[netcan]

There have been many wonderful ideas and concepts for education systems over the centuries. They have/had different, sometimes contradictory philosophies. Most fall short of their values and ambitions, regardless of what these are.

IMO, the pressures leading to degradation are all somehow linked to universalization:

(a) Resource constraints. Student/teacher ratios. The availability of good teachers, at scale. A great teacher is the ultimate lever. But great teachers in every class, with enough time and energy to invest in every student... very hard to achieve at national scale.

(b) Voluntary, self-motivated students who want to learn vs checked-out teenagers that just want to pass the exam with minimum effort... it's a massive difference. It's the difference between a world class gymnastics club and the PE class from an 80s teen movie. Even if half the class is highly motivated, it can't be like the gymnastics club when half the class is there involuntarily.

The visionary, optimistic concepts are usually focused on what students can achieve when motivated and willing. Universal, mandatory education rarely achieves this attitude.

(c) The bureaucracy required for scale. Decisions about teaching methods, standardized testing and whatnot... these can be performing terribly for years and decades before getting dropped. A department starts judging schools or teachers by standardized tests... and then a whole generation falls into a stale "teaching to the test" paradigm that disillusions both teacher and student.

"Why are we doing this" - because we have to.

[obscurette]

> Universal, mandatory education rarely achieves this attitude.

As a former teacher I think that's very common, but a fatal error to assume that it's something that it's up to education to achieve this at all. It's up to student to decide what they want to achieve, what their motivation is, whether they are motivated at all etc. The point of education have always been to provide students tools.

Btw, what makes a great teacher? One of my most influential teachers was universally hated by the rest of the class.

[bluGill]

As a taxpayer and citizen, there are good reasons I want every kid to achieve great education results. The fact that it is probably impossible, is irrelevant. I want that. This is why we have universal education in most countries.

Despite the fact that the results aren't what they could be in an ideal world where every student is motivated, the results are much better than any place where education is not universal.

[obscurette]

Yes. And that's why universal education has been success and why a modern idea of education – "let's find out everyone individual needs are, adjust to these, show how cool it is to think critically etc" – is such a disaster.

[bluGill]

Eventually, though, we do need to say that we need to specialize. To become a great musician, you need to spend hours and hours practicing every day. There isn't time to also be a great physicist if you're going to be a great mathematician. Well, maybe you could be both, but it means you have zero free time at all to spend on things like having a social life is one point of life.

Still, until you're in your mid-teens, your needs are not much different from anyone else. You need to get the basics of education which are the same for everyone. As you get to your late teens, you need to start figuring out what your specialty is going to be and start moving in that direction.

I feel it's important to make this distinction because otherwise it's too easy to be arguing past each other when people don't realize that there are different stages of life that do have different needs.

[obscurette]

Good point. As a former highschool teacher, I tend to think on this (K12 in US terms?) level, but of course universal higher education wouldn't work. Some comments though. In my experience this point in life when people will figure out their direction varies wildly. I had classmates who figured it out in their early teens and others who found their way in late twenties. And even more important point against specializing too early - some of them had already three careers (I'm in my sixties). Times change, jobs disappear and strong universal foundation helps enormously if you have to start a new career.

[netcan]

I'm not sure that is the modern idea of education. As you can see in the linked example, it's there 200 years ago at the sunrise of universal and education. I'm sure it was there when Aristotle taught Alexander.

I think we can just call that "good" education vs.. the best we can do.

If you are thinking about the individual, you are going to be thinking about individualization... Like the coach of a gymnastics team, chess club or whatnot.

I agree that from a societal, governmental or taxpayer pov... It's different. That is the "true" perspective if you are doing national policy, which is why that "woke stuff" is so often a disaster when applied to national education systems.

But... as a student or parent... not thinking about it individualistically is pretty pathological.

[IAmBroom]

You are, I think, blinded by the fact that you were a HS teacher. Primary grade teachers teach principle societal objects by rote and practice, not by encouraging students to "go discover the alphabet on their own". Middle-school takes it up a notch, and maybe by (USA) junior high school students' brains are ready for learning how to learn, but for me it wasn't until I reached HS that a teacher ever challenged me to interpret the "facts" I was presented with in a novel, personal way - to use my skillset to understand the facts, discern facts from propaganda or beliefs, and so on.

[TimByte]

Mandatory education is still probably better than the alternative but it does seem to create a constant tension: the system has to serve students who want very different things from it

[WillAdams]

The solution would seem to be a flexible system which identifies and works with the needs of each student.

