15-Year-Old Student's Ed Reform Plan(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
15-Year-Old Student's Ed Reform Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/13/a-15-year-old-students-ed-reform-plan-self-directed-learning/
46 comments
Please see the Editor's Note attached to this article: Arooj Ahmad plagiarized excessively.
Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the three current problems are 1) education is expensive, 2) people are too poor, and 3) people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum.
We should close all corporate tax loopholes and send the money to schools and require that school funding is not proportional to property tax.
We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty.
The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks.
We should close all corporate tax loopholes and send the money to schools and require that school funding is not proportional to property tax.
We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty.
The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks.
The U.S. already spends more than any other country on education. Throwing more money at the problem won't necessarily fix it. I also want to add that people of above average intelligence are not well served by the high school curriculum either.
Next, the minimum wage will not fight poverty like you think it will. Something like a negative income tax would be more effective. Also, how would you go about paying for a school in a district if not for property taxes? There isn't just an easy solution to that problem.
I do agree with your last point though. Not everyone needs to or should go to college. Beyond that, I think more people should work after high school or take a years break instead of going straight to college so that they can actually think about what they want to do. The fewer people that get saddled with crippling debt and a useless degree, the better.
Next, the minimum wage will not fight poverty like you think it will. Something like a negative income tax would be more effective. Also, how would you go about paying for a school in a district if not for property taxes? There isn't just an easy solution to that problem.
I do agree with your last point though. Not everyone needs to or should go to college. Beyond that, I think more people should work after high school or take a years break instead of going straight to college so that they can actually think about what they want to do. The fewer people that get saddled with crippling debt and a useless degree, the better.
Yes, there is spending and then there is spending effectively. Something like half the money allocated for each student is siphoned at various points starting at the federal, state, county, district, and school. When teachers have to spend their own money to get basic schools supplies (like paper for the printer) and the school board is bragging how much they spend on each student* you know something is really wrong about where that money is going.
*My school board was require to print an annual report with the school performance and the average spent on each student. It was something like $6000/year; as a student I don't think they spent a tenth of that on me.
*My school board was require to print an annual report with the school performance and the average spent on each student. It was something like $6000/year; as a student I don't think they spent a tenth of that on me.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the three current problems are 1) education is expensive, 2) people are too poor, and 3) people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum.
Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated.
For example, spaced repetition is a learning technique that takes advantage of the spacing effect phenomenon that is present in all humans. You know why your teachers told you to study everyday instead of cramming? Well, cramming doesn't help you retain information in the long run! Computers can be used to track every answers and problem, what our weakness are, and to schedule when to review, allowing us to take spaced repetition to its logical conclusion. The computer can generate problems on demand, give out recorded lectures by the very best teacher, and so on.
Spacing effects also implies summer vacation is harmful to knowledge acquisition process unless we continuously practice. When we finish high school and college, decays begin to set in because we stop practicing. The result is that countless generation learned mathematics, history, language art, literature, only to forget upon exiting formal education.
That's why khanacademy is so powerful. They really do leverage computers to generate problems, explain stuff, track your every mistakes, and schedule practices problem using spaced repetition. Right now, long run khanacademy users like me knows more and is the most refreshed on mathematics than the vast majority of high school students and working adults. We practice math problems everyday, thus ensuring that we never forget and be prepared to build a new knowledge as soon as Khan Academy adds new exercises or revise old one.
That's in contrast to going to a very inefficient traditional institutions and receiving a "great education" and then immediately forgetting most of what you're taught. That's a very inefficient way to learn.
Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated.
For example, spaced repetition is a learning technique that takes advantage of the spacing effect phenomenon that is present in all humans. You know why your teachers told you to study everyday instead of cramming? Well, cramming doesn't help you retain information in the long run! Computers can be used to track every answers and problem, what our weakness are, and to schedule when to review, allowing us to take spaced repetition to its logical conclusion. The computer can generate problems on demand, give out recorded lectures by the very best teacher, and so on.
Spacing effects also implies summer vacation is harmful to knowledge acquisition process unless we continuously practice. When we finish high school and college, decays begin to set in because we stop practicing. The result is that countless generation learned mathematics, history, language art, literature, only to forget upon exiting formal education.
That's why khanacademy is so powerful. They really do leverage computers to generate problems, explain stuff, track your every mistakes, and schedule practices problem using spaced repetition. Right now, long run khanacademy users like me knows more and is the most refreshed on mathematics than the vast majority of high school students and working adults. We practice math problems everyday, thus ensuring that we never forget and be prepared to build a new knowledge as soon as Khan Academy adds new exercises or revise old one.
