Quote :

"The problem is that no one does it, and no one will watch the lectures at home either."

They won't watch boring lectures. Even as an adult I find it difficult to tolerate a full Khan Academy video.

Ostensibly, the pace for a video should be something like this:

https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/project/fizz/pd/flippingtheclassroom/examples/gimbar

Would you watch that if you were in the class?

2/20/2013 12:37:03 PM

As a middle school student I would not. I probably wouldn't have in high school also.

2/20/2013 1:10:38 PM

Well if the only way to "teach" them was to force them to sit through a lecture, then there's no material difference between forcing them to sit through a video lecture than a real one.

Ideally they would occasionally behave and do work they're given. Then you could actually give them discretion as to when to watch a video and have discovery-oriented learning. But if the choice is between teaching to students not paying attention and not teaching to them at all, then I guess we're stuck with the former.

2/20/2013 2:35:59 PM

mrfrog, both of those videos you have posted are much worse, IMO, at teaching the subject than the Khan academy approach you have criticized. The history lesson about European colonists in North America is way too fast paced to comfortably follow, it has way too many distractions/jokes/not-on-point illustrations, and not enough facts. The algebra video is too boring and does not really use the technology wisely to illustrate the concepts taught in the video. It could have just as easily been an audio recording with three handouts attached, or, wait, could it be just another boring in-class lecture? Really, it's 2013 and the best they could do is put the instructor in front of a videocamera with a pre-marked whiteboard in the backround?

Maybe Khan videos are too low tech and could be improved, but they are easy to follow and have a very high signal-to-noise ratio, both of which are essential to efficient learning process.

2/20/2013 3:03:28 PM

Anything other than pre-marked material doesn't make sense to me. The point of a video is to compress effort from more than the length of the video. If you could record yourself writing something out and then describe it as the words, equations, or illustrations are unfolding in faster than real time, that would hold attention. That exact style has become a popular internet format, i.e.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Now the challenge is using engaging tools to teach something that is validly boring. With math, maybe it's all just hopeless. Maybe the only way to teach math is to make them do it.

Quote :

"Maybe Khan videos are too low tech and could be improved, but they are easy to follow and have a very high signal-to-noise ratio, both of which are essential to efficient learning process."

heh, maybe the teacher's entire challenge in that flippiingtheclassroom link is teaching a curriculum that has a bad signal to noise ratio. I mean, mathematical dilations? It's probably a curriculum built around reproducibility on EOGs.

2/20/2013 3:17:14 PM

Let's have a direct comparison. Photosynthesis.

crashcourse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQK3Yr4Sc_k
1 video - 13:15

Khan:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/photosynthesis/v/photosynthesis
main video - 13:37
plus 6 more videos

Perhaps crashcourse just doesn't have all the material? If you were actually going to teach this in school, what would you actually want to use?

2/20/2013 3:23:13 PM

I will have to watch these in the entirety later this evening, but the first minute of the Crashcourse video is 90% noise. The only facts you learn are that photosynthetic is a process that has been going on for millions of years, it consists in light dependent and light independent reactions, the latter are called the Calvin cycle, and a Caucasian guy in his twenties with no name or credentials will tell us all about it. There you go, I condensed 60 seconds of audiovisual information into 10 seconds of pure audio, and have not lost any signal.

First minute of Khan video tells us, in a male voice with no credentials again, that photosynethesys is one of the most important biologicl processes that exists on earth, which is essential to life and which is utilized by plants, bacteria, and algie to convert carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) and water (H2O) into carbohydrates and oxygen by using sunlight. It was told in a way that reinforced audio data with simultaneous visual information, which is a very efficient way of learning reinforcement for many people (I consider myself a visual learner), and it also was accessible to people with hearing impairments.

Also worth mentioning is that I had to sit though a commercial to get to the first minute of Crashcourse programming, while Khan is commercial-free.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2013 3:57:10 PM

Hank Green (from CrashCourse) has a bachelor's in biochemistry and a master's in environmental science; he also doesn't attempt to be as comprehensive as an actual course, rather adopting a popular-science tone.

Salman Khan has a bachelor's in mathematics, another bachelor's (and a master's) in electrical engineering and computer science, and an MBA; his tone is more didactic.

IMO CrashCourse is like Bill Nye the Science Guy, best used as engaging supplemental material to help students fit together at a high level the seemingly disconnected facts taught in lectures (this also goes for the much more engaging history videos narrated by Hank's brother John, which I watched all of as soon as I discovered them), while the Khan Academy videos are more in the spirit of the old GED on TV videos, best used to aid students struggling to understand the material at all.

tl;dr: They both do have credentials (not teaching credentials, but still), but their videos are made for different purposes.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 4:36 PM. Reason : Also worth mentioning is Adblock Plus.

