"Maybe you go to a school in a poor area, or with a lot of violence ... I don’t know enough to say what the best tactics are for these cases, but I have a few theories."
This pretty much says it all right here. The author comes from an incredibly privileged background and clearly believes they are smarter than people who have spent their lives studying education.
How we educate children isn't a perfect system, but educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles, and are stuck balancing what's important with the crap forced on them by legislatures, parents, and (hopefully) well-meaning people like the author.
At least in public schools we've been teaching people how to read incorrectly for decades because of a trend out of New York that got pushed on everybody else
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have went from laughing stocks to already middle of the pack nationally by dumping the new system and going back to phonics
If the "people who have spent their lives studying education" are using learning styles it isn't hard to be smarter than them, it has been roundly debunked.
The article you cite doesn't actually provide any data for their claims, and only links to another article on the same site which, again, doesn't actually provide any data. In fact, even checking the articles in their "Research" section, there is no information about the actual data provided, and all links I've seen were only to other articles on the same site. It leads me to believe that the people behind the site have a specific agenda they're pushing, rather than "...presenting the facts as best they can be determined, giving voice (without fear or favor) to worthy research, sound ideas, and responsible arguments..." as they claim in the About Us section.
did you at least do some vetting on this one instead of just grabbing the first google search result or are you going to rely on others to point out it's flaws and then just post another link to another bad article in response with no comment on what vetting you did since you didn't?
I thought it was very well known and didn't require thesis level citations. Several links of higher quality have been provided in the thread that show this isn't something I just came up with as was my original intent.
> educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles,
the rational adult in me want to to believe you and hoping the current crop of teachers really have started changing it up.
the part of me that still remembers what school was actually like would vehemently disagree. it took 8 years of deprogramming AFTER highschool before I really started to get my shit together and start to work on a path to success.
Don’t agree, I think it’s a very good list of well intentioned advice.
Eg try to become an apprentice to someone talented. This would indeed be extremely valuable to anyone trying to learn a skill. The author then goes to great lengths giving advice on how to land a position like that when young.
Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
Parents love to think that because they have had one child (or maybe a couple), they know how to educate children writ large. Compounding that, most people went through the education system as students, so they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works. Usually their advice on how to fix the system is geared toward fixing the frustrations they personally felt as a student.
In reality, most people are only exposed to the education system as consumers, and therefore know next to nothing about how it actually works. Doesn't stop them from spouting off what they think they know on internet forums and blogs though. They enjoy pointing out what they see as problems, and are happy to offer quick fixes born in ignorance that have either already been tried and don't work, or don't solve the problem for reasons obvious to people currently working on it. Or better yet, the supposed problem isn't one at all, but a boogeyman that politicians are currently pushing to scare voters.
If you want to fix education, get into the mix and actually help. Sitting on the sidelines complaining isn't helping anyone. If your perspective about the education system is along the lines of "people who can't, teach", as seems to be in vogue these days, then you're really part of the problem.
The example of phonics vs. sight reading shows that professional educators are just the blind leading the blind. Parents have known for years that phonics work, but institutionalists dismissed their complaints as spouting off from the sidelines. Challenging established authority is the engine of progress in science and society. Appeal to authority is the last resort of those who have no other ground to stand on. If you want to elevate the discourse, engage with what people are actually saying, with their ideas, instead of dismissing them as idiot outsiders.
During Korean War, 1950-54, the was an alarming increase of inductees failing the reading tests.
Was this real, or a new form of draft dodging?
The Army had psychologists look into to this, and it was determined that it wasn't faking. The young men really had poor reading skills.
And the interval between 1945 and 1950 was, backing up till the 20 year olds were 5 or 6 years old, the time when sight reading was first introduced into schools in a big way.
Now, English spelling is more complex than many other languages, but there are maybe 100 rules that cover the overwhelming majority of cases.
The phonic issue is absurd, can you imagine if an entire industry followed a fad for years with minimal pushback? Now, if you'll excuse me I've been in a cave for a few years and need to check my crypto balances.
> Appeal to authority is the last resort of those who have no other ground to stand on. If you want to elevate the discourse, engage with what people are actually saying, with their ideas, instead of dismissing them as idiot outsiders.
