Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)(thesunmagazine.org)
thesunmagazine.org
Why Schools Don’t Educate (1990)
https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/175/why-schools-dont-educate
142 comments
I've taught in schools from all corners of San Francisco, and can't agree more with majority of what was said in this article, except maybe the money part*, I'll leave a footnote for this.
One day when I was volunteering at one of these schools, a student came up to me showing a picture of a robot how cool it was. When I mentioned that it was relatively easy to build, he got super stoked, told his friends and before you know it, we had a class of 8 students pursuing their own interest, learning CS/Breadboarding/Electrical-Circuits, all student driven, building cardboard-box arduino-based robots afterschool.**
These student led classes were majority black students and pushed forward most by black students. Everything was honestly instantly working great, and at the end of every class my students made to promise not to forget to show up to the next session (I don't recall missing a session, I believe this was out attachment for the course).
Self-driven learning is a thing, and all we have to do is give kids grounds to explore -- in this case to create designs from from their own imagination (ey, isn't that why we're hackers here : D? We can all relate).
* Small class sizes help (or student:teacher ratio of 6:1 ideally). This is the ratio (lower works too) that really works, and I've seen only at really rich schools (see Branson/UHS/Lick Wilmerding) and programs based on it. I've seen this emulated to great success in Summerbridge SF, and too at a summerschool I helped start in the bay area based on project-based/student-led learning, access to technology, and most importantly these small class sizes that enables hosting these free-learning classes.
**Again money is important, materials costs for this class were supported by my concurrent 4 jobs, doing mainly part-time engineering work for startups, electrical-engineering curriculum development for a summer-schools, as well as tutoring.
One day when I was volunteering at one of these schools, a student came up to me showing a picture of a robot how cool it was. When I mentioned that it was relatively easy to build, he got super stoked, told his friends and before you know it, we had a class of 8 students pursuing their own interest, learning CS/Breadboarding/Electrical-Circuits, all student driven, building cardboard-box arduino-based robots afterschool.**
These student led classes were majority black students and pushed forward most by black students. Everything was honestly instantly working great, and at the end of every class my students made to promise not to forget to show up to the next session (I don't recall missing a session, I believe this was out attachment for the course).
Self-driven learning is a thing, and all we have to do is give kids grounds to explore -- in this case to create designs from from their own imagination (ey, isn't that why we're hackers here : D? We can all relate).
* Small class sizes help (or student:teacher ratio of 6:1 ideally). This is the ratio (lower works too) that really works, and I've seen only at really rich schools (see Branson/UHS/Lick Wilmerding) and programs based on it. I've seen this emulated to great success in Summerbridge SF, and too at a summerschool I helped start in the bay area based on project-based/student-led learning, access to technology, and most importantly these small class sizes that enables hosting these free-learning classes.
**Again money is important, materials costs for this class were supported by my concurrent 4 jobs, doing mainly part-time engineering work for startups, electrical-engineering curriculum development for a summer-schools, as well as tutoring.
Small class sizes don't just help, they are essential for this type of setup, which is why it can never work at scale and will not be relevant to 99% of kids in the country. There simply aren't enough teachers.
Their easily could be, we just can't imagine as a society putting this much effort into caring for the young. Especially those of the wrong skin color. The US is the wealthiest country in the world, we could easily change some of the governments wealth distribution to educate all students 8:1
Still no. You would need to triple the number of teachers and greatly increase the number of rooms across almost all public schools in America to get those kinds of numbers. There simply aren't enough people, or enough space to do so. The only viable solution is to find a better way of educating children in these larger groups.
"There simply aren't enough people, or enough space to do so."
The people part is the issue. The teachers I know hate the bureaucracy and policies. Private schools seem to be better at hiring, even when they pay less. Dealing with certain parents is a nightmare too.
If you have a classroom made for 25-30 students, it wouldn't be too hard to partition it in half, then have two instructors leading each half of the room.
I went to a robotics class and a game design class as a kid and they both had something like 20 students with two instructors. It went fine. Sure some of it was introductory instruction, but then we'd build our own stuff as individuals or teams. So there might not need to be much reconfiguration at all.
The people part is the issue. The teachers I know hate the bureaucracy and policies. Private schools seem to be better at hiring, even when they pay less. Dealing with certain parents is a nightmare too.
If you have a classroom made for 25-30 students, it wouldn't be too hard to partition it in half, then have two instructors leading each half of the room.
I went to a robotics class and a game design class as a kid and they both had something like 20 students with two instructors. It went fine. Sure some of it was introductory instruction, but then we'd build our own stuff as individuals or teams. So there might not need to be much reconfiguration at all.
Maybe if the job and compensation were more compelling we'd have plenty of teachers. And we can come up with innovative ways to use the space we have.
Increase teacher salary to $100k a year and cap teacher to student ratio at 20 and see how hard it is to hire them. I'd go straight back to school to get a teaching cert to change careers, even though it'd be a pay cut. Imagine getting the best and brightest people pounding down the school doors to teach. For reference, that would triple the starting teacher's pay at my local high school.
You have a viewpoint that is shaped by a very niche experience. Your experience was with students that happened into an interest that was itself a project that can drive learning in a handful of subjects. This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.
> This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.
Awesome, as this is really one the core things the original post wanted us to discuss:
_Should we_ require students to study so many things that they don't find interesting?
Some of the original post's thoughts:
> It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to listen to a stranger reading poetry when you want to learn to construct buildings, or to sit with a stranger discussing the construction of buildings when you want to read poetry.
And:
> “How will they learn to read?” you say, and my answer is: “Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.” When children are given whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense in the life that unfolds around them.
My take is unoriginal, even summarized by someone else's quote: “Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.” -- Leonardo da Vinci
And if really can be attributed to da vinci, then one can say same core energy really existed in minds over half a millenia ago.
So I assert that while that this experience granted was indeed an awesome experience, there's a large swath of folks pushing for this "project-based" learning, and more self-driven learning paths.
https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl
What's the harm in allowing students to connect the dots on their own?
Awesome, as this is really one the core things the original post wanted us to discuss:
_Should we_ require students to study so many things that they don't find interesting?
Some of the original post's thoughts:
> It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to listen to a stranger reading poetry when you want to learn to construct buildings, or to sit with a stranger discussing the construction of buildings when you want to read poetry.
And:
> “How will they learn to read?” you say, and my answer is: “Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.” When children are given whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense in the life that unfolds around them.
My take is unoriginal, even summarized by someone else's quote: “Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.” -- Leonardo da Vinci
And if really can be attributed to da vinci, then one can say same core energy really existed in minds over half a millenia ago.
So I assert that while that this experience granted was indeed an awesome experience, there's a large swath of folks pushing for this "project-based" learning, and more self-driven learning paths.
https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl
What's the harm in allowing students to connect the dots on their own?
> And to push for individualistic behavior when you think that your society is disintegrating seems to just accelerate any problems that may exists.
This can not be understated. Coming from a country that would be considered "Eastern European", there is an astounding amount of individualism pushed in schools, and yet, it seems that the most prosperous and "equal" countries take the opposite approach.
What I cherish the most from my time in Scandinavian Universities is how much emphasis there is on collective work. Those who work in group will always achieve and learn a lot more than those who do it alone, unless the latter are truly exceptional.
This can not be understated. Coming from a country that would be considered "Eastern European", there is an astounding amount of individualism pushed in schools, and yet, it seems that the most prosperous and "equal" countries take the opposite approach.
What I cherish the most from my time in Scandinavian Universities is how much emphasis there is on collective work. Those who work in group will always achieve and learn a lot more than those who do it alone, unless the latter are truly exceptional.
"Those who work in group will always achieve and learn a lot more than those who do it alone, unless the latter are truly exceptional."
Many people in the US who have done group projects at school will disagree - you typically end up with dead weight or overbearing partners (it tends to get better when you get out of the compulsory school years).
With the right partners, I completely agree though. In my undergrad and even moreso in my masters I had some good groups.
Many people in the US who have done group projects at school will disagree - you typically end up with dead weight or overbearing partners (it tends to get better when you get out of the compulsory school years).
With the right partners, I completely agree though. In my undergrad and even moreso in my masters I had some good groups.
I'd wager that it is the sense of individualism that causes the feeling of carrying dead weight as the dead weight does not feel any sense of responsibility towards the group.
Given what I have read about such individualistic behaviour, I am inclined to believe that public transportation as found in Denmark wouldn't function in the US simply because it requires a form of trust between citizen and state. You just enter the bus / metro / train, you generally don't have to show ticket or anything. You are "caught" however if an inspector happens to be on board and goes for a check. I have had such checks only on the M2 line in Copenhagen (the one from the airport). People just buy the ticket from their phone and understand their responsibilities.
Given what I have read about such individualistic behaviour, I am inclined to believe that public transportation as found in Denmark wouldn't function in the US simply because it requires a form of trust between citizen and state. You just enter the bus / metro / train, you generally don't have to show ticket or anything. You are "caught" however if an inspector happens to be on board and goes for a check. I have had such checks only on the M2 line in Copenhagen (the one from the airport). People just buy the ticket from their phone and understand their responsibilities.
I think it depends on what we mean for individualism. One can have a strong sense of individualism and still function well in society. An individual can still want to do their part. I think it's mostly a lack of honor or integrity - they'd rather put their name on a project and get credit for the work of others, or get a free ride on the bus.
For example, the boy scouts teach integrity, teamwork, and also self-reliance (individualism).
For example, the boy scouts teach integrity, teamwork, and also self-reliance (individualism).
This exact model is used in my city train / rail system so it is possible in the U.S.
I assume it would be more challenging to use this model in our largest Metro areas.
I assume it would be more challenging to use this model in our largest Metro areas.
This is used in NY for it’s Select Bus Service Lines
> And to push for individualistic behavior when you think that your society is disintegrating seems to just accelerate any problems that may exists.