2/20/2013 4:35:46 PM

I am not saying that they don't have credentials, I am just saying that even with all the extra data that goes into the first minute of these videos, the speakers are never introduced (with a lower third title or with a "hello, I am.. " introduction. I don't believe that in this case it is absolutely required information, since people who watch Khan Academy or Crash Course are likely to know who these guys are. But it is certainly more deserving of airtime or screenspace more so than than another corny joke or a bank of black pixels. In addition, maybe Khan or Hank will have a guest speaker one day, and it'd be nice to know that someone else is talking, to be able to look up some of his or her other work.

All I was trying to do is to deduct every bit of useful information from the first minute of each video as seen by a random viewer to illustrate signal-to-noise concept. It is a very important question nowadays, with all these gigabytes of data that we are transferring back and forth, how much of it is really relevant? ni this block of data, what constitutes as knowledge, what constitutes as an aide to receiving and processing this knowlege, what constitutes as relevant but unnecessary data, and what constitutes "noise". When we have an answer to that, we will be able to deliver data more efficiently over the same bandwidth. Even if the bandwidth of electronic communication will keep rising, the bandwidth of human attention span is limited, so we out to make the best of it.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM. Reason : run on sentences.. low signal to noise ratio here....]

2/20/2013 5:03:43 PM

TED-Ed says it's targeted to flipping the classroom. Here is one video, and honestly the most academic one I've seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6y2RPQw7E0#!

It's mostly horrendous, almost the level of popularization to actual content as the History channel.
They call their stuff "flips", which is pretty smart if you're trying to sell entertainment as education.

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/featured

2/20/2013 5:05:05 PM

^I would say that this combo of pre-made animation/infographics/video overlaid with voiceover works best. That is a fairly good balance of keeping he viewer engaged and being informative. It doesn't have corny jokes like the history video from page 1 and the animations are much more on point.

2/20/2013 5:12:25 PM

Quote :

"Hank Green (from CrashCourse) has a bachelor's in biochemistry and a master's in environmental science; he also doesn't attempt to be as comprehensive as an actual course, rather adopting a popular-science tone."

The other guy, John Green, is a NYT best selling author from a young adult novel he wrote. He has some artsy bachelors degree.

And Bill Nye says he's actually in talks with people about the idea of starting a new show.

Quote :

"Also worth mentioning is that I had to sit though a commercial to get to the first minute of Crashcourse programming, while Khan is commercial-free."

The blame for that likely falls entirely on me. I think there are ways for a channel owner to set it so you can embed a video into a webpage ad free. Maybe you could make the channel ad free overall, but I don't know. Point being that I linked to the Khan Academy website where they may have the special ability to not do an ad, even though they embed their videos from youtube. So maybe not a fair fight.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM. Reason : or maybe Bill Gates paid off youtube for Khan, that's also possible]

2/20/2013 5:12:58 PM

Quote :

"deduct"

*deduce

Quote :

"I am not saying that they don't have credentials"

You called Hank Green "a Caucasian guy in his twenties with no name or credentials" (BTW he's almost 33) said that Salman Khan had "a male voice with no credentials."

^I sure hope it's something in the vein of The Eyes of Nye, his popular-science show for grownups.
Also, if you own the copyright to your work on YouTube (as Khan Academy deffo does), you can choose how and whether to monetize it, like whether pre-roll or in-video or below-video ads show; you're only unable to make ads go away if another entity holds the copyright to some element of the video, as determined via uncontested ContentID matching or otherwise, and that entity decides to monetize it.
In other words, CrashCourse has ads because John and Hank Green want to show ads and get a cut of that sweet sweet ad revenue.

2/20/2013 5:55:41 PM

he's not saying they don't have credentials, he's saying they never introduced themselves or provided or announced their credentials

he even explained that

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ... it was the very next part of what you quoted]

2/20/2013 7:17:02 PM

Quote :

"School is for learning how to interact with other humans. If my child isn't excited enough about learning to independently learn then I've failed as a parent."

No, that's not what school is "for". Yes, public school is the primary source of socialization for most children, but that has never been the intended purpose of school, it's incidental. If school is for the purpose of socialization, then holy christ the results are atrocious.

I listened to a piece on NPR about cyberbullying, and the person being interviewed mentioned something I found enlightening: the way to "progress" socially in school is to bully other kids. 1 teacher/administrator for every 30 kids is absolutely not how children should be raised, and even if we're ignoring education standards, we essentially have kids raising kids while they're at school, which is catastrophic when most parents are headcases themselves.

Quote :

"^that mentality is EXACTLY the problem... blame everything else but the kids."

What in the fuck is this? Why would we blame the kids? The kids know exactly what has been put in their heads by the adults. The kids are the least at fault.

Quote :

"I've seen countless private schools that have it all figured out. We teach according to the interests of the students and encourage creativity, discussion and critical thinking. School is place kids enjoy."

You've made threads suggesting that college be completely free. I just want you to think about that, think about this statement, and let it all marinate.

