Learning For Mastery (1968) [pdf]
files.eric.ed.gov
files.eric.ed.gov
It bothered me enough that there was not something like this already available, when the idea seemed so simple, that I ended up doing it myself. The user experience is not very polished yet, but I managed to turn the courses in here https://improviseforreal.com/learning-materials into courses for this software that can teach you ear training and to improvise on any instrument in all keys, all modes, and most common chord progression. Currently, I am doing it for piano, but I've only reached about 15% of the total jam tracks so far. Obviously, I am not distributing the tracks myself.
I am pretty sure the main issue is that there's no one funding implementing these ideas. We've known about mastery learning, spaced repetition, interleaving, etc. for decades, but it's not all been put together into a coherent system. Something like https://mathacademy.com/ is similar, but it's not open sourced and cannot be used to create your own materials. No need for LLMs or anything fancier to be involved when there's so much low-hanging fruit that's not been implemented yet. The core of my software is just a depth-first search over a graph, lol.
Treating the problems of education indeed transcends the school and actually requires a great deal of political will and power. "Education" must guide politics and have power over it.
And such a deep change in perspective and "economics" is just not conceivable within the realms of the modern society as it is now. It requires a deep change in method and people. And the latter circles back to education, which makes it a hopeless loop ...
The only way to break it is to do "education" outside the realms of school, to target a "minority" (to be practical not to segregate), and to fight and work for a change that will make education central and at the top of society.
P.S: By Education, I don't merely mean instruction. It's a holistic and profound change in a human being ... that it aims to create
Isn't the problem that we are mixing education and politics in the first place?
We should probably separate education and the state just as much as we separate church and state.
(The touch of politics seldom enhances the quality of anything. The further your chosen activity is from politics, the easier it is to improve quietly improve it.
Eg even just to stick to learning: Wikipedia and StackOverflow are great. And so are lots of great how-to books and freely available videos. They are as far removed from politics as it gets.)
But to engage with your main point - I agree, and we can take Germany as an example here.
During the Nazi period, everything was put in service of politics, so in math class you'd answer questions like "calculate how many extra hard-working German families we could support if we the state didn't have to spend so-and-so-many Reichsmarks per Jew".
Since 1945, there's been a strong tradition to keep politics out of math and science education in Germany, and this seems to be mostly holding even in face of "social justice" pressure.
Keeping politics out of "is Phonics a good teaching method?" would also have been a great idea in the English-speaking world.
Whenever there was a social justice topic that made the waves, it was typically about some prof who legitimately acted like full blown asshole and thought everybody else has to put up with their ego — if anything disrupted education in that case, it was them, and the student's demands were basically a totally understandable demand to not have that guys ego get into the way of their education.
As I am working at a liberal art school you would think I probably have witnessed the worst already, but I didn't. Concerns about "social justice"-people putting pressure on us always come from people who got no idea and are out of the educational field for a while. As of now I am nearly convinced that this is probably a collective mind virus that is 99% fiction (and the 1% where it is true has so little impact it doesn't even matter).
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
This is not about fish and water, this is about people who aren't there telling me that my floor is wet and every day I check it is dry as a bone. As someone who grew up rurally I always hated it when the city folk told me how it is to grow up there — they had no idea. This is the same.
Btw.: your username doesn't inspire neutrality on that topic, as it reminds me of a certain political figure that ran my country into the ground with his megalomania and insanity in the first half of the past century.
Sure, and Wikipedia also has its own politics.
Yet, it's relatively easy to avoid both of them, if you want to.
It's hard to avoid the political pressures on government-run and/or government-funded education.
A simple example is that the education budget (percentage) should be in two digits!!
The biggest per-student spender on education in the developed world is the US:
> In 2019, the United States spent $15,500 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 38 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries of $11,300 (in constant 2021 U.S. dollars). At the postsecondary level, the United States spent $37,400 per FTE student, which was more than double the average of OECD countries ($18,400; in constant 2021 U.S. dollars).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-exp...
And everybody knows that US outcomes in primary and secondary education are not great. (Actually they're considerably better than many realize, but not as good as, say, Finland, which spends much less). So budgets aren't everything.
And yet, at both the top and in the broad middle, US universities have some of the best outcomes in the world. So big budgets can still be good.
Human brains are complicated. Big groups of them are more so. Transferring output of some brains to other brains in big groups is not at all straightforward.
It's no wonder people would rather swap platitudes about bigger budgets.
But concretely, it always 'sounds good' to ask for bigger education budgets. No matter the size of the existing budget.
If you put "free" money into something the parasites will gather. Systems exist to extend themselves, not yo provide the service for which they were created (systemantics).
(Just to be clear, I'm all for giving poor people money, so they can spend it as they see fit. Be that education or food or entertainment etc. By contrast, rich people don't need government hand-outs.)
Yes, I agree that public education has substantial costs. Both direct costs to the victims and societal externalities. Disassembling the monster would hopefully stop some of them.
Reputation would follow the institutions, and graduating from an institution that set lows standards wouldn't have any signalling power to prospective employers, so students wouldn't want to enroll there.
What you actually see in countries that have both a private and public education system is that the private institutions compete on the grounds of who sets the highest standards, not on who offers the most riskless opportunity to students to get the degree, irrespective of how low an effort they put in or how incapable they are.
If you're talking of a huge number of small institutions in combination with high mobility, then maybe reputation at the level of the individual institution wouldn't do the trick, but you would probably see certification and quality assurance agencies pop up to establish brands and enforce standards around them.
Measuring up a student/candidate who was home schooled or self-taught works for some schools/vocations more than others. Having certification/accreditation of some sort streamlines the selection process. Whether such quality is best defined by the market-driven private certifiers or the government will depend on what type of education we're talking about, and even then will be muddied by one's belief in the efficacy of free markets vs democratic governance, which is a whole other can 'o worms.
Milton Friedman had some free market arguments for the school system.
I know noting about DraftKings, but if they would choose to offer an education option that people like, who am I to judge?
What makes you think they would be able to offer an appealing education option?
(And: I sense some sarcasm here. So to pre-empt that: what makes you think people would eg rather study at DraftKing where you imply they don't learn anything, compared to not waste time and money on studying anything at all?
Ie how would DraftKing be better than literally nothing for people who don't want an education in the first place?)
Sadly its almost 60 years :)
Education tendencies seem to be incredibly latent and they have huge inertia. For example in The Netherlands the amount of languages you speak used to be a measure for intelligence, so most schools teach 4 languages from the age of 12 (out of 9 subject 4 are languages). In the same time, languages are the easiest to test, and also the easiest to progress a mass of people. The easiest thing to test (and show improvement and etc) in the bloom pyramid is memory.
You surely have people trying their hardest, like Julius Miller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s9psf01ldo (1964) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3szmCF8-L8 but the system does not seem to respond to them/
But it seems the education institution is not trying to teach people anything.
Here's our take on mastery if anyone is interested: https://medium.com/launch-school/mastery-based-learning-2095...
If I could get Khan-academy + peer socialization + baby sitting "in one room", I think that'd be ideal.