Public Schools are getting worse (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

That was an insane story. Columbia university none the less.

Are you talking about the one in The Atlantic? Or the one about Dickens?

Looks like it was initially run on The Atlantic, but I think I read about it on Yahoo covering their story.

Yeah, I think a lot of places picked it up. There's a Twitter guy named Kitten whose Substack I read that also wrote a little article about students not being able to comprehend Dickens—and they were English majors. Granted, I read the piece and had trouble, but this was supposed to be the ones who would go on to teach this material.

 

[Max Power]

Is there a solution of having less teachers, but paying them more? So you get better quality. We are in one of the top school districts in the country. It's got about a 13:1 student teacher ratio. But the Chinese schools are about 16:1 ratio. In my head my math shows that in a 2000 person high school, that takes away about 25 teachers. And equate to ~20% raise for the teachers that are kept. I'd also argue the teacher unions protecting some teachers that have lost their relevance. Having 2 kids go through HS and college, there was definitely a drop off in the quality of teaching with the ones that had done it a long time. It's like many industries (ie govt)... you can't cut the fluff because of tenure.

Maybe, but it could depend on how schools use teachers outside of the classroom. My wife was a substitute teacher in NC for a little while after covid hit and our district at that time was going through a shortage. One of the biggest reasons she had to stop was all the extra duties assigned to her. She had to get in early for carpool unloading and stay late to cover club activities, sporting events and school related plays/performances. A substitute was paid per day, so the extra manpower she was used for was free labor for the school. The school needed the extra supervision and help for roles outside of in-class instruction.

 

[Max Power]

That was an insane story. Columbia university none the less.

Are you talking about the one in The Atlantic? Or the one about Dickens?

Looks like it was initially run on The Atlantic, but I think I read about it on Yahoo covering their story.

Yeah, I think a lot of places picked it up. There's a Twitter guy named Kitten whose Substack I read that also wrote a little article about students not being able to comprehend Dickens—and they were English majors. Granted, I read the piece and had trouble, but this was supposed to be the ones who would go on to teach this material.

Is there much of a job market for English majors these days? Editors and educators I'd guess. I feel like we've moved to a less formalized English language these days.

I know my grammar and punctuation isn't great. When I need something professionally written/edited I'll turn to AI to clean it up these days.

 

[rockaction]

That was an insane story. Columbia university none the less.

Are you talking about the one in The Atlantic? Or the one about Dickens?

Looks like it was initially run on The Atlantic, but I think I read about it on Yahoo covering their story.

Yeah, I think a lot of places picked it up. There's a Twitter guy named Kitten whose Substack I read that also wrote a little article about students not being able to comprehend Dickens—and they were English majors. Granted, I read the piece and had trouble, but this was supposed to be the ones who would go on to teach this material.

Is there much of a job market for English majors these days? Editors and educators I'd guess. I feel like we've moved to a less formalized English language these days.

I know my grammar and punctuation isn't great. When I need something professionally written/edited I'll turn to AI to clean it up these days.

There went the two editing courses I took at UCLA this decade. No demand anymore. AI isn't always correct, by the way. It is a ton of the time, but I've had to give pushback at times regarding stuff that I think is incorrect. Then again, it is a better editor than I am, so I'm not sure why I'm arguing about it.

 

[RCon]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

 

[rockaction]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass? Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar. This may be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

 

[RCon]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass. Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar, so this might all be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

Pretty much all of this, yeah. I'd like to know whether this time it's real or not, but I don't have a good way to judge.

I do look at the list of books my kids are reading in English class and I'm pleased to say it includes the things most of us would likely consider essential (e.g. Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm, etc.).

 

[beer 30]

Back to school day for my two high schoolers and its more of the same as last year. Long term subs and a couple classes where the teacher admitted they wont be their teacher all semester.

Sadly a Google of the situation indicates things are indeed worse than last year.

You live in NC, and should know the reason why we have a teacher shortage. Teacher's pay in NC is very low compared to most other states. NC is one of the lowest in the nation. The Republican controlled legislature has zero respect for the profession. Our last Governor, Cooper, tried really hard to give them a respectable raise, but the legislatures don't feel the same way. They never have. The only way to help the teachers here in this state is to vote out the legislatures that couldn't care less about them, but it's hard to vote them out when NC is one of the worst gerrymandering states in the nation. My sister has been a teacher in NC her whole career, and so has one of my best friends. They work their butts off, and what they get paid to enrich the minds of these young people is insulting. The teachers even have to pay for their classroom materials with their own money, which they don't have much of due to their low pay. All that I just said is 100% true, and the teaching profession will remain a turnstile here until they are shown some respect and get paid like other states.