A school system I attended when I was young divided classes between academic and social --- social classes were attended at one's age level, academic classes were attended at a student's ability levels, I believe that there were also trade school tracks, prompted by students taking Sloyd Woodworking claseses:

https://rainfordrestorations.com/tag/sloyd/

[bluGill]

While there is a point that on balance I have to disagree, there are a lot of things I want students to achieve that are just hard and they won't be motivated to. I want every student to have a good education in math, even though it is hard to do that. For that matter, most of it was forgotten by now, but it was hard to learn how to read. Most students wouldn't learn how to read if they were not forced to at some point.

Which is to say, the vast majority of students are not different. There are some much below average kids who need a lot of help but never will reach anything, but the vast majority are very close to average and we don't need particularly anything better for them than anyone else. What we need is to give the programs we give to the most gifted students to the less gifted students because they would benefit from the same attention

[ndriscoll]

The neat thing about stratifying by ability is that it doesn't require any additional resources or special programs. If you have 20 teachers in a school, you divide the student population into roughly 5%-wide ability bands instead of roughly 5%-wide age cohorts with random ability, and that's it.

Mastery learning is also more effective than moving on with knowledge gaps, so this should be expected to raise everyone's outcomes.

[WillAdams]

Exactly. The school was laid out in grids, and identical layouts between floors (higher grades higher up) with identical class sequencing for each grade, so at class change time, it was easy for even young kids to get to their next class.

[pstuart]

> I want every student to have a good education in math, even though it is hard to do that.

That's a laudable goal but I think it backfires in practice: a lot of students struggle with math and consider it to be torture, and will rarely require the skills and insights that learning algebra, trigonometry, geometry, and calculus will offer. Having done that work I find that I use very little of it in my day to day life (personally and professionally (as a programmer)).

I'm not suggesting that path be eliminated, only that it be an expected track for those interested in a STEM career.

For those who are not, just teaching them math literacy that can be used in contemporary daily life (some statistics, math reasoning (investments and debts), etc.

I love math -- it's the language of the universe! But it shouldn't be used to torture kids who will only learn to say "I hate math".

[WillAdams]

I would argue even the kids on the trade class track would need math:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30685840-practical-shop-...

[pstuart]

Sure, my point wasn't to disparage math or its value -- simply that there are 2 distinct tracts that should be followed:

1. STEM: To Calculus and beyond

2. Everyone else: math for mere mortals; practical applied mathematics where every bit of it contains a "here's where it's gonna help you" payoff.

[sandworm101]

It is naive to think that gradeschool is all about education when it serves so many other social functions. Firstly, it is free daily child care, a concept that allows parents to be more productive workers. A school is the point where various government agencies have contact with children. Vacinations, nutrition and the general welfare of kids is daily inspected. If a kid is in trouble, a teacher is the most likely government employee to notice. But perhaps most importantly, school is a testing ground. Our society doesnt have the resources to turn everyone into doctors and astronauts. School is where we start sorting out who will be granted access to future education and who will not. It isnt about actually learning anything.

[Aeolun]

> It isnt about actually learning anything.

It is definitely appreciated if you actually learn something there, and often required to earn any of the goodies.

[mcsniff]

And this is exactly why people are, have been, and should continue to opt out and/or opt in if they choose.

I appreciate your comment doesn't try to state if these are good or bad things, just that they are.

[IAmBroom]

If this is remotely true, then schools have either always had these functions, or there was a great tipping point where the schools were dramatically repurposed worldwide.

Taking children out of the farm workforce was actually a huge negative; so much so that laws were passed to require their attendance - everywhere, essentially.

Vaccines and suppplemental nutrition are only a very modern idea. Children brought their own lunches, and suffered from now mostly-extinct diseases.

Schools, even general education, existed before the poor had a real path to higher education. Doctors and lawyers were admitted based on criteria like if their fathers had attended - thus excluding the poor a priori.

You're 0/3.

So when are you claiming this great sea-change in schooling occurred? Coincident with the fluoride-based 5G mind control?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So, your take is that schools are:

1. Free government daycare

2. Inspection/interference with parenting

3. Surveillance towards prosecuting negligent parents

4. Evaluation of conscripts

I think I agree 100%. It is exactly those things, even if I can't be so cheerful as you about it. That's why my children have never stepped foot inside a school.

[Zenbit_UX]

There was no cheer in the comment you’re replying to, just facts. The fact that you misinterpreted that is strange.

The fact that you have strong feelings about having your children reviewed by other adults for signs of abuse and neglect is stranger.

You do understand how children are vulnerable and parents aren’t always reliable, yes?