NCLB is an obvious problem, but the entire K-12 model has to go. Age group segregation makes no sense. Brick and mortar schools, teacher pensions, bus transportation...all of this is inefficient. When you consider that drop out rates are still high and more time is spent juking the stats than teaching, you'd get a better return on investment by just giving every household free broadband and a sheet of paper with a couple of URLs. Sure, some kids would still be total fuck ups, just like their parents, but there'd be a higher chance that they pursue their real passions and a lower chance that they get to bully other kids.

2/20/2013 7:24:15 PM

^ Its not my fault people in the government think they need to micromanage everything they spend money on. We can spend more money and still let each teacher rule their own classroom and each principal run their school.

If people don't like it, we could actually elect principals and hold elections.

2/20/2013 10:15:54 PM

Quote :

"When you consider that drop out rates are still high and more time is spent juking the stats than teaching, you'd get a better return on investment by just giving every household free broadband and a sheet of paper with a couple of URLs. Sure, some kids would still be total fuck ups, just like their parents, but there'd be a higher chance that they pursue their real passions and a lower chance that they get to bully other kids"

NOT SURE IF SERIOUS

2/20/2013 11:16:23 PM

I'm completely serious. I'm not saying that everyone should get free broadband, I'm saying it would be more a more cost effective program than the current public school model.

2/20/2013 11:53:05 PM

Quote :

"Its not my fault people in the government think they need to micromanage everything they spend money on."

If government doesn't micromanage how its money is spent, it gets eaten away by corruption. Give a decision to someone more local? Great, now you've created someone who can be bribed.

I know this system would never actually be doable, but from a game-theory perspective, the best people to give spending decisions to would be parents - the only people who have a vested interest in the child getting a decent education. Take the 5 most active people on the PTA from every grade level and give them the spending decisions. I admit, it would be hell on Earth, but it would lead to better educational outcomes. It's one of the only organizational strategies I can think of that would.

2/21/2013 8:35:35 AM

Quote :

"I know this system would never actually be doable, but from a game-theory perspective, the best people to give spending decisions to would be parents - the only people who have a vested interest in the child getting a decent education."

I assume from your next sentence you don't necessarily mean child'a parents. Because a large proportion of children have parents who just don't give a fuck, or don't have the capacity to decide where money should be spent, and I think it would be a terrible wrong to leave innocent kids at the mercy of such parents.

d357r0y3r, if we did give have the resources to give free broadband to every family in the US, who says that it will be used for education, not for some worthless so-called "parent" playing slots online, while child is left to their own means? Also you guys seem to confuse "want" with "can." Just because some parents WANT good education for their (and others') kids, it doesn't mean they are qualified to be pedagogues. This is the same as saying that taking the child to the hospital is a terrible waste of money, because hospitals are terribly inefficient and the parents are more interested in kids getting well then doctors do, therefore parents should keep our medical insurance premiums and just treat kids at home when they get sick.

I am not saying that the current education system is perfect, but what you guys are advocating is terribly wrong approach to have systemwide. Would it work for some kids with caring and educated parents who are naturally good at presenting material? Maybe. But to apply this approach to the entire educational system would be akin going back to medieval times.


[Edited on February 21, 2013 at 7:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2013 7:54:10 PM

Quote :

"This is the same as saying that taking the child to the hospital is a terrible waste of money, because hospitals are terribly inefficient and the parents are more interested in kids getting well then doctors do, therefore parents should keep our medical insurance premiums and just treat kids at home when they get sick."

You seem to be so desperate for a strawman, so I'll give you the next best thing.

True market-oriented libertarians, like Milton Freedman kind of libertarians, would maintain that restricting someone's isn't better for them in any case. Now that's an extreme position, because it basically dictates that all government assistance programs should be dissolved and replaced with a check. Consequently, this would actually be cheaper because it eliminates overhead... But this position would call for giving parents money instead of paying for their kids to get well, or even, giving them full discretion to spend funds on their kid's education on something else.

Actually, that last part is an overstretch. It bumps up against the autonomy of the child, so I don't think there's even one libertarian who believes that. If one did, it would almost certainly come with the belief that government shouldn't pay for schooling in the first place. Still, there is a valid point somewhere before there. Over the long run, protecting kids from their parents will likely be as effective as protecting people from themselves. If you step in and provide the minimum services so their kids can scrape their way into adulthood, then you perpetuated the cycle for another generation, and the next generation will have even more kids in parental neglect. How do you propose to stop that?

2/21/2013 8:23:49 PM

Quote :

"Over the long run, protecting kids from their parents will likely be as effective as protecting people from themselves."

Protecting kids from shitty parents and giving them a right to education should be absolutely one of the government's main functions. Society has an interest in kids being shaped into productive and constructive adults, otherwise that society has no future. Society as a whole, and government as its manifestation, have an ultimate responsibility for child's welfare, more so than parents. This is why all civilized nations have some sort of a social services for children and a mandatory system of education. I think even libertarians won't argue with that.

Quote :

"If you step in and provide the minimum services so their kids can scrape their way into adulthood, then you perpetuated the cycle for another generation, and the next generation will have even more kids in parental neglect. How do you propose to stop that?"

So should we go ahead and kill them while they are still children, so we don't waste any tax money on educating these knuckleheads, or should we at least wait until they grow into adults and get convicted of a crime before we lock them up? What if they have kids before they go to jail? maybe we should go ahead and kill their kids, so they don't grow up without parents that could raise 'um right?

Kids that are not raised right will affect our future, our kids future, and our future as species. That's why every kid out there is our responsibility of each one of us. Will there be some differences about how different parents educate their children? Of course. But there are some basic rights of kids that can not be violated even by their parents, and those are pretty clear cut. There will also be some other times where it may not be required by law for you or me to step in, but if you care about that kid's future or your kids' future, as a member of this society, you will step in or speak up.

2/22/2013 12:04:22 AM

Quote :

"So should we go ahead and kill them while they are still children, so we don't waste any tax money on educating these knuckleheads, or should we at least wait until they grow into adults and get convicted of a crime before we lock them up? What if they have kids before they go to jail? maybe we should go ahead and kill their kids, so they don't grow up without parents that could raise 'um right? "

So then why should we disrespect food stamp recipients so much as to limit what they can get with government aid? Not all of those people are parents either. Apparently the government is still their parent even after they've grown up.

2/22/2013 9:27:18 AM

THE ANSWER MUST BE AN EXTREME IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER AND CANNOT BE SOME NUANCED MIDDLE GROUND!

It must be either KILL ALL POOR PEOPLE or GIVE POOR PEOPLE ALL THE MONEYS.

2/22/2013 9:40:08 AM

I totally agree with the negative income tax. That makes me a libertarian in favor or redistribution. To some, that might not make me a libertarian, and I'm okay with that.

What I'm not in favor are things that are like a negative income tax but dress up like they're not. Often, those encourage bad parenting. While I'm not against government fixing the problem of bad parents, I am against them making it worse.

2/22/2013 9:47:40 AM

Is anyone trying to make a point in the context of education, or are we just pointing out the flaws in eachother's statements?

2/22/2013 9:49:30 AM

I can't believe that people on here that actually went though our education system are actually denying the benefits of free and universal access to basic education.

Quote :

"Apparently the government is still their parent even after they've grown up"

I don't see how food stamps and adults with their grown-up decisions fit in here. We are talking about an education system and social protection system that educates and supports all children until they become an adult (18 y.o. in this case), no matter what their background is and how good or bad their parents are. How is free access to education a "negative income tax"? Why SHOULDN'T government fix the problem of bad parents? Bad parenting is not just a problem for that individual kid, it is a problem for the society. If society has power to place individuals in jail and execute them against their will, why can't society set guidelines what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptable parenting?

I personally think the current free K-12 education should be expanded to include free pre-school. This is the best investment we can make into betterment of our society. It's like compounded interest on steroids. The earlier we make that investment, and the higher the investment is, the better return we will receive as society.

2/22/2013 10:47:20 AM

Quote :

"Kids that are not raised right will affect our future, our kids future, and our future as species. That's why every kid out there is our responsibility of each one of us. Will there be some differences about how different parents educate their children? Of course. But there are some basic rights of kids that can not be violated even by their parents, and those are pretty clear cut. There will also be some other times where it may not be required by law for you or me to step in, but if you care about that kid's future or your kids' future, as a member of this society, you will step in or speak up."

Right. I think assault and physical abuse is a pretty good line to draw, yet something like 80% or more of parents have used spanking as a form of "discipline". Louis CK had a good bit on this:

I really think it’s crazy, that we hit our kids, it really is. Here’s the crazy thing about it, kids are the only people in the world, that you’re allowed to hit. Do you realize that? They’re the most vulnerable and they’re the most destroyed by being hit, but it’s totally okay to hit them. And they’re the only ones! If you hit a dog, they fucking will put you in jail for that shit. You can’t hit a person unless you can prove that they were trying to kill you, but a little tiny person with a head this big that trusts you implicitly? Fuck them, who gives a shit?

The problem is bad parents, but the idea that schools are somehow serving as a workaround for bad home life is wrong. The kids don't have a strong positive adult influence at home, there might be one positive adult influence at school for every 50 kids, but for the most part they're being influenced by other kids who also have shitty parents.

The solution? Agorism, obviously. Homeschooling and moving to communities where you know that most people have the same kind of mindset. I don't believe in state solutions to the problem of parenting and education. These are complex problems with culture that will only be solved in relatively small, isolated pockets over several generations.

Quote :

"I can't believe that people on here that actually went though our education system are actually denying the benefits of free and universal access to basic education. "

Why is that so hard for you to believe? I've shopped at Wal-Mart quite a bit too, but I'm not telling people that it's the best of all possible shopping experiences. Going through an experience doesn't mean that the experience was a positive one.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2013 10:53:54 AM

Quote :

"I can't believe that people on here that actually went though our education system are actually denying the benefits of free and universal access to basic education."