My daughter is a teacher in SC, I do her taxes every year, can confirm SC teachers are jealous of how much NC teachers make.

 

[Max Power]

North Carolina education leaders have adopted the ambitious goal of having the best public school system in the nation by 2030.

The State Board of Education approved a five-year strategic plan

Pillars of strategic plan​

The strategic plan is based on three main components. In addition to wanting to make the state's public schools the best in the nation, the other components are high academic achievement and character development.

The plan is built around eight pillars:

• Prepare Each Student for Their Next Phase in Life  - Expanding rigorous pathways, dual enrollment and character development.
• Revere Public School Educators  - Competitive compensation and career advancement opportunities
• Enhance Parent, Caregiver and Community Support – Strengthening family engagement and partnerships
• Ensure Healthy, Safe and Secure Learning Environments - Physical and emotional safety with mental health support
• Optimize Operational Excellence - Modernizing systems and eliminating administrative burdens
• Lead Transformative Change - Research-driven innovation and accountability reform
• Celebrate the Excellence in Public Education - Comprehensive messaging to highlight successes
• Galvanize Champions to Fully Invest in and Support Public Education - Building coalitions for increased investment and pride in our schools

The plan would carry out the pillars with actions such as:

• Start a new program to focus on improving foundational math skills in the early grades.
• Lobby state lawmakers to restore providing extra pay to teachers who have master's degrees.
• Partner with groups to expand school-based health services for students and staff, including telehealth.
• Establish a task force to develop a new school accountability model for assessing school performance.
• Launch a statewide reading campaign to have students read 10 million books annually.

Measuring the success of the plan​

The strategic plan has several key goals for measuring success by 2030:

• Raise the four-year high school graduation rate from 86.9 to 92%.
• Raise the ACT composite score from 18.5 to 20 . The ACT is taken by high school juniors.
• Raise the participation rate on Advancement Placement exams among 10th- through 12th-graders from 21.5% to 30%. Students take AP courses for college credit and to raise their grade point average.
• Raise the participation rate on Career Technical Education (CTE) courses among K-12 students from 36.1% to 41%.
• Raise the percentage of school-aged children enrolled in public schools from 84.5% to 89%. This percentage includes both traditional public schools and charter schools.
• Raise pay so North Carolina leads the Southeast in educator compensation.
• Raise North Carolina's performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams given to fourth- and eighth-grade students nationally every two years. The state is scoring below 2019 levels in 8th-grade reading and math and 4th-grade reading.

 

[the moops]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

I’m starting a school called 1hourlearning. Think about that.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

 

[SWC]

oh man i am going to probably stir it up a little but i come from a family of teachers and my mom was a librarian and we were forced to read all the time and she also forced my kids to read all the time and basically they grabbed a book at night when other kids just watched tv or sat on the phone and they both did fantastically well academically as a result and basically even though my family was all teachers i am not for the record they believed that education started and ended at home and that the school time was just where you got graded on the work you put in outside of school basically my mom and sister were really clear that in school you had to teach to the dumbest kids in the class and if you want more than that you better find it at home take that to the bank brohans

 

[SWC]

i think too many americans embrace the mantra that i am mad as hell and i want someone else to do something about it take that to the bank bromigos

 

[rockaction]

oh man i am going to probably stir it up a little but i come from a family of teachers and my mom was a librarian and we were forced to read all the time and she also forced my kids to read all the time and basically they grabbed a book at night when other kids just watched tv or sat on the phone and they both did fantastically well academically as a result and basically even though my family was all teachers i am not for the record they believed that education started and ended at home and that the school time was just where you got graded on the work you put in outside of school basically my mom and sister were really clear that in school you had to teach to the dumbest kids in the class and if you want more than that you better find it at home take that to the bank brohans

There's also the issue of gifted programs and tracking that you probably unwittingly brought up. They would remove us from class specifically so that we weren't the victim of the impulse and necessity to "teach to the dumbest kids in the class." That proved controversial and still is. But how do you not, as both a society and for the individual, give each kid the best education you can? It's one of those things.

 

[rockaction]

i think too many americans embrace the mantra that i am mad as hell and i want someone else to do something about it take that to the bank bromigos

self-reliance and a little educational bootstrapping?

 

[The Z Machine]

Back to school day for my two high schoolers and its more of the same as last year. Long term subs and a couple classes where the teacher admitted they wont be their teacher all semester.

Sadly a Google of the situation indicates things are indeed worse than last year.