That's in contrast to going to a very inefficient traditional institutions and receiving a "great education" and then immediately forgetting most of what you're taught. That's a very inefficient way to learn.
> Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated.
I don't disagree, but do you have anything to back this up?
I ask because my girlfriend is a teacher, and teaching is a lot harder than most people seem to believe.
I don't disagree, but do you have anything to back this up?
I ask because my girlfriend is a teacher, and teaching is a lot harder than most people seem to believe.
I don't disagree, but do you have anything to back this up?
Like what? Numbers and studies? Khan Academy said that they have very promising results in which students perform significantly better on standardized tests.
That being said, I already wrote in my post how we can improve efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging computers for all they're worth. I think this is sufficient to show how dated the teaching is done in schools, if not exactly proves how inefficient our school teach. I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year.
I ask because my girlfriend is a teacher, and teaching is a lot harder than most people seem to believe.
All I am advocating is giving the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago. Making sure students get the practice they need on summer vacations and scheduling practice problems to reduce unnecessary studying isn't rocket science.
Like what? Numbers and studies? Khan Academy said that they have very promising results in which students perform significantly better on standardized tests.
That being said, I already wrote in my post how we can improve efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging computers for all they're worth. I think this is sufficient to show how dated the teaching is done in schools, if not exactly proves how inefficient our school teach. I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year.
I ask because my girlfriend is a teacher, and teaching is a lot harder than most people seem to believe.
All I am advocating is giving the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago. Making sure students get the practice they need on summer vacations and scheduling practice problems to reduce unnecessary studying isn't rocket science.
Like what? Numbers and studies? Khan Academy said that they have very promising results in which students perform significantly better on standardized tests.
Without numbers and studies, this sounds like self-selection to me - people doing Khan Academy courses are surely more self-motivated than people attending colleges and universities, a substantial percentage of whom probably don't really enjoy being there.
I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year.
Do you mean obvious from some study you've heard of, or obvious to you? Because that's not at all obvious to me personally - in fact, the opposite is true. I think I learn much better from in-person lecturers (providing the lecturer is good, which would have to be true in a video lecture too). I think there are two forces at play that make this true - first, the lecturer can gauge the response of the audience and tailor his presentation - timing, level of explanation etc. Second, the atmosphere makes me pay attention more - in much the same way as going to the cinema or to see a play in a theater is more engaging that watching the same thing on TV or YouTube.
I know that basically everything I've said is all anecdote and presumption, but my presumption seem just as valid (to me, more valid :-P) than yours in the absence of hard data.
On your point that we should [give] the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago, I wholeheartedly agree, but it needs to be done based on scientific conclusions, not anecdata (yours or mine).
Without numbers and studies, this sounds like self-selection to me - people doing Khan Academy courses are surely more self-motivated than people attending colleges and universities, a substantial percentage of whom probably don't really enjoy being there.
I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year.
Do you mean obvious from some study you've heard of, or obvious to you? Because that's not at all obvious to me personally - in fact, the opposite is true. I think I learn much better from in-person lecturers (providing the lecturer is good, which would have to be true in a video lecture too). I think there are two forces at play that make this true - first, the lecturer can gauge the response of the audience and tailor his presentation - timing, level of explanation etc. Second, the atmosphere makes me pay attention more - in much the same way as going to the cinema or to see a play in a theater is more engaging that watching the same thing on TV or YouTube.
I know that basically everything I've said is all anecdote and presumption, but my presumption seem just as valid (to me, more valid :-P) than yours in the absence of hard data.
On your point that we should [give] the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago, I wholeheartedly agree, but it needs to be done based on scientific conclusions, not anecdata (yours or mine).
Without numbers and studies, this sounds like self-selection to me - people doing Khan Academy courses are surely more self-motivated than people attending colleges and universities, a substantial percentage of whom probably don't really enjoy being there.
Spaced repetition and spacing effect is well known science and it works. For everything else I said, there should be more studies and experiments.
Spaced repetition and spacing effect is well known science and it works. For everything else I said, there should be more studies and experiments.
Not fair - you don't know how Khan Academy students are selected, you just claim its self-selection.
Cupertino schools ran a whole school year on Khan Academy - no self-selection there. So at least some of their numbers are meaningfully correlated to a general population.
And why should essentially randomly virally selected people be labelled self-selected, any more than any people who answer an ad for a psychological study? From those in the group, statistics can be gleaned by including factors like age and economics.
And there are lots of reasons a lecture you can repeat, stop, talk to a buddy about real-time is better than an assembly-hall lecture. This is obvious to those paying attention to the Khan Academy movement.
