Some things work.
Of all the experiments that have been tried, none seem to really do better.
Hint: The Finns themselves take a very boring and classical approach. They start late, they have highly paid teachers etc. etc..
They were never 'progressive' they were more 'antiquated' than anything - just focusing on the basics and doing it well.
I'm really weary about this change, it should be tested before anything.
Some things require a structured approach in terms of thinking.
Look at Andela as well, accelerated training, then teams of "students" are integrated into companies and they learn while working.
Finally, coding bootcamps have also their share of success stories.
There is honestly A LOT of broken, unless you are studying in an Ivy League, I really think the education far from what the current & next generation needs.
I was just illustrating an example of alternative education that works. As you said none are working.
One for children: altschool is doing very well. Khan academy is also a hit.
Plenty of things do better... if you have much more resources to spend.
The best is 1:1 or 1:few where the 1 is a world-class expert in the field of interest who also happens to be a world-class teacher. Something like a personal tutor/coach. Think Aristotle and Alexander.
This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians, etc., and how some of the very wealthy provide training for their children. It’s very time-expensive though for the teacher, and doesn’t scale well because there aren’t that many world-class practitioner-teachers out there in any given subject.
A world class expert in elementary mathematics seems kind of paradox? A pedagogy expert, sure, but how much expertise do you really need?
>This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians
... but only after they've proven talent. Children raised to become top athletes aren't necessarily going to be successful, are they?
Simply, the attention afforded to a particular student in a 1:1 setting is an improvement, I agree with that at least.
Beyond basic understanding, teaching elementary mathematics effectively is a difficult job which can take decades to fully master. There are a large number of potential conceptual and procedural errors which various students can make, some of which are subtle and hard to correct. Someone who can perform elementary mathematics is not necessarily able to properly teach it.
As for world-class expertise, that really depends on what our goals are. There are undoubtedly world-class experts in elementary mathematics, who have spent decades doing extensive research in the history and practice, and have thought very deeply about the nature and meaning of numbers and mathematical relations. My comment was about the “ideal” case, if you want the student to learn as fast and effectively as possible.
But you can also get by okay with just a typical trained professional teacher (ideally a specialist in mathematics education).
I recommend Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics for some basic analysis.
It's "wary" not "weary" [1]. Normally, I'm not a grammar Nazi, but I've been seeing this mistake more and more on HN. The word "weary" means tired, whereas "wary" means cautious or on guard.
By the way, I'm also wary about these changes. I think multidisciplinary classes are great, but that you need a strong base before you can implement 100% cross-/multi-disciplinary classrooms.
My fiancee is French and whenever she speaks (an almost perfect) Spanish, I always make the effort to repeat back errors she makes, in the correct form, without interrupting the dialog. On the medium term, that single act works wonders. I suggest that as a subtle alternative to pointing out errors, that can also be handy!
This is a good approach. I even use the same technique with my very young child, who still makes mistakes with English irregular verbs.
I think the perceived separation between subjects is largely artificial. English and math seem pretty separate, until you get into discrete math and algebra and you realise formal systems are just languages with grammars, syntax, etc.
Nearly everything we learn is multidisciplinary. Sometimes it might be an advantage to focus on specific topics in isolation, but it should always be placed in a wider context to properly understand it.
"Wary" stems from the same root as "beware" and "aware". Going back further in time, it can also be connected to "ward", "warden", and "guard".
On the other hand, "weary" stems from "wear", as in "wear and tear", "to wear down", and "this weather has been wearing on me".
you understand what is meant by the mistake in speech, and it goes unmentioned, so something...
*In the medium term...
:)
By the way, your English is far better than my Spanish... ;)
From the Napoleon hill of history, looking at it and assuming those down there in the trenches below the powder smoke can see the same whole picture of a worthwhile sacrifice of time - might be a big assumption based upon only your own accumulated post-experience knowledge.
A kid might not have a Feynman as father that encourages it to explore the world. Forcing this kid through mathematics, giving it the chance to later discover- hey you can program games with this or control drones- and live a different live then your dad who sits drinking in front of the TV all day - that is what the old teaching method provides. It sucks for those who educate there kids to have a expedition and curiosity mindset, but its hugely beneficial to those parts of society who do not understand the real benefits of education.