North Carolina is experiencing a significant teacher shortage, with numerous vacancies in classrooms across the state. This shortage includes both fully licensed teachers and those on limited licenses. The problem is particularly acute in certain subjects like science, math, and special education, as well as in core K-5 classes.
Key aspects of the shortage:

• • Vacancies:
    In the 2024-2025 school year, there were over 7,000 vacant instructional positions, according to one report. This represents about 7.5% of the total teaching positions in the state.
  • Impact on Students:
    The shortage means many classrooms either have no qualified teacher or rely on long-term substitutes, potentially impacting the quality of education students receive.
  • High Turnover:
    North Carolina also faces a high teacher turnover rate, with a significant number of teachers leaving the profession each year, including those on limited licenses.
  • Limited License Teachers:
    A large and growing group of teachers in North Carolina are on limited licenses, often facing high costs and time commitments to obtain full licensure, which leads to many leaving the profession before completing the requirements.
  • Subject Areas:
    Shortages are particularly pronounced in science, math, and special education, as well as in core K-5 classrooms.

I guess it could be worse. Gary Indiana has to use virtual teachers due to the shortage.

Gary students back at school with some virtual teachers

Students in Gary, Indiana returned Thursday, and some students sat in classrooms while their teachers joined virtually.

abc7chicago.com

Maybe they should increase salaries? Nah

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't want to run afoul here so I'll stop but I think even though we probably have radically different policy prescriptions, we'd be clear-eyed in seeing the problems and addressing the major issues. I assume you'd want the same results I do, which is an educated, functional populace. The differences probably exist in the space where we differ in our belief about whether a) that's possible; and b) if so, how to get there; or c) if not, how do we mitigate the disparities that will arise from that?

The identification of the issues likely isn't the problem. It's the prescription or the acceptance of it being inevitable.

 

[SWC]

i think too many americans embrace the mantra that i am mad as hell and i want someone else to do something about it take that to the bank bromigos

self-reliance and a little educational bootstrapping?

yep i am big believer both on the field and in the classroom that you cant complain about the results that you didnt get from the work you didnt put in take that to the bank bromigo

 

[Ilov80s]

Will be interesting to see the impact AI has on teaching the next few years. I think first reaction is about the technology changing the classroom dynamics but for me it’s less about that and more about an inflow of potential teacher supply as other fields get AI automated out of existence or greatly reduced.

No job is safe from AI in that regard.

I was thinking about this very thing this morning. My daughter is a kindergarten teacher. My first thought was "well, she'll always have a job - AI can't replace THAT role. Maybe in the upper grades but surely not in early childhood education!"

Then I started to think about what it would take for AI to replace kindergarten teachers, and realized that it would require children at just 5 years old to already be socialized to essentially be comfortable with technological supervision and instruction. So is it impossible to envision this actually playing out? Sadly, unfortunately...no. And that's scary imo.

Sure but is that what we really want? Even in high school? Just because we could do it, you think we should?

 

[Ilov80s]

Will be interesting to see the impact AI has on teaching the next few years. I think first reaction is about the technology changing the classroom dynamics but for me it’s less about that and more about an inflow of potential teacher supply as other fields get AI automated out of existence or greatly reduced.

No job is safe from AI in that regard.

I was thinking about this very thing this morning. My daughter is a kindergarten teacher. My first thought was "well, she'll always have a job - AI can't replace THAT role. Maybe in the upper grades but surely not in early childhood education!"

Then I started to think about what it would take for AI to replace kindergarten teachers, and realized that it would require children at just 5 years old to already be socialized to essentially be comfortable with technological supervision and instruction. So is it impossible to envision this actually playing out? Sadly, unfortunately...no. And that's scary imo.

Reading through that Gary In. Virtual teachers article, they are training classroom assistants to be the adults in the room while the instruction comes online. I agree the younger grades would be the hardest to substitute face to face learning.

Also didn't we just go through all of this with COVID and everyone agreed setting kids in front of computers to learn on their own was unmitigated disaster?

 

[simey]

oh man i am going to probably stir it up a little but i come from a family of teachers and my mom was a librarian and we were forced to read all the time and she also forced my kids to read all the time and basically they grabbed a book at night when other kids just watched tv or sat on the phone and they both did fantastically well academically as a result and basically even though my family was all teachers i am not for the record they believed that education started and ended at home and that the school time was just where you got graded on the work you put in outside of school basically my mom and sister were really clear that in school you had to teach to the dumbest kids in the class and if you want more than that you better find it at home take that to the bank brohans

There's also the issue of gifted programs and tracking that you probably unwittingly brought up. They would remove us from class specifically so that we weren't the victim of the impulse and necessity to "teach to the dumbest kids in the class." That proved controversial and still is. But how do you not, as both a society and for the individual, give each kid the best education you can? It's one of those things.

