This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Today's AXC book review (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-educated-mind) is about "The Educated Mind" by Kieran Egan. This is my second time reading half of it, skipping to the bottom, and feeling frustrated about it.
The reviewer is clearly invested, excited, and has put a lot of effort into their review. At the same time, I can't think of how the ideas, as presented, could possibly useful as a teacher, parent, or even if I were trying to design a new charter school or something.
A while ago, I went to a two hour lecture (with no breaks! In tight stadium seating, so it was impossible to even go use the restroom!) with someone going on and on about neural imaging and The Science of Reading (tm) and Background Knowledge and whatnot, with five minutes towards the end suggesting that perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into actual books or something sometime, as part of Professional Learning Communities (tm). These are, in general, things I'm interested in, but it was all about the five strands of something, which each split into three strands, which each have seven flavors, or something like that. There was no clever resolution as in the rhyme about the man going to St Ives.
This review felt kind of like that. It either is kind of the same as one would intuitively expect, and so doesn't need explaining (yes, of course we should tell stories. Clearly. Does anyone except Eustace Scrubb's parents disagree?), or it's something very complex that teacher's will struggle to follow and probably fail at (nobody is going to succeed at teaching "ambiguity, meta-skepticism, balance, lightness" in school, to ~30 assorted youth at a time).
A bit ago I was listening to Jordan Peterson interview a man who had opened up a private school in Wichita, Kansas (Zach Lahn, Wonder). The school sounded nice. I would plausibly send my children there, were I in a position to do so. They have a system with older students mentoring younger ones, a binary choice to discuss each morning, and one time they had a disrespectful student, but then they expelled him. It isn't just rich kids, he argued: he has a nurse working two jobs to pay the tuition! I stopped listening at that point, and felt a bit spiteful about it.
Maybe I should stop following this stuff, and just keep my head down. It's not like I'm planning to open up a new Eganian charter school in my city anyway. But educational discussions follow me around, haunting my steps, ever since growing on in a very countercultural, education aware household, reading John Taylor Gatto as a teen. I tried to go to in-person events, and it followed me. The ladies tea was talking about it, with a homeschooling mom of four, a mom with her kid in private school for culture war reasons, and someone getting people to sign a culture war adjacent education petition. I tried going to church, and the pastor's wife was talking in the nursery about Sunday School curriculum, with some sort of Montessori adjacent Catholic derived philosophy or something. I tried going to a friend's house, and they were also talking about Education. All of it sounds kind of exhausted and on edge.
One of my friends was asked to help develop parts of a national curriculum and tells me that teachers are pretty stupid, allergic to nuance and don't even follow the curriculum that much. Not all teachers and so on... But it was like there was some vast Power that was inserting errors of fact, errors of punctuation, errors of logic into the curriculum, that my friend was swimming against the tide. Endless anecdotes of frustration at incompetence.
I get the sense that mainstream education in the West is systemically broken, not something that can be fixed by tweaks around the edges. Sometimes you have to disassemble the whole thing and try again from another angle. It's like an auto-catalytic process: there's a force that makes certain dysfunctional teaching doctrines prestigious, so education professors teach bad dogma, smart people are filtered away by various incentives, bureaucracy proliferates out of control, behaviour and culture of school declines and everyone just asks for more money even as standards fall.
What can you do other than set up charter schools or similar outflanking? How do you change incentives if the institution is already rotten? If you reward schools with high graduation rates, they simply raise the graduation rate and everyone is worse off with grade inflation.
My impression is that your friend, while plausibly smarter than the teachers in question, is actually a net negative for the system.
Given the facts on the ground (teachers as a class are intellectually average), one would most want to leverage that averageness by having them learn to teach one thing, and then they keep teaching that one thing over and over again, and don't change it without a really good reason.
This is actually pretty satisfying for average intelligence people when it works. For a while, I worked at Starbucks. There are a lot of really short, satisfying interactions. A person wants a desert latte. The barista makes the desert latte exactly as instructed. The person gets exactly what they expect. Everyone is happy (most of the time), or perhaps eventually realizes that the drinks are silly, but doesn't blame the barista, they probably made it in keeping with the recipe. There were also some other positions that were scripted, but basically fine. Things got bad when we had a lot of down time, everyone was bored and someone would suggest deep cleaning something without proper training. This is a reasonable job for average and slightly below average intelligence people.