I don't think individualism and participation in community are necessarily at odds with one another. Communities of choice can be really powerful and meaningful in peoples' lives. I think the tricky part is figuring out how to equip young people to find and build communities in a society that no longer provides it by default.
I don't think individualism and participation in community are necessarily at odds with one another. Communities of choice can be really powerful and meaningful in peoples' lives. I think the tricky part is figuring out how to equip young people to find and build communities in a society that no longer provides it by default.
> I have yet to see a child that is not curious, you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity.
I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but that doesn't reflect my experience at all. Some children are indeed curious, but I wouldn't say anywhere near most. Saying that only serious trauma stops curiosity comes off as overly optimistic, but what do I know.
After all, would you make the same statement about adults? Are nearly all or most adults curious except for when there's trauma? My guess is that you would struggle to make a similar statement about adults in general. If adults aren't that curious, but children are, then why is that?
I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but that doesn't reflect my experience at all. Some children are indeed curious, but I wouldn't say anywhere near most. Saying that only serious trauma stops curiosity comes off as overly optimistic, but what do I know.
After all, would you make the same statement about adults? Are nearly all or most adults curious except for when there's trauma? My guess is that you would struggle to make a similar statement about adults in general. If adults aren't that curious, but children are, then why is that?
For curiosity, it helps if they're doing something they actually want to do. Being forced to do things tends to kill this off. When kids are into something because they think it's cool and fun and it sparks their imagination, they can go really far beyond what kids are 'supposed' to learn at some age.
I learned very little in school, myself. Instead I read my brother's textbooks long before I was 'supposed' to because I thought it was fun and spent the bulk of my time in school devouring the parts of the library I found engaging.
I learned very little in school, myself. Instead I read my brother's textbooks long before I was 'supposed' to because I thought it was fun and spent the bulk of my time in school devouring the parts of the library I found engaging.
> If adults aren't that curious, but children are, then why is that?
perhaps somewhere along the line, the curiosity got squashed. That happened to me science and math in high school with boring classes. I loved science before then.
perhaps somewhere along the line, the curiosity got squashed. That happened to me science and math in high school with boring classes. I loved science before then.
Pretty sure it applies with adults to, in my experience, those who aren't curious about the world have had many awful experiences with family, jobs, relationships. Pretty much everyone under capitalism will have some pretty substantial trama in their life.
> you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity
See inner city, ghetto living experiences
See inner city, ghetto living experiences
Agreed, there's nothing like fear and anxiety about basic needs and relationships to remove a sense of curiosity; and nothing like security to help people regain it.
Those kids aren't incurious it's just directed other places.
True, though I'm not so sure I would even assume that wealth facilitates curiosity. Perhaps it doesn't get in the way as the trauma of ghetto life, but there's plenty of well off children who grow up totally uninspired to do anything but walk the beaten path before them, let alone actually learn about things with no clear financial benefit (modern college notwithstanding).
<< I have yet to see a child that is not curious, you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity. I would guess that the author real complain is that children are not interested in the same things that him, and that is why he is pissed off.
I think I agree. Some time ago I was doing volunteering at a HS. We were basically teaching basic computer skills ( Excel, Word and so on ); helped with problems with resume or something along those lines. I think 9/10 kids logged onto FB and/or played Plants vs Zombies. I did try to engage them, but their goals were clearly different. They were interested, but in nothing that those volunteer hours could offer. The kid that is interested will seek this stuff out. The rest will play Plants vs Zombies.
I will admit it was a little disheartening for me and I stopped doing it for a while. I am debating proposing something similar now at my local library, but I am worried the results will be about the same.
I think I agree. Some time ago I was doing volunteering at a HS. We were basically teaching basic computer skills ( Excel, Word and so on ); helped with problems with resume or something along those lines. I think 9/10 kids logged onto FB and/or played Plants vs Zombies. I did try to engage them, but their goals were clearly different. They were interested, but in nothing that those volunteer hours could offer. The kid that is interested will seek this stuff out. The rest will play Plants vs Zombies.
I will admit it was a little disheartening for me and I stopped doing it for a while. I am debating proposing something similar now at my local library, but I am worried the results will be about the same.
> Kids need to learn to learn but they also need to be taught.
I have no children (so grain of salt), but what I think kids need is more what you'd call "guidance".
Not necessarily teaching them, but more showing them how to learn, and how to discover interests and pursue them, which may lead them down a life path.
I had it easy. My dad just had to leave some computers lying around. None of my other siblings went into tech. 2/3 of my siblings did a bunch of different things before settling into their current careers.
I have no children (so grain of salt), but what I think kids need is more what you'd call "guidance".
Not necessarily teaching them, but more showing them how to learn, and how to discover interests and pursue them, which may lead them down a life path.
I had it easy. My dad just had to leave some computers lying around. None of my other siblings went into tech. 2/3 of my siblings did a bunch of different things before settling into their current careers.
> The children I teach have almost no curiosity, and what little they do have is transitory;
If that curiosity is all satisfied at home on youtube/television then kids really won't much real curiosity for school. Kids are curious but not about everything all the time
If that curiosity is all satisfied at home on youtube/television then kids really won't much real curiosity for school. Kids are curious but not about everything all the time
There is nothing more sure to kill your love of anything than to have it be taught at school.
Like come on, we were stuck in the boredom cube for 6ish hours a day, the alternative is nothing and most of us still didn't pay attention.
Like come on, we were stuck in the boredom cube for 6ish hours a day, the alternative is nothing and most of us still didn't pay attention.
> than to have it be taught at school.
than to have it be taught IN A BORING WAY WITHOUT CONTEXT
Learning my multiplication tables was fun when it was turned into a race with my friends. Memorizing the state capitals and abbreviations was fun when it was turned into a game.
You can turn most anything into a fun way of learning it with just a modicum of effort. One problem is too many teachers get beat down to only teach what they are told to teach through some ready-made commercial curriculum. We have a huge number of teachers who are poorly paid. Too many run-ins with difficulty and admins who want things done their way, and that teacher's lifelong career gets sapped of any joy and they default to just teaching as they're told to teach.
If education was better funded in order to pay teachers very competitive wages, you'd attract more can-do teachers to the field instead of bright eyed young college graduates who end up leaving the profession within the first 5 years because of how stifling the bureaucracy of it all is. Pay the job well to attract and retain the best and brightest and you'll get amazing results through creativity and mastery of the art of education.
We don't do that, so you often get what you pay for.
than to have it be taught IN A BORING WAY WITHOUT CONTEXT
Learning my multiplication tables was fun when it was turned into a race with my friends. Memorizing the state capitals and abbreviations was fun when it was turned into a game.
You can turn most anything into a fun way of learning it with just a modicum of effort. One problem is too many teachers get beat down to only teach what they are told to teach through some ready-made commercial curriculum. We have a huge number of teachers who are poorly paid. Too many run-ins with difficulty and admins who want things done their way, and that teacher's lifelong career gets sapped of any joy and they default to just teaching as they're told to teach.
If education was better funded in order to pay teachers very competitive wages, you'd attract more can-do teachers to the field instead of bright eyed young college graduates who end up leaving the profession within the first 5 years because of how stifling the bureaucracy of it all is. Pay the job well to attract and retain the best and brightest and you'll get amazing results through creativity and mastery of the art of education.
We don't do that, so you often get what you pay for.
It is the intolerable conditions that need fixing.
You make a tired stereotypical argument that better pay attracts and retains better people: the idea that money can fix all problems is a thoughtless crutch.
Better pay retains those people that despite the intolerable working conditions, people who slavishly force themselves to remain. Why presume there is a correlation between teaching ability and slavishness?
The argument that better pay attracts better people makes little sense for jobs that people desire regardless of pay: becoming a teacher is often a calling. the great teachers I know are not necessarily academic (high GPA) achievers, instead they have a passion for teaching children, and they learn skills that are not testable by written exams.
You yourself even point out that money is not the issue: “young college graduates [leave] the profession within the first five years because of how stifling the bureaucracy [is]”.
Most private preschool teachers in New Zealand work for nearly minimum wage, and I have friends who are teaching preschoolers (under 5 year old). These are smart, motivated, dedicated women working long hours and they remain in the profession earning little: even those that move up the preschool career ladder earn well below equivalent jobs in other industries.
In New Zealand teachers of 5+ year olds get paid a more reasonable salary. I have many friends that remain teachers for decades mostly because of the joy and satisfaction they get from the job, not because they are tied to the job by money or lack of opportunity.
Fix the conditions, not the pay.
Edited: improved writing.
You make a tired stereotypical argument that better pay attracts and retains better people: the idea that money can fix all problems is a thoughtless crutch.
Better pay retains those people that despite the intolerable working conditions, people who slavishly force themselves to remain. Why presume there is a correlation between teaching ability and slavishness?
The argument that better pay attracts better people makes little sense for jobs that people desire regardless of pay: becoming a teacher is often a calling. the great teachers I know are not necessarily academic (high GPA) achievers, instead they have a passion for teaching children, and they learn skills that are not testable by written exams.
You yourself even point out that money is not the issue: “young college graduates [leave] the profession within the first five years because of how stifling the bureaucracy [is]”.
Most private preschool teachers in New Zealand work for nearly minimum wage, and I have friends who are teaching preschoolers (under 5 year old). These are smart, motivated, dedicated women working long hours and they remain in the profession earning little: even those that move up the preschool career ladder earn well below equivalent jobs in other industries.
In New Zealand teachers of 5+ year olds get paid a more reasonable salary. I have many friends that remain teachers for decades mostly because of the joy and satisfaction they get from the job, not because they are tied to the job by money or lack of opportunity.
Fix the conditions, not the pay.
Edited: improved writing.
Is fixing the stifling bureaucracy is out of the question?