No one has finished reading a whole library.
This sort of attitude is the problem. Trinkets like giving students things don't help.
Students need to do work to get ahead.
The best way 'so far' is boring repetition.
That said, nobody is disputing the need to work, only the manner in which that work is carried out.
We also need to be careful, as one of the best way to burn people out is to do repeated activity on something they already mastered and feel impowered and hopeless by being forced to repeat them over and over again.
if child is influenced to like the subject and repeatition is a result of a drive to get better; it will not minimise the effort but maximise instead.
Unfortunately American schools are moving in the opposite direction, with massive emphasis on teacher evaluations, discipline, standardized testing, and about 20 minutes daily of highly supervised and sanitized recess (source: twelve years attending public schools and one year more recently working in one).
> and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed
> learning time
By self-directed, I don't mean let the kids roam the streets. For example the teacher and student would decide on a project individually or in a small group, then pick any resources the student might need ahead of time and limit them to those resources in a quiet room. This should include access to a Linux laptop with educational websites and online apps whitelisted. Being self-directed is an important skill to have in life, and I'm surprised that so many people here are mystified as to why kids and adults alike don't have it -- because most school systems don't teach it!
Kids are not very good at 'self direction'.
It takes a lot to get them enthused.
It's absolutely highly interest-driven, and while the information can sometimes be neatly standardized and labelled, that interest can't be.
It can be cultivated, but figuring out how best to do that takes tweaking and experimentation. As such I'll keep an eye out for Finland's progress on this and look forward to seeing what their findings are.
Same here.
When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters!
Also - I think that every time you learn something, you get a new 'lego block' that you can use. When you're young, you don't have many blocks, so you can't do much.
But as you get older, you have so many blocks (+ money to spend) and you can do so many more things ... it's kind of incentive to learn.
The ability to see a larger project through I think would be a great thing to learn.
I wish that in school - some projects were worked on that took months to complete, and that the kids had to be involved in the planning. I think that would start teaching kids about 'time horizons' and how complex things get done over time.
But that's where these multidisciplinary approaches would shine, because the theory is intimately tied up in a broader application kids can see in their own lives. Education starts to take on real, personal meaning.
Edit: also,schools are vital places for socialising but most teachers insist on silence and attention. I think a better approach would be to allow socialising in a supervised environment, such that a teacher or some other role can suggest not being unkind etc, and in doing so foster constructive social skills. We often forget that social skills can be good or bad: furtive or open. Schools should encourage the right skills.
Totally agree, a key here is that student should learn how to learn. There is all the knowledge that you need online, but the truth is that today there is too much information, something wrong, something not accurate. Students need to be able to find, analyze, sort, learn and apply the information they find. By reading the Internet or speaking with their peers or mentors (teachers).
As you said, teachers should be here to guide students, not to bring them a piece of knowledge they need to memorize and then spit out a few days later during the exam.
Education is 50% daycare.
80% of students are not really motivated at all, they are doing it because they have to.
'Self direction' is exceedingly rare in youngsters.
99% of educational problems would be resolved if students showed up, paid attention and 'wanted to learn'. Motivation, attention and discipline are problematic.
Most teachers and courses are pretty good today.
I don't know about America, but in the UK teaching as a career path depends on who is in charge politically. The conservatives like to act as if anyone can teach, and value "life experience" over subject knowledge or the development of teaching as a craft in its own right. Labour tend to lean more towards the latter conception, albeit in a bounded and traditionalist way.
As the father of a new baby, I am not looking forward to picking schools in the years to come. The root cause of that is that the criteria for success are so poor: encyclopaedic knowledge of grammar is valued over ability to understand and effect change in the world. Facts mean more than projects, procedures are more valuable than their application. It is nuts.
My wife is a public pre-K teacher and it's zero daycare in her class. She runs them like soldiers and they love it. They learn a lot and are way ahead, especially considering they're low income which for some reason seems to often correlate with uncaring families that she has to hound to get to work with their kids at home. Every class she's put out misses her class. She's taught kindergarten and 2nd grade the same way.
The "education is 50% daycare" idea is, and I hate to say this but it's true, a white person's viewpoint of education.