I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to evidence/experience versus ignorance and Big Important Feelings. As a scholar and an educator, I'm the first person to say how important it is to cite your sources and to argue from evidence.
So if you're going to write 12,000 words about how the education system sucks and how to get through it, wouldn't you say that some of those words should be devoted to citations? Or at least the recitation of facts? Or barring that, at least establishing the background of the author to dispense such advice? Is a single citation asking too much?
There is one external authority cited in this entire 30 page blog post: Paul Graham. I guess that really says it all though, doesn't it? 14 year olds don't know who Paul Graham is. It really tells me the intended audience of this is not 14 year old kids, but for HN.
But but but but there's a single instance of teachers being pushed to do things the wrong way and doing it (because all "educators" are the exact same rank right) for quite some time even though it was wrong so that means we have carte blanche to call the whole system broken.
> Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
I read this and was expecting /s but apparently not.
Please address something concrete! In the US, there are significant problems with the educational system. It's ok to write a theoretical piece thinking about ways to do things differently.
The author has some good ideas that do not deserve to be dismissed lightly. They can even be applied within an existing educational system. Examples that I think should resonate on HN:
Well, there are a couple things going on here. First is the blog post, which I can't really make sense of. It's 12,000 words on how to navigate high school without a single reference or citation. No evidence is presented whatsoever to support any of the assertions made. It purports to be a guide for 14 year olds but is written in a manner and published in a medium that is not accessible for 14 year olds; not many 14 year olds are reading 36 pages worth of blogs on substack. The author doesn't seem to teach 14 year olds or teach at all. He does not seem to have done any research for the post -- he hasn't spoken to any 14 year olds, or anyone else who has spoken to or teaches them for that matter. Paul Graham gets a quote though.
So really, I'm left to assume that this is just a letter from the author to his past self. That's how this reads to me.
As for the concrete advice you list, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Saying something like "get a computer" or "make a thing" will play great here on HN. But this is not advice 14 year olds want or need. Kids are creating things all the time. You do not have to tell them to create things. In fact, telling a 14 year old that they need to get a computer to before they can produce shows a distinct lack of understanding of how 14 year old express themselves creatively. Most of the advice in that section is focused on how to find a cheap computer, not how to create anything.
If you actually listen to the problems kids have today, it's not that they have a lack of creative outlets. The problems they are facing revolve around managing mental health issues, and there's not a single word about that in all the 12,000+ written.
--
The other thing going on is the generic HN discussion on education the blog post has catalyzed. The blog post doesn't really touch on the discussion happening here, so it's kind of separate, but still related. Here on HN, the discussion often revolves around the Big Important Feelings posters have about the education system. You're right, there are problems, but they are rarely identified here. The solutions offered therefore often aim to solve the wrong problems.
For example, a lot of HN posters have a problem with the number of administrators employed at universities, and they even like to cite a ratio of admin to students or admin to faculty. Then they say "They ratio is too high! Fire the administrators!"
This is a classic example of Chesterton's Fence. Firing the administrators and hiring more faculty seems like a great idea from the perspective of the student, who interacts with faculty and not administrators. But from my perspective as a member of the faculty, I would not want this at all and it would make my work and the work of my students harder (for many reasons I have articulated in previous comments if you're interested in those).
For the HN crowd, this is like saying "The computer is running too many processes. It looks like a lot of those are daemons and system processes, so let's get rid of the operating system to free up resources. That way we can run more programs, because after all, that's the point of the computer." The average HN poster will immediately see 100 reasons why that's a bad idea in a computer system, but then go to advocate for something very similar in principle when it comes to the education system.
The number of processes in a system will only give you the potential points of failure.
If we measure computer resources we come a completely different conclusion. would you use an OS that uses up more ram and cpu resources than all the programs you run inside of it combined?. How about a restaurant with more managers than cooks and waiters?.
Schools with more administrators than teachers seems like the perfect example of the iron law of oligarchy to me.
How many times THIS WEEK has this very forum cried that it's more important to care about the pooooooor devs having to work hard than not use an entire web browser as their toolkit of choice for modern applications?
> Schools with more administrators than teachers seems like the perfect example of the iron law of oligarchy to me.
So then let's cut administrators. We'll start with one of the most expensive departments on campus: IT. Let's just zero their budget, it will save a ton of money, and we will get to fire a ton of administrators.