>Is fixing the stifling bureaucracy is out of the question?
I mean no but the issue is the system has to be changed as to not encourage stifling bureaucracy. Unfortunately a monopolized school system with a captive customer ('pay up to this exact single school district or you know just sell your house and uproot yourself and move') is anti-thetical to the kind of free-market competition that aids in rooting out inefficient bureaucracy.
I love the responses I often get when suggesting to let the parents use their own discretion to pay directly for their children's education using the per-child tax allocation. Somehow striking teachers are simultaneously people we're supposed to listen to as people who know how to fix the system when things go wrong, but god forbid we allow a system that allows the parent to pay the teachers directly and privately to bypass the broken public school administrators.
Somehow teachers are simultaneously the source we can listen to about how to fix things when they strike, but suddenly become distrustful evil capitalists if we're allowed to let them privately educate on the free market in lieu of public school system. I wish the public would make up their mind.
I mean no but the issue is the system has to be changed as to not encourage stifling bureaucracy. Unfortunately a monopolized school system with a captive customer ('pay up to this exact single school district or you know just sell your house and uproot yourself and move') is anti-thetical to the kind of free-market competition that aids in rooting out inefficient bureaucracy.
I love the responses I often get when suggesting to let the parents use their own discretion to pay directly for their children's education using the per-child tax allocation. Somehow striking teachers are simultaneously people we're supposed to listen to as people who know how to fix the system when things go wrong, but god forbid we allow a system that allows the parent to pay the teachers directly and privately to bypass the broken public school administrators.
Somehow teachers are simultaneously the source we can listen to about how to fix things when they strike, but suddenly become distrustful evil capitalists if we're allowed to let them privately educate on the free market in lieu of public school system. I wish the public would make up their mind.
> If education was better funded in order to pay teachers very competitive wages
I see it as a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Are teachers paid less because they suck, or do they suck because they're not paid well?
Putting aside wages, does education really need more funding? What exactly is more expensive about teaching the fundamentals now than 50 years ago?
> you'd attract more can-do teachers
That would be possible not by merely increasing teacher pay. One of the biggest complaints by most teachers is that they are not allowed to deviate from the state sponsored lesson plan. Why would anyone who is qualified to be teaching children be inspired to be a mouthpiece for the state and nothing more? Teachers shouldn't be getting lesson plans from the state. Their students should either pass the exams or the teachers get fired. Yes, I'm using the word fired here, because I don't believe in teachers being protected from fucking up the minds of children. Maybe teachers who are actually qualified to teach children will find that inspiration in having their prestige be on the line, and the truly evil teachers out there wouldn't last as long if they weren't effective at educating.
Who were the best teachers you had? I bet they weren't the ones who just read out of a textbook and did whatever the state guidelines told them to do. Usually the best teachers and professors are so interested in their subject matter that they can effectively convey information and its importance without reading notes verbatim. We need more teachers like that, but when I was growing up there might have been one of those in every 10. Hopefully it's better than that now, but I don't see why it would be.
As long as the system itself is rotten, it really doesn't matter what pay teachers. The way the that the education system in America is constructed does not attract virtue. It attracts those who can fit well into bureaucracy and do what they're told in exchange for protection. There are still good teachers within that system, but I need more than one hand to count how many lazy, stupid, and sadistic teachers I've encountered.
I see it as a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Are teachers paid less because they suck, or do they suck because they're not paid well?
Putting aside wages, does education really need more funding? What exactly is more expensive about teaching the fundamentals now than 50 years ago?
> you'd attract more can-do teachers
That would be possible not by merely increasing teacher pay. One of the biggest complaints by most teachers is that they are not allowed to deviate from the state sponsored lesson plan. Why would anyone who is qualified to be teaching children be inspired to be a mouthpiece for the state and nothing more? Teachers shouldn't be getting lesson plans from the state. Their students should either pass the exams or the teachers get fired. Yes, I'm using the word fired here, because I don't believe in teachers being protected from fucking up the minds of children. Maybe teachers who are actually qualified to teach children will find that inspiration in having their prestige be on the line, and the truly evil teachers out there wouldn't last as long if they weren't effective at educating.
Who were the best teachers you had? I bet they weren't the ones who just read out of a textbook and did whatever the state guidelines told them to do. Usually the best teachers and professors are so interested in their subject matter that they can effectively convey information and its importance without reading notes verbatim. We need more teachers like that, but when I was growing up there might have been one of those in every 10. Hopefully it's better than that now, but I don't see why it would be.
As long as the system itself is rotten, it really doesn't matter what pay teachers. The way the that the education system in America is constructed does not attract virtue. It attracts those who can fit well into bureaucracy and do what they're told in exchange for protection. There are still good teachers within that system, but I need more than one hand to count how many lazy, stupid, and sadistic teachers I've encountered.
Yes. I think the first time I learned about proportions is when me and my buddy applied formula we learned in chemistry class and we used it to estimate speed % increase of CPU OC from 100 to 120. It was something I really wanted to know so even though it was math, I wanted to understand it ( edit: obviously it was a rough estimate, but for our purposes it was sufficient ).
That said, some things have to be boring. The fun comes later with application:>
That said, some things have to be boring. The fun comes later with application:>
I think they mean to see children are not curious in a concientious and applied way.
All kids are a bit curious, but it's hard to get them to 'stick' to something.
All kids are a bit curious, but it's hard to get them to 'stick' to something.
> Too many people has apocalyptic views of the world.
Is our children learning?
I’ll start with your grammar and end with a look out my window, where smoke from forest fires currently fills the sky.
Is our children learning?
I’ll start with your grammar and end with a look out my window, where smoke from forest fires currently fills the sky.
> "just let the kids learn by themselves"
This has been the central theme of progressive education movement in the US. IIRC, Jo Boaler has been advocating that kids could discover most of the maths by exploring and learning by themselves. I fundamentally disagree with this belief, though. It took thousands of years for our greatest minds to simplify our maths to its current incarnation. Discovering "everything" by myself wastes my time and reduces my chance of working on something more meaningful.
This has been the central theme of progressive education movement in the US. IIRC, Jo Boaler has been advocating that kids could discover most of the maths by exploring and learning by themselves. I fundamentally disagree with this belief, though. It took thousands of years for our greatest minds to simplify our maths to its current incarnation. Discovering "everything" by myself wastes my time and reduces my chance of working on something more meaningful.
This seems like a bit of a strawman. I don’t know Jo Boaler but I have never encountered the idea that students could rediscover everything from scratch. It’s clearly a dumb idea.
A much more common position is that self-paced exploration — but using the latest textbooks and also a variety of teaching styles — could interest students much more than “no child left behind” style common curricula which constrain both the teacher and the student.
Personally I think the current system is terrible for below- and above-average students, and perhaps passable for average students.
A much more common position is that self-paced exploration — but using the latest textbooks and also a variety of teaching styles — could interest students much more than “no child left behind” style common curricula which constrain both the teacher and the student.
Personally I think the current system is terrible for below- and above-average students, and perhaps passable for average students.
Good luck in a classroom of 30 kids of wildly varying abilities and interests doing "self paced exploration". Maybe 1/100 kids would actually choose to learn any traditional school subject. Structured learning is required for the other 99/100 to learn important and valuable parts of human knowledge that they wouldn't pursue otherwise.
Schools used to be designed exactly this way, with kids of varying ages/abilities all in the same room learning and teaching each other. It's actually quite successful and more aligned with how we are wired to learn (tribal/community style).
The Prussian model we use currently was not designed to create more educated people, it was designed to most efficiently create factory workers. That's an important factor to keep in mind. I would argue the school model is working, it's just not doing what you think it's doing. Any discussion of "improving" schools that doesn't completely overturn the Prussian model is just grifting for more funding.
You can get some of the benefits of this environment today if you are willing to pay a premium for Montessori style private schooling. My daughter loved it and was WAY ahead of everyone else, including the "honors" kids, when she transitioned to a regular public school.
The Prussian model we use currently was not designed to create more educated people, it was designed to most efficiently create factory workers. That's an important factor to keep in mind. I would argue the school model is working, it's just not doing what you think it's doing. Any discussion of "improving" schools that doesn't completely overturn the Prussian model is just grifting for more funding.
You can get some of the benefits of this environment today if you are willing to pay a premium for Montessori style private schooling. My daughter loved it and was WAY ahead of everyone else, including the "honors" kids, when she transitioned to a regular public school.
Sure...when you pay for good schools with small class sizes you get better education. The point is that this doesn't work for 99% of children who are going to be in classes of 25-35 kids, and I wouldn't count the child of a smart HN reader as representative of the average "Montessori" kid.
My daughter's Montessori school had similar class sizes, 25-30. The kids were loosely grouped by age with ~4 years range in the same room. She was not uniquely successful, though I will acknowledge any private school will tend to be self-selected.
And you still missed that we had multi-age schoolhouses for generations that were successful.
If you want to argue for smaller classroom sizes, I'm on board, but you won't get a single vote from me for school funding until you're ready to completely upend the Prussian model. It converted our public schools into literal prisons for children and is a scourge on this Earth.
And you still missed that we had multi-age schoolhouses for generations that were successful.
If you want to argue for smaller classroom sizes, I'm on board, but you won't get a single vote from me for school funding until you're ready to completely upend the Prussian model. It converted our public schools into literal prisons for children and is a scourge on this Earth.
Class sizes in traditional schools were not always small. However, large classes would be taught differently, usually based on the students memorizing their daily "lessons" and chanting them out word-for-word. These "direct instruction" methods have only fallen out of use relatively recently as teachers sometimes felt them to be somehow demeaning, compared to more formal or intuition-driven teaching practices.
They would also break into smaller groups and the older/advanced children would teach the younger children lessons.