It would be very reasonable to teach a slightly below average intelligence person who's generally responsible and decent with kids how to, for instance, teach 7 year olds phonics. There are several curricula, they mostly seem just fine, she could become an expert in teaching 7 year olds phonics according to some specific just fine curriculum curriculum. It's satisfying seeing a kid go from not connecting letters to sounds, to connecting letters to sounds. The kids feels good about it, the teacher feels good about it, they get a good performance review, perhaps they get a pay raise.
I have a degree in teaching in my specific subject area. They taught us the subject area. They taught us... who to write essays about John Dewy, and some formats one could use to write lesson plans, if anyone ever asks, which they don't... Well, they taught us our subject matter, anyway. But they did not actually teach us very much about teaching our subject matter to kids, and the standards change every couple of years anyway, so I just kind of make stuff up that seems kind of like a watered down version of what I learned about the subject, and keep tinkering with it when it doesn't work.
This is absurd.
Personally, I kind of like designing curriculum, so I don't mind that I'm just making everything up myself. But also, that's absurd. Maybe I'm making up complete nonsense -- someone who doesn't know my content area comes in to check once a year, to see if it looks like I'm teaching something that seems kind of reasonable (actually, to make sure there isn't too much chaos). Why is each teacher making their own Philosophy of Education? I like philosophy, and it was still a waste of my time, because the constraints are pretty tight, so we're really going for optimization more than creativity.
If the problem is that teachers aren't that bright, then they should learn A Curriculum, for something pretty constrained, and learn to teach it well. It will be fine if all seven year olds just learn to behave appropriately, and to connect sounds to letters really strongly, and then the rest of the time is enrichment or something. All the smart sneering people tinkering with the curriculum every year, so that all the average intelligence teachers are trying to learn it as they teach every year is a significant part of the problem.
This is, ultimately, my problem with the review as well. Two hour essays on shiny new conceptualizations instead of "here are ten great stories to read to an eight year old, including the best adaptation." Everyone already wants to tell the kids stories. That is not where the weakness lies at all, even a little bit.
Quite right, it is absurd. I'm not going to defend the curriculum-writers as intellectual giants either. A lot of it is bad from the input end I understand, my friend was brought in to make sure the curriculum they were proposing was correct and a lot of it wasn't. Some of it was just nonsense, platitudes without meaning. Constantly changing curriculums is bad as well, I agree that there ought to be stability.
But the issue I'm talking about is to do with the very structure of the system. You weren't told what you need to know to do your job, so you ad-hoc it and it sort of works out. Nobody can even come in to make sure you're doing it right, nobody seems to know what doing it right looks like! This is a bad way to run an institution. There isn't a proper centralized control, so people just do what they were taught the first time...
We all know phonics is the way to go, so why haven't we been doing that primarily for the last 30 years, why are we rediscovering it? I suspect it's the very issues you note: everything is so decentralized teachers do whatever they feel like, whatever they were taught back when they were taught, nobody is checking to see that they're teaching the right things. If they do check, then it's not effective. Feedback checks like exams are gamed and measurable outcomes manipulated. All this public money goes into education and the payoff is pretty meagre. I'm not American but the standard of American education is pretty low, even on that simplest level of connecting sounds to letters (never mind strongly). We can pick and choose whatever stunning illiteracy statistics we like, it's not working.
Just imagine if this was any other profession:
The whole thing is systemically broken.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think until we require that students read and do math at their grade level (as proven by international standardized testing) before moving on to the next grade, very little will change because the system needs a giant slap in the face — to the tune of half or more of the kids being held back — before things really change. One of the things that’s fueling the complacency is that people just don’t know (or want to know) just how bad the schools are. The schools are mostly manipulating the standards of the curriculum such that students aren’t behind, not because they’re actually learning but because they aren’t held to a proper standard.
Is there any example of a school system anywhere in the world being able to fail kids below standards en masse once the expectations of universal high school education sets in?
