

Myth of the the extraordinary teacher - forkandwait
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herman-class-size-20110731,0,3910343.story

======
wisty
Her big question is "Do students really learn best this way?". Nobody knows.
Because education researchers don't care about empiricism.

The English-speaking education research community abandoned empiricism when
they started getting "bad" results.

There were a series of studies that proved a right-wing education fad (Direct
Instruction) was empirically better than all the left-wing education fads. So
the left-wingers in education academia decided it was better to throw out
empiricism than lose the battle.

I'm not saying DI is great. It's a fad, like all the other fads. But using
empiricism to iterativly improve it, or search for alternatives would be the
way to go.

Instead, education research is now often based on Sophistic arguments, appeals
to authority, appeasing policy czars (yay funding!), appeasing parents, and
other methods which simply don't work.

I know this is, itself, not empirical. A more solid argument would be a
pointer to what teachers are taught these days, and so we can see how much
empiricism vs ex-cathedra-style argument they are exposed to.

------
kaptain
A lot of the discussion here is focused on teachers because we think that they
are the keystone to a quality education. I would argue that teachers are a
vital part but they lack the power that family and culture have. In many Asian
cultures, the power of the family is crushing and the values that the parents
have translate to intense pressure to do well in the education environment. It
doesn't matter if your teacher is good; the message is that you will force
yourself to succeed in education.

Even though Western values are quickly taking root here, (via the movies,
music, etc.), there exists a tremendous amount of cultural pressure to "excel
academically" (for some definition of this idea). I speak mainly for China
because that is the education system I'm most familiar with, but I assume that
we can find similar patterns in other Asian cultures: mom and dad work 5 am to
8 pm selling egg pancakes for 50 cents a pop on the side of the street while
little Johnny (or Jenny) goes to school from 7 am to 4 pm with a two hour
break between 12 pm and 2 pm. When they get home, they get to look forward to
6 hours of homework. No going to soccer, maybe some piano lessons if you're
rich enough. Certainly no time for video games, making out with your
girlfriend, creating a gang, doing drugs (although there are exceptions, I'm
speaking in broad generalizations here…).

But there does not exist this idea that you can be who you want to be, that
somehow you can have a good life by developing other talents. There's also not
this idea that you have a choice. I've encountered college students that tell
me that they /have to/ graduate. This means that if they don't pass their
tests, they will find some other way to get their diploma.

Compare this to your typical attitudes towards education in America. I'm not
saying that one is better than the other, I'm just saying that there is so
much pressure engrained in certain cultures "to do well" (i.e. score high on a
standardized test) that makes it hard for American culture to compete.

This explanation does not explain why European cultures fare much better. I'd
love to hear what some of the cultural attitudes towards education are from
there as well as the strength of family influence.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_This explanation does not explain why European cultures fare much better._

Actually, this explanation does work pretty well for that also. Assume for the
moment that Americans of European descent and Europeans have similar cultures.

Americans of European descent achieve test scores which are comparable to the
top European nations + Australia.

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-
abou...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa-
scores-usa.html)

The only reason the US as a whole does not fare as well as most European
nations is because it's large proportion of non-Europeans drag the average
down.

You get similar results when comparing Americans with Asian culture to Asians.
Your culture explanation has a lot of explanatory power, and almost certainly
more explanatory power than any explanation based on school system.

[http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-
above-...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-
average-american.html)

~~~
bugsy
International comparative test scores seem kind of irrelevant.

What seems to be important are the contributions of a small number of members
of a society, who are either beaten into submission of forced conformity, or
allowed to flourish.

------
lukifer
Here's a notion so crazy it could work: since we are clearly unwilling to pay
what it takes to pay for classrooms smaller than 30, what if we instead had
some classes with 20, and others with 40+? Any material which is pure lecture
wouldn't lose much (see the college lecture halls of 100+), while other
material gets more benefit from individual attention. It also allows teachers
to specialize: Be an engaging public speaker, or focus on bonding with
students and their unique learning styles.

It might only be feasible in schools without widespread behavior problems, but
hey, it's a thought.