All those 18th Century Prussian factories?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
>Good luck in a classroom of 30 kids
I think you get close to the real problem with this assumption. Classes need to be smaller. Even at a university, where the people are supposed to be more disciplined and attentive than a random middle school class, only the lectures are held for many people, and the practical stuff is done in much smaller groups.
In order to have more successful social systems, we need more resources in it. More money, and more people whose job is to care about the other people.
I think you get close to the real problem with this assumption. Classes need to be smaller. Even at a university, where the people are supposed to be more disciplined and attentive than a random middle school class, only the lectures are held for many people, and the practical stuff is done in much smaller groups.
In order to have more successful social systems, we need more resources in it. More money, and more people whose job is to care about the other people.
I’m probably a radical, but I’m open to not forcing children to learn things that someone deems “important to learn” which they are not interested in.
I think it’s great to give kids a taster of many subjects, but from my education I’m pretty sure that 90% of what I was taught was useless. The STEM stuff I would have done anyway because I loved it. And I have later come back to full in blanks in history etc. (Though I do acknowledge it’s hard to tell whether school builds a substrate or pattern for general learning, even if the raw facts were useless at the time.)
I had peers that were forced to learn languages, English lit, maths, etc, and then left school to be tradesmen or musicians, where they used approximately zero of what they were forced to learn. (And trade school starting earlier could have taught them the trigonometry or scales they needed very quickly).
The problem is we are trying to manufacture high school graduates rather than crafting or sculpting them.
I agree that the existing classroom model doesn’t work for this new way of thinking about learning. Siblings have done a better job of arguing for specific options than I could. But yes, I’d rather try something with different structure. For example, can you stream kids by interest rather than by age group? 30 kids all into history, with varying ages, might learn better than 30 7th-graders all trying to learn the curriculum on WW2 or whatever was decided is “important they know” and which most don’t care about.
Everyone has their own pet definition of what is “important to learn” in school, mine is the meta-level “learning is easy and fun if you care about what you are studying”.
I think it’s great to give kids a taster of many subjects, but from my education I’m pretty sure that 90% of what I was taught was useless. The STEM stuff I would have done anyway because I loved it. And I have later come back to full in blanks in history etc. (Though I do acknowledge it’s hard to tell whether school builds a substrate or pattern for general learning, even if the raw facts were useless at the time.)
I had peers that were forced to learn languages, English lit, maths, etc, and then left school to be tradesmen or musicians, where they used approximately zero of what they were forced to learn. (And trade school starting earlier could have taught them the trigonometry or scales they needed very quickly).
The problem is we are trying to manufacture high school graduates rather than crafting or sculpting them.
I agree that the existing classroom model doesn’t work for this new way of thinking about learning. Siblings have done a better job of arguing for specific options than I could. But yes, I’d rather try something with different structure. For example, can you stream kids by interest rather than by age group? 30 kids all into history, with varying ages, might learn better than 30 7th-graders all trying to learn the curriculum on WW2 or whatever was decided is “important they know” and which most don’t care about.
Everyone has their own pet definition of what is “important to learn” in school, mine is the meta-level “learning is easy and fun if you care about what you are studying”.
It is "radical" for a reason. Look at how bad things are right now, and multiply it by 10 if you decide to get rid of all curriculum that kids aren't inherently interested in:
- Goodbye to any understanding of politics or social studies - Goodbye to historical knowledge - Goodbye to any understanding of our own bodies (except for kids who are interested in animals or medicine?) - Goodbye to classical literature - Goodbye to economics and personal finance - Goodbye to being able to appropriately and accurately express oneself when speaking and writing
ALL of these are very important parts of human knowledge that are essential to high functioning in society, but 99% of children have absolutely no interest in them whatsoever if left to their own devices.
- Goodbye to any understanding of politics or social studies - Goodbye to historical knowledge - Goodbye to any understanding of our own bodies (except for kids who are interested in animals or medicine?) - Goodbye to classical literature - Goodbye to economics and personal finance - Goodbye to being able to appropriately and accurately express oneself when speaking and writing
ALL of these are very important parts of human knowledge that are essential to high functioning in society, but 99% of children have absolutely no interest in them whatsoever if left to their own devices.
I suppose we're unlikely to convince each other here. I'll just note that your list of "goodbyes" seems a bit overly-apocalyptic to me, and it's not even clear to me that many students leave the education system with meaningful knowledge of more than a couple items on your list. The students that do leave with knowledge of economics or classical literature almost certainly were interested in those things when they were introduced.
> 99% of children have absolutely no interest in them whatsoever if left to their own devices.
This would be the crux of our disagreement; I think that ultimately this depends on empirical investigation. It's hard to do such studies, since SES and other confounds are extremely hard to control for. I'm sure that 99% of kids have absolutely no interest in the current curriculum, but that's precisely my point; the curriculum is horrifically boring in many places if you don't connect with the subject matter.
I do think it's reasonable to note that most other developed countries have better public education systems than the US, and for the most part follow a fairly traditional model, which demonstrates that there are gains to be had in the US without revolutionizing the system. I'm in favor of trying to achieve that too.
And I'd of course not advocate for burning the whole thing down and starting with something new; I think experiments could be made with, say, one day a week of "interest-based learning" along the lines I put forth above, while still keeping the core curriculum alive.
> 99% of children have absolutely no interest in them whatsoever if left to their own devices.
This would be the crux of our disagreement; I think that ultimately this depends on empirical investigation. It's hard to do such studies, since SES and other confounds are extremely hard to control for. I'm sure that 99% of kids have absolutely no interest in the current curriculum, but that's precisely my point; the curriculum is horrifically boring in many places if you don't connect with the subject matter.
I do think it's reasonable to note that most other developed countries have better public education systems than the US, and for the most part follow a fairly traditional model, which demonstrates that there are gains to be had in the US without revolutionizing the system. I'm in favor of trying to achieve that too.
And I'd of course not advocate for burning the whole thing down and starting with something new; I think experiments could be made with, say, one day a week of "interest-based learning" along the lines I put forth above, while still keeping the core curriculum alive.
"NCLB" curricula focus on the basics for a reason - we're failing to teach those basic skills. Maybe we need a system that's not so terrible for the "average" below-students (as opposed to those who expressly get skilled teaching attention as 'special-needs' cases).
There’s definitely a “Seeing Like A State” point on legibility here. NCLB tries to make the performance of disparate state/county education systems more legible to the federal government, so that it can apply carrots and sticks to “improve” (for some definition of the word) performance.
By simplifying the problem to performance at this curriculum, you gain the ability to measure, but also corrupt the thing you are trying to measure, by forcing schools to teach to the test instead of teaching better (where there are direct tradeoffs between the two).
I think NCLB fails to recognize that education is something which benefits from local expertise, which means you need to fund teachers/schools and get out of the way, rather than try to standardize it. I recognize this is very hard politically.
By simplifying the problem to performance at this curriculum, you gain the ability to measure, but also corrupt the thing you are trying to measure, by forcing schools to teach to the test instead of teaching better (where there are direct tradeoffs between the two).
I think NCLB fails to recognize that education is something which benefits from local expertise, which means you need to fund teachers/schools and get out of the way, rather than try to standardize it. I recognize this is very hard politically.
We are failing to teach those basic skills not because of bad schools, but because of bad home environments (food, safety, etc)
What are those “basic skills”?
I'd venture a guess that they're talking about the "three R's": reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.
AFAIK NCLB is concerned with far more stuff than those three R’s.
And anyway one should wonder just how much tinkering with school system can push you forward, at some point you should realize that education is not only dependent on the school environment.
And anyway one should wonder just how much tinkering with school system can push you forward, at some point you should realize that education is not only dependent on the school environment.
Queue midwit meme.
Totally agree. Which countries are dominating STEM education? Israel, Russia, China , India and a few others which have strict schedules, competition and discipline. Looking at the failing US model I am starting to believe that finding your path and self motivation may work for 5% while leading the other 95% to slacking , cheap entertainment and failure.
Discipline is dead here (US). Very few people have discipline as adults, so the kids don't learn it either. Society doesn't value it, so it generally doest pay off.
I used to show up early to work, took my responsibilities seriously, and not take shortcuts. Guess what? I get paid the same either way, so what's the point? We're "fat and happy", so something would have to change culturally.
I used to show up early to work, took my responsibilities seriously, and not take shortcuts. Guess what? I get paid the same either way, so what's the point? We're "fat and happy", so something would have to change culturally.
> I used to show up early to work, took my responsibilities seriously, and not take shortcuts. Guess what? I get paid the same either way, so what's the point?
What do you imagine happens in Israel, Russia, India, or China when people do that? They get profit sharing? Seems unlikely.
What do you imagine happens in Israel, Russia, India, or China when people do that? They get profit sharing? Seems unlikely.
"What do you imagine happens in Israel, Russia, India, or China when people do that?"
They don't get fired, maybe get a raise or promotion. In the US, you won't get fired for doing the minimum because they don't have anyone to replace you with who would be better.
They don't get fired, maybe get a raise or promotion. In the US, you won't get fired for doing the minimum because they don't have anyone to replace you with who would be better.
I used to think so too, but I changed my view after seeing how high schools work here in the bay area. The schools here are super demanding, and students work crazy hours. It looks to me that the US schools are great for top students: demanding projects, strict disciplines, wide selection of extracurricular activities, abundant resources like AP courses and college programs, access to world-famous labs, professors and engineers, well-designed co-op programs with top companies, and of course, tiger parents who demand high achievements. On the other hand, we had public schools in Baltimore whose median GPA is below 0.5 out of 4. A stark contrast of two worlds.
That why it pains me to see that progressives thought that lowering standards would help students in need. The three years of Covid showed exactly the opposite.
That why it pains me to see that progressives thought that lowering standards would help students in need. The three years of Covid showed exactly the opposite.
