Hacker News Reader

I've taught in schools from all corners of San Francisco, and can't agree more with majority of what was said in this article, except maybe the money part*, I'll leave a footnote for this.

One day when I was volunteering at one of these schools, a student came up to me showing a picture of a robot how cool it was. When I mentioned that it was relatively easy to build, he got super stoked, told his friends and before you know it, we had a class of 8 students pursuing their own interest, learning CS/Breadboarding/Electrical-Circuits, all student driven, building cardboard-box arduino-based robots afterschool.**

These student led classes were majority black students and pushed forward most by black students. Everything was honestly instantly working great, and at the end of every class my students made to promise not to forget to show up to the next session (I don't recall missing a session, I believe this was out attachment for the course).

Self-driven learning is a thing, and all we have to do is give kids grounds to explore -- in this case to create designs from from their own imagination (ey, isn't that why we're hackers here : D? We can all relate).

* Small class sizes help (or student:teacher ratio of 6:1 ideally). This is the ratio (lower works too) that really works, and I've seen only at really rich schools (see Branson/UHS/Lick Wilmerding) and programs based on it. I've seen this emulated to great success in Summerbridge SF, and too at a summerschool I helped start in the bay area based on project-based/student-led learning, access to technology, and most importantly these small class sizes that enables hosting these free-learning classes.

**Again money is important, materials costs for this class were supported by my concurrent 4 jobs, doing mainly part-time engineering work for startups, electrical-engineering curriculum development for a summer-schools, as well as tutoring.

Small class sizes don't just help, they are essential for this type of setup, which is why it can never work at scale and will not be relevant to 99% of kids in the country. There simply aren't enough teachers.

Their easily could be, we just can't imagine as a society putting this much effort into caring for the young. Especially those of the wrong skin color. The US is the wealthiest country in the world, we could easily change some of the governments wealth distribution to educate all students 8:1

Still no. You would need to triple the number of teachers and greatly increase the number of rooms across almost all public schools in America to get those kinds of numbers. There simply aren't enough people, or enough space to do so. The only viable solution is to find a better way of educating children in these larger groups.

"There simply aren't enough people, or enough space to do so."

The people part is the issue. The teachers I know hate the bureaucracy and policies. Private schools seem to be better at hiring, even when they pay less. Dealing with certain parents is a nightmare too.

If you have a classroom made for 25-30 students, it wouldn't be too hard to partition it in half, then have two instructors leading each half of the room.

I went to a robotics class and a game design class as a kid and they both had something like 20 students with two instructors. It went fine. Sure some of it was introductory instruction, but then we'd build our own stuff as individuals or teams. So there might not need to be much reconfiguration at all.

Maybe if the job and compensation were more compelling we'd have plenty of teachers. And we can come up with innovative ways to use the space we have.

Increase teacher salary to $100k a year and cap teacher to student ratio at 20 and see how hard it is to hire them. I'd go straight back to school to get a teaching cert to change careers, even though it'd be a pay cut. Imagine getting the best and brightest people pounding down the school doors to teach. For reference, that would triple the starting teacher's pay at my local high school.

You have a viewpoint that is shaped by a very niche experience. Your experience was with students that happened into an interest that was itself a project that can drive learning in a handful of subjects. This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.

> This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.

Awesome, as this is really one the core things the original post wanted us to discuss:

_Should we_ require students to study so many things that they don't find interesting?

Some of the original post's thoughts:

> It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to listen to a stranger reading poetry when you want to learn to construct buildings, or to sit with a stranger discussing the construction of buildings when you want to read poetry.

And:

> “How will they learn to read?” you say, and my answer is: “Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.” When children are given whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense in the life that unfolds around them.

My take is unoriginal, even summarized by someone else's quote: “Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.” -- Leonardo da Vinci

And if really can be attributed to da vinci, then one can say same core energy really existed in minds over half a millenia ago.

So I assert that while that this experience granted was indeed an awesome experience, there's a large swath of folks pushing for this "project-based" learning, and more self-driven learning paths.

https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl

What's the harm in allowing students to connect the dots on their own?

> And to push for individualistic behavior when you think that your society is disintegrating seems to just accelerate any problems that may exists.

This can not be understated. Coming from a country that would be considered "Eastern European", there is an astounding amount of individualism pushed in schools, and yet, it seems that the most prosperous and "equal" countries take the opposite approach.

What I cherish the most from my time in Scandinavian Universities is how much emphasis there is on collective work. Those who work in group will always achieve and learn a lot more than those who do it alone, unless the latter are truly exceptional.

"Those who work in group will always achieve and learn a lot more than those who do it alone, unless the latter are truly exceptional."

Many people in the US who have done group projects at school will disagree - you typically end up with dead weight or overbearing partners (it tends to get better when you get out of the compulsory school years).

With the right partners, I completely agree though. In my undergrad and even moreso in my masters I had some good groups.

I'd wager that it is the sense of individualism that causes the feeling of carrying dead weight as the dead weight does not feel any sense of responsibility towards the group.