And why should essentially randomly virally selected people be labelled self-selected, any more than any people who answer an ad for a psychological study? From those in the group, statistics can be gleaned by including factors like age and economics.
And there are lots of reasons a lecture you can repeat, stop, talk to a buddy about real-time is better than an assembly-hall lecture. This is obvious to those paying attention to the Khan Academy movement.
> I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year.
Ah, actually, it's not.
For instance, a number of studies unequivocally showed that an infant learns nothing in front of an televised education program. A young child cannot learn a language from a visual recording, but somehow can if the child sees the same thing live. Somehow the screen seems to screen of the magic.
As we get older and learn to focus our attention ourselves, this becomes less important. But direct human contact, even through a mere lecture, still counts. So my guess is that while mechanised teaching (not just videos —we' have computers for Omega's sake!) has certainly great potential, merely replacing the teacher by a computer, even part time, is probably not optimal.
Ah, actually, it's not.
For instance, a number of studies unequivocally showed that an infant learns nothing in front of an televised education program. A young child cannot learn a language from a visual recording, but somehow can if the child sees the same thing live. Somehow the screen seems to screen of the magic.
As we get older and learn to focus our attention ourselves, this becomes less important. But direct human contact, even through a mere lecture, still counts. So my guess is that while mechanised teaching (not just videos —we' have computers for Omega's sake!) has certainly great potential, merely replacing the teacher by a computer, even part time, is probably not optimal.
But if it's so easy, why has nothing changed after all this time? It's apparently not rocket science, yet all these intelligent people are going into teaching and the same methods are still used. Teachers continue to spend long hours after school planning lessons and aside from module websites made using Google's site builder tools and interactive whiteboards there is little difference in the UK.
Originally, I thought it was a money problem, but some schools have a ridiculous budget and are happy to spend them on the same old stuff. Why is no one investing in these things that will apparently improve education?
Originally, I thought it was a money problem, but some schools have a ridiculous budget and are happy to spend them on the same old stuff. Why is no one investing in these things that will apparently improve education?
People think they are right. They will ignore evidence that they are wrong, and over-emphasise the evidence that shows they are right. The debate becomes politicised. The debate splits along lines of unions vs others; politicians vs teachers; parents vs others; etc. Proper double blind research is hard to conduct on students for a number of reasons, and so we don't bother with effective research.
See, for example, the length of time that it's taken to get synthetic phonics over analytic phonics recognised as better for teaching children to read.
See, for example, the length of time that it's taken to get synthetic phonics over analytic phonics recognised as better for teaching children to read.
I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn.
I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn.
What part of learning that doesn't involves remembering and building a foundation on what you have learned? What if you forgot your basic when you have to do more advanced stuff. That is part of the process of "learning".
What part of learning that doesn't involves remembering and building a foundation on what you have learned? What if you forgot your basic when you have to do more advanced stuff. That is part of the process of "learning".
This is part of the reason that I loved the Saxon method for teaching mathematics when I was in school. Your nightly problem sets would almost always contain questions which referred to earlier chapters, forcing you to re-use the information you learned instead of just focusing on the current problems. It was a lot of homework, but well worth it.
I'm a big fan of private education - my son has attended a private school here in the UK from the age of 4 and he is now 14 and he loves his school (both for academic studies and sports).
However, in many respects it is easy for private schools - they have plenty resources, excellent buildings, huge playing grounds and a fairly uniform set of reasonably high achieving parents - who are motivated to encourage their kids to try and excel.
However, in many respects it is easy for private schools - they have plenty resources, excellent buildings, huge playing grounds and a fairly uniform set of reasonably high achieving parents - who are motivated to encourage their kids to try and excel.
> people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum.
Explain. My experience has been that high school is little more than a legal straightjacket to prevent the archetypal hormone-addled teenager from going off and doing stupid shit or otherwise causing potential problems for themselves.
> The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks.
This doesn't happen already? What's the pipeline in your education system for someone who wants to become, say, a diesel mechanic? Can they leave school early and get an apprenticeship?
Explain. My experience has been that high school is little more than a legal straightjacket to prevent the archetypal hormone-addled teenager from going off and doing stupid shit or otherwise causing potential problems for themselves.
> The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks.
This doesn't happen already? What's the pipeline in your education system for someone who wants to become, say, a diesel mechanic? Can they leave school early and get an apprenticeship?
>We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty.
Can you walk me through the economic justification for this?
Can you walk me through the economic justification for this?
Sure. Take Walmart for example. They had over 100 billion (edit: I was wrong it's 36 billion) in profits in 2012. If you assume they pay every one of their 2 million workers $8/hr then giving them a raise to $12/hr would cost around 15-20 billion dollars. In my opinion this means they can afford it. It also means that the government would stop subsidizing their profits through government handouts for the working poor.