My sister is an AG teacher.

 

[rockaction]

oh man i am going to probably stir it up a little but i come from a family of teachers and my mom was a librarian and we were forced to read all the time and she also forced my kids to read all the time and basically they grabbed a book at night when other kids just watched tv or sat on the phone and they both did fantastically well academically as a result and basically even though my family was all teachers i am not for the record they believed that education started and ended at home and that the school time was just where you got graded on the work you put in outside of school basically my mom and sister were really clear that in school you had to teach to the dumbest kids in the class and if you want more than that you better find it at home take that to the bank brohans

There's also the issue of gifted programs and tracking that you probably unwittingly brought up. They would remove us from class specifically so that we weren't the victim of the impulse and necessity to "teach to the dumbest kids in the class." That proved controversial and still is. But how do you not, as both a society and for the individual, give each kid the best education you can? It's one of those things.

My sister is an AG teacher.

What is AG, simey?

 

[SWC]

i think a hard conversation that has to be undertaken is about rigid adhearance to no child left behind because there are some kids who are basically terrorists and who make other kids hate coming to school through behavioral issues drug dealing and disrupting education and maybe they should be left behind take that to the bank brohans

 

[simey]

oh man i am going to probably stir it up a little but i come from a family of teachers and my mom was a librarian and we were forced to read all the time and she also forced my kids to read all the time and basically they grabbed a book at night when other kids just watched tv or sat on the phone and they both did fantastically well academically as a result and basically even though my family was all teachers i am not for the record they believed that education started and ended at home and that the school time was just where you got graded on the work you put in outside of school basically my mom and sister were really clear that in school you had to teach to the dumbest kids in the class and if you want more than that you better find it at home take that to the bank brohans

There's also the issue of gifted programs and tracking that you probably unwittingly brought up. They would remove us from class specifically so that we weren't the victim of the impulse and necessity to "teach to the dumbest kids in the class." That proved controversial and still is. But how do you not, as both a society and for the individual, give each kid the best education you can? It's one of those things.

My sister is an AG teacher.

What is AG, simey?

Academically Gifted

 

[Ilov80s]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[rockaction]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

You're right, but you can tailor it to what you need explained and have the tutor explain it. It also is comprehensive in a way a teacher might not be. I don't know. It took some really difficult concepts and made it easier to learn than if I were in a lecture or just reading without being able to pepper it with questions. I think Heidegger's theory of "being" is really abstract and difficult and it broke it down and made it understandable. Contrasted it with other philosophers. I don't know. It was really good at handling questions and coming up with answers and explanations. Of course, sometimes it would glitch and I'd have to correct it, but it was pretty good.

 

[Ilov80s]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

 

[Instinctive]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

You're right, but you can tailor it to what you need explained and have the tutor explain it. It also is comprehensive in a way a teacher might not be. I don't know. It took some really difficult concepts and made it easier to learn than if I were in a lecture or just reading without being able to pepper it with questions. I think Heidegger's theory of "being" is really abstract and difficult and it broke it down and made it understandable. Contrasted it with other philosophers. I don't know. It was really good at handling questions and coming up with answers and explanations. Of course, sometimes it would glitch and I'd have to correct it, but it was pretty good.

I think the more important value of AI in education (versus what I think I am picking up on here, correct me if wrong, which is self-driven interest in a topic and self-led), if deployed properly is:

1. Individual attention - force multiplying for a teacher to be able to actually handle 20+ kids and go help and work on an individual question, and need to know how to teach and know the subject matter well enough to answer questions
2. Mastery-based instead of time-based - every single school class I was ever a part of had kids who got it already and were bored and kids who weren't ready for the next topic but it was time to move on. These things should adapt to the student and let the advanced ones get advanced while sticking with the ones who dont get it yet until they do
3. If it's faster - more time for the other stuff we all whine school doesn't cover and should - personal finance, working in a team, creativity, etc
4. You can still load it with all the appropriate curriculum. It's not like "hey let kids use AI, set them loose and see what happens" lol

 

[Instinctive]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

Which also explains, beyond simply "money" why the best districts stay the best. The parents who care move there, so all the parents care, so the schools do better, so parents who care the most move there, so...it's a virtuous reinforcing feedback cycle.

My father in law has masters degrees in secondary education and education policy and anytime school challenges come up, he points out that if you hold all other factors equal, the single biggest differentiator in outcomes in parental care and involvement in a child's education.