Given what I have read about such individualistic behaviour, I am inclined to believe that public transportation as found in Denmark wouldn't function in the US simply because it requires a form of trust between citizen and state. You just enter the bus / metro / train, you generally don't have to show ticket or anything. You are "caught" however if an inspector happens to be on board and goes for a check. I have had such checks only on the M2 line in Copenhagen (the one from the airport). People just buy the ticket from their phone and understand their responsibilities.

I think it depends on what we mean for individualism. One can have a strong sense of individualism and still function well in society. An individual can still want to do their part. I think it's mostly a lack of honor or integrity - they'd rather put their name on a project and get credit for the work of others, or get a free ride on the bus.

For example, the boy scouts teach integrity, teamwork, and also self-reliance (individualism).

This exact model is used in my city train / rail system so it is possible in the U.S.

I assume it would be more challenging to use this model in our largest Metro areas.

This is used in NY for it’s Select Bus Service Lines

> And to push for individualistic behavior when you think that your society is disintegrating seems to just accelerate any problems that may exists.

I don't think individualism and participation in community are necessarily at odds with one another. Communities of choice can be really powerful and meaningful in peoples' lives. I think the tricky part is figuring out how to equip young people to find and build communities in a society that no longer provides it by default.

> I have yet to see a child that is not curious, you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but that doesn't reflect my experience at all. Some children are indeed curious, but I wouldn't say anywhere near most. Saying that only serious trauma stops curiosity comes off as overly optimistic, but what do I know.

After all, would you make the same statement about adults? Are nearly all or most adults curious except for when there's trauma? My guess is that you would struggle to make a similar statement about adults in general. If adults aren't that curious, but children are, then why is that?

Pretty sure it applies with adults to, in my experience, those who aren't curious about the world have had many awful experiences with family, jobs, relationships. Pretty much everyone under capitalism will have some pretty substantial trama in their life.

For curiosity, it helps if they're doing something they actually want to do. Being forced to do things tends to kill this off. When kids are into something because they think it's cool and fun and it sparks their imagination, they can go really far beyond what kids are 'supposed' to learn at some age.

I learned very little in school, myself. Instead I read my brother's textbooks long before I was 'supposed' to because I thought it was fun and spent the bulk of my time in school devouring the parts of the library I found engaging.

> If adults aren't that curious, but children are, then why is that?

perhaps somewhere along the line, the curiosity got squashed. That happened to me science and math in high school with boring classes. I loved science before then.

> you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity

See inner city, ghetto living experiences

Those kids aren't incurious it's just directed other places.

Agreed, there's nothing like fear and anxiety about basic needs and relationships to remove a sense of curiosity; and nothing like security to help people regain it.

True, though I'm not so sure I would even assume that wealth facilitates curiosity. Perhaps it doesn't get in the way as the trauma of ghetto life, but there's plenty of well off children who grow up totally uninspired to do anything but walk the beaten path before them, let alone actually learn about things with no clear financial benefit (modern college notwithstanding).

<< I have yet to see a child that is not curious, you need some war-level trauma to stop children curiosity. I would guess that the author real complain is that children are not interested in the same things that him, and that is why he is pissed off.

I think I agree. Some time ago I was doing volunteering at a HS. We were basically teaching basic computer skills ( Excel, Word and so on ); helped with problems with resume or something along those lines. I think 9/10 kids logged onto FB and/or played Plants vs Zombies. I did try to engage them, but their goals were clearly different. They were interested, but in nothing that those volunteer hours could offer. The kid that is interested will seek this stuff out. The rest will play Plants vs Zombies.

I will admit it was a little disheartening for me and I stopped doing it for a while. I am debating proposing something similar now at my local library, but I am worried the results will be about the same.

> Kids need to learn to learn but they also need to be taught.

I have no children (so grain of salt), but what I think kids need is more what you'd call "guidance".

Not necessarily teaching them, but more showing them how to learn, and how to discover interests and pursue them, which may lead them down a life path.

I had it easy. My dad just had to leave some computers lying around. None of my other siblings went into tech. 2/3 of my siblings did a bunch of different things before settling into their current careers.

> The children I teach have almost no curiosity, and what little they do have is transitory;

If that curiosity is all satisfied at home on youtube/television then kids really won't much real curiosity for school. Kids are curious but not about everything all the time

There is nothing more sure to kill your love of anything than to have it be taught at school.

Like come on, we were stuck in the boredom cube for 6ish hours a day, the alternative is nothing and most of us still didn't pay attention.

> than to have it be taught at school.

than to have it be taught IN A BORING WAY WITHOUT CONTEXT

Learning my multiplication tables was fun when it was turned into a race with my friends. Memorizing the state capitals and abbreviations was fun when it was turned into a game.