Homeschooling your children can be done well, in theory. However the majority of the time it’s done by imbeciles for religious, political or pseudo-medical reasons and results in children far less educated than the system you criticize and who are also imbeciles.

This is a form of abuse that will destroy a child’s potential far more readily than the four core elements above that you seem to be protesting.

[fasterik]

>IMO, the pressures leading to degradation are all somehow linked to universalization

Liberalism is fundamentally a universalist idea. I mean "liberal" in the original sense: the cultivation of free and indepdendent human beings capable of governing themselves. A democratic society can't survive for long without universal liberal education.

We need to distinguish between education and the education system. You make good points that the system as it is today doesn't scale as much as we might like. But that doesn't mean we should abandon the goal of universal education. Unfortunately, I think the solution requires something much broader and deeper than more schools and more teachers. It requires a culture that values learning and independent thinking, parents who bring up children who are curious and willing to learn, and institutions that uphold these values in society.

We made a lot of progress over the past few centuries, but now there's an increasing number of people who want to question and undermine the core values of liberalism and replace them with something either more elitist, more authoritarian, or both.

[jona-f]

Having grown up in Germany I have firsthand experience how Humboldt's ideals fall short. I don't think I fully agree your explanation.

a) Teachers themselves went through this system, so if it's so great, it should produce plenty of great teachers

b) Now we are blaming the kids for the failure of the system?

c) Yes, absolutely, but is the bureaucracy really inevitable, or is it even contradictory to the original idea?

Anyhow, Humboldt's humanism was ideology from the start. It was a way to change as little as possible from christian values. Instead of God making humans all great now it is the great human mind and civilization.

By now, most of German academia is a bubble for humanistic fundamentalists, that have long lost their connection to reality.

[DoctorOetker]

After WWI, the "Great War", everyone thought it was the final war, and would never be repeated. (So no profound changes in the educational system were applied).

After WWII, and observing how it could occur despite the recent occurrence of WWI, it was decided to put extra focus on the horrors of war in Western Europe.

Both on allied as well as axis side, sure, but especially on axis educational systems.

Having grown up in Belgium, I can confirm that the never-ending stream of unprompted details of the horrors of WWI and WWII were not exactly "fun" part of education, but hey at least we haven't been lobbing chemicals at each other for the last ~80 years, so at least it seems to work, here, locally in Western Europe, despite all the side-effects of such an education.

That said, I don't feel confident that any insights that may truly improve education in Western Europe (without losing the pacifying -as in peace generating- benefits somehow) would apply well to educational systems elsewhere, because a large fraction of negative side effects in Western European education stem precisely from the educational pivot after WWII.

[Aeolun]

What’s so terrible about the WW1 (industrial warfare) and WW2 (industrial extermination) curricula taught in Europe? I don’t think they’re designed to be fun. Quite the opposite.

[DoctorOetker]

At a bare minimum, there is the amount of time and money spent on going through things, there are many things to learn.

Imagine you have children, or imagine your children still go to school.

Imagine someone propose to expose all the kids to even more gore and abhorrent imagery, movies, ... for some genuine goal, and lets just assume the goal is universally agreed to be genuinely desirable, for the sake of this discussion:

1) would you blindly approve it?

2) would you approve doubling the amount of time or financial resources a few years later? or would you condition it on something?

3) wouldn't you prefer whatever the goal and whatever the method, that goal metrics and method performance be compared?

4) a lot of people are raised to not never come close or touch this or that fence post, or talk about touching it, or even merely think about why people can't touch it; we can't run social experiments on the kids! we are doing this precisely to prevent the horrible "social experiment" of WWII with all the horrors that came with it.

If these thoughts feel "dirty" or "bad" or "naughty" you have been raised to think in an authoritarian fashion (we all have been to a greater or lesser extent).

Let's start with the "social experiment", the truth is educational systems are constantly running unintentional experiments: perhaps some parents tell their kids to skip this or that class, so governments enforce mandatory education, and minimum targets... well, even with 100% pupil compliance, there exist many reasons a student didn't attend: perhaps they were truly sick, or their school bus broke down, etc. Ooops some of the students didn't see the full curriculum! Different schools show different movies. Different student generations saw different movie distribution on the subject. All of these are unintentional experiments. Mass surveillance was happening, is happening, and will happen for the foreseeable future. Sometimes young adults join some extreme right wing party, or perhaps express such a sentiment online. We could try to correlate the natural variations (which movies did they see, which explanations did they receive, ...) with any flagged statements?