Now I bet you and everyone else on HN will tell me 100 reasons why getting rid of the IT department on campus will be a massive detriment to campus life, and make it a terrible place for people to live and work in the 21st century.
But will the HN community be able to do the same for the DEI office? No, HN is very quick to say that DEI should be axed, the administrators do nothing, and they are just a drain on university resources.
Except that a lot of people on our campus find that the efforts of the DEI office actually do serve the goals of the larger community. Some of the brightest young leaders among our student body wouldn't be here but for the efforts and support of the administrators in the DEI office. But HN doesn't know these stories. I can't say we'd be better off without them.
Then you can go down the list of things to cut. Do we cut health services? Well, that would be nice, but the local community doesn't have the necessary health infrastructure to support the student population, and the USA doesn't have socialized medicine. Therefore, parents would rather send their darling precious to a school that does have a health center, so we can't cut that.
Do we cut the sports program? HN crowd sure likes to gripe about the athletics department, but the HN crowd also can be found in the Linux Lab at their respective schools, so of course they would be fine with this. But as it turns out that young people really like to exercise and play sports, so cutting the athletics department will seriously deter brilliant young people who are also physically active. So we can't cut that.
Do we cut the police department? I mean, why does a school need a police department anyway? Well as it turns out, parents prefer to send their precious darlings to a padded environment, where the blast radius of youthful indiscretions are contained, and don't leak into the unforgiving federal and state criminal justice systems.
These days, large universities like Stanford aren't just schools. They are actually small cities, and they provide services you'd expect of a city. It turns out faculty aren't the only people on campus who keep things running smoothly, or who serve to implement the educational goals of the university. There are plenty of administrators who work to do the same. We can't just axe them arbitrarily and expect things will automatically improve because they were administrators, and who needs administrators? I think you'll find a lot of pushback when you start suggesting cuts you think are obvious, and not just from the administrators themselves, but from the people they serve.
What this author's 14 year old self would say to their elder instantiation: "What's a computer, boomer?"
Always fascinating to see a forum with a population who see themselves as special outliers, but also think that they have some unique ability to speak authoritatively on what the other 99% should be doing.
Many people practice teaching in a variety of settings. Their demonstrated ability has little correlation with their credentials.
If someone gets stuck on an amateur plumbing or construction project, they call a professional. In other words, the professional competence is trivially demonstrable and applicable. Can you imagine needing a credentialed teacher to get you out of a bind?
> they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works.
Although the average person may be incorrect about how to fix it. It's not a good sign that almost everyone leaves with the feeling that something is deeply wrong and almost any alternative would make more sense.
> because they have had one child
Merely being exposed to more examples isn't data, you also need superior methodology. Even in educational academic studies you will find a lot to be desired in this regard.
The people I know who are most vocal about education have many children (4-8+). And they put their money where their mouth is and homeschool. Also, their children tend to grow up with a wide variety of personalities and lifestyles.
> get into the mix and actually help
The system is designed to remove autonomy and responsibility from teachers. They are overwhelmed by curriculum, and program mandates from school, district, and state. The best teachers I had were essentially opted out. A few completely donated their time and refused to participate in any school trainings or events outside their classroom.
The best way I can see to get involved is probably to advocate for vouchers and organize teaching in your neighborhood.
> Can you imagine needing a credentialed teacher to get you out of a bind?
Incredible hubris to say such a thing, after we all went through a pandemic, during which teachers were expected to risk their lives and actually sacrificed their lives in service of keeping their communities running. That's all I have to say to you.
> Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
Teachers apparently need to be told, because they spend YEARS teaching kids how to do arithmetic on paper instead of handing out calculators and focusing on high-level mathematical modeling instead. There are lots of such insanities in the curriculum, not to mention loads of propaganda (not a US citizen, but AFAIK there is a lot of propaganda in US schools too).
Not to say anything about the merits of your idea, but do you have anything to back it up? I mean, I'm assuming you do, because this whole sub thread I started was about people who don't know what they're talking about telling others who know better what to do. And I presume your evidence must be very compelling, for you to feel confident in calling what others are doing for a living "insane" and "propaganda".