I'm not sure how we can measure the number of students with discipline. GPA isn't a good measure as some kids may get As easily while a less gifted but dedicated student might get a B. Even measuring advanced placement isn't great since not all places have that tract and you still miss those less gifted but dedicated students. Plus, we seem to have a lot of grade inflation over the past 50+ years, which could mean it's easier.
There are certainly some students who are really disciplined/dedicated about their school work, but I would guess the number is less than 15%.
I did pretty well in school, but likely could have done better if I were really disciplined about school work. I usually rushed through homework and spent just a reasonable amount of time on projects. I'd rather be playing video games or sports, or hanging out with friends. I'd put extra work in on stuff I was interested in and probably learned just as much outside the classroom as in. Even stuff like school band I would rarely practice and still do well (sort of forced into it because the school would give busy work to the non-band members during the occasional practices during school hours). I went to a private school and participated in advance classes, and I still think 15% is about the number of students who studied hard and the rest of us could either do it easily or some would cheat.
There are certainly some students who are really disciplined/dedicated about their school work, but I would guess the number is less than 15%.
I did pretty well in school, but likely could have done better if I were really disciplined about school work. I usually rushed through homework and spent just a reasonable amount of time on projects. I'd rather be playing video games or sports, or hanging out with friends. I'd put extra work in on stuff I was interested in and probably learned just as much outside the classroom as in. Even stuff like school band I would rarely practice and still do well (sort of forced into it because the school would give busy work to the non-band members during the occasional practices during school hours). I went to a private school and participated in advance classes, and I still think 15% is about the number of students who studied hard and the rest of us could either do it easily or some would cheat.
Actually the statistics around education have completely different systems from Finland (very student driven learning) as well as Korea and Singapore (very discipline driven) at the topic. The main common factor is that the spend significantly larger fractions than the average on education.
Which countries are dominating STEM research? You know, the part that is actually useful instead of just coersive? America, by a long shot.
I disagree, the most productive moments in my math education were spent "discovering" patterns while trying to solve problems, having been given just enough tools to attempt the problem. Credit to Szeszlér Dávid goes to those formative experiences. The next lesson, after we spent time "discovering" and likely failing, we would be given the last tool we needed to solve the problem. That discovery process cemented the lessons and understanding.
I still believe that there is also value in rote memorization and practice, as you simply can't recognize patterns unless you have the fundamentals upon which those patterns are based, mastered. Only then can you start abstracting complexity away mentally, and then do effective "discovery" of new concepts.
I didn't encounter this teaching method until college, but I don't see why it can't be applied at an earlier age. One of my earliest memories was when I "discovered" that 2 + 2 = 4. I distinctly remember the moment where the concept of addition and subtraction clicked for me, and it didn't happen in a classroom. I was playing by myself and counting my fingers out on the front lawn.
http://www.cs.bme.hu/~szeszler/
I still believe that there is also value in rote memorization and practice, as you simply can't recognize patterns unless you have the fundamentals upon which those patterns are based, mastered. Only then can you start abstracting complexity away mentally, and then do effective "discovery" of new concepts.
I didn't encounter this teaching method until college, but I don't see why it can't be applied at an earlier age. One of my earliest memories was when I "discovered" that 2 + 2 = 4. I distinctly remember the moment where the concept of addition and subtraction clicked for me, and it didn't happen in a classroom. I was playing by myself and counting my fingers out on the front lawn.
http://www.cs.bme.hu/~szeszler/
My experience is somewhat similar to yours, I just loved "discovering" concepts, but I think that while this might work for us, it doesn't work for all. And this might be exactly what makes this problem hard, each person responds to different stimuli and then you either have to find a way to identify this, OR just pick something you want to optimize for (the average kid, prodigies, whatever) and apply the method that works for them, to all. I think this second method is what happens in most educational systems.
Some discovery, for sure. But not every pattern, right? For instance, not every axiom of Euclidean geometry, not how to solve cubic function, not the entirety of conic curves? Of course, these are just some examples and which ones to discover and which ones to teach are subject to discussion.
He means to explore these subjects by themselves, i.e. drawing upon the current body of knowledge. This technique works very well, i educate 3 children at home, and more or less their own interests guide their learning, only occasionally do i feel the need to put them onto the path of a specific subject.
If they're at school, they're not being allowed to pick their preferred subjects to explore. School kids these days are literally expected to teach themselves everything, it's not really about exploration or interest.
"just let the kids learn by themselves"
This is what companies want. They want a diploma just for the credential, but they don't really train you and just want you to learn on the job.
This is what companies want. They want a diploma just for the credential, but they don't really train you and just want you to learn on the job.
Sure this works great for things like swimming in the deep end and how to use a firearm without grossly endangering yourself or others.
Honestly I'm convinced anyone who believes this stuff has never watched a toddler.
Honestly I'm convinced anyone who believes this stuff has never watched a toddler.
Not sure what you're even trying to say. Sounds like support for my comment - companies don't want the ones who couldn't self teach (as they wouldnt survive according to you).
The unstated subtext in that theme is that some kids are not going to teach themselves the entire school curriculum (with plenty of help along the way from their literate, well-educated parents), but that's OK because they can always go work flipping burgers, or something. This is very much along the lines of the historically urbanized and socially elitist variety of "progressive" thought that gave us things like mass eugenics and enforced racial segregation in the early- and mid-20th century.
True. Where there is teaching there is no learning.
I just don't think I can agree with Gatto's main premise that schools aren't educating students or that a formal education serves no purpose in the modern world. We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy. There are also plenty of counter examples we can find: entire countries without well organized compulsory education systems that have incredibly high rates of illiteracy and poverty.
Here we are 25 years after Gatto gave this speech, our society has not "disintegrated" yet, Well-schooled people are far from irrelevant, in fact they have given us nearly every single modern comfort and technological breakthrough in modern history and they have continued to do so over the last 25 years.
What Gatto is proposing would just create even more inequality and social injustice, where only parents with the means to see their children get a good education can do so, either by having the background and time to homeschool or the money to provide private schooling or tutors for their own children.
Here we are 25 years after Gatto gave this speech, our society has not "disintegrated" yet, Well-schooled people are far from irrelevant, in fact they have given us nearly every single modern comfort and technological breakthrough in modern history and they have continued to do so over the last 25 years.
What Gatto is proposing would just create even more inequality and social injustice, where only parents with the means to see their children get a good education can do so, either by having the background and time to homeschool or the money to provide private schooling or tutors for their own children.
> Here we are 25 years after Gatto gave this speech, our society has not "disintegrated" yet
It really depends on how you define disintegrated. What he mentioned has manifested over the last 30 years. Slowly, and quietly. Now, it has come to a head. The lunatics actively arguing parents should have no place in schooling, the obsession of children with transient media figures, the state of school bells determining the bounds of one's life, and the general lack of society to embrace the creativity and novelty of a kid's wild imagination. It was present when I was a kid but much more muted. These days, watching the children in my family grow up, they are far more interested in becoming someone they aren't, rather than the something they want to be.
I would consider this disintegration.
It really depends on how you define disintegrated. What he mentioned has manifested over the last 30 years. Slowly, and quietly. Now, it has come to a head. The lunatics actively arguing parents should have no place in schooling, the obsession of children with transient media figures, the state of school bells determining the bounds of one's life, and the general lack of society to embrace the creativity and novelty of a kid's wild imagination. It was present when I was a kid but much more muted. These days, watching the children in my family grow up, they are far more interested in becoming someone they aren't, rather than the something they want to be.
I would consider this disintegration.
This is a laundry list of vices every generation has faulted the youth of the next generation for falling prey to.
When has the government in previous generations officially called concerned parents "domestic terrorists" for voicing their opinions at public meetings?
You don't get to wave off everything at whim when there are real concerns out there. A large percentage of the population would disagree with you that "disintegration" is not happening.
You don't get to wave off everything at whim when there are real concerns out there. A large percentage of the population would disagree with you that "disintegration" is not happening.
Well, that particular incident was not mentioned in the parent comment.
But since you’ve brought it up, what else do you call an organized campaign to assault, threaten to assault, vandalize the private property of, threaten the family of, defame, and/or falsely level criminal charges against public officials?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/13/school-b...
“At an Illinois school board meeting, a man was arrested after allegedly striking an education official. A school board member in Loudoun County, Va., fielded abusive, profane and threatening emails, Facebook messages and phone calls for months. In Florida, protesters camped out in front of a school board member’s house and burned an “FU” into her lawn with weed killer. They called her a Nazi and a pedophile. Someone falsely reported her as abusing her child to the Florida Department of Children and Families. “Be careful, your mommy hurts little kids!” an activist yelled at her daughter.” (links to incident reports in original source)
That’s not merely “voicing their opinions at public meetings.”
But since you’ve brought it up, what else do you call an organized campaign to assault, threaten to assault, vandalize the private property of, threaten the family of, defame, and/or falsely level criminal charges against public officials?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/13/school-b...
“At an Illinois school board meeting, a man was arrested after allegedly striking an education official. A school board member in Loudoun County, Va., fielded abusive, profane and threatening emails, Facebook messages and phone calls for months. In Florida, protesters camped out in front of a school board member’s house and burned an “FU” into her lawn with weed killer. They called her a Nazi and a pedophile. Someone falsely reported her as abusing her child to the Florida Department of Children and Families. “Be careful, your mommy hurts little kids!” an activist yelled at her daughter.” (links to incident reports in original source)
That’s not merely “voicing their opinions at public meetings.”
Governments don't make blanket statements about all parents in response to "a man" getting arrested. Activist school boards working with government enforcement are directly destroying lives. This isn't some "old people yelling at clouds" that you make it out to be.
There's a reason so many school boards are being flipped. It's a response to the obvious hostility towards parents and people are actually waking up to it. Your downplaying and strawmanning of the situation shows that you actually don't know what's going on.
