> and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed
  > learning time

I guess you have never worked in education.

Have you worked in education?

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!

Agreed.

Kids are not very good at 'self direction'.

It takes a lot to get them enthused.

I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger, yet even if I knew then what I do now, I still think it wouldn't've been something I spent 'my time' doing - not a lot of it, anyway. (Conversely, there are things I was interested in then that I have the resources to learn far mor effectively now, that I absolutely would've loved to have been tinkering with sooner.)

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.

"I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger"

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.

> When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters.

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.

I said already that I've worked for a year in a school! I worked full-time as a reading tutor in an elementary school, and taught summer school. I've also taught abroad, classrooms with 30+ students. I taught tennis to groups of teenagers for like 6 summers!

I support this kind of thing too. Independent learning is hugely important. I think kids are deterred from independent learning by stultifying practices in the classroom that make them feel that learning has to be bounded and dull. It doesn't have to be that way.

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.

three plus hours of self-directed learning time

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.

"a key here is that student should learn how to learn."

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.

If self direction is rare in youngsters that is because it is not fostered by their experiences. That's to say, the system needs to cultivate it.

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.

Education is not even close to 50% daycare. That's how most people, including teachers see it though and that's why they fail.

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 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.

50%, 80%, 99%. Any other random statistics you can't back up, at all? You honestly don't know jack s-about education. My wife does know, she absolutely excels and so do her students. She trains other teachers at the state level. The majority of people in the US are white, that's who drives this bs culture of "education is daycare" stupidity. You even bring TRUMP into this, who is about on your level. What a clown.

Not only are your comments racist, but you shouldn't be commenting on HN.

"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.

7 people you know are teachers, makes you a teacher? That's brilliant, Ed. And that's ample proof of nothing. What a useless conjecture. I'm going to be hoping for more of those statistics you can't back up. You have a great ability to detect cause and effect and I wonder how many other fields you're an expert in.

I didn't say I was a teacher - ergo, I'm not making any 'conjecture'.

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.

The only fact that matters is that you have no clue what you're talking about. I hear about teaching as a profession daily from my wife, and as if it matters- I have more teachers and professors in my family than you do. My dad can also beat up your dad.

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.

Yes, they're learning. They walk out the door with tangible skills, like writing their names, counting to 100, the alphabet, how to add and subtract. How would you know if it's just control. You don't but I do.

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's not racist, I'm white."

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.

Finnish students don't walk over anyone from my wife's school district. But the overall system is broken because of attitudes like yours. She fights teachers who don't want to teach all the time.

I want to do it too. "99%"(!) chance that Ed Blarney is white, and you happen to believe education is daycare. Thanks for confirming.

"Finnish students don't walk over anyone from my wife's school district."

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.

That's because you have no argument, Ed. You just aren't wise enough to see it. I did bother to explain it in another response to you. But you're really not worth my time.

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.

Are you ready to pay for the teachers to be the interdisciplinary supervisors that you talk about?

Sure, and I'd love to pay teachers better too! But why does what I'm envisioning even necessitate an increased number of teachers? The teachers should tend toward being generalists, and part of the school's hiring process would be to attain a mixture of teachers whose skills cover the greatest breadth of subjects possible, but otherwise I don't see any major obstacles to implementing this sort of system. It would be simpler than the convoluted mess that exists now.

I don't think the parent was meaning you need more teachers. I think they were saying you need really strong teachers across the board to make this model work well. You need teachers who know their subject areas really well, and also how their subject areas fit in with other subject areas. You need teachers who understand people and communication really well. You need teachers who can make sure their subject area is not being lost or minimized in a context.

There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.

I agree completely. I did reread GP's post later and notice he probably didn't imply what I thought he did.

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.