get tested for dyslexia or other learning disorders and said I would fail the Key Stage 1 tests. I was 3rd in my class. The bar was so low that me and my "nerdy" friends in high school barely worked in classes. My chemistry class we would be finished our work within 20 minutes and spend the rest of the class talking with the teacher. There was no drive to excel. There was no "this kid's smart, lets focus on him more". I passed so they didn't give a fuck, it meant they could spend more time on the dumb kids and subsequently boost their budgets.
- xorcist 12y ago
  Of course. Testing always appears to work, if there is no reliable way to measure the measurements. It's not specific to testing students. If you benchmark on your bug count, it will go down, but there is no reason to believe quality will improve. Regarding the over-performers in school, I've always had this idea that they should help teach in some way. It can give meaning to bored children in a way that few other things can.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    This may even work when "teaching" an avatar, http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/30/the-protege-effect/ http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/30/the-protege-effect/ "how can children, still learning themselves, teach others? One answer: They can tutor younger kids. The benefits of this practice were indicated by a pair of articles published in 2007 in the journals Science and Intelligence. The studies concluded that first-born children are more intelligent than their later-born brothers and sisters and suggested that their higher IQs result from the time they spend showing their younger siblings the ropes."

ryangittins 12y ago

(look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like) Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you implying that this is a bad thing? Don't get me wrong; I'm a voracious reader and I love the classics, Shakespeare, poetry, and all the like. They should certainly be taught in English classes, however you seemed to imply that the other things listed don't have a place in English class. I think that newspaper articles can give great insight into how to read and interpret news and information, how to be aware of biases in journalism, and how to write journalistically. As for speeches, I think rhetoric is also a fantastic skill to learn. People should know how to listen to a speech, understand a politician, and learn to speak publicly. Public speaking skills provide a whole slew of benefits both in the workforce and in life, with confidence being a big one. Yes, perhaps rhetoric, public speaking, debate, argumentation, journalism, and the like shouldn't have heavy focus in a common-core, freshman English class, but I think they should certainly be touched on. There are some very important life and work skills in there, and it would be a shame not to give everyone a little taste of them.

jcomis 12y ago
Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. They should be touched on and are of course very important. Sheltgor is saying they are going far beyond this at the expense of literature.
- sheltgor 12y ago
  Exactly this. From what I recall, and from what I hear from several relatives and acquantances who have been teaching for years, is that traditionally the ratio was roughly 70-30 'fiction'-'non-fiction; the latter being novels, poems, plays, etc. ranging from classical to contemporary sources, the former being speeches, news articles, think pieces, analysis of literary or rhetorical techniques, etc. Common core essentially reverses this, putting a much higher emphasis on what the group of reformers behind if feel are more practical, and importantly which contribute more to test scores, whereas many teachers vigorously oppose the notion that the latter sources should be given precedence. At least in my own readings on the matter, and from speaking with individuals who are involved with the movement in the Seattle School District to block implementation of a lot of the new measures, educators tend to feel that the older ratio contributes better to a well-rounded individual, and has a better impact on long-term educational development.
  - ryangittins 12y ago
    I think that what constitutes being well-rounded is somewhat subjective. It would certainly be lovely to have a society full of people that can appreciate poetry, can quote and enjoy Shakespeare, etc, but there is a point to be made about teaching kids how to be successful. Part of success is being able to make enough of a living to be comfortable. Yes, part of it is also being happy and understanding the world, which reading the classics contributes to, but I don't know if I agree with that 70/30 ratio. One criticism of some schools with very classical education is their lack of preparation for the "real world". Many schools didn't bother teaching computer skills until years after the rest of the world had started, despite having the means (i.e. money) to do so. Learning the classics, learning Latin, and learning poetry can make someone an excellent guest at a dinner party, and that's great, but I think the average person would be better off with a little more practicality. Einstein said, "Education is what is left after you've forgotten everything you've learned." Isn't it all about teaching a sort of... meta-skill? Teaching people to learn how to learn? When they no longer remember what Lord of the Flies was about or not being able to recite The Raven, they should still be able to retain the skills required to go back, look at the writing, and figure it out again. I would argue that it should be the same for things like rhetoric. When you're 26 and you have to give a speech at work for the first time in ten years, you should remember some stuff from high school. You may forget the lame topic you were assigned to give a speech on, and you may forget what sources you used, but the skills of doing that research, preparing that speech, and talking in front of others all helped you. Not only do they help with that speech at work, but also in normal, everyday conversation. I really think there's a good case here for teaching some more practicality, despite my love of all the things I learned in my English classes. Of course, it should be noted that I am not in the educational field and I am a complete layman on this topic.