You are more desperate for that strawman than what I could have possibly imagined. OH GOD THE STRAW! It's like a mountain of straw, trying to suffocate a libertarian that might possibly exist somewhere. It's truly amazing: out of the hypothetical positions I was characterizing that didn't exist, you took the most extreme one that I specifically said was so extreme I couldn't get away with it, and then you made it more extreme.

Astounding. Internet poetry in motion.

Libertarian: emphasizes individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)
LibertarianB: all government assistance programs should be dissolved and replaced with a check
LibertarianC: give parents money instead of paying for their kids to get well or educating their kids
LibertarianD: let's just not spend government money with pretense of education

I was going to make a point, but this is so much better. Igor totally destroyed LibertarianC and/or D.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM. Reason : lol, I just realized how hostile this was, last one. I'll talk about education in next post.]

2/22/2013 11:06:35 AM

Quote :

"The problem is bad parents, but the idea that schools are somehow serving as a workaround for bad home life is wrong. The kids don't have a strong positive adult influence at home, there might be one positive adult influence at school for every 50 kids, but for the most part they're being influenced by other kids who also have shitty parents. The solution? Agorism, obviously. Homeschooling and moving to communities where you know that most people have the same kind of mindset. I don't believe in state solutions to the problem of parenting and education. These are complex problems with culture that will only be solved in relatively small, isolated pockets over several generations."

As much as you try to isolate your kids from these other kids that you'd like to leave to their own means, you will never be able to prevent their interaction unless you are already part of a very isolated, tight knit community (such as the Amish) or built a big ass castle with a moat around it with not communications to the rest of the world. Eventually these kids will touch your kids' lives, whether through a school shooting, drug dealing, wrong president electing, or even through marrying one of your kids. And there won't be shit you'll be able to do about it.

Quote :

"It's truly amazing: out of the hypothetical positions I was characterizing that didn't exist, you took the most extreme one that I specifically said was so extreme I couldn't get away with it, and then you made it more extreme"

To be fair, you were not very specific on your position in regards to improving the education system, so naturally I chose to counter the statments that I found most appaling

2/22/2013 11:30:26 AM

Quote :

"I personally think the current free K-12 education should be expanded to include free pre-school. This is the best investment we can make into betterment of our society. It's like compounded interest on steroids. The earlier we make that investment, and the higher the investment is, the better return we will receive as society. "

QFT a million times. Compounding interest is a great way to think about it.

Quote :

"The problem is bad parents, but the idea that schools are somehow serving as a workaround for bad home life is wrong. The kids don't have a strong positive adult influence at home, there might be one positive adult influence at school for every 50 kids, but for the most part they're being influenced by other kids who also have shitty parents."

Bad parents are a fact of life and have been since the beginning of time. Schools can't replace parents but they can mitigate some of their shittiness. Look at some of the recent Pre-K research. There is evidence that QUALITY Pre-K programs lower the likelihood of teen pregnancy, of receiving government handouts later in life, lower crime rates, etc. Compared to their control peer groups these kids are on average much more successful/positive influences on society.

Quote :

"I don't believe in state solutions to the problem of parenting and education. These are complex problems with culture that will only be solved in relatively small, isolated pockets over several generations."

And yet studies have shown "the state" can chip away at the effects of "bad culture", crappy parents, and poor educational outcomes by way of public education. If we could get 25% of those segments of the population that seem to be failing to arrive at a relatively more successful outcome it would begin to relieve so much drag on society.

2/22/2013 11:47:59 AM

Quote :

"As much as you try to isolate your kids from these other kids that you'd like to leave to their own means, you will never be able to prevent their interaction unless you are already part of a very isolated, tight knit community (such as the Amish) or built a big ass castle with a moat around it with not communications to the rest of the world. Eventually these kids will touch your kids' lives, whether through a school shooting, drug dealing, wrong president electing, or even through marrying one of your kids. And there won't be shit you'll be able to do about it."

Right, and the public school system actually contributes to this cycle. Humans did not evolve with a 1:30 adult to child ratio, it was more like 3:1 or 4:1. It's not just bad parenting, it's lack of parenting. I'm arguing that we have moved away from the fundamental conditions that allow for mentally healthy children to develop. The public school system is not moving us in a positive direction.

But, yes, I do have to deal with other people's shitty children, and so I am allowed to criticize your poor parenting practices. Do you hit your kids? Stop doing that. I don't care that your parents did it to you and you're perfectly "fine" (hint: you're not). Are you forcing your kids to take stimulants? Stop. Are you feeding your kids junk food and making them fat? Don't do that. They're people with rights, not your property. They didn't choose to be brought into the world, you made that choice, now it's your responsibility to give them a proper upbringing or give them up to someone who can.

Quote :

"I personally think the current free K-12 education should be expanded to include free pre-school. This is the best investment we can make into betterment of our society. It's like compounded interest on steroids. The earlier we make that investment, and the higher the investment is, the better return we will receive as society."