I get the feeling that once we agree everyone should stay in theoretical education until 18 standards have to fall inevitably
I don’t think the American system would be as bad if we didn’t essentially try to shoehorn every student into the exact same school system where everyone must graduate from the same curriculum no matter what. Other systems are able to maintain semi-decent standards by tracking kids into either trade or labor or university tier scholars and thus once it becomes clear that you cannot or aren’t going to study well enough to really succeed as a scholar you simply tailor his schooling to make him a skilled laborer or a unskilled laborer if he’s really dumb and thus the students who are worthy get a high level education and there’s much less pressure to lower the standards so that everyone, even the kid in the back making armpit farting noises, gets a college-bound education.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well sure it's a lot easier for bureaucrats to ask for more money, fake the data, then ask for more money and pocket the difference through administrative expenses than it is to actually fix the issues in education. In an environment where cutting school spending is a political third rail under any circumstances, that's not going to change. And it seems like the solution is to break the bureaucracies somehow.
More options
Context Copy link
If the problem is that teachers are stupid and allergic to nuance, then structural changes are not going to have much effect. We're going to have to attract smarter, less nuance-resistant people to the teaching profession. And that is going to mean raising pay substantially. Because when I was teaching, we had plenty of smart, nuance-friendly Teach for America teachers, but the vast majority of them left to go to law/medical/business school.
Nah, just abolish teachers certificates -- anyone with a bachelor's in whatever can teach that subject. It's quite a comfy job for smart slackers, just that the pipeline tends to push those people on to something else -- which by the time they are done, another two years to get suitable indoctrinated is a bridge too far to consider.
Teacher's certificates are already not required to teach in private schools, or charter schools in some states. In some states, it's quite easy to get a teaching certificate -- people with a BA can attend night school while teaching full time (and the classes aren't all that hard). Difficult while raising young kids, but otherwise not too bad.
These states do not have better test scores. These states still have teacher shortages.
It's fine with me to let people with a Bachelor's in something, anything, teach in their area of competence. The teaching programs I've participated in were not particularly grounded in reality. But this is extremely unlikely to make things significantly better, because the cushy jobs for smart slackers (which is to say, the jobs where the main job is communicating information, rather than "community building and classroom management") already have adequate teachers. And that community building and classroom management is not particularly about intelligence. It's basically orthogonal to academic ability.
Those states aren't taking my suggestion -- night school to get a teaching certificate may seem like a trivial inconvenience, but it's a quite a bit higher bar than "submit a resume, criminal record check, and interview".
So which jobs are contributing to the teacher shortage? (real question, idk -- but if they are not focused around "communicating information" (aka "teaching") my instinct would be to eliminate those jobs -- et voila, shortage eliminated!
I would personally be fine with that, but unfortunately, "willing to put up with BS administrative tasks, which are often long and dull" is actually part of the job. Working in public schools is a long procession of trivial inconveniences.
Special education, bus drivers, custodians, less than full time positions, bilingual positions, educational assistants who make ~$20,000, normal teaching positions in the sort of school where the "students" are getting into knife fights, yelling down the teachers, throwing furniture at teachers, and the administrators are yelling at teachers in the hallway. Also some of the schools where the "students" can't speak English, but the teacher is teaching entirely in English. Maybe also some math and science, though the last time I've seen those positions going unfilled was quite some time.
I suspect that the deal with things like bus drivers and custodians is that they still have to pass a background check and be proven safe with kids, but there's no status, and they don't pay well. Educational assistant jobs also pay terribly, and they can be transferred to super unpleasant and sometimes dangerous one on one behavioral special education positions.
You might naively think "I am not a special education teacher, and so I would not have to teach special education students, about whom I know very little." This is not true. More than half the elementary classrooms have a couple of children in them who have pretty high support needs, need a great deal of individual attention, but won't get it, because there are also at least 20 other kids, simultaneously learning normal kid stuff. I'm not going to describe the people in question in too much detail here, but it can get rough. Especially since everybody has to be super vague about the situation.There are also a lot of "BIPs" now -- behavior action plans, which mean that every time the child acts badly, the teacher is punished by having to fill out a lot of forms (while they are "teaching" -- elementary teachers do not necessarily get a prep period every day), and the child is sent to the counselor for a doughnut or something.
The aggressive classrooms are self evident. I knew someone who became a professional dancer after having a desk thrown at here, and the district did not do anything about it, and the offender came right back. I knew a shop teacher who quit mid-year after a young person was running around with sharp tools and propane torches, but could not be removed from the class.
In one sense, there is a clear and obvious route to correcting these situations: perhaps it was unwise to make public schools the childcare/detention facility of last resort. Perhaps that shouldn't be the job of schools. Yet here we are. And the legislature could probably go ahead and say "anyone who can pas this fairly difficult test is free to teach," and that might be a good idea, but it will still not improve conditions, so it would still be a pretty hard sell outside of a couple years of idealism for most people who aren't committed enough to at least take a couple of night school classes while applying.