 

[Ilov80s]

i think a hard conversation that has to be undertaken is about rigid adhearance to no child left behind because there are some kids who are basically terrorists and who make other kids hate coming to school through behavioral issues drug dealing and disrupting education and maybe they should be left behind take that to the bank brohans

In my experience those kids usually get left behind. You bring a weapon or sell drugs in every school I know, you're gone for a year and then when you come back it's probably online or something until you show progress. The spot where it gets tricky is with kids who rarely do anything BIG but just repeatedly are difficult through lots of little things day after day. Also a school can pretty much do whatever they want until a parent gets upset and raises a fuss. A lot of parents when confronted with their child's problems in school only have the response of "it's the schools fault, fix it".

 

[Ilov80s]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

You're right, but you can tailor it to what you need explained and have the tutor explain it. It also is comprehensive in a way a teacher might not be. I don't know. It took some really difficult concepts and made it easier to learn than if I were in a lecture or just reading without being able to pepper it with questions. I think Heidegger's theory of "being" is really abstract and difficult and it broke it down and made it understandable. Contrasted it with other philosophers. I don't know. It was really good at handling questions and coming up with answers and explanations. Of course, sometimes it would glitch and I'd have to correct it, but it was pretty good.

I think the more important value of AI in education (versus what I think I am picking up on here, correct me if wrong, which is self-driven interest in a topic and self-led), if deployed properly is:

1. Individual attention - force multiplying for a teacher to be able to actually handle 20+ kids and go help and work on an individual question, and need not know how to teach and know the subject matter well enough to answer questions
2. Mastery-based instead of time-based - every single school class I was ever a part of had kids who got it already and were bored and kids who weren't ready for the next topic but it was time to move on. These things should adapt to the student and let the advanced ones get advanced
3. If it's faster - more time for the other stuff we all whine school doesn't cover and should - personal finance, working in a team, creativity, etc
4. You can still load it with all the appropriate curriculum. It's not like "hey let kids use AI, set them loose and see what happens" lol

I am not totally opposed to some of this. What will happen is the kids will use other AI to find the answers to satisfy their AI class. And this complaint schools don't teacher personal finance, team work, creativity it just wrong (from my experience). It's like the same people I see online all the time seeing some Tik Tok video about a basic *** US History event and being like, "why didn't they teach us about Jim Crow laws in school?". Bro you were taught that, you just weren't paying attention.

 

[Ilov80s]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

It sure feels like 90s politics and today's politics might as well be 2 different planets.

 

[Psychopav]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass? Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar. This may be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

One of the thoughts that brings me comfort (maybe more than it should) is that the AI and quantum advancements are similar to the industrial revolution of the 19th century or the techno revolution of the late 20th century, in that they represent a paradigm shift to the way we do our work. Institutional education as we know it was established in response to the industrial revolution and modern education is still reacting to the techological revolution. It's no surprise that there are new forms of education on the horizon and, like many of the advancements (experiments?) that emerged in education out of the technological revolution, some of these will fall flat and others will succeed but be uncomfortable for the generations that grew up in a different time.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't want to run afoul here so I'll stop but I think even though we probably have radically different policy prescriptions, we'd be clear-eyed in seeing the problems and addressing the major issues. I assume you'd want the same results I do, which is an educated, functional populace. The differences probably exist in the space where we differ in our belief about whether a) that's possible; and b) if so, how to get there; or c) if not, how do we mitigate the disparities that will arise from that?

The identification of the issues likely isn't the problem. It's the prescription or the acceptance of it being inevitable.

A lot of this would hinge on whether you were driven by the objective realities or the subjectiveness of it all. If the former, we're likely going to be way more in agreement than you'd think. I DO tend to think that our "education problems" are a symptom of deeper underlying societal problems.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

If not controversial and everyone agrees, why do you believe they continue to ignore the underlying problem(s) with their faux attempts at addressing "education"? I'd love to believe that most don't think its controversial, but I see no real evidence to back that up. Most actions seem to point towards the opposite.

 

[Instinctive]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

You're right, but you can tailor it to what you need explained and have the tutor explain it. It also is comprehensive in a way a teacher might not be. I don't know. It took some really difficult concepts and made it easier to learn than if I were in a lecture or just reading without being able to pepper it with questions. I think Heidegger's theory of "being" is really abstract and difficult and it broke it down and made it understandable. Contrasted it with other philosophers. I don't know. It was really good at handling questions and coming up with answers and explanations. Of course, sometimes it would glitch and I'd have to correct it, but it was pretty good.