A) This is a little racist :)
B) "Education = Daycare" is easily proven, right from the article -> Finnish kids don't start school until they are 7 years old (!) and they are #1 in the world for 'outcomes'!
So it would seem that 'doing nothing put let kids play, in a semi-structured way' is equivalent to sending them to school.
Ergo, one could argue that 90% of 'early childhood education' is, in fact 'daycare'.
That your friend 'runs here kids like soldiers' - simply means she has a lot of control - it does not mean they are necessarily learning. Possibly they are learning more self-discipline? And other behaviours, but I wouldn't take that it means more 'learning'.
As long as they are socializing, maybe learning some words, some basic reading - the rest is playtime.
As for your 'racist' (I mean, it's kind of racist, certainly near 'dog whistle territory') comment - this is the reason people voted for Trump - when someone makes a comment somewhere about something innocuous - and then someone says 'racist'. It would be funny if it weren't true. Look where we are now.
"You honestly don't know jack s-about education"
Two friends teachers in the US system, sister in-law, three cousins and two childhood friends - teachers in the Canadian system.
And I pointed out a very simple fact: Finns are #1 in education and don't even send their kids to school until they are 7 - which is ample 'proof' that early education = daycare.
You offered ZERO facts.
I offered the fact that Finns don't go to school until age 7, and paradoxically, do better than Americans in terms of standardized testing.
Instead of addressing this actual fact - you're calling people names and slinging bigotry.
You also make stats out of thin air. Nice control in your scientific comparison Einstein. Finns start at 7, but as a nation test better than Americans. That is what I said was a useless conjecture.
Learn about cause and effect, how studies are done with controls, and how correlation does not equal causation. You're the worst Monday morning quarterback I've ever seen. Like I said, you really got it figured out.
I'd love to know how many other fields and topics you're an expert in to offer such poor analysis on this one. Dimly informed and zero critical thinking skills to say the least.
It's not racist, I'm white. It's never racist, if it's reality. Your "education is daycare" perspective is absolute nonsense. A failed education system run by people with low standards, is daycare.
It does not matter that you're white.
You scream about 'facts' and then make a totally racist comment about 'what white people' think, which is not backed by anything but bigotry - and then claim 'to be an expert'.
Again - Finnish students, #1 in the world, don't seem to be focusing on tangible skills such as 'writing their name' and still walk all over American students in standardized testing.
I want to do it too. "99%"(!) chance that Ed Blarney is white, and you happen to believe education is daycare. Thanks for confirming.
That's completely irrelevant.
You failed to address the fact: Finns don't go to school until age 7 and they do better than Americans. Ergo - early childhood education is almost irrelevant, as long as they are active, socializing and learning a bit here and there, that's it.
It also does not matter what my skin colour is.
You're not only completely wrong, you're ignoring the argument, and you're still a bigot.
And finally - K-6 is almost identical across the system. It's the same everywhere, and it hasn't evolved a bit over many years. Test scores have gone nowhere.
Also, bigot is primarily meant for religious intolerance. I don't hate my own race though. Nice try wise guy. You should run for office, wherever you live. You seem to have all the answers.
There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.
There are few things more vital than education, and that will pay back to society at a higher rate, so by all means spend a ton on teachers and schools (there's a pretty obvious candidate for reallocation of funds in US discretionary spending).
But, I think the approach to education that I glossed over earlier affords its own distinct cost-cutting opportunities, for instance the textbook mafias being rendered obsolete by digitized, open-source equivalents. And teachers will have some of their time freed up too by letting problem kids like me find my own educational pursuits, because I did that naturally as a kid. I also intensely hated sitting in desk 7 hours a day, frequently reprimanded for caving to my compulsion to talk to all the other kids around me. And then there are the many American kids with serious problems at home, who would've benefited moreso from just talking more casually with a teacher and watching Youtube videos all day, rather than pushing them into a classroom. Watch behavioral problems in general improve if you have kids exercising and socializing more, freeing up more time for teachers to work in small groups or individually. And you really don't need experts for anything below 10-12 year old kids.
In the meantime, the Internet came up and anyone can access an infinite amount of information and knowledge. Workers need to be able to learn by themselves, be able to retrain and retool. Any good Software Engineer is already doing this, constantly learning new stuff to stay on top of their game, that will be true for any type of worker.