Edit: also, this https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/difference-between-tech-hiring-and-teacher-hiring/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are alternative certification programs that allow people who already hold a random bachelor's degree to to become teachers without going back to school for two years. I myself did the online, self-paced American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) program and found a position that way.
Alternatively, I could have gone to a local community college and completed their one-year, two-semester Educator Preparation Institute (EPI) program, but that would have been more expensive (I got the ABCTE program on sale for $1550, while 21 credits for seven courses would have come out to about $2500) and involved more work (ABCTE only required two high-stakes tests, one for the subject area and the other for pedagogy). Admittedly, the EPI programs include student teaching, while ABCTE does not. I was worried that the lack of field experience would hurt me, but I got an offer anyway.
I am aware -- two years seems like way to much of a barrier for somebody considering teaching as a fallback career. (I think there used to be a similar one year option in my jurisdiction, but it was eliminated by 'big teacher' or something. Ironically due to covid they were prepared to waive any of these requirements due to extreme shortages -- but you were capped at the bottom of the salary scale (like ~40k) and would be fired once the crisis resolved. So they definitely weren't attracting 'smart' people of any kind there.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That would not seem to address OP's concerns re improving the quality of education.
I am more qualified than the average high school teacher to teach any of math, physics, or computer science, at least -- I have a BSc, and therefore would need at least 2 years of indoctrination at the Education department before I would be allowed to teach high school in my jurisdiction.
I am a smart slacker, and could certainly get into earning ~80k p.a. for short days and summers off -- indeed I considered it prior to getting into remote software development. (yes I know most teachers do a lot of work outside of school hours -- they are not smart slackers)
But two more years of university is a bridge too far, so I find something else to do -- I submit that the population of people like me is much larger than the one that pursued teachers certificates -- so much so that even if there is no selection effect against being smart and nuanced in the teacher's certificate population, you would have many more such people considering teaching if you removed the need for an education diploma.
I hope this is clear?
Two more years is probably too long, and there's too damn much indoctrination going on, but in reality you can't just walk out of your college degree course and into a classroom and start teaching.
You can try, and this is the fun part of seeing student teachers doing practical work becasue the twenty or thirty eager little blossoms sitting before them in the classroom are quite likely to try and drive them crazy just for fun, but you do need practical instruction in pedagogical methods, supervision by experienced teachers, and learning how to control the little - darlings so they'll sit down, shut up, and learn something.
What about 10-20 years in industry? I would be an excellent CS teacher, and I'm quite sure I could wrangle math/physics to at the very least the low bar set by teaching diploma recipients who happened to take a couple of such courses at the 1-200 level during their four year indoctrination.
If you're talking about further/continuing education for adults, I'd agree. (Even 20 year olds might or might not be capable of sitting down, shutting up and learning).
But if we mean "average bunch of 12-15 year old kids, particularly boys" then nope. You can't use "your job depends on you not openly sassing your boss, which is me" against them to get them to sit down, shut up, and learn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I understand that your suggestion would increase the supply of teachers. But what I expressed skepticism about was that it would improve education. How is it that attracting slackers will improve education? I taught high school for many years, and there is no way that a slacker is going to be an effective teacher, with the possible exception of someone who is a genius.
I did specify smart slackers -- the goal is to provide some diversity of thought. Based on what I'm seeing with my kid that's going through this right now, this would be much more impactful than any 'quality' boost provided by teacher training. You think that I need two years of diploma to teach high school algebra? I'm already teaching it to my kid because his actual teachers seem to be failing miserably.
The teaching certificate may provide some sort of quality control, so you'd want to replace it with IQ and subject-matter tests (although those might be racist).
I (and probably gdanning) agree this would be a net benefit. But I think it'd close more like 5% of the gap between 'very intelligent teachers' and 'where we are now'. There are a four million teachers in the united states!
Also, why do we want very-smart teachers teaching not-smart students? It's probably better for 'society' that your time be used developing software, even if that software is p=.3 useful and p=.7 optimizing ads for video games or something.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, my point is that slackers are unlikely to be effective teachers, so a "more slackers" policy is unlikely to improve education. I an not arguing for requiring teacher training. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.