I think the more important value of AI in education (versus what I think I am picking up on here, correct me if wrong, which is self-driven interest in a topic and self-led), if deployed properly is:

1. Individual attention - force multiplying for a teacher to be able to actually handle 20+ kids and go help and work on an individual question, and need not know how to teach and know the subject matter well enough to answer questions
2. Mastery-based instead of time-based - every single school class I was ever a part of had kids who got it already and were bored and kids who weren't ready for the next topic but it was time to move on. These things should adapt to the student and let the advanced ones get advanced
3. If it's faster - more time for the other stuff we all whine school doesn't cover and should - personal finance, working in a team, creativity, etc
4. You can still load it with all the appropriate curriculum. It's not like "hey let kids use AI, set them loose and see what happens" lol

I am not totally opposed to some of this. What will happen is the kids will use other AI to find the answers to satisfy their AI class. And this complaint schools don't teacher personal finance, team work, creativity it just wrong (from my experience). It's like the same people I see online all the time seeing some Tik Tok video about a basic *** US History event and being like, "why didn't they teach us about Jim Crow laws in school?". Bro you were taught that, you just weren't paying attention.

I think this assumes a level of setup still really similar to the way current schools are set up. I doubt we will have good education in twenty years if it looks even somewhat similar to today's.

 

[Psychopav]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass. Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar, so this might all be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

Pretty much all of this, yeah. I'd like to know whether this time it's real or not, but I don't have a good way to judge.

I do look at the list of books my kids are reading in English class and I'm pleased to say it includes the things most of us would likely consider essential (e.g. Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm, etc.).

Sometimes I wonder about this though. These were the novels that we were reading in the 80s. Where are the updated curricula? The newest of the novels you listed was written in 1948. Where are the novels published since then in our curriculum? These three are still the best novels we have to teach our high school English students? Not to knock any of these (or any of the others that would be in a list like this) but it sure seems like we're stuck in the 60s and 70s where the reading curriculum is concerned.

 

[the moops]

I wonder if older retired part-time subject matter experts would help. Or adjunct professors/teachers, used extensively at most community colleges. I'm an adjunct in math at the local college (Miami Dade College), teaching at night, with a full-time day job. But many adjuncts cobble together more than one part-time teaching job, and would be willing to teach part-time in public high school, probably with better pay. Adjuncts get paid only about $2500 for a 3-credit class. Cheap. Why not have the same concept for high school? The gig economy.

The problem with this is high school kids kinda suck. It is a far different world teaching 16 year olds compared to 20 year olds in community college. Not to mention the high school class schedule is way different in terms of days and hours than college

 

[rockaction]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass. Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar, so this might all be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

Pretty much all of this, yeah. I'd like to know whether this time it's real or not, but I don't have a good way to judge.

I do look at the list of books my kids are reading in English class and I'm pleased to say it includes the things most of us would likely consider essential (e.g. Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm, etc.).

Sometimes I wonder about this though. These were the novels that we were reading in the 80s. Where are the updated curricula? The newest of the novels you listed was written in 1948. Where are the novels published since then in our curriculum? These three are still the best novels we have to teach our high school English students? Not to knock any of these (or any of the others that would be in a list like this) but it sure seems like we're stuck in the 60s and 70s where the reading curriculum is concerned.

I don't know that there has been a writer as good or as understandable as Orwell in those decades. I see no problem with teaching him into the 22nd century, really. Same with F. Scott Fitzgerald.

 

[SofaKings]

This is my 3rd day in the classroom, 15th year teaching overall. It has changed quite a bit from when I began, and I'm in a private school.

 

[JohnnyU]

Not going to go into much here, only to say that if a large percentage of graduates can't read, that is a problem.

"While there isn't a single agreed-upon definition of "can't read," around 30-40% of high school students (or 12th graders) in the US perform below the "Basic" reading level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This means they struggle with fundamental reading skills, such as understanding the main idea or identifying the reasons behind characters' actions. Additionally, about 20% of adults, including high school graduates, are considered functionally illiterate. ".

 

[RCon]

Sometimes I wonder about this though. These were the novels that we were reading in the 80s. Where are the updated curricula? The newest of the novels you listed was written in 1948. Where are the novels published since then in our curriculum? These three are still the best novels we have to teach our high school English students? Not to knock any of these (or any of the others that would be in a list like this) but it sure seems like we're stuck in the 60s and 70s where the reading curriculum is concerned.

To address just this one thing, there are also more modern books in the curriculum, at least for my kids. I am not personally familiar with most of those and expect many here also aren't, so I didn't list them.