~~~
walexander
_Our children [snip] deserve to have a teacher who has time to read their
work, to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing
homework.

To teach each child in my classroom, I have to know each child in my
classroom. _

I wonder how much of what we think makes a great teacher just comes from
"Stand and Deliver", or "Dangerous Minds". I always thrived more from the
"lecture" style of teaching, which I got from very few teachers until I
reached college. Maybe that's a personal affinity, but so must be the need for
one-on-one interaction. Maybe the tasks at hand do have a lot to do with it.

Interesting idea though, lukifer. I'd be interested in what empirical studies
show. I'm sure there is plenty, as biased as most might be in one way or the
other.

~~~
bugsy
Good point. I am skeptical that listening to why they are crying is a major
contributor to a high quality education.

------
SoftwareMaven
The biggest problem we have is grouping by age instead of ability. Every core
subject should be taught to people who are at the same level, even if it means
9 and 14 year olds in the same class.

Once you don't have to try teaching five different grade levels the same math
(or other subject), 30 students become much more tolerable (not ideal, but
manageable).

~~~
cubicle67
we recently moved three of our children to a Montessori school (one initially,
then the other two six months later).

I'm quite astonished, still, at how different it is to traditional schooling.
Classes are mixed age, usually spanning about 3 years, and children move to
the next cycle when ready, not at a set date. Within a class, there's no
mention whatsoever of what grade kids are. I don't think my kids even know.

Walk into a classroom, and you'll see the children spread out in groups of 2
or three, each group working quietly on an activity. The walls are lined with
bookshelves full of activities; everything (almost) is hands on tactile
experience. The older kids help the younger ones to understand things and the
teacher, because she is not "teaching" (in the traditional sense) is free to
work one-on-one with the children and make sure they really understand what
they're doing.

Best of all, the kids love it. They really do. My daughter, who was previously
hated school with a passion and was getting further and further behind (school
didn't care) and was barely reading, is now an avid reader, progressing well
in maths and writing and _loves_ school.

Edit: few more details for anyone who doesn't have much experience with
Montessori stuff, and I had none until only a year ago.

Each child has a journal in which the teacher writes a number of activities
for that student at the end of each week (the teachers, because they spend a
large amount of 1-on-1 time, know _exactly_ where each child is in each
subject). During the week, a child needs to complete those activities, but
they're free to choose when and how. The remainder of the time is there's to
work on/explore what ever they like.

There's no time slots, so kids are free to spend as much or as little time as
they like on activities. The school actively encourages them to work towards
spending the entire afternoon (3 hours straight) focused on a single activity
if possible. The kids respond well to this too. Like science? then you've got
three hours uninterrupted to work on some experiments with a few friends
(group work is very much encouraged). Of course you can stop any time for a
break and a snack. Heck, want to spend the entire _day_ working on the one
thing? Sure, so long as the teacher's confident you'll complete your journal
tasks by the end of the week

There's also no exams. none. no tests or quizzes either. Here in Australia all
primary school children are required to sit the NAPLAN[0] tests, and this
school is no exception. Kids do no preparation and it's barely mentioned
except for the days of the exams. Surprisingly (to me) the school ranked very
well.

I'm extremely envious; I'd have loved the opportunity to enjoy school. If my
kids have to spend 13 years of their life at school they may as well enjoy it

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAPLAN>

------
glimcat
"we can't demand that teachers be excellent in conditions that preclude
excellence"

We can if we keep judging "excellence" by standardized tests which we water
down until they give an answer we like and institute policies which push
educators into doctoring the answer sheets.

Or did you want the students to actually learn stuff?

~~~
rubashov
All the hand wringing over American teachers is entirely misplaced. American
teachers are very good. Possibly the best in the world. Once you disaggregate
national educational outcomes by ethnicity this becomes clear. White Americans
outperform all white nations except Finland. Asian Americans of all
extractions outperform their home nations. Black Americans outperform all
black nations. And so on.

Judging teachers without accounting for the students they happen to teach is
rather unfair. But because race and ethnicity are totally essential to
understanding this it's unmentionable.

~~~
throw_away
that's actually quite an interesting finding. do you