"Father arrested at school board event says they tried covering up his daughter’s rape by man in girl’s bathroom"
"Round Rock ISD police force arrests parents at their homes"
"Dissident Parents Targeted by School Board in Arizona"
Not to mention the numerous instances of school admins promoting discrimination, violence, and their biased political agendas.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposed-greenwich-ct-ass...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/prestigious-nyc-private-...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/nyc-assistant-principal-...
This isn't education. It's indoctrination backed by authoritarianism.
There's a reason so many school boards are being flipped. It's a response to the obvious hostility towards parents and people are actually waking up to it. Your downplaying and strawmanning of the situation shows that you actually don't know what's going on.
"Father arrested at school board event says they tried covering up his daughter’s rape by man in girl’s bathroom"
"Round Rock ISD police force arrests parents at their homes"
"Dissident Parents Targeted by School Board in Arizona"
Not to mention the numerous instances of school admins promoting discrimination, violence, and their biased political agendas.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposed-greenwich-ct-ass...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/prestigious-nyc-private-...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/nyc-assistant-principal-...
This isn't education. It's indoctrination backed by authoritarianism.
Project Veritas has been caught lying in their reporting (deceptively editing footage, misrepresenting court records, etc.) too many times for me to take them seriously.
Their wikipedia page is particularly damming, every allegation lovingly well-cited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
Their wikipedia page is particularly damming, every allegation lovingly well-cited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
https://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-ag-launches-probe-school-...
Apparently the vertias video was good enough to get the AG to launch a probe.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/private-school-staffer-pla...
Apparently the veritas video was good enough to get this person put on leave.
Took me 30 seconds to find these. I have a feeling you're going to shift the goalposts again though.
Apparently the vertias video was good enough to get the AG to launch a probe.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/private-school-staffer-pla...
Apparently the veritas video was good enough to get this person put on leave.
Took me 30 seconds to find these. I have a feeling you're going to shift the goalposts again though.
It's funny how everyone who claims PV "deceptively edits" is forced to retract those statements because there is no evidence of such.
Wikipedia isn't, and has never been, a valid source of truth. PV has won every time such claims have been brought to court. So cite all the biased articles you like. They post the videos. Edit all you want, those words came from those educator's mouths. That contains more truth than you'll ever find in a news article attempting to spin a narrative.
Wikipedia isn't, and has never been, a valid source of truth. PV has won every time such claims have been brought to court. So cite all the biased articles you like. They post the videos. Edit all you want, those words came from those educator's mouths. That contains more truth than you'll ever find in a news article attempting to spin a narrative.
Gatto is specifically discussing public K-12 education in the U.S. And it's absolutely correct to describe that as a dismal failure, compared to other developed countries. Especially so when you look at outcomes for the most vulnerable sub-groups, which should arguably be the highest priority given that their family and social milieus cannot pick up the slack to anything near the same extent.
Education varies significantly from state to state in the US, even district to district in many areas. Some states compare very well internationally, like Massachusetts, which would be ranked as high as 4th by some international measurements, if it was its own country. We consistently see in the US where regions with better public schools have much better economic outcomes, and lower rates of poverty, crime, drug abuse, and suicide. There are plenty of alternative outcomes to look at in the US as well: high school drop outs for example which on average have a much lower lifetime earning potential, and higher rates of drug abuse, suicide and incarceration.
>We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. We also see that the countries with the best schools are dominating the world economy.
What does this even mean? The US spends more an education than anyone else and it dominated the world's economy because it's blown up everyone else who tried. This is a tautology. The countries with the schools people who rank schools like best are ranked best. That doesn't mean they are actually best.
Schooling absolutely helps people get out of poverty. But that doesn't mean it's the type of school that dominant in the West. We have a school and university system that's extended day care and teaches both incredibly slowly and way too fast. With smaller classes we could reduce the 12 years of schooling the average child gets today to 4. We never will because the parents don't know what to do with them and there aren't any jobs for 12 year olds.
What does this even mean? The US spends more an education than anyone else and it dominated the world's economy because it's blown up everyone else who tried. This is a tautology. The countries with the schools people who rank schools like best are ranked best. That doesn't mean they are actually best.
Schooling absolutely helps people get out of poverty. But that doesn't mean it's the type of school that dominant in the West. We have a school and university system that's extended day care and teaches both incredibly slowly and way too fast. With smaller classes we could reduce the 12 years of schooling the average child gets today to 4. We never will because the parents don't know what to do with them and there aren't any jobs for 12 year olds.
I would like to see the numbers. I want to believe schooling really "changes lives" like the universities selling student loans want you to believe (I myself being a victim of this). However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we took a cohort of high school students who weren't particularly interested in so-called hard learning and taught them valuable trade work it would have a similar effect. Sure, you can wrap trades in education to make your point, but I think GPs point was that formal beyond high school education is what lifts people out of poverty.
> We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty.
This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not schooling.
This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not schooling.
> capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty
This is false. Access to cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not capitalism.
Without burning through millions of years of oil and coal in the span of a few centuries, we'd all still be farming and eating mud, regardless of which economic system were in play.
Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past.
Remove access to cheap energy, and it will collapse overnight, with misery and death on a scale the world has never seen.
This is false. Access to cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not capitalism.
Without burning through millions of years of oil and coal in the span of a few centuries, we'd all still be farming and eating mud, regardless of which economic system were in play.
Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past.
Remove access to cheap energy, and it will collapse overnight, with misery and death on a scale the world has never seen.
What's your proposed mechanism for incentivizing me to efficiently provide energy to customers without capitalism? To invest in the capital intensive industries necessary to refine and extract this energy? Are you thinking a form of anarchism without property rights kind of situation, or more of a command economy?
Any of the systems used before the idea of capitalism was conceived would probably have done OK at reducing poverty, given incredibly cheap energy.
Meanwhile, capitalism would have done very little to reduce poverty, without all that dirt-cheap energy.
I think the poster's point was that, even if capitalism helped, the cheap energy from fossil fuels was the absolutely necessary part. Personally, I'd not be surprised if modern capitalism doesn't even work so well without cheap, abundant energy. Is it so effective when almost all your energy is human and animal, with a little water power on the side? I dunno. Maybe not much more effective than other approaches. Maybe even less effective.
Meanwhile, capitalism would have done very little to reduce poverty, without all that dirt-cheap energy.
I think the poster's point was that, even if capitalism helped, the cheap energy from fossil fuels was the absolutely necessary part. Personally, I'd not be surprised if modern capitalism doesn't even work so well without cheap, abundant energy. Is it so effective when almost all your energy is human and animal, with a little water power on the side? I dunno. Maybe not much more effective than other approaches. Maybe even less effective.
I agree that cheap energy is vital, but I would argue that my statement is still true and that cheap energy is part of capitalism. It is, no pun intended, the oil the allows the free market capitalist machine to run. It starts with cheap energy, but having cheap energy alone is useless and doesn't lift anyone out of poverty. It's the cheap energy that enterprises can build upon that lifts people out of poverty.
> Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past.
Barley limp along, maybe. As I mentioned above cheap energy alone is pretty much useless. North Korea has cheap energy, they aren't doing very well. Japan has cheap energy, and they are doing fantastic. The USSR had cheap energy, there were still bread lines. There has been no other institution, other than capitalism, that is done more to lift mass quantities of people out of poverty in such a short period of time. That said I do whole hardheartedly agree that cheap energy is the foundation and that if cheap energy goes away there will be millions of people that will die (but that is true weather a nation is capitalist or not).
> Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past.
Barley limp along, maybe. As I mentioned above cheap energy alone is pretty much useless. North Korea has cheap energy, they aren't doing very well. Japan has cheap energy, and they are doing fantastic. The USSR had cheap energy, there were still bread lines. There has been no other institution, other than capitalism, that is done more to lift mass quantities of people out of poverty in such a short period of time. That said I do whole hardheartedly agree that cheap energy is the foundation and that if cheap energy goes away there will be millions of people that will die (but that is true weather a nation is capitalist or not).
Feudal and socialist systems had access to cheap energy, and they weren't nearly as successful at raising people out of poverty. In the case of classic centrally planned socialist states, they were likely worse for the environment during development than comparable capitalist states (cf USA vs USSR).
The USSR (When it was not actively in the middle of an existential war) was a dramatically more prosperous society than any other point in the region's history. As it turns out, rising tides lift all boats, and industrialization, whether in planned economies, or otherwise, is what lifts people out of poverty.
But that industrialization can't happen without cheap energy. Energy is the critical factor, here.
But that industrialization can't happen without cheap energy. Energy is the critical factor, here.
That’s just laughable. About a billion Chinese might disagree with this.
Didn't Chinese spend more time in school after more elements of capitalism were introduced and the command economy of "get in the fields for the public good" gave way to "participate in the world capitalist economy." I agree schooling seems an important link to increased wealth, but it seems bettering education is as much linked to better capitalizing on stock of tax-cattle and realizing the capital investment in the children allows them to better compete on the capitalists market so their tax money can be taken to fatten the government hogs.
Isn’t basic schooling a prerequisite for successful capitalism though?
(May sound snarky but a genuine question.)
(May sound snarky but a genuine question.)
This is a fair question. I would argue no. As the article alludes, schooling in general hinders/squishes the entrepreneurial (independent) spirits and instills a risk aversion behavior not conducive to starting a business. There an impressive list of billionaires that either dropped out of college, or didn't even attend (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Walt Disney, Debbi Fields, Mary Kay Ash, and Wayne Huizenga, just to name a few).
This is false. Capitalism made children work from age 5. I do like it, all things considered, but it seems to work best (for all) with strong social programs and a load of protections and regulations.
I have another recent comment where I lament that the rise of intelligent machines will lead to humans being looked on as just another machine to do a job by those with ultimate power in our society, but according to this, we have already become those machine cogs.
Instead of trying to produce a "whole person" out of the schooling system in America, we are trying to produce specialized devices for the performance of certain tasks. Some of the students are sorted into the "high power devices" bin (lawyers, programmers, etc.), some into the "low power device" bin (manual labor), and some into the rubbish bin (physically disabled, mentally ill, etc.). Much like Intel bins their chips, in fact. Once you bin the parts from the school system, then you start to ship those parts throughout the workforce, or perhaps do some modifications to them in a university to achieve the most optimal output.
I guess there were a lot of people who saw this before me, and I am sure that like them my view will never get mainstream traction. Someday, perhaps, an AI will be developed to read our internet comments, and I'll be labeled as someone who needs maintenance and shipped off to a re-education facility.
Instead of trying to produce a "whole person" out of the schooling system in America, we are trying to produce specialized devices for the performance of certain tasks. Some of the students are sorted into the "high power devices" bin (lawyers, programmers, etc.), some into the "low power device" bin (manual labor), and some into the rubbish bin (physically disabled, mentally ill, etc.). Much like Intel bins their chips, in fact. Once you bin the parts from the school system, then you start to ship those parts throughout the workforce, or perhaps do some modifications to them in a university to achieve the most optimal output.
I guess there were a lot of people who saw this before me, and I am sure that like them my view will never get mainstream traction. Someday, perhaps, an AI will be developed to read our internet comments, and I'll be labeled as someone who needs maintenance and shipped off to a re-education facility.
Wow, it's wild to see this here. About 20 years ago, a grief counselor I was seeing after the death of my mom shared this article with me after I told him about how school felt pointless and cruel. I stopped seeing that grief counselor not long after (I think my family couldn't afford to see him) but the impact of this essay was deep. It was the first piece of writing I had read by 14 that critiqued something as mundane and entrenched as the public school system in the United States, and in terms that spoke to my experiences.
It inspired me to start honing my writing skills with intentionality, and sharpened my interest in activism.
I have mixed feelings reading this article now -- it's not quite as well written as I remember, although I still agree with many of the critiques.
It inspired me to start honing my writing skills with intentionality, and sharpened my interest in activism.
I have mixed feelings reading this article now -- it's not quite as well written as I remember, although I still agree with many of the critiques.
Just an unimportant comment about a minor aspect of what you wrote.
> it's not quite as well written as I remember,
Maybe because it is a speech? :-)
> What follows is the text of the speech he gave upon being named Teacher of the Year.
We don't know if the words were said exactly as written, or how it was delivered, which often is more important than the text itself.
> it's not quite as well written as I remember,
Maybe because it is a speech? :-)
> What follows is the text of the speech he gave upon being named Teacher of the Year.
We don't know if the words were said exactly as written, or how it was delivered, which often is more important than the text itself.
Yes, I know very well -- I thought about qualifying with that in my comment, thought it probably wasn't necessary, and as usual HN was swift in delivering justice/pedantry :D
> The children I teach have almost no curiosity, and what little they do have is transitory
Maybe kids are just not curious about what the author teaches? As a parent, I have to admit that kids are not necessarily curious about what we value. My kids are not curious about STEM, at least not yet. They are, however, are very curious about how to use TNT in minecraft, or how to learn cartwheel. It's unfortunate (or forutnate?) that not every one is born curious about STEM or any subject like their teachers or parents do.
Maybe kids are just not curious about what the author teaches? As a parent, I have to admit that kids are not necessarily curious about what we value. My kids are not curious about STEM, at least not yet. They are, however, are very curious about how to use TNT in minecraft, or how to learn cartwheel. It's unfortunate (or forutnate?) that not every one is born curious about STEM or any subject like their teachers or parents do.
Very much this, and it shouldn't even be a shocking revelation to most people. Nobody I know in my life enjoyed every subject they were taught in school. At best, they had 1 or 2 subjects they could be called curious about. Many had none (that were taught in school).
And even then, the schooling I went through hardly rewarded curiousness. You were incentivized to cram information to pass tests, so that you could get good grades, to get into good colleges, to cram more information to the pass more tests, to get good grades.
Even when my teachers seems to enjoy curious students, the curriculum was certainly not structured to incentivize it.
And even then, the schooling I went through hardly rewarded curiousness. You were incentivized to cram information to pass tests, so that you could get good grades, to get into good colleges, to cram more information to the pass more tests, to get good grades.
Even when my teachers seems to enjoy curious students, the curriculum was certainly not structured to incentivize it.
> You were incentivized to cram information to pass tests
I thought there was a solution: teachers give good questions for homework and exams. When I was in school, I rarely got repeated questions. Most questions challenged my understanding of fundamentals. It's hard to believe that people who only cram can ever get decent grades in tests like IIT's JEE, China's National Entrance Exam, or Japan's university entrance exams, or Korea's national entrance exams. As for the US, it's hard to imagine that anyone can solve decently hard problems in textbooks like Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics or Cormen et el's Introduction to Algorithms (The US does not mandate challenging problems in high schools, so I use examples from college).
I thought there was a solution: teachers give good questions for homework and exams. When I was in school, I rarely got repeated questions. Most questions challenged my understanding of fundamentals. It's hard to believe that people who only cram can ever get decent grades in tests like IIT's JEE, China's National Entrance Exam, or Japan's university entrance exams, or Korea's national entrance exams. As for the US, it's hard to imagine that anyone can solve decently hard problems in textbooks like Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics or Cormen et el's Introduction to Algorithms (The US does not mandate challenging problems in high schools, so I use examples from college).
Teach them about red stone and you're teaming them programming.
This is a really well written article though I’m mixed in my agreements with it. Thought it was funny they mentioned the author “growing garlic” in the forward. It’s also curious to read about literacy rates before/after “compulsory” education and how they seemingly dropped - is this potentially because of different “standards” in defining literacy?
I feel everything I’ve ever learned was “taught to myself” even though I’ve spent close to two decades in school. Of course a teacher can catalyze the process by presenting material in an organized way. They say “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” and at first this seemed like an appropriate analogy for learning - but after some reflection is only partly relevant. Peer groups can be beneficial with catalyzing learning as well - of course it depends on the peers.
This is a big topic but found it refreshing to be exposed to some novel (and old) thoughts
I feel everything I’ve ever learned was “taught to myself” even though I’ve spent close to two decades in school. Of course a teacher can catalyze the process by presenting material in an organized way. They say “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” and at first this seemed like an appropriate analogy for learning - but after some reflection is only partly relevant. Peer groups can be beneficial with catalyzing learning as well - of course it depends on the peers.
This is a big topic but found it refreshing to be exposed to some novel (and old) thoughts
> “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”
this is an especially apt metaphor for compulsory education, because when a horse is thirsty, it is perfectly capable of finding water on its own
this is an especially apt metaphor for compulsory education, because when a horse is thirsty, it is perfectly capable of finding water on its own
I agree with you and thanks for bringing it up. My reasoning for only "partially" applying the metaphor is classrooms are often at least a couple dozen students and potentially if "a few horses or more are drinking" others might follow their lead.
I have nothing of value to add to this. This speech encapsulates my experience in school growing up America and my experience now watching the children in my family grow up. It sums up the cause and effect of all of it exactly as I had supposed and hearing it from a person with actual authority makes it all the more meaningful. Schools, especially K-12, have always felt like a prison and this author put it in a way I couldn't even begin to write.
More people should read this. It may be the most important document on the state of the American education system in it's history and it's a full 3 decades old.
More people should read this. It may be the most important document on the state of the American education system in it's history and it's a full 3 decades old.
Gatto is a true prophet. See his writings at
https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
(though his site is having some problems, it looks like).
https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
(though his site is having some problems, it looks like).
There are things I learned in school and didn't understand their importance for a while. That's fine. But it hurts to see kids learning some things they will never use, or missing more important things.
English/reading is way overemphasized, and overly focused on emotional fictional literature. Sorry, I don't give a damn how Juliette feels; maybe I can pretend to care for a year, but 9 years? It didn't matter later in life that I got Bs in English, despite it actually being a useful subject. Maybe this is where the US curriculum differs from other countries the most.
Economics should be part of the standard curriculum. Plenty of average people participate in an economy every day without understanding it, other than having street smarts.
Math class is seemingly based around the final destination of Calculus AB or BC, but calculus is overly specific if you think about it. Sure, teach the basics, but don't drill the kids for months on solving integrals with trig sub for one. There are so many other math subjects that get ignored.
Math proofs are basically nonexistent in high school. Everything is just thrown at you then becomes a game of memorizing algorithms and crunching numbers. I get why so many kids don't like it.
History is OK but usually lacks connection to current events.
English/reading is way overemphasized, and overly focused on emotional fictional literature. Sorry, I don't give a damn how Juliette feels; maybe I can pretend to care for a year, but 9 years? It didn't matter later in life that I got Bs in English, despite it actually being a useful subject. Maybe this is where the US curriculum differs from other countries the most.
Economics should be part of the standard curriculum. Plenty of average people participate in an economy every day without understanding it, other than having street smarts.
Math class is seemingly based around the final destination of Calculus AB or BC, but calculus is overly specific if you think about it. Sure, teach the basics, but don't drill the kids for months on solving integrals with trig sub for one. There are so many other math subjects that get ignored.
Math proofs are basically nonexistent in high school. Everything is just thrown at you then becomes a game of memorizing algorithms and crunching numbers. I get why so many kids don't like it.
History is OK but usually lacks connection to current events.
> and overly focused on emotional fictional literature
Isn't that what people read for fun? If you have to teach reading and grammar, I'm sure that there are worse choices.
And you do need some serious background in Calculus for most college-level STEM fields, including probability/statistics/data science.
I do agree that the social sciences (including Econ, but not only!) are seriously missing in school education, and it's quite silly to teach so much history/literature/natural science/math even as we ignore them altogether.
