Mal Education - System Design - Should Be VS Is

<b>[shando] "Gladwell's latest ... lack of evidence that smaller class sizes result in better educational outcomes and how this unfounded conclusion (by parents who elect politicians) has resulted in the mis-spending of billions of dollars by governments around the world."</b>

Well, politicians will latch on to any idea that can be used to justify more spending.

<b>He has found that there is an optimum class size (about 24 students) and significant variations either above or below this result in less desirable outcomes.</b>

So many hidden assumptions in this ... where to even begin?

I'll pick one. (Not at random. This one bothers me.)

<ul><b>IF</b> you start with a prison-like model, <b>THEN</b> it probably makes sense to ask if there is an optimum cell size.

<ul>(We bought a new home five or six years ago. About half a mile down the street is an elementary school. It looks so much like a prison ... I come close to crying every time I drive by. Sometimes I hear happy sounds coming from the kids in the playground, and that makes it easier to stifle those tears.)</ul>
And having asked this question it also makes sense that a 'scientific' analysis will find that - in that sort of environment - the AVERAGE kid learns the most when the cell block has 'this' size.

There are many prison models. So in a different environment the optimum cell size is likely to be different.

But in some other environments, based on different models, it might be discovered that cell size is irrelevant. Or that the idea of a cell (class) itself is irrelevant.</ul>I suspect that those environments in which cell size MATTERS THE LEAST will produce the best educational outcomes. But this is currently an opinion. I have some data points to support my opinion but nothing strong enough to prove I'm right.

Yet.

But even the concept of 'best' is open to argument. Best for who? The politicians? Parents? How about the kids?

Or, what about society at large? The 'greatest good for the greatest number'?

***

How do we measure stuff like this?

LB

<b>[shando] "Gladwell's latest ... lack of evidence that smaller class sizes result in better educational outcomes and how this unfounded conclusion (by parents who elect politicians) has resulted in the mis-spending of billions of dollars by governments around the world."</b>

Well, politicians will latch on to any idea that can be used to justify more spending.

<b>He has found that there is an optimum class size (about 24 students) and significant variations either above or below this result in less desirable outcomes.</b>

So many hidden assumptions in this ... where to even begin?

I'll pick one. (Not at random. This one bothers me.)


IF you start with a prison-like model, THEN it probably makes sense to ask if there is an optimum cell size.


<ul>(We bought a new home five or six years ago. About half a mile down the street is an elementary school. It looks so much like a prison ... I come close to crying every time I drive by. Sometimes I hear happy sounds coming from the kids in the playground, and that makes it easier to stifle those tears.)</ul>
And having asked this question it also makes sense that a 'scientific' analysis will find that - in that sort of environment - the AVERAGE kid learns the most when the cell block has 'this' size. (I've always wondered what this means. There are NO average kids. Each individual is unique. The differences from one of us to the next are largely unknown. So ... are they important?)

There are many prison models. So in a different environment the optimum cell size is likely to be different.

But in some other (i.e. non-prison-like) environments, based on different models, it might be discovered that cell size is irrelevant. Or that the idea of a cell (class) itself is irrelevant.

I suspect that those environments in which cell size MATTERS THE LEAST will produce the best educational outcomes. But this is currently an opinion. I have some data points to support my opinion but nothing strong enough to prove I'm right.

Yet.

But even the concept of 'best' is open to argument. Best for who? The politicians? Parents? How about the kids?

Or, what about society at large? The 'greatest good for the greatest number'?

How do we measure this?

LB

<b>LB:
Or that the idea of a cell (class) itself is irrelevant.</b>

Yeah I agree.

<b>LB:
But even the concept of 'best' is open to argument.</b>

I suspect the measurement implicitly relates to the ability of the system to produce suitable parts for the industrial/military complex, which (we agree) is itself obsolete.

I think the fact that this topic is appearing on several different radar screens at this time is significant.

I am thinking that we need a course designed for early childhood (maybe age 11) that enables motivated kids to learn how to use the internet and other technological tools to self educate themselves to the university acceptance level, independently of the (compulsory) public educational system.

You guys continue to rail (understandably) at today's politicians and their choices in governance.

Yet you advocate in this thread for widespread self-interested self-determined education.

I respectfully submit that the latter will only cement the former in power.

How can it not? Today the majority of voters have little understanding of either civics or history, despite (often poor) compulsory courses. Fewer yet will be informed when none need even be cursorily exposed to them.

You guys continue to rail at the System that produces cogs for the machine instead of recognizing individual abilities.

Yet you advocate an introverted education that excludes things you aren't interested in, and if those things are political, well. . .

Re-read that Plato quote: It basically means you may ignore the politicians, but they won't ignore you.

In a society where self-interests determine education, are you not abdicating Politics to those who self-educate themselves in Politics? What do you think their policies will be?

Raise your focus off of the individual and consider the effects of your System on the Society, and it is no better than what we have now.

Or am I wrong?

Ken

The more you learn, the less you know--I don't want to know anything.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
<br />You guys continue to rail (understandably) at today's politicians and their choices in governance.

Yet you advocate in this thread for widespread self-interested self-determined education.

<b>I respectfully submit that the latter will only cement the former in power.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

An interesting point. Some K-12 kids will find that their "self-interested self determined" education leads them to a leadership career - and because it is an interest they discovered and developed on their own (with some strategic coaching) they will love it and do it well. The rest of the kids will find what they love best and get on with their life in a well- governed society.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
How can it not? Today the majority of voters have little understanding of either civics or history, despite (often poor) compulsory courses. <b>Fewer yet will be informed when none need even be cursorily exposed to them.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fortunately, the system we have now is somewhat self-correcting. When things run too far off the rails, the dis-interested citizens get restless and the party has to find someone more suitable to run for leadership.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
You guys continue to rail at the System that produces cogs for the machine instead of recognizing individual abilities.

<b>Yet you advocate an introverted education that excludes things you aren't interested in, and if those things are political, well. . .
</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Another interesting point. I don't think "introverted" describes what we are trying to devise. Most people find that their interests change over time - expanding as their ability to comprehend their intellectual environment improves with maturity and experience.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
Re-read that Plato quote: It basically means you may ignore the politicians, but they won't ignore you.

<b>In a society where self-interests determine education, are you not abdicating Politics to those who self-educate themselves in Politics? What do you think their policies will be?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think this is how it should be. We get into trouble when we have political leaders who "hate" being the leader - they were probably ill-motivated when they made the decision to run for election, and consequently find it difficult to do well.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
Raise your focus off of the individual and consider the effects of your System on the Society, and it is no better than what we have now.

<b>Or am I wrong?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Maybe not - we have no way to find out except to try it.

My theory is that we will have a happier society if every individual is educated to his/her potential and able to earn a living doing the things they find most interesting. This cannot happen with the K-12 educational system we have now in Canada and the USA.

Maybe it is the "earning a living" idea that needs to be updated. This idea is not good in a world run by machines doing all the work because it means humans have to not only compete with each other, but also with machines. Very bad indeed don't you think? We have rid the world of the idea people have to earn the right to live and let the machines do the work. The fruits of that work needs to be allocated in new ways too since our current system isn't doing the job very well.