Edit: realistic numbers of average pay for Walmart is approaching $10/hr making the total cost of a wage hike 10 billion.
Edit: realistic numbers of average pay for Walmart is approaching $10/hr making the total cost of a wage hike 10 billion.
You might want to double-check your facts. Starting with the fact that Walmart's profits in 2012 were $15.7 billion, making a $15-20 billion line item not nearly as affordable as you would have us believe.
Note that this is the biggest retailer in the world, in an economic climate which has been very good for them. (When people become price-conscious, sales move from higher end stores to Walmart.) What is affordable for them right now might not be for other retailers in general, or for them in a different year.
(That said, if every employee cost more, prices would rise and costs would get passed to consumers.)
Note that this is the biggest retailer in the world, in an economic climate which has been very good for them. (When people become price-conscious, sales move from higher end stores to Walmart.) What is affordable for them right now might not be for other retailers in general, or for them in a different year.
(That said, if every employee cost more, prices would rise and costs would get passed to consumers.)
> They had over 100 billion in profits in 2012.
EBITDA was $36B.
Giving up ~2/3rds of the money available for dividends or reinvestment in the business is not going to fly with the shareholders.
EBITDA was $36B.
Giving up ~2/3rds of the money available for dividends or reinvestment in the business is not going to fly with the shareholders.
EBITDA was $36B.
I think that for this discussion Net Income is the more appropriate figure to use given that Walmart's interest, tax, depreciation and amortization add up to tens of billions of dollars.
I think that for this discussion Net Income is the more appropriate figure to use given that Walmart's interest, tax, depreciation and amortization add up to tens of billions of dollars.
You're right.
They booked net income for 2011-12 as $15.6B. So a $20B payrise would put them in the red.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&ann...
They booked net income for 2011-12 as $15.6B. So a $20B payrise would put them in the red.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&ann...
Yeah you're all probably right. However, with average walmart wages of $10/hr I think that's a realistic target for minimum wage. Also I think it's a shame that we charge any tax to people making minimum wage. I plugged $14500 into the ADP pay calculator, and in my state you walk away with just over 10k per year.
You're right. Sorry my numbers were wrong. Anyhow their average pay is actually closer to $10/hr anyway making the total cost more like 10 billion dollars. Their dividend payout ratio is around 30%. A payout ratio of 60% would still be okay with most investors, though I'm sure it would hurt the investment opportunity. But when we recognize that we have a growing income disparity this would be the price we pay to fix that.
In 2011-12, Walmart paid $5B in dividend and bought back $6.2B of stock. They also spent around $13B on capital expenditure -- new stores, equipment, warehouses and so on, all of which would be employing new people.
People latch onto Walmart because of the amazing numbers involved. Hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue! Thousands and thousands of stores! Millions of employees!
But the thing is, retail is a really tough business to turn a buck on. After this massive machine has sprint through a year, the result is ... about a 3% profit on revenue.
Compare that with Google: On ~$50B revenue Google walks out with ~$10B of net income. For eight times less revenue Google is still managing to make more than half as much profit as Walmart.
Where are the picket lines outside Google HQ?
People latch onto Walmart because of the amazing numbers involved. Hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue! Thousands and thousands of stores! Millions of employees!
But the thing is, retail is a really tough business to turn a buck on. After this massive machine has sprint through a year, the result is ... about a 3% profit on revenue.
Compare that with Google: On ~$50B revenue Google walks out with ~$10B of net income. For eight times less revenue Google is still managing to make more than half as much profit as Walmart.
Where are the picket lines outside Google HQ?
Where are the Googlers qualifying for SNAP?
This cuts both ways: if Google had a use for less skilled employees (I'm not saying they do, but anyone looking for customer service on her Nexus order might), they might still decide not to hire such employees specifically to avoid the regulations (and protests, apparently) involved with that.
Wal-Mart has to hire these workers, but we can be sure if they had any reason to hire fewer of them they would.
Wal-Mart has to hire these workers, but we can be sure if they had any reason to hire fewer of them they would.
>>Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education.
Of course you would say that, since you went to a private high school and received, in your words, a great education. There are many others who were not so lucky (to have parents who could afford private school tuition).
Of course you would say that, since you went to a private high school and received, in your words, a great education. There are many others who were not so lucky (to have parents who could afford private school tuition).
[deleted]
I hate being mean to 15 year olds.
But this was just platitudes and motherhood statements.
Did you win an essay contest or something?
But this was just platitudes and motherhood statements.