What I don't understand, though, is why you're not providing this very compelling evidence along with your comment.
Evidence of what? That doing arithmetic by hand like in 19th century (as opposed to arithmetic understanding/intuition/modeling) has zero applications in professional and personal life? Isn't that obvious? When was the last time you did long division by hand?
Or that mathematical modeling does have applications in both personal and professional life? Isn't it trivial to come up with numerous examples?
Or that mathematical modeling is so important it deserves place in the curriculum? Now that would be hard to show, but I never claimed it does. I just said it is relatively more valuable than pen-and-paper arithmetic, which is obvious from above two points.
Also, status quo does not get free pass. I imagine you would find it really difficult to defend pen-and-paper arithmetic, especially when everyone can see it's just bureaucratic inertia and technophobia.
I'm loving how everyone is proving such good examples of the things I'm talking about in my root post. First, to be clear I'm not engaging with your proposal.
But the point is that you seem to have a very strong opinion. Strong enough at least to muster yourself to type a fairly substantial reply (now two) to me using very strong language like "instanity" and "propagainda". Yet where does this opinion come from. I can respect if it comes from experience. Unlike a lot of posters on HN, I put value on expertise and experience. Yet you are not claiming to have expertise or experience, so why is your opinion so strong?
I expected on your second reply that if you had evidence to link to, you would supply that, but you have neglected to. Instead you claim that what you argue is obvious to you, and I guess by extension should be obvious to us all.
To address your overall point directly, your premise is flawed from the start.
There's been plenty of mathematical modeling added to the curriculum over the years, and the existence of students doing arithmetic on pen and paper doesn't really negate that. Read the book "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert, it goes over a lot of the reasons why arithmetic is done the way it is in the school system. But actually it's principally about how to change it with mathematical modeling, and makes a compelling case for the usage of computers in the classroom beyond mere calculating engines. I'm sure you would enjoy it.
But I mean, why couldn't you cite that body of work to me. And no, the dynamics at play here are not in fact obvious in reality. You think these things are obvious because you haven't actually thought about this issue at any depth beyond consulting your feelings. I'm not saying that to be rude, but you've literally told me exactly this in your last reply.
Honestly I was expecting you would cite Papert given what your were arguing. But the reply you gave me is a perfect instance of the problem I was complaining about in my root comment. Even if you're right, the fact that you can't back up your position beyond "isn't it obvious" is very troubling for the sake of discourse.
Because if you look into this body of work, you'll see vibrant efforts to bring mathematical modeling to young learners, that have been going on for decades, spearheaded by educators and teachers around the world. So no, teachers don't need to be told. They're actually doing these things you are complaining they are not doing. So are they "insane", or is it just that you are ignorant as to the status quo?
> Isn't it trivial to come up with numerous examples?
And yet you didn't offer even a single one.
> Also, status quo does not get free pass.
The status quo has the benefit of being an existence proof tho. If you're going to call someone administering the system insane, given how wildly successful the system has been at driving innovation, then you better have a very strong argument.
But what have you brought to the table? You don't claim to have any relevant experience, you don't claim to have spoken to anyone who does, you provided any research to support your claim, you don't even claim to have done research, and you don't even feel the need to offer even a single example or hypothetical to support your argument. All you've said is that you've consulted your feelings, and you find your argument to be obvious. I mean... would someone else presenting an argument this way convince you? This is not an argument, it's a shell of an argument.
P.S. I actually very much agree that mathematical modeling should be taught to children instead of arithmetic and long division.
I am all for evidence-based decisions, but you are asking for evidence that sky is indeed blue. Like seriously, you want me to prove that math is actually used somewhere? How about it being used in the evidence you are asking for? And when was the last time you used long division? I am sure there are nuances that average student or parent cannot see, but the thing with schools is that they are so rotten that a long list of serious flaws is visible to the public along with corresponding solutions.
Your demands for evidence for the obvious are just a form of red tape intended to protect the status quo. This sort of behavior is the definition of bureaucracy: no action can be taken until approved by the bureaucrat (via curriculum, law, funding, or management decision). In the end, everyone in education just wants to be protected from the stress of change and the challenges of technology.