Jesus Christ. No, no, no, no.

We need to get away from this idea that both parents should absolutely have to work. If the government were not raping the economy with taxes, it wouldn't be necessary. Children should be raised by parents, not by government schools.

Quote :

"Bad parents are a fact of life and have been since the beginning of time. Schools can't replace parents but they can mitigate some of their shittiness. Look at some of the recent Pre-K research. There is evidence that QUALITY Pre-K programs lower the likelihood of teen pregnancy, of receiving government handouts later in life, lower crime rates, etc. Compared to their control peer groups these kids are on average much more successful/positive influences on society. "

Free public pre-k programs wouldn't be anywhere near "quality", just like public schools. Think this shit through.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

2/22/2013 11:59:41 AM

Quote :

"Eventually these kids will touch your kids' lives, whether through a school shooting, drug dealing, wrong president electing, or even through marrying one of your kids. And there won't be shit you'll be able to do about it."

Makes me think of this:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425019/the-cause-of-riots-and-the-price-of-food/



In 30 years, humans will exist on Earth with a set of individuals. It doesn't matter how those individuals got there. If they can't eat, they will murder someone. It's one of those "so obvious it's true" statements. You'd murder someone too if you didn't have means to support yourself.

The problem of providing for everyone is surprisingly easy to solve. Our problem is that we don't connect our young people to the infrastructure for solving those problems. Not only do the lower rung of HS students feel unneeded, but they're outright evaluated as a liability.

The true problem behind the problem is that a broken society is self-perpetuating. The perception of societal stability means that you have the freedom to accumulate capital and you'll obviously help your kids build their human capital. People who feel the reality of living in a dangerous and turbulent world make their investments accordingly.

If you want to get parents reengaged then you have to make the streets safe. This is actually a real problem in many cases. It causes a cascading reaction. People adjust their discount rate, which in turn makes investment by other people shakier. Neglect of education by others impacts the stability of everything you've worked for.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ]

2/22/2013 12:00:34 PM

Quote :

"If they can't eat, they will murder someone. It's one of those "so obvious it's true" statements. You'd murder someone too if you didn't have means to support yourself."

Maybe if you are a cannibal. Otherwise you will concentrate on finding some food or resources to help you get food. Americans didn't have much to eat during the Great Depression, where are those spiking murder rates?

Quote :

"The problem of providing for everyone is surprisingly easy to solve. Our problem is that we don't connect our young people to the infrastructure for solving those problems."

That's exactly one of the goals of education system. Whether it works or not right now is up for debate, but that's the intent. Obviously it's not THAT easy.

Quote :

"Not only do the lower rung of HS students feel unneeded, but they're outright evaluated as a liability"

Thanks to people with d357r0y3r's mentality

Quote :

"The true problem behind the problem is that a broken society is self-perpetuating. The perception of societal stability means that you have the freedom to accumulate capital and you'll obviously help your kids build their human capital. People who feel the reality of living in a dangerous and turbulent world make their investments accordingly"

In case of these disadvantaged kids, the society as a whole is just as stable as yours and mine. It's their family circle or social circle that is unstable. So maybe other members of society, such as teachers, counselors, coaches, and mentors can offer some of that stability.

Quote :

"If you want to get parents reengaged then you have to make the streets safe. This is actually a real problem in many cases. It causes a cascading reaction. People adjust their discount rate, which in turn makes investment by other people shakier. "

Even those mean streets of Cary produced some fucked up kids Sometimes it is a fault of a larger community, but oftentimes it is a fault of immediate family circle.

Quote :

" Neglect of education by others impacts the stability of everything you've worked for. "

Totally agree, and that's why we can't leave education of the kid in hands of one or two people (the parents). Truth lies in numbers, and society has both the capability and the motive to advance education of each and every kid.

Quote :

"We need to get away from this idea that both parents should absolutely have to work. If the government were not raping the economy with taxes, it wouldn't be necessary. Children should be raised by parents, not by government schools"

They should be raised by parents under input and supervision from the rest the society. If the parents do not have the means or the capability to raise their child, society as manifested by Government should be able to intervene and provide those means. You are taking a very unrealistic view of the world where all families have both parents which are educated and have enough savings for one of them to be a full-time stay-at-home parent. Will this be more of a common case as our society evolves? I sure hope so. Is this possible now for some parents? Yes. Do the kids of today that don't have such parent deserve to be robbed of an opportunity to become educated members of society? Not if I can help it.

Quote :

"Free public pre-k programs wouldn't be anywhere near "quality", just like public schools. Think this shit through."

They will only not be of poor quality if we let them be. Obviously there is enough people even right now interested in creating a quality public education system. Imagine what would happen if we made education spending our priority, and the job of a K-12 educator would become high-paying and prestigious?