You can turn most anything into a fun way of learning it with just a modicum of effort. One problem is too many teachers get beat down to only teach what they are told to teach through some ready-made commercial curriculum. We have a huge number of teachers who are poorly paid. Too many run-ins with difficulty and admins who want things done their way, and that teacher's lifelong career gets sapped of any joy and they default to just teaching as they're told to teach.

If education was better funded in order to pay teachers very competitive wages, you'd attract more can-do teachers to the field instead of bright eyed young college graduates who end up leaving the profession within the first 5 years because of how stifling the bureaucracy of it all is. Pay the job well to attract and retain the best and brightest and you'll get amazing results through creativity and mastery of the art of education.

We don't do that, so you often get what you pay for.

Is fixing the stifling bureaucracy is out of the question?

>Is fixing the stifling bureaucracy is out of the question?

I mean no but the issue is the system has to be changed as to not encourage stifling bureaucracy. Unfortunately a monopolized school system with a captive customer ('pay up to this exact single school district or you know just sell your house and uproot yourself and move') is anti-thetical to the kind of free-market competition that aids in rooting out inefficient bureaucracy.

I love the responses I often get when suggesting to let the parents use their own discretion to pay directly for their children's education using the per-child tax allocation. Somehow striking teachers are simultaneously people we're supposed to listen to as people who know how to fix the system when things go wrong, but god forbid we allow a system that allows the parent to pay the teachers directly and privately to bypass the broken public school administrators.

Somehow teachers are simultaneously the source we can listen to about how to fix things when they strike, but suddenly become distrustful evil capitalists if we're allowed to let them privately educate on the free market in lieu of public school system. I wish the public would make up their mind.

Yes. I think the first time I learned about proportions is when me and my buddy applied formula we learned in chemistry class and we used it to estimate speed % increase of CPU OC from 100 to 120. It was something I really wanted to know so even though it was math, I wanted to understand it ( edit: obviously it was a rough estimate, but for our purposes it was sufficient ).

That said, some things have to be boring. The fun comes later with application:>

It is the intolerable conditions that need fixing.

You make a tired stereotypical argument that better pay attracts and retains better people: the idea that money can fix all problems is a thoughtless crutch.

Better pay retains those people that despite the intolerable working conditions, people who slavishly force themselves to remain. Why presume there is a correlation between teaching ability and slavishness?

The argument that better pay attracts better people makes little sense for jobs that people desire regardless of pay: becoming a teacher is often a calling. the great teachers I know are not necessarily academic (high GPA) achievers, instead they have a passion for teaching children, and they learn skills that are not testable by written exams.

You yourself even point out that money is not the issue: “young college graduates [leave] the profession within the first five years because of how stifling the bureaucracy [is]”.

Most private preschool teachers in New Zealand work for nearly minimum wage, and I have friends who are teaching preschoolers (under 5 year old). These are smart, motivated, dedicated women working long hours and they remain in the profession earning little: even those that move up the preschool career ladder earn well below equivalent jobs in other industries.

In New Zealand teachers of 5+ year olds get paid a more reasonable salary. I have many friends that remain teachers for decades mostly because of the joy and satisfaction they get from the job, not because they are tied to the job by money or lack of opportunity.

Fix the conditions, not the pay.

Edited: improved writing.

> If education was better funded in order to pay teachers very competitive wages

I see it as a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Are teachers paid less because they suck, or do they suck because they're not paid well?

Putting aside wages, does education really need more funding? What exactly is more expensive about teaching the fundamentals now than 50 years ago?

> you'd attract more can-do teachers

That would be possible not by merely increasing teacher pay. One of the biggest complaints by most teachers is that they are not allowed to deviate from the state sponsored lesson plan. Why would anyone who is qualified to be teaching children be inspired to be a mouthpiece for the state and nothing more? Teachers shouldn't be getting lesson plans from the state. Their students should either pass the exams or the teachers get fired. Yes, I'm using the word fired here, because I don't believe in teachers being protected from fucking up the minds of children. Maybe teachers who are actually qualified to teach children will find that inspiration in having their prestige be on the line, and the truly evil teachers out there wouldn't last as long if they weren't effective at educating.

Who were the best teachers you had? I bet they weren't the ones who just read out of a textbook and did whatever the state guidelines told them to do. Usually the best teachers and professors are so interested in their subject matter that they can effectively convey information and its importance without reading notes verbatim. We need more teachers like that, but when I was growing up there might have been one of those in every 10. Hopefully it's better than that now, but I don't see why it would be.

As long as the system itself is rotten, it really doesn't matter what pay teachers. The way the that the education system in America is constructed does not attract virtue. It attracts those who can fit well into bureaucracy and do what they're told in exchange for protection. There are still good teachers within that system, but I need more than one hand to count how many lazy, stupid, and sadistic teachers I've encountered.

I think they mean to see children are not curious in a concientious and applied way.

All kids are a bit curious, but it's hard to get them to 'stick' to something.

> Too many people has apocalyptic views of the world.

Is our children learning?

I’ll start with your grammar and end with a look out my window, where smoke from forest fires currently fills the sky.