 

[Orange&Blue]

I live in California and my brother is a teacher that constantly beats projections for tests and is a very good teacher by almost all accounts. I'm not sure that kids are really prepared from what I'm hearing about them at the collegiate level. It's said that the English majors can barely read novels. It doesn't sound good, but I could just be getting old.

I would suggest this isn't exactly a new thing. I remember proofreading some essays for friends at an elite liberal arts college in the late 80s and being surprised at how bad the grammar, spelling, and general writing ability were. Unfortunately, the lesson young me took away from that experience was that I could coast through school because my peers were less prepared.

That is actually a thought that is within the first four paragraphs of the article in question. The professor says something to the effect that the complaint has always been there. Declining standards. But then he says that this time it's real.

I wonder about that. Is it real? I think the only thing we have to go on are slightly subjective standards that are anecdotal and covered by experience rather than data. How to gather a longitudinal study about reading comp and grammar aside from the standardized tests that the kids seem to pass. Like my nephew who doesn't care for what they call "language arts" yet is better than I am at technical grammar, so this might all be much ado about nothing.

eta* "In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, 'Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.' Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. 'Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,' he said." - The Atlantic, October 1, 2024

Pretty much all of this, yeah. I'd like to know whether this time it's real or not, but I don't have a good way to judge.

I do look at the list of books my kids are reading in English class and I'm pleased to say it includes the things most of us would likely consider essential (e.g. Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, Animal Farm, etc.).

Sometimes I wonder about this though. These were the novels that we were reading in the 80s. Where are the updated curricula? The newest of the novels you listed was written in 1948. Where are the novels published since then in our curriculum? These three are still the best novels we have to teach our high school English students? Not to knock any of these (or any of the others that would be in a list like this) but it sure seems like we're stuck in the 60s and 70s where the reading curriculum is concerned.

I don't know that there has been a writer as good or as understandable as Orwell in those decades. I see no problem with teaching him into the 22nd century, really. Same with F. Scott Fitzgerald.

I agree, but i struggle to find applications for Shakespeare, Illiad, etc.

Now, i think they are valuable, but maybe for someone majoring in english and not trying to get through high school. maybe an elective or something if truly desired

 

[Ilov80s]

I have lots of theories on the problem...this seems like it may be a possible solution if it can scale beyond fancy private schools: https://2hourlearning.com/

In all seriousness, I was learning about ontological theory from Aristotle to Aquinas and through Heidegger in about two days. It would have taken me a semester in college to learn it. I’ve already forgotten it, of course, but I’ve got the notes. Same as school!

That has never required more than a library card or now internet access. Is there a benefit to an instructor guiding one through it, pointing them in certain directions, handling personal questions, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

You're right, but you can tailor it to what you need explained and have the tutor explain it. It also is comprehensive in a way a teacher might not be. I don't know. It took some really difficult concepts and made it easier to learn than if I were in a lecture or just reading without being able to pepper it with questions. I think Heidegger's theory of "being" is really abstract and difficult and it broke it down and made it understandable. Contrasted it with other philosophers. I don't know. It was really good at handling questions and coming up with answers and explanations. Of course, sometimes it would glitch and I'd have to correct it, but it was pretty good.

I think the more important value of AI in education (versus what I think I am picking up on here, correct me if wrong, which is self-driven interest in a topic and self-led), if deployed properly is:

1. Individual attention - force multiplying for a teacher to be able to actually handle 20+ kids and go help and work on an individual question, and need not know how to teach and know the subject matter well enough to answer questions
2. Mastery-based instead of time-based - every single school class I was ever a part of had kids who got it already and were bored and kids who weren't ready for the next topic but it was time to move on. These things should adapt to the student and let the advanced ones get advanced
3. If it's faster - more time for the other stuff we all whine school doesn't cover and should - personal finance, working in a team, creativity, etc
4. You can still load it with all the appropriate curriculum. It's not like "hey let kids use AI, set them loose and see what happens" lol

I am not totally opposed to some of this. What will happen is the kids will use other AI to find the answers to satisfy their AI class. And this complaint schools don't teacher personal finance, team work, creativity it just wrong (from my experience). It's like the same people I see online all the time seeing some Tik Tok video about a basic *** US History event and being like, "why didn't they teach us about Jim Crow laws in school?". Bro you were taught that, you just weren't paying attention.

I think this assumes a level of setup still really similar to the way current schools are set up. I doubt we will have good education in twenty years if it looks even somewhat similar to today's.

Whatever the system is, it needs to be based on figuring out how to make whatever the kids are learning more entertaining than the other games and apps on their phone/tablet. Until we do that, I think kids will use any cheat they can to finish their school work as quickly as possible to get to their games.