All I am asking for is for you to do even one single solitary ounce of effort in validating your assertions. Just like, the minimal, basest, most barebones effort beyond consulting your feelings. The barest of effort is not red tape. If anything, your argument style is doing great to reinforce the status quo, because it will convince exactly 0 people to change their ways.
I provided to you just the kind of evidence that would be necessary to convince people, and I have used to convince many people of exactly what you're trying to push here. Published work by experts in the field who have thought deeply about the subject, published works on the subject, and even designed and tested new curricula in a scientific manner. That is what you need to show people, not just glib statements about how what you're saying is "obvious" and how the people who are doing differently are "insane".
But I didn't go about it calling people "insane" in their actions, because that's the fastest way to get an immediate stonewall. These people are not insane, they are in fact as sane as you think you are, and a huge chunk of them (could even be a majority, certainly every teacher in my department) actually agree with you. But your whole approach of disparaging the very people trying to make a difference, trying to implement the change you want to see. You are calling this system rotten and you literally have no understanding of it, as you've shown here in your posts to me.
I'm open to being convinced that you know what you're talking about, but you keep telling me that you don't want to convince me, so I'll take you at your word that you know nothing about this topic you feel so passionately about. Definitely worthy of a bookmark for the best example of "Big Important Feelings" I've found in the wild so far. Cheers.
> Published work by experts in the field who have thought deeply about the subject, published works on the subject, and even designed and tested new curricula in a scientific manner.
This is called "paralysis by analysis", a special case of "penny wise, pound stupid". There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in education that does not need much thinking. You are free to optimize the solutions as much as you want, but don't use that as an excuse to delay change. Also, some changes (computers in particular) only bring benefits when implemented at scale. Small incremental tests will always show negative results, because they will be dominated by costs of the change.
> All I am asking for is for you to do even one single solitary ounce of effort in validating your assertions.
Homeschooling parents validate tons of possible changes all the time. I did it too. One thing you learn when homeschooling is that major changes can be implemented quickly, easily, and cheaply by single person. You can iterate so quickly you end up being limited by the compulsory curriculum rather than by opportunities for improvement. You then look at the glacially slow pace of change (or even regression) in "professional" education and cannot help thinking it's insane. Something must be very wrong with the system.
> But your whole approach of disparaging the very people trying to make a difference
Are they really trying to make a difference? My impression is that teachers just want to do the minimum work they have to do and then go home. I have never seen a teacher care the way parents care. There are exceptions, rare innovators, but exceptional teachers, if they avoid traps of educational fads and try to implement real change, quickly run into resistance. They are locked in the inertia of the large organization. Their hands are tied, they get frustrated and they eventually give up.
And BTW, it's not my job to show something is propaganda. It's curriculum designer's job to show everything in the curriculum is an undeniable scientific fact. That's easy to do with math or physics but much harder with humanities and arts, which is why all the propaganda concentrates there.
>Parents love to think that because they have had one child (or maybe a couple), they know how to educate children writ large.
They don't care about how to educate children writ large. They care to the extent that they think you are failing their child, specifically. You would do well to remember that as an educator, you have a responsibility to the public. If you really find parents concerns to be beneath your dignity, perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher.
>If you really find parents concerns to be beneath your dignity, perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher.
As a person who does tech work, you are now sentenced to be forced to listen to every single asshole who wants to tell you their "super awesome app" idea that "should take like a weekend right" to make and "will get us rich", and you aren't allowed to complain or point out how they have no idea what they are talking about
Those guys don't have any stake in anything except a half-baked idea, and furthermore they can clearly be shown not to know what they're talking about.
It is not comparable to a parent's concern for the welfare of their child. A teacher's duty to their student is obligate. Dismissing out-of-hand the input of the one or two human beings who know and care more for that child than anyone else on the planet should be considered malpractice in that line of work.
Personally I teach adults, so in my capacity as a teacher, parental concerns are not my concerns.
In my capacity as a citizen of this country and as a taxpayer, I also don't care about busybody "concerned parents" who feel the system is failing them personally. My concern in this capacity comes down to how the system is building a better community for everyone. Individual parental concerns shouldn't turn into culture wars.
What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to their own children, they are not being "busybodies". It is their right to voice their concerns, and it is the duty of educators to listen to these concerns and take them seriously. You can't just brush them off. Even if the parent is being unreasonable, it is part of your job description to make them see reason.