Eg: Bob teaches history. He requires students to write 10 papers per year. With 150 students and 10 minutes to grade each paper, that is 15000 minutes of grading per year. In contrast, Joe, a slacker, gives multiple choice scantron tests. Total grading time:3000 seconds. Which teacher would you choose for your kid?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think applying most of the solutions the teachers are overwhelmingly statistically likely to vote for/believe solve the problem will indeed solve it for them: a strictly enforced 50/50 gender split, intersectionality when it comes to disciplinary action and standards (but applied to men as well as women- this mostly translates to "no zero-tolerance policies, admin has to do the legwork" instead of the "man bad woman good" this term is generally corrupted into though), and the like.
This will generate a bunch of scandals since it's deliberately re-introducing the crime gender into schools and "muh racism", but as the last 20 years of gender ideology could be argued to demonstrate, women are just as good at molesting your kids as the men are (since everything they do, if it were a man doing it, would be considered as such). I suspect this is the path forward for people on the right (in their current definitions, continual exposure to men and the standards they tend to impose tends to make people more right-wing; vice versa for women and left-wing [their D+30something is kind of a big deal]); their problem is capitalizing on that win.
Really, the goal should be to make sure the "I just want kids to mother" women are encouraged to do that as the default, but in a way that can be meaningfully divorced from "Step 1: retvrn to 1950" and "Who are you to complain? This is literally what you've been asking for" is well within the capabilities of a sizeable minority to push.
More options
Context Copy link
Then you have to fix the pipeline for teachers. Right now it's more or less the default path for people who are good at school but not smart enough to go into academia- this group is upper class, female, liberal, and selected for being midwits, and all they have to do to become teachers is not opt out at any point. Make teaching something that has to be opted in to, you'll get better teachers.
I don't understand what this means. A teacher, at least in public school, has to obtain a credential, which means completing a credential program. How is that not opting in.
"Going to college and becoming a teacher" is exactly what the public school system is geared towards having good students do. Just making the default decisions will wind up with becoming a teacher.
Again. I really don't understand. Surely, just making the default decisions leads to working for some corporation or another. Very few grads become teachers and, as noted, doing so usually requires extra schooling beyond a bachelor's degree. Which is not the case for most entry level post-college jobs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m a teacher in Canada, where salaries often top out around 105k CAD. Teachers here are also distressingly low-g, low curiosity, low nuance. Realistic raises aren’t going to fix it.
Raises combined with aptitude testing ought to do it, since then you get applicants who are both talented enough to be a good teacher/work elsewhere productively and are at least somewhat interested in teaching.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know much about Canada, but in Los Angeles, a teacher starts at 56K and can reach 98K with a doctorate and 14 years of experience. Meanwhile, the median starting salary for an attorney in Los Angeles is $121,000.
I didn't say anything about "realistic" raises. I referred to necessary raises.
ADA earn less.
https://www.biglawinvestor.com/district-attorney-salary/
Yes, everyone knows that some get paid less. That is why I referred to median salaries.
But, for the record, the salary range for a District Attorney III in Los Angeles County is 118,000 - 163,000 per year. Moreover, of the 1000 people listed here with the job title of district attorney, it looks like 700 made base pay of 125k plus, 600 made 150k plus, and 300 made 190k plus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lawyers don't get summers off, don't get a pension and spend 3 extra years in school. Also the lawyer number is skewed upwards by big law that recruits from T14 schools and where you work insane hours, most people don't get that and will start closer $70k.
I knew someone would miss the point. The point is NOT that it is unfair that lawyers make more than teachers. The point is that, if we want to get smart people to go into teaching as a career, such as by retaining the Teach For America people I referred to, then we have to compensate them a lot better.
No, two extra years, because a teaching credential usually takes a year. And if you look at the salary schedule in the link, a teacher with 2 years of experience is making under 57K in Los Angeles. And, of course, many law students have summer clerkships which now have a median salary of more than $3000/wk for 10 weeks.
No, I cited the median salary, which unlike the mean, is not skewed by big law salaries.
Trying to get better teachers by increasing salaries is trying to push on a rope. You won't get better teachers; you'll get the same teachers with more money. You need to increase the standards first, and if and when you note that you're actually facing a shortage that is credibly due to compensation, only then increase salaries.