Even if the quality stays on the current level, it is better than what some kids are getting at home. You may not believe it, but a trained professional educator, even constrained by not-so-perfect curriculum, will do a better job of educating kids than a parent that dropped out of highschool (or finished highschool, but never went to college). How hard is it to comprehend that statistically as a group trained professionals will do better job doing something than a group of very interested amateurs.


[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 12:30:12 PM

Quote :

"society as manifested by Government"

I'm out.

2/22/2013 12:39:43 PM

Quitting is always the easiest way out of dealing with a problem. Except that it doesn't fix the problem.

2/22/2013 12:43:40 PM

Quote :

"Right, and the public school system actually contributes to this cycle. Humans did not evolve with a 1:30 adult to child ratio, it was more like 3:1 or 4:1. It's not just bad parenting, it's lack of parenting."

Ok this is a decent point, and I'm all for getting more parts of the family in on helping raise kids. But I don't think that replaces dedicated teachers. I always like to speculate on ancient human behavior and how we should be using some of those old ideas, but at the same time things are fundamentally different today. When child rearing was still evolving kids were learning to gather, hunt, social skills, and when to plant the potatoes. Today, they are learning long division and microsoft excel, its just fundamentally different.

Quote :

"Jesus Christ. No, no, no, no. We need to get away from this idea that both parents should absolutely have to work. If the government were not raping the economy with taxes, it wouldn't be necessary. Children should be raised by parents, not by government schools."

oh, come on. Do you really think the main factor in driving two income households is taxes? You don't think income stagnation, globalization, cost of education, blah blah blah is having any effect? Its the dumbest thing I've read in TSB in a while.

If if you ignore those can't you atleast see this is an expected outcome of market based economic systems? Efficiency is rewarded, its simple division of labor. Why raise my kid when I can pay someone (and still make more money on top of that).

Quote :

"Free public pre-k programs wouldn't be anywhere near "quality", just like public schools. Think this shit through."

Every single one of those outcomes I listed were studies done on publicly funded Pre-K programs. That is, this country all ready has successful Pre-K programs up and functioning.

Incidentally, what are you basing your assertion that Public schools aren't quality? Yes there are some schools in impoverished areas, etc that aren't creating too many good outcomes, but on the whole public schools are doing at least as well as they have been for the past 30-40 years.





[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 12:59:43 PM

Another point to consider is that public school doesn't take your child away from you. You can still educate him after school. In fact discussing homework assignments and otherwise staying involved in your child's education is encouraged by the school system. The child get the best of both worlds (for some children, the best of one of the worlds is still pretty shitty however). It's not all-or-nothing decision. However, eliminating public education system (or not providing it in the first place, like is currently the case with pre-school in most states) IS all-or-nothing type of situation.

2/22/2013 1:16:05 PM

Quote :

"That's exactly one of the goals of education system. Whether it works or not right now is up for debate, but that's the intent. Obviously it's not THAT easy."

Well, not some things aren't easy to do but are nonetheless established. We could transition off of fossil fuels. Knowing how to do it isn't a problem. It's easy in the sense that buying a high quality appliance is easy. You have to make room for it in the budget.

Quote :

"Americans didn't have much to eat during the Great Depression, where are those spiking murder rates?"

FWIW, the graph I posted was about food price inflation. In the Great Depression food prices were deflating along with the rest of the CPI.

Quote :

"In case of these disadvantaged kids, the society as a whole is just as stable as yours and mine. It's their family circle or social circle that is unstable."

That's the terrifying point I wanted to get to. Ultimately we're all in the same boat, but humans set their discount rate according to their own interactions, not what's happening in the Hamptons. The greater terror may not even be the reaction of the disadvantaged, but the reaction of the advantaged to an erosion of what they feel like is the quality of life that they worked for and deserve.

Quote :

"We need to get away from this idea that both parents should absolutely have to work. If the government were not raping the economy with taxes, it wouldn't be necessary. Children should be raised by parents, not by government schools"

Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Fuck feminism!

And in a few years when single parent households become the majority, they should stay home with the kids too. What the fuck else they gonna do with their time?

2/22/2013 1:41:20 PM

Quote :

"Children should be raised by parents, not by government schools."

Yeah, we really need at least 40-50% of our children never even hearing of the Scientific Method. I think that's a swell idea.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 1:42:26 PM

Quote :

"Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Fuck feminism! And in a few years when single parent households become the majority, they should stay home with the kids too. What the fuck else they gonna do with their time?"

Who said anything about the woman staying home? Men can raise children too. I would absolutely love to be a stay at home dad, and with workshifting and mobile workstyles now possible, I think I can actually make that happen. Strangers with no long-term investment in the child, on the other hand?

The single parent thing is a separate issue, but still important. Children should have two parents and preferably extended family as well.

I realize that what I'm proposing is completely irrelevant if we maintain the current economic system, but I'm not saying we should, am I?

Quote :

"Yeah, we really need at least 40-50% of our children never even hearing of the Scientific Method. I think that's a swell idea."