Sorry, to be clear I teach adults, so it's not part of my job description to make any parents see reason. The concerns of one adult do not impact the way I teach any other adult, no matter how they are related.
As for my role as a citizen, I'm thinking specifically about my local community, which is beset by people who have very loud feelings about certain books existing in the school library. A lot of communities are facing this issue.
I call these people busybodies because nothing that they do or say is based in reality, but only on their feelings. It's feelings all the way down just, like the linked blog post. All they're doing is making everyone's lives harder: other parents, teachers, administrators, and especially the students. For what? There's no actual problem being cited. This is all to quell their own feelings about books. That's pretty much the definition of being a busybody.
Teaching is not nearly as hard as you lay it out to be.
The problem is teaching is los pay and low status in most places, and as such mostly attracts people who are terrible teachers.
Our kids are in private school now because our public school is a dumpster fire of bad teachers and admins. The private school teachers don’t get paid a lot but they are valued and highly motivated to actually reach kids. The difference is astounding.
And the private school teachers aren’t doing anything exotic or difficult. They are teaching just like kids were taught decades ago. Heck, my fifth grader is learning Latin.
Your comment is self-contradictory. You say the problem is low teacher pay and status, but then point out the private school teachers aren't highly paid, but are motivated.
If I were to speculate, I suspect the differences are:
1. Modestly higher pay in the private school, attracting better teachers
2. More selective student body in the private school, making the school environment more conducive to learning for average and above-average students, and more attractive to teachers
3. No public-sector union in the private school, leading to more accountability for teachers
The second point is important. Private schools exclude all the kids whose parents lack the motivation, time, or resources to place their child in an exclusive institution. They exclude the children who didn't learn the behavioral skills to conform to the expectations of a private school. They exclude many children with disabilities even if they can't explicitly discriminate. Meanwhile, public schools are required to include children with disabilities (often involving disruptive behavior) in class with other students to the extent practical.
Public schools are charged with upholding the social contract that all children are entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education regardless of their social status, wealth, disability, or the financial or emotional capacity of their parents. It's a heavy burden to carry, but it's one that we as a society have decided is worth the cost. Your children's private school doesn't carry that burden.
My post wasn’t contradictory, because you missed the part about status.
Our private school teachers are treasured, and are honored to be part of the long tradition of this particular school.
My children are also the same children they were in public school, but they are learning more now because they have better teachers. The knowledge gap of them transitioning from public to private school was considerable.
Intrinsic motivation is a factor, I agree with that. But it is more than that. Public schools (as a rule) are not getting our best and brightest, they’re more getting those who are settling for it for their job.
* Editing to add I agree on lack of unions in private schools. Our public school teachers in NJ at least have no real accountability at all.
I guess I just don't think you've made a good case for _why_ the private school teachers are better than the public school teachers. I don't think it's intrinsic motivation. Do you really think status is a sufficient explanation? Why aren't public schools getting our best and brightest?
It's not that I think I have bullet proof answers to these questions, but I feel like you're not acknowledging that these are important questions to answer if we're to understand why your children are getting a better education in private schools.
My theory is that it largely has to do with teachers prefering to teach the subset of children who get into private schools. As a rule, private school kids are better behaved and less difficult to work with. It's important to note that I'm not saying public school children deserve an inferior education. Their lack of behavioral and emotional skills is not their fault. In fact, those are skills that should be taught in school.
> Teaching is not nearly as hard as you lay it out to be.
> Our kids are in private school now because our public school is a dumpster fire of bad teachers and admins. The private school teachers don’t get paid a lot but they are valued and highly motivated to actually reach kids. The difference is astounding.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have N=1 child, and you extrapolate everything from that one child, especially how to teach all children. Your fifth grader is in fifth grader for a single year, and so your experience on fifth graders is limited to that. The teacher teaches 20-30+ new fifth graders every year, for decades, and has a wide range of experience.
I'm sure your fifth grader is very smart and talented. To be learning Latin in 5th grade, they must be. And so what has happened to their old classroom at public school? That classroom is now absent one of the brightest, most engaged members of that community. I'm not saying you were wrong to change schools, that was a good move for you. But for the teacher, you made their job actually harder. And think about what happens when all the top students sort themselves into the top private schools. Where does that leave the public classroom?