How do we prevent pupils from merely associating the "bad behavior" merely with the red,white and black color palette, the german accents, the fonts and vehicle models that were in use; instead of associating it with authoritarianism proper? Think of how Laibach (the original Rammstein) challenges and ridicules authoritarianism by permitting the audience to enjoy the non-authoritarianist elements: there is no fault in liking such color schemes, or finding beauty in such a font, the problem was people following orders and blindly complying when ordered to drop disinfectant developed for ships and warehouses, (Zyklon B) canisters down some shafts in full knowledge some poor souls will die because of it. Laibach eclectically mixes symbolism from diverse dictatorships in a riveting way, but while criticizing authoritarianism and ridiculing it. They faced a lot of pushback because they necessarily stay in character to get the message across, how easy it is to be carried away by aesthetics and the smallest excuse to stop thinking.

Contrast system A and B:

System A: educational system just drills in (with best intentions) how bad Nazi's were, without measuring effectiveness, and thus without measure what the minimum nudge necessary was to achieve the same goal, risking loose associations such "as long as me, my friends, my compatriots aren't wearing the exact same armbands, don't speak specifically the aggressive german accent, don't use that font throughout society, etc. then me, my friends, my compatriots couldn't be lapsing into authoritarianism", which destroys insights like "the banality of evil", which would necessitate a much stronger form of critical thinking, but which state leadership tends to not appreciate in its population despite claiming they seek it in their population...

System B: kids constantly ask "why?", education is much more effective if information is provided when the students wonder about something, compared to being force-fed factoids if they are not the party asking "why?" about something. Let's consider a hypothetical scenario, in a truly critical-thinker-generating authoritarianism averting education system:

History teacher starts talking about and showing pictures of horrible scenes in WWII.

Students are reminded of the previous class a week ago and don't want to see the imagery, they ask "why? why must we sit inside and watch and discuss this war porn?"

The teacher is happy to oblige: "There are many reasons, its complicated, but I will be upfront: the reason I present them is because I need to reach certain targets, some education milestones, set in Brussels / Berlin / Wherever. If I don't I will get in trouble, but not only that, I agree with those milestones and think you should see it."

The kids ask: "Why did they set those milestones for you?"

The teacher responds: "Well, although states tend to abuse this excuse, in order to increase national identity, there is a genuine purpose to teaching history: so we don't repeat the mistakes made in previous generations, so we can learn from their mistakes"

The kids ask: "But surely we can't go through all mistakes that have occurred in all of human history, can't we keep it shorter, the sun is shining outside"

The teacher responds: "OK here is a deal I will dedicate this single session to answer all your meta-questions, but in return you will give full attention in all my future classes".

The kids agree and repeat there question: "Why do we have to go through this horrorfest?"

The teacher responds: "To put it bluntly, to prevent us from lobbing chemicals at each other again, among other things, its more than chemicals, its fundamentally about authoritarianism, that's why we have to sit you through this multi-year, multi-movie, multi-museum, multi-book, multi-essay horrorfest".

The kids ask "But why does it have to be so repetitive? why does it have to be so inefficient? We could be learning more math, learn about cryptography, learn how to bolster civil rights, human rights, children's rights with cryptography, instead of this thing that feels like brainwashing, which you basically already admitted it to be, benevolent brain-washing but brain-washing none-the-less, why?"

Teacher: "because among all possible ways of hopefully immunizing the next generation from making the same mistakes, no effort was spared, with many overlapping and potentially redundant approaches simultaneously applied, just to make sure the message didn't fly over anyone's head, I guess, and over time people were too afraid to touch it or decrease it in any way."

Student: "We see 3 costs: you rob us of our time we could have spent freely outside, you rob us of precious time we could have spent on other subjects and worst of all you rob us of our humanistic innocence, you show us this war porn and we mentally place ourselves in the shoes of both victim and perpetrator, we will never be the same. If you or the system is willing to make such a drastic intervention in every child's life, you better carry proof that its provably the least invasive intervention which provably suffices, is that the case?"

Teacher: "How would you propose such a proof is generated and assembled?"

Kids: "The surveillance state has no qualms tracking every fart we make as long as the data is only used for improving sales of whatever the system happened to overproduce last month, or for whatever dark scheme some billionaire needs the data for, but actually using it for good things like finding the most time-,cost-,soul-sparing education on the subject to correlate our behavior with the exact variation of authoritarianism-related courseware each individual experienced, no the system and the economy can't be bothered... we must sit through inordinate amounts of soul-scarring horrorfest, all because of ... vibes? no systematic correlation measurement?"

Do you think system A (where kids must learn to accept the status quo of education, like it or not) or system B (where kids learn and criticize the status quo) is more likely to produce authoritarianism vs critical thinkers?