[hardenedapple]

I am very doubtful of the suggestions that those arguing against testing and spaced repetition are just not trying to help people grow.

My 6 month old is currently learning a whole host of things, and we are doing repetition and watching his growth -- so no disagreement on the premise that these things are good. But we are also making great pains to ensure that he is playing, is always happy doing new things, and doesn't have to continue if he gets overwhelmed and/or bored. We do this because the mentality of someone when learning is a huge factor in what they get out of the activity.

I had the impression that the current push against testing and repetition is because it ended up with children hyper-focussed on "passing the test" skills but not spending the time to question things too deeply and gain that understanding that actually helps the workforce (like Feynman noticed in Brazil).

[StopTheWorld]

There is a push, which has been around for decades, to measure how effective teaching is for a school system taking in taxpayer dollars. This is measured via standardized tests. The tests are generally passed via testing and repetition. Often this becomes the metric for measuring teacher, principal, superintendent performance and school funding. So these authorities begin having the students memorize, do repetition and testing - and testing not to guide a student's progress, but to reward or punish them. The school authorities have the students due this to pass the standardized tests, at the behest of those who have authority over the school authorities and want measurement.

So then the question is, is this the best way to learn in general? You can read studies of education including John Dewey's from over a century ago to see that it is not. The purpose of the education system is not to educate, but to do this thing described in the first paragraph. Nowadays the public schools are contending with charter schools, vouchers and the like, so there's a more injection of profit, religious fundamentalism and the like in the educational taxes people pay than there was a few decades ago.

[mcmoor]

On the other hand we've butchered standardized testing so hard that people report high school graduates as useless. While testing may result in test-focused learning, not testing seems to result in... not learning at all. In the end it's hard to teach someone who's not interested and we have to decide whether we want to force them.

[purple-leafy]

Really well informed take, appreciate your comment. Nail -> head

[DiscourseFan]

Ah, I met many Ivy League kids, and I got the impression that while they were smart, they were moreso neurotic. (That is, unless their parents were rich!) Why should we let our society be run by a bunch of neurotic control freaks dead set on hitting targets? A place no different from Hell!

[bitwize]

Failure means the ride is coming to an end. Even a small failure could completely derail your dreams of being a great scientist, economist, or the next Zuckerberg. Unless your parents are rich, of course. And if they're not rich, you may be carrying the honor of your entire family back in the Old Country on your shoulders, which honor will be permanently tarnished by your failure.

So yeah, if you're in the Ivies and not from old money, you've got one shot and you'd better get it right.

[rightbyte]

> But we are also making great pains to ensure that he is playing, is always happy doing new things, and doesn't have to continue if he gets overwhelmed and/or bored.

Obviously I can't read into the nuances here, but I guess, there is this risk of overdoing it.

[number6]

My little one has some time till he has to got to school.

Can you give me some resources on how to teach him? I had never to learn myself and just remembered most of the things or didn't learn them at all.

I guess it would be better to have the skill of learning and teaching