Teaching math proofs is really, really hard. Even most college math majors don't really learn them all that well. Maybe if proof assistants develop to the point where it can be a fully "gamified" subject, it could work in K-12.
Isn't that what people read for fun? If you have to teach reading and grammar, I'm sure that there are worse choices.
And you do need some serious background in Calculus for most college-level STEM fields, including probability/statistics/data science.
I do agree that the social sciences (including Econ, but not only!) are seriously missing in school education, and it's quite silly to teach so much history/literature/natural science/math even as we ignore them altogether.
Teaching math proofs is really, really hard. Even most college math majors don't really learn them all that well. Maybe if proof assistants develop to the point where it can be a fully "gamified" subject, it could work in K-12.
> Isn't that what people read for fun? If you have to teach reading and grammar, I'm sure that there are worse choices.
My classmates and I always read books for fun, and none of them were the kinds of books in English class. They were more adventurous things like Narnia, Artemis Fowl, Harry Potter, and Ender's Game. Also seemed like the girls could tolerate the English class books a lot better, which felt unfair. Looking back, the only time I enjoyed the books was the one year I had a male English teacher picking them.
> And you do need some serious background in Calculus for most college-level STEM fields, including probability/statistics/data science.
Sure I remember using calculus in those college fields, but it didn't require what I'd call a serious background in it. Students could just beef up their calculus skills on-demand if needed. I especially never used all that training in solving complicated integrals by hand, which was seemingly half of Calculus BC.
My classmates and I always read books for fun, and none of them were the kinds of books in English class. They were more adventurous things like Narnia, Artemis Fowl, Harry Potter, and Ender's Game. Also seemed like the girls could tolerate the English class books a lot better, which felt unfair. Looking back, the only time I enjoyed the books was the one year I had a male English teacher picking them.
> And you do need some serious background in Calculus for most college-level STEM fields, including probability/statistics/data science.
Sure I remember using calculus in those college fields, but it didn't require what I'd call a serious background in it. Students could just beef up their calculus skills on-demand if needed. I especially never used all that training in solving complicated integrals by hand, which was seemingly half of Calculus BC.
There seem to be some good points in here. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, but the conclusion that family is important to learning seems to be true in my experience. Many parents get so hung up on the "best" schools they ignore their own possible contributions. Eg work 50-80 hours a week, never teach their kids anything, and complain when the school or after school activity is doing something "wrong" because their kid isn't a star.
Unfortunately home schooling isn't an option for most, even if it is possibly one of the best options within the current system (atleast education wise, not for the conformity).
"Our teenage-suicide rate is the highest in the world — and suicidal kids are rich kids for the most part, not poor. In Manhattan, 70 percent of all new marriages last less than five years."
These are very interesting and maybe I'll do some more research on these.
Unfortunately home schooling isn't an option for most, even if it is possibly one of the best options within the current system (atleast education wise, not for the conformity).
"Our teenage-suicide rate is the highest in the world — and suicidal kids are rich kids for the most part, not poor. In Manhattan, 70 percent of all new marriages last less than five years."
These are very interesting and maybe I'll do some more research on these.
Amazing this came out 22 years ago. It must be thinkers like these that created schools like Cristo Rey in Chicago where kids get bused around the city working real jobs, alternating every so often. But back to this being 22 years old... the internet wasn't really even a thing back then. If TV was a threat, then the internet is a bomb. Unfortunately, I don't see things getting any better, even in "good" schools. I'm at least happy that I've read this so I can adjust my parenting to promote more individualism.
> My children watch fifty-five hours of television a week, according to recent reports.
Would love to have been able to see a source on that whopper- even in the days before most had computers, I don't see any reporting showing ~8 hours a day of consumption for children.
Would love to have been able to see a source on that whopper- even in the days before most had computers, I don't see any reporting showing ~8 hours a day of consumption for children.
quick google search: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-...
I know that the US census had the average at like 6 hrs a day. No matter what the real number is... its a lot
I know that the US census had the average at like 6 hrs a day. No matter what the real number is... its a lot
Yeah I saw that but those numbers are by household, not children-specific. ~8 hours is a lot to claim for an average child (even in 1990) and I wasn't able to find anything backing it up.
The problem is that schools, especially in the west, have totally lost the plot! We need to get back to its original and sole purpose. Teaching young people the basic skills needed to work in society. As well as the skills needed to move onto secondary education and vocational training. The fact that so much time and effort is spent on things other than core subjects, even while we graduate children who fail at one or more of said subjects, is inexcusable. It also makes efforts to push things like political/social activism and issues onto children, all the more infuriating! (not to mention the real harm and derangement doing so causes to children and young people's mental health)
Could you expand on what you believe are "core" subjects?
Reading, writing, MATH, basic science, basic computer literacy and true more generalized home economics/shop type stuff. (basically from understanding bills and legal stuff to basic repair etc) Stuff needed to actually live in society and the tools to START more advanced educational or vocational endeavors. Other stuff should come second, if it all in a mandatory school system.
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto [1] is a (long) revealing look into the history of education in the United States. I don't agree with everything but certainly had my assumptions challenged.
As more families choose to eschew government schools, it's hard to argue that he was not ahead of his time with his observations.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
As more families choose to eschew government schools, it's hard to argue that he was not ahead of his time with his observations.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
From the article:
> But I am confident that as they gain self-knowledge, they’ll also become self-teachers — and only self-teaching has any lasting value.
Makes me think of Dorothy Sayer's 1948 article, The Lost Tools of Learning [0].
[0]: https://www.pccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LostToolsOfL...
> But I am confident that as they gain self-knowledge, they’ll also become self-teachers — and only self-teaching has any lasting value.
Makes me think of Dorothy Sayer's 1948 article, The Lost Tools of Learning [0].
[0]: https://www.pccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LostToolsOfL...
Off topic but why are there so many fairly fresh accounts posting hot takes that reach high on the front page lately?
I just happened to find this article today.
It was well written and resonated with my experiences and what I found school to be, as a child growing up. I thought it was a good submission for HN.
It was well written and resonated with my experiences and what I found school to be, as a child growing up. I thought it was a good submission for HN.
For anyone interested in the arguments in this piece, Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich is highly recommended.
> Using school as a sorting mechanism, we appear to be on the way to creating a caste system, complete with untouchables who wander through subway trains begging and sleep on the streets.
Wow, he nailed that one, didn't he?
> But keep in mind that in the United States almost nobody who reads, writes, or does arithmetic gets much respect. We are a land of talkers; we pay talkers the most and admire talkers the most, and so our children talk constantly, following the public models of television and schoolteachers.
In 2022, replace talking with dancing.
> The children I teach are cruel to each other; they lack compassion for misfortune, they laugh at weakness, and they have contempt for people whose need for help shows too plainly.
Played any multiplayer FPS recently?
> But no large-scale reform is ever going to repair our damaged children and our damaged society until we force the idea of “school” open — to include family as the main engine of education.
As he proves a few paragraphs later, this is the one thing the school system will never do because the two institutions (school and family) are in direct competition with each other for the hearts and minds of children.
Wow, he nailed that one, didn't he?
> But keep in mind that in the United States almost nobody who reads, writes, or does arithmetic gets much respect. We are a land of talkers; we pay talkers the most and admire talkers the most, and so our children talk constantly, following the public models of television and schoolteachers.
In 2022, replace talking with dancing.
> The children I teach are cruel to each other; they lack compassion for misfortune, they laugh at weakness, and they have contempt for people whose need for help shows too plainly.
Played any multiplayer FPS recently?
> But no large-scale reform is ever going to repair our damaged children and our damaged society until we force the idea of “school” open — to include family as the main engine of education.
As he proves a few paragraphs later, this is the one thing the school system will never do because the two institutions (school and family) are in direct competition with each other for the hearts and minds of children.
The author compares American education to other industrialized nations at the start but never brings up those comparisons again. The radical ideas he proposes aren't implemented in other countries AFAIK. What makes the US different?
There’s a book called Dumbing Us Down that is a collection of his essays. I liked it.
I’m glad I read it after I finished school and before my kids start.
I’m glad I read it after I finished school and before my kids start.
John Gatto has been on this rant forever. I think even years after this 90s post I could recall him in articles.
[deleted]
because they teach.
the difference being drawing (evoking, pulling) something already there out of the student (education).
versus putting some knowledge from the outside inside of the student (teaching).
the difference being drawing (evoking, pulling) something already there out of the student (education).
versus putting some knowledge from the outside inside of the student (teaching).
Too many people has apocalyptic views of the world. And to push for individualistic behavior when you think that your society is disintegrating seems to just accelerate any problems that may exists. 30 years later the collapse still has not happened.
> The children I teach have almost no curiosity, and what little they do have is transitory;
I have yet to see a child that is not curious, you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity. I would guess that the author real complain is that children are not interested in the same things that him, and that is why he is pissed off.
> they’re just nice kids from central Harlem, bright and alert, but so badly schooled when they came to me that most of them couldn’t add or subtract with any fluency.
I am all for better schools and I can not even imagine how bad schooling has been in mainly black neighborhoods but to "just let the kids learn by themselves" seems as absurd as the idea of "tabula rasa". Kids need to learn to learn but they also need to be taught.
> The Swedes realized this in 1976, when they effectively abandoned state adoption of unwanted children and instead spent national time and treasure on reinforcing the original family so that children born to Swedes were wanted.
This one is interesting as Abortion laws are changing in the USA.
> Family is the main engine of education.
This makes sense. I just think that schools also have their place no only for education but as socializing places.
> to promote during school time confluences of parent and child that will strengthen family bonds.
Sweden has a generous parental leave. That is a good way of achieving this goal.
In general the article expresses a too extreme view of things. But it has some good points even if I do not agree with all the conclusions.