Your focus on secularism causes you to miss the big picture so often. Do you really think talking about the scientific method for a couple weeks is going to counteract the kid going to church every Sunday? It wasn't science class that caused me to question religion.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/22/2013 2:04:13 PM

Sure, we should have sufficient economic opportunity and social cohesion for parents to choose to take years off of work or even home school. But very little of this conversation is about the top group of parents.

Quote :

"Right, and the public school system actually contributes to this cycle. Humans did not evolve with a 1:30 adult to child ratio, it was more like 3:1 or 4:1. It's not just bad parenting, it's lack of parenting."

This is an odd fact that makes me wonder and worry about the world today. Even if you're a good parent, you're not necessarily involved in activities that make you interact with other people's kids. We don't have any form of community where kids interact with adults.

It seems like a consequence of our industrial model of production. Daddy goes to the factory to make a paycheck. Everyone comes home to the nuclear family. But the isolation that comes with that is just as strong now as ever, probably stronger. Now libraries are irrelevant and people act like public places are more dangerous than ever. Even extracurricular activities are like big kid-farms.

2/22/2013 2:32:07 PM

Quote :

"Your focus on secularism causes you to miss the big picture so often. Do you really think talking about the scientific method for a couple weeks is going to counteract the kid going to church every Sunday? It wasn't science class that caused me to question religion."

I'm not even talking about secularism, I'm talking about science education. If education was completely parent driven as in your Utopia, there would be no science education at all for at least 40% of children. What "Average Joe America" thinks children should learn is fucking stupid and while our current public curriculum stinks at least it includes science.

I'm not conflating "religiousness" with "complete disregard for the Scientific Method." I'm talking about mouth-breathing idiot parents who either don't know anything about science or actively distrust it. Not every religious person in the country but at least 40%, sadly.

I'm not buying that education is something we trust small communities to. You end up with tearing pages out of health books and putting warning stickers in biology books.

2/22/2013 3:09:33 PM

Quote :

"This is an odd fact that makes me wonder and worry about the world today. Even if you're a good parent, you're not necessarily involved in activities that make you interact with other people's kids. We don't have any form of community where kids interact with adults. It seems like a consequence of our industrial model of production. Daddy goes to the factory to make a paycheck. Everyone comes home to the nuclear family. But the isolation that comes with that is just as strong now as ever, probably stronger. Now libraries are irrelevant and people act like public places are more dangerous than ever. Even extracurricular activities are like big kid-farm"

QFT

2/22/2013 3:15:36 PM

2/23/2013 11:10:41 AM

Quote :

"here might be one positive adult influence at school for every 50 kids, but for the most part they're being influenced by other kids who also have shitty parents"

Well there should not be more than a 15:1 student teacher ratio at any public school. It should be absolute law but it won't because they have made up research to support the idea that the scores of their made up tests are not affected by class size.

Also the school day should be longer and more interactive. Everything doesn't have to be based on standards. There should be therapy type class each day where kids talk about their goals , problems, and achievements in life. This kind of activity goes a long way in motivation.

Schools should be less restrictive as far as rules as well. Kids are automatically pushed away by the rigid structure of lining up, whole class lectures and permission to use the bathroom.

[Edited on February 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM. Reason : call the adults by first name]

2/23/2013 12:27:56 PM

I'm kind of amazed how willing schools are to spend more money on personnel for special positions.

I personally had speech lessons when I was probably K-5. Apparently people just didn't think I was clear enough when I talked. Took me out of class for 30 min periodically to have a special class of usually 2-3 people. Finally, when they gave me a choice I said no.

Quote :

"Everything doesn't have to be based on standards. There should be therapy type class each day where kids talk about their goals , problems, and achievements in life. This kind of activity goes a long way in motivation. "

I'm not sure if I agree with the content, but having a rotation that puts kids, all kids, in small group sessions with an adult sounds like a good idea. It wouldn't even be that costly because you don't need to spend an hour on each group.

AG did that. Except for the fact that it divided students. What nonsense BS...

2/23/2013 1:10:14 PM

Just out of curiosity, when did school stop being 8AM-3PM? I see buses driving around at 9AM and see them back on the roads at fucking 2PM. It seems like it's only been in the last few years that I've noticed that.

2/23/2013 1:57:34 PM

School hours have been staggered for years. A lot of them have different schedules, but very generally, elementary schools run 9 to 3:30, middle schools run 8:00 to 3:00, and high schools go from 7:30-2:30. So you'll see buses on the road pretty much all day except like 10a-2p.

You from a small town?

2/23/2013 3:26:27 PM

Yeah, schools all started at the same time everywhere I've lived. I didn't realize that it was common to stagger starts. I guess it makes sense in larger cities. Still though, shouldn't 7-8 hours be the norm? I mean, we had half day kindergarten in Missouri (at least at my catholic school), but everything else was 8-3 both here and in the town in NC I lived in during middle and high school.

2/23/2013 3:54:53 PM