 

[Ilov80s]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

If not controversial and everyone agrees, why do you believe they continue to ignore the underlying problem(s) with their faux attempts at addressing "education"? I'd love to believe that most don't think its controversial, but I see no real evidence to back that up. Most actions seem to point towards the opposite.

One, how do you we change our culture? How we change whole communities? No easy answers for that. No Law that Congress can pass or some catchy initiative a Governor can implement. It takes deacades, has to be done at the ground level, etc. It also involves a lot of work and sacrifice.

What would people rather here?
Option A: It's their fault and we are going to make them fix it.
Option B: It's your fault and we are going to make you fix it.

 

[Zow]

I wonder if older retired part-time subject matter experts would help. Or adjunct professors/teachers, used extensively at most community colleges. I'm an adjunct in math at the local college (Miami Dade College), teaching at night, with a full-time day job. But many adjuncts cobble together more than one part-time teaching job, and would be willing to teach part-time in public high school, probably with better pay. Adjuncts get paid only about $2500 for a 3-credit class. Cheap. Why not have the same concept for high school? The gig economy.

The problem with this is high school kids kinda suck. It is a far different world teaching 16 year olds compared to 20 year olds in community college. Not to mention the high school class schedule is way different in terms of days and hours than college

Yep. Loved teaching college. Couldn't imagine teaching high school though or, worse, middle school.

I got paid like $2500 per college class which probably ended up being like minimum wage but I didn't care because I enjoyed it. I quit when administration made my job more difficult and sided with a student on a complete BS issue.

In short, people teach when it is enjoyable. People won't teach for the money being paid.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

If not controversial and everyone agrees, why do you believe they continue to ignore the underlying problem(s) with their faux attempts at addressing "education"? I'd love to believe that most don't think its controversial, but I see no real evidence to back that up. Most actions seem to point towards the opposite.

One, how do you we change our culture? How we change whole communities? No easy answers for that. No Law that Congress can pass or some catchy initiative a Governor can implement. It takes deacades, has to be done at the ground level, etc. It also involves a lot of work and sacrifice.

What would people rather here?
Option A: It's their fault and we are going to make them fix it.
Option B: It's your fault and we are going to make you fix it.

First step in changing is to acknowledge the problem(s)...the ACTUAL problem(s) right? Being open and honest about it seems like the first step. Does that guarantee positive change? Of course not. But I don't see how we begin to improve without taking that first step.

 

[djmich]

Maybe consider prioritizing outcomes over outputs when it comes to teacher performance? This is a "teach to learn" vs "teach to the test" kind of decision.

I think the goals that were trying to be reached by standardizing weren't really met and were a last gasp at saving the socioeconomically disadvantaged. There's a whole lot of policy to talk about w/r/t to the pros and cons of testing/not testing and the "teach to the test" came about because there were communities turning out students that couldn't function and who were passed through the system as if the system's function wasn't to educate but to be a day care or a political instrument.

It's a tough debate. The autonomy of "teach to learn" can be abused. And this made strange bedfellows. It's actually one side of the aisle you wouldn't think that used to push for the SATs and that pushed No Child Left Behind. If you look up its history, it's interesting.

If I keep going, I'll have a nice long vacation from this place. I'll just say this. The bold is one of the things few talk about. If I sit back and think about the things that are wrong with education, it's not that they are being ignored. I think people fully recognize what the problems are. We don't talk about them though and instead we try to come up with solutions that appear to solve the problem, but don't really address the core problem(s) so it makes me happy when I see even small acknowledgements like yours here. "The problems" we have really aren't going to be able to be addressed in the classrooms in a meaningful way. They need to be addressed in community and society as a whole.

Yeah, I don't think that is controversial at all. Schools are a reflection of their community. Schools and teachers play a role but they can only do so much with that they are given. If you are a chef and your kitchen manager keeps giving you low quality cuts of meat, out of season fruits, freezer burned fish, etc. is it really the chef's fault that the food is mediocre? Cooking, running a restaurant, etc. is always hard work and requires a lot of attention to detail, multi-tasking, wearing many hats, etc. However, the end results are going to be much better with locally grown produce, waygu steaks and fresh fish brought in right from the boats. You want to fix the schools, fix the community.

If not controversial and everyone agrees, why do you believe they continue to ignore the underlying problem(s) with their faux attempts at addressing "education"? I'd love to believe that most don't think its controversial, but I see no real evidence to back that up. Most actions seem to point towards the opposite.

I'd disagree and believe many do think its controversial to suggest its anything other than the teachers, the facilities, or the curriculum. You think most parents think its their fault?