This is why your experience was night and day. Take all the top students and put them in a room together, and the learning happens almost automatically. It's like magic. Take all the bottom performers and put them in a room together, and it's like pulling teeth. It's torture.
So yeah, in some sense you're right. Teaching people who want to learn isn't all that hard. It's actually a lot of fun! But that's not all there is to teaching, and so I would implore you to maybe adjust your perspective to account for this.
My kids aren’t top students at all. They both have learning disabilities. My son is highly sports oriented, my daughter is very musical. They both have trouble with traditional subjects.
They both got “B”s in public school, despite their standardized tests showing them in the 15-20th percentile.
They both struggled with their knowledge deficit transitioning into the private school.
They are doing very well now. Not straight A’s, but they are learning what they need to learn and flourishing as people.
I have seen this repeated for many other families. A lot of public schools are simply awful.
"B" students are in fact top students. That you think they aren't is one of the things I've been pushing back on in my career.
I have several learning disabilities including dyslexia and ADHD and was also a top student, so those aren't exactly determinative. Many of my top students are neurodivergent. I get a dozen letters every semester from my top students regarding their learning disabilities.
Excelling in sports and music is also indicative of highly talented students with vast aptitude. Your kids are actually probably far above average, but you can't see that, because your N=2.
I’m sorry, are you indicating you know my kids better than I do?
The kids got “B”s because everyone who showed up got Bs. It was social promotion.
This became painfully obvious when the first marking period scores in many classes was F and D in the private school. And was backed up by equally bad standardized testing scores.
No, I don't presume to know your children. But I am more qualified than you to compare them to other children, because that's part of my job (unless it's your job too, I dunno). Based on what you've told me, and that's all I have to go off of, your kids are above average. It's kind of wild to me that you're on here arguing with me that they're not.
Kids who get A's, B's (even some C's); and do sports or music are well on their way to successful futures. The kids getting Fs and Ds who aren't involved in any music or sports are the ones who won't be getting spots at top colleges. That's not to say they can't have successful futures nonetheless.
Maybe so we're all on the same page, you can articulate what the profile of a "top student" looks like to you.
You need a reality check, dude. The fact that you think you can judge people’s children better than their parents based on a few sentences on HN lays bare your poor assumptions.
I said I can judge your kids better relative to other kids because I have extensive experience doing it. If you think you can do that better without any experience actually evaluating kids, then I think it's you who needs the reality check. It's such hubris to think you can do the job of an experienced professional better without any experience or training whatsoever, and that's the whole problem with busybody parents.
The few sentences you provided are highly correlated with very successful students. Learning Latin in 5th grade is not something 90% of children do. Immediately your kid stands apart for having done that. Same with sports and music. Combine that with good grades, and that's the profile of a top student. What more do you want? Again, what's your conception of a top student, and how do your kids not qualify? Is it because they're not getting straight A's?
Still so wild to me that you, as a father, are arguing post after post to me, a dog on the internet, that your kids are below average. I mean, regardless of what reality I live in, what's up with that? Who are you really trying to convince here?
That's not how percentiles work. (The upthread 15-20 was %ile not %.)
I mean, I can imagine a test where the 15th-20th %ile range happened to be a score of 80-85%, but that would be coincidence or design of the specific test, not a natural equivalence.
I figure this was the same mistake as the first other response, I made the same one initially when reading that comment and thought they were saying "B" was lower than it should have been, not higher than it should have been. How "percentile" actually works isn't something I've given any thought in like a decade or more, my first read was "top 15-20%" before going back and remembering it's actually more like "bottom 15-20%" (or more precisely something like "better than 15-20% of other takers").
or they're just being honest, it was a nicely written piece and no one knows everything
educators are garbage because they don't work empirically, they experiment on kids and the experiments have been failing since the 60s, causing mass amounts of fatherlessness but none of them are even willing to see themselves as the issue because no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible
This pretty much says it all right here. The author comes from an incredibly privileged background and clearly believes they are smarter than people who have spent their lives studying education.
How we educate children isn't a perfect system, but educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles, and are stuck balancing what's important with the crap forced on them by legislatures, parents, and (hopefully) well-meaning people like the author.