tptacek 12y ago

It is not true that any education solution that works for Bill Gates' family will work at scale across a hugely diverse population. It's possible --- likely, in fact --- that it's impossible to effectively (and cost-effectively) deliver the education Gates' kids get to the entire country. With that in mind, I'm not sure how Gates' own school selection impacts his ideas about education. It seems rather like it has nothing at all to do with his ideas, in which case the appeal to Gates' own actions is fallacious. Where do I have this wrong?

sheltgor 12y ago
I've read interviews previously where Gates has spoke wonders of the benefits of the school allowing kids more freedom for things like coding, of a well-rounded background in things like English as opposed to using the class more for non-fiction purposes, etc. This is in regards to his own education at that same institution. So my point is essentially that his ideas about what helped lead to his own success, and the educational model he likely believes will be good for his own children, differs fairly substantially from what he funds for the majority of the country. I do agree that a single solution is not the answer, but the issue is that Common Core actually is much more along the lines of creating a one size fits all model, rather than a community focused model. Much of what Common Core focuses on is actually being very well received in some areas, particularly in low-income, 'troubled' schools. However, the problem is that it is being applied, and that it is being preached by Gates and others, to the entire country, where kids with a more stable environment don't benefit as much from the same structure.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Gates' kids are probably exceedingly smart. Giving them freedom is probably a good idea. Giving the average high schooler freedom is definitely /not/ a good idea.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - walterbell 12y ago

aaronharnly 12y ago

> in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like A brief clarification: That 70% figure applies across all academic subjects in grades 6-12, not English classes. (It's 50-50 in K-5). If one supposes a student reads 90% informational text in science and math class, and perhaps 60-70% informational in history class, that leaves room for English class to be composed primarily of literature. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the CCSS, and I think it's because the authors did not clearly communicate it at all. The introduction discusses the fact that the NAEP framework makes a 70/30 split, but only clarifies the nature of the split in a footnote[1]. It's unfortunate it's been poorly communicated, but the misconception should be corrected. Quoting from said footnote: "The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational." [1] http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standard... (Disclaimer: I work at Amplify, an education technology company. This post reflects my own views, not theirs.)

arenaninja 12y ago
Wow, small world. I just finished writing the code to handle LMC items from Amplify o.o

snowwrestler 12y ago

As I understand it, the basis for the Gates Foundation position on education is that education produces measurable outcomes, so communities should actually measure those outcomes, and then use that data to improve education. I think that point of view should be right at home here on HN. I bet most of us believe that measurement, testing, and iterative development are helpful in producing a good product or service. However, most of the U.S. education does not work that way, and parts of it (teachers' unions) are actively hostile to it. Some schools produce outcomes that are so good that they are "visible to the naked eye". You don't need sophisticated testing regimes to know that Phillips Andover or Bronx Science produce strong graduates. It's no surprise that the richest man in the world has picked one of those schools for his children. You probably would too, if you could. But, most people can't--they rely on public education. And in the U.S., most school districts produce outcomes that are not obviously good, or in some cases are obviously bad. In those situations, a clear set of standards and measurements seem to me like something worth trying. Many teachers don't like it because it puts their jobs at risk, potentially based on outcomes that they have little control over (educational outcomes appear to depend heavily on outside factors). They are also worry that the curriculum will be developed by administrators who don't actually know anything about teaching. Parents don't like it because new currulica don't match what they learned in school as kids. Forgive my bluntness, but I think that is stupid. If there is a better way to do things, we should change. Students, many of them, don't like changes that make them work harder in school. Personally, I'm not very sympathetic to that either.