No, giving raises to current teachers will not improve teaching (Though my best HS math teacher, Mr. Gou5dge (the 5 was silent) left teaching for better pay in law). But increasing salaries for new teachers will. Eg, more of those TFA teachers I mentioned will stick with teaching,and more smart grads will opt for teaching instead of other careers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The most intractable problem, with the fucky-est answers of all.
My own deeply unhelpful yet deeply held belief is that nobody can teach anybody anything; you simply place people in various combinations of prison/laborcamp/cult/skinnerbox and alternately whip them/ give them treats until their brain falls into the correctly shaped hole and they learn something almost by accident.
's why I find the various flavors of Xavier's school for the gifted deeply unconvincing also. You mean to say your product works when every rule is followed by committed users who were probably going to succeed regardless? You don't say.
This doesn't seem true, but I would expand the category of "teacher" to include writers and people who make instructional videos.
To take a very simple example, the other day we had to change a flat tire. We went onto Youtube, and several people had uploaded videos about the basic process, and various ways to get stuck tires off when changing them. This was much better than just trying to guess, based on physical reality and the tools found in the back of the car. The video makers were teaching.
Children who grow up with books around, but never have phonics explained to them generally do not learn to read English very well. Most children need someone to teach them how phonics work, even if it's just the person reading a script to the kid about how it works (and then it's a collaboration between person reading and curriculum writer).
Nobody taught me algebra in high school, because I was homeschooled and my parents just gave me a textbook, but not really one that was meant to teach an average teen all by itself. It kind of just said "here's how you manipulate these symbols correctly, here are some examples, here are some practice problems where you can manipulate the symbols yourself," without much hand holding about why anyone would want to manipulate the symbols correctly, or what they meant. I did not learn much algebra. Later, I listened to a teacher lecture, watched Khan Academy videos, and did practice problems with instant feedback. All these things were teaching (but the textbook alone didn't have enough communication channels or interactivity for me to succeed at learning from it). If someone who actually was good at explaining math had tutored me, it would probably have gone even better.
I agree that the idea of a brilliant Teacher who guides and shapes young minds, and also teaches them way more than they would learn from the standard model of lecture+demonstrations+practice+feedback is mostly a myth. I've known people I would consider elders -- very wise and I learned a lot from them in their area of interest, but it probably didn't and couldn't make a big difference in standardized tests or my ability to find and perform work.
More options
Context Copy link
Strongly disagree, and agree with self-made-human. I've made very rapid progress tutoring children who weren't learning basic things in school. There are all sorts of reasons for this, some of which are in principle easy to correct. But some of them aren't - some teacher are just much smarter than other teachers, and it's easier for a smart teacher to target a single specific student's confusions than it is to target 30 different confusions. And, as usual, mottizens are much smarter than the average middle or high-school teacher.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a good teacher, and I can see so with the outcomes of those I tutor. A degree of intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for being one.
For example, I teach my brother and his fellow med students in my free time, and I get something out of it myself because I skimmed or forgot a lot of foundational knowledge during my med education, and I get to brush up on it. Often, I find that my practical experience as well as further study for later exams means I can more clearly understand both what is important, and concepts that a beginner might trip up on. Keep in mind that this is a highly filtered set of students, and I understand that most teachers in schools lack the luxury of knowing that their pupils want to be there or are eager to learn. Even then, at least in this one case, I improve outcomes, or at the very least reduce the mental pressure they face learning without my guidance.
I've met plenty of enthusiastic and intelligent professors who are simply bad at conveying their thoughts or priors, or are simply too far removed from the perspective of a med student that they don't understand where one might get tripped up, or worse, think they understand a concept when they don't. This is why I said that intelligence is necessary but not sufficient.
At any rate, schools typically have more constraints, and the most empirically effective didactic method, being tutored 1:1, is cost prohibitive in most settings.
More options
Context Copy link
It's shown through the lens of superheroes, but Xavier's school 1) takes children out of bad environments and lets them socialize with peers and 2) gives them opportunities that they don't have elsewhere. It seems that those should be useful even if you don't think education itself does much good.
Yup.
That's why I'm strongly in favor of almost all forms of education other than home schooling: Where else are you gonna get your norms? If your dad comes home and whips you every day, where else are you gonna catch a break, or get a meal?