Did you win an essay contest or something?
I suppose anything you already know could be described as a platitude. Doesn't mean everybody else knows it already. Apparently the people currently responsible for education don't know it yet.
> I suppose anything you already know could be described as a platitude.
It's platitudes because of the vagueness. Students should want to learn, stuff should be relevant, etc etc. These are unmeasurable, untestable and thus irrefutable statements.
Given that education has as an inputs billions of dollars and amongst its outputs the future of civilisation, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little analytical rigour.
It's platitudes because of the vagueness. Students should want to learn, stuff should be relevant, etc etc. These are unmeasurable, untestable and thus irrefutable statements.
Given that education has as an inputs billions of dollars and amongst its outputs the future of civilisation, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little analytical rigour.
Ways to fix the education system are like assholes
Everyone's got one.
Everyone's got one.
I personally think mine is the best one. :-)
Public boarding schools.
Lots of folks are hurting financially these days, so there's a lot of distraction for teenagers and not enough structure. Boarding schools will go a long way to solving that.
I also think what Obama mentioned in the SOTU address is a great idea: pre-school for all, not just those who can afford it.
Public boarding schools.
Lots of folks are hurting financially these days, so there's a lot of distraction for teenagers and not enough structure. Boarding schools will go a long way to solving that.
I also think what Obama mentioned in the SOTU address is a great idea: pre-school for all, not just those who can afford it.
Did you go to a boarding school? (I graduated from a public HS boarding school.)
Far from structure, outside of class, it is much easier for students to become distracted, since one residential advisor cannot possibly supervise a hall of 30 students and keep track of there whereabouts and how they're spending time.
Far from structure, outside of class, it is much easier for students to become distracted, since one residential advisor cannot possibly supervise a hall of 30 students and keep track of there whereabouts and how they're spending time.
I think school should take up as little time as possible, so that kids are free to do things on their own. Since boarding schools are 100% all the time, I don't like that idea at all.
For anyone who's interested, I recommend watching the film 'Race to Nowhere' - it documents the current education system's focus on standardized tests and questions what 'success' looks like.
Personally I think we should be gearing curriculums towards what are being defined as the 21st Century Set of Literacies: how well we can find information, validate it, synthesize it, leverage it, communicate it, collaborate with it and problem solve with it.
What's education really for? I'd like to see the focus move from a focus on test scores towards producing future generations who are creative, empathetic, resilient, driven and entrepreneurial.
Personally I think we should be gearing curriculums towards what are being defined as the 21st Century Set of Literacies: how well we can find information, validate it, synthesize it, leverage it, communicate it, collaborate with it and problem solve with it.
What's education really for? I'd like to see the focus move from a focus on test scores towards producing future generations who are creative, empathetic, resilient, driven and entrepreneurial.
I'd like to see the focus move from a focus on test scores towards producing future generations who are creative, empathetic, resilient, driven and entrepreneurial.
Without testing, how will we know if we succeeded?
Without testing, how will we know if we succeeded?
I don't think testing as a way of tracking progress should be stopped completely (what gets measured gets done, right?) But the focus on testing is too strong.
In systems geared around testing, it creates a culture of scarcity in which teachers and schools are competing against each other. This compares with a system such as Finland, where they have no standardized tests (and hence have a more collaborative approach to education) and yet they rate among the world's best for educational outcomes.
In systems geared around testing, it creates a culture of scarcity in which teachers and schools are competing against each other. This compares with a system such as Finland, where they have no standardized tests (and hence have a more collaborative approach to education) and yet they rate among the world's best for educational outcomes.
How do you know Finland rates among the world's best for educational outcomes?
The 'Program for International Student Assessment' is an international testing system of 15-year-old students undertaken every three years by the OECD - Finland repeatedly ranks amongst the top of these international rankings based on science, mathematics and literacy.
Education's a random passion of mine so I've read a lot about it - the Finnish system is just so cool as it focuses on non-cognitive skills more than most systems - growing emotional intelligence and resilience - so it's pretty cool that despite no national testing program (apart from the OECD) they come out really well :)
Education's a random passion of mine so I've read a lot about it - the Finnish system is just so cool as it focuses on non-cognitive skills more than most systems - growing emotional intelligence and resilience - so it's pretty cool that despite no national testing program (apart from the OECD) they come out really well :)
You know because of standardized testing. My point is made.
I don't disagree, but Finnish students are subject to one OECD test at age 15, as opposed to going through a system geared around very regular, standardized tests. There's a big difference. Personally I think the Finnish system sounds more fun.
A significant portion of this reminds me of Sir Ken Robinson's TED talks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I