sheltgor 12y ago
One of the big issues with the testing argument is that, the way common core is implemented at least, it produces no real meaningful change from past failed testing initiatives like NCLB. An increased emphasis on tests sadly tends to lead to teaching to the test. I experienced this in the early days of NCLB even in a gifted and talented program where several weeks leading up to the test ate up time outside of normal class in order to prepare for the battery of standardized tests that had little relevancy to much of what went on in the classroom. In schools where instruction is already poor, it tends to take even more focus away and devote it towards this specific niche. The other big issue is more one with common core's implementation itself where Pearson has ultimate control over the incredibly lucrative market, and the various contractors they are working with tend to do a fairly shoddy job of it. Test question writing has devolved to such a poor point, due to endless cheapening and outsourcing in order to lower costs, that a question on a major test may net the writer a few dozen dollars. Forgive the anectodal evidence, but my mother worked for a long period as a freelance writer, and when she considered going back to it recently she discovered that many of the questions, ones that have an enormous impact on education, are going for a pittance. Further, in her current occupation teaching adult basic ed and GED prep (they have to work towards common core too), much of the official testing materials and prep questions for educators have been so poorly designed that neither the students nor the teachers can understand them. So yes, quantitative measurements can certainly be a good thing in order to help support improvement, but the current testing model is horrendously broken and moving further towards it is not really the right way to go.

ageorgia 12y ago

Bill Gates eats Salmon everyday, but his African food assistance programs don't provide Salmon everyday to everyone in Africa. Hypocrite!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 12y ago

This makes no sense. Most kids won't inherit millions of dollars with an incredible network of influentials. If Gates pushed what was best for his kids to others we would have an uproar about the fact that most kids can't go from interest to interest with no concern for income at all.

themartorana 12y ago

I wish I could, as the son of two public school teachers, the husband of a public school teacher, and the father of a 1 month old who is already trying to figure out how to keep my kid out of public schools and away from the Common Core, upvote this 1000 times.

electromagnetic 12y ago

I think my biggest issue is that standardized testing is loved so much because it appears to work. UK has significantly higher graduation rates for both High school and for college than the US, and the UK just loves its standardized testing (it's where I grew up). It's great in that those who would be under-performers are held to a higher standard than they otherwise would be. There's no getting a free pass for playing sports. The year I graduated high school, my school ranked as one of the top 5 in the UK public school system (it was also the only one that the examiners made no mention of ways to improve, meaning it was likely the top school in the country) and I didn't even know we had a football (soccer) team that competed against other schools. In fact, the only competition I was aware my school entered for sports was the cross country marathon because one of our class members (son of two Kenyan immigrants, no one was surprised as he used to lap us in track and field) won the competition. However, it's bad in that the over-performers are held to no standard whatsoever. I was an over-performer. I got one of the highest grades in class and did nothing, didn't hand in homework because anything that was to the standardized test I aced. One of my elementary school teachers thought I was slow and wanted me to get tested for dyslexia or other learning disorders and said I would fail the Key Stage 1 tests. I was 3rd in my class. The bar was so low that me and my "nerdy" friends in high school barely worked in classes. My chemistry class we would be finished our work within 20 minutes and spend the rest of the class talking with the teacher. There was no drive to excel. There was no "this kid's smart, lets focus on him more". I passed so they didn't give a fuck, it meant they could spend more time on the dumb kids and subsequently boost their budgets.

xorcist 12y ago
Of course. Testing always appears to work, if there is no reliable way to measure the measurements. It's not specific to testing students. If you benchmark on your bug count, it will go down, but there is no reason to believe quality will improve. Regarding the over-performers in school, I've always had this idea that they should help teach in some way. It can give meaning to bored children in a way that few other things can.
- walterbell 12y ago
  This may even work when "teaching" an avatar, http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/30/the-protege-effect/ http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/30/the-protege-effect/ "how can children, still learning themselves, teach others? One answer: They can tutor younger kids. The benefits of this practice were indicated by a pair of articles published in 2007 in the journals Science and Intelligence. The studies concluded that first-born children are more intelligent than their later-born brothers and sisters and suggested that their higher IQs result from the time they spend showing their younger siblings the ropes."