My analogy was more on the fact that the fictional school in question clearly spends +-a zillion per student.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m coming around to this one too. In schools it’s pretty clear that you either remember the information or you don’t, and that depends on you. Maybe the teacher tells you some mnemonic, but that’s about it. For most subjects there aren’t even multiple ways of explaining a concept. I’ve taught music, and families are just paying for a threat they can use to make the kid practice. Even teaching my kid to ride a bike involved (for Baby Genius) telling her that we weren’t going home until she figured it out, and I’ll be on that bench over there. For Baby Average, it involves making her practice every day. Extra help in something like math usually involves a face-to-face explanation that can’t be tuned out. In each of these cases learning is either automatic or self-directed. In the gym at 6am I can’t think of a counter-example. Somebody dogpile me!
Maybe the place for teacher influence is in the selection of the tasks to be practiced or the info to be learned, which is where Egan seems to offer hope; he has a specific plan, just not a fully developed one. He has decided what kids should learn- schools have decided how LONG kids will learn and then filled that time with busywork.
I will say that there is such a thing as a 'good teacher', it's just that it is determined per student and not per teacher.
For me, an autistic type 1 nerd that hates sitting still for more than 15 min, I need a teacher that goes lighting fast and makes as many jokes per minute as possible, then spends the back 3/4's of the class doing examples and taking questions so the loose information settles into the correct pattern. I actually REALLY benefited from zoom classes when I did my emergency covid degree; cause if the lecture was too slow I could play video games and keep my brain in the peak power zone RPMs wise, instead of falling asleep/into a fugue.
Someone else who takes careful notes and thinks things through might want very slow, thorough lecture to construct the pattern in their brain and then just moves to the next one.
A third person might not benefit from lecture at all; they need to read and reread the text until their brain synthesizes a world model out of it.
It's the full flower of human individuality, what a fucking pain!
I don't think that's autism.
Playing video games is not keeping your brain up, it's relying on ingrained muscle memory and habit. I see too many streamers of games who are just grinding with a maxed build and they are steamrolling their way through maps, while playing music, chatting online, and responding to questions. That's not concentrating on the game, the game itself occupies as much intellectual endeavour as scrubbing the bathroom would.
That is what I jus said.
Just distracting enough to keep me focused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can teach people arithmetic and you can teach them to read. We even know working ways of doing both.
I’m not sure you do either of those things in the way that Big Teacher wants to be true.
To teach a kid to read you just go over the sounds again and again, then go over words (which is the same thing). Eventually they get good at it. Big Teacher wants it to be the case that if that doesn’t work, then you move to some plan B that depends on esoteric that only Trained Professionals know about, but there is no plan B that works, which is why you have legions of functionally illiterate people. Plan A (“I make you practice and you will thereby learn automatically”) is not the type of thing they make movies out of.
Arithmetic is almost the same. At some point you see 1 and 1 making 2, and it just sticks. Same for subtraction. Smart kids grasp it after few examples, less smart kids grasp it after more examples. For something more complicated, like long division, the kid is still either remembering the steps or he isn’t (virtually no 9-year old actually understands what the steps are doing). There is no stronger tool or one weird trick- all you have are more examples. This is why patience is so often lauded in teachers. The good ones just grind out more and more examples without getting exasperated.
So kids learn to read and do arithmetic, but is that because adults do something to put the knowledge in the kid’s head (which is what most people mean by “to teach”) or just because the adults make the kid learn it himself?
This is called phonics and it works for nearly all children that aren’t actually literally retarded. It takes some skills to do, but a 110 IQ woman can follow detailed directions without much specialized training. The problem is that ‘big teacher’(which is probably more education bureaucrats that have never actually set foot in a classroom since they day they graduated than it is actual teachers) refuses to do it, instead insisting on things that do not work, which they insist will be overcome by the power of progressive wishful thinking. Functional parents are able to route around this, of course, either because their kids are smart enough to learn anyways, or because they teach the basics themselves, or because they can pay for private tutors that use phonics, or whatever the case may be. But of course large percentages of the nation’s children do not have functional parents. It would, indeed, be much better if public schools could just do phonics, but they don’t.
More options
Context Copy link
Or, unfortunately, another plan A.
But I do think that that example illustrates that how you teach matters—phonics works better than other modes of instruction. Likewise, being able to hold students' attention helps with their learning.
More options
Context Copy link
Setting aside whether that's how to do it --- if it is, that's teaching.
Big Teacher is even worse; they want to use things which don't work INSTEAD of doing things which work for most people. But that doesn't mean that things can't be taught; that means that Big Teacher sucks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link