Classic blinkered-technocrat perspective, why does "scale" matter in education? What is the endgame when education is scaled as much as possible, plugging kids into VR headsets and calling it a day?
All humans have finite amount of time during the day, finite resources and finite lifespans. All of which is allocated pretty tightly. If you want to add value to the lives of people, your best bet is something that doesn't come at a great cost to them. Hence scale.
A secondary benefit is that big things which don't scale are only attempted by few players with lots of resources; making things more scalable means more smaller players can compete on the market.
2. How about we reduce the number of teachers (and have the remaining be paid fairly) by making education scale? See also my agriculture example.
But they're consuming money and attention that could be redirected to solving real problems. I know, this is a perpetual complaint with someone in any crowd.
How about we reduce the number of teachers (and have the remaining be paid fairly) by making education scale?
Unless you have an innovation in mind that I haven't seen, I fall back to the copiously documented truism that you can't use technology to solve a people problem.
See also my agriculture example.
I don't concede that children can be educated within the same concepts that are used to harvest cows and cotton.
Thing is, I don't buy that truism. IMO technology is sometimes the best way to solve a people problem, because it sidesteps all the issues of politics and ego.
> I don't concede that children can be educated within the same concepts that are used to harvest cows and cotton.
Why not? Just like modern agriculture makes a farmer more productive per unit of land, we should strive to make teachers be able to teach more children and teach them better.
AKA the reasons why it's a people problem.
we should strive to make teachers be able to teach more children and teach them better
You're comparing apples to oranges. Agriculture does not "strive."
All in all this sounds like pie-in-the-sky thinking. The science I've seen says larger class sizes do not result in better outcomes, do you have anything that contradicts that? Anything demonstrating even a clear benefit from technology in the classroom? Anything about scaling? That is, is what you're proposing anything more than imaginary?
Also, it's about cost effectiveness, not just cost. The more parts of education that are scaled, the more money can be spent on other programs that can enrich kids' lives, which we currently don't have the money for in some cases (e.g. music programs, special ed, special programs for the gifted, actual educational research).
I mean, call me an out-of-touch plutocrat.
LAUSD's own numbers for 2016-17 indicate a maximum of $88K, and that's with a doctorate and maximum seniority.
http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Dom...
*Edit: Actually it was 2015 data. Also note that less than 1/3 of LAUSD's employees are teachers.
Maybe because, specifically in the U.S., there are 73.6 million [0] children aged 0-17. 45.7 million (or 50.4 million [1]) of which are school age. If that isn't a problem of scale I have absolutely no clue what is. You can't give every single one of them the kind of attention and resources a super rich kid gets. It's just not feasible.
We as a country made the decision a long time ago that every child deserves an education. I'm sure there's a few libertarians out there who'd disagree. But, I don't think that's a controversial opinion these days. I'd go as far as saying that the opposite opinion, that not every child deserves an education, is borderline taboo. It's not something I would ever suggest in polite company unless I'm intentionally trying to make people think I'm a huge jerk.
Given that we want all children to be educated, that there are limited resources to do so, and the number of school age children is enormous we have no choice but to think of education as a problem of scale. Currently we spend $620 billion a year on public education [2]. That number is sure to increase, but never to the point where every kid has all of the hands on teaching that would be preferred. This means system-wide improvements are likely going to have to come from somewhere else; namely better methods of teaching which can be applied nearly across the board. Is this the optimal situation? No. But, when you consider that the natural state of things is no education at all, perhaps we shouldn't reflexively sneer at attempts to make an imperfect system marginally better for everyone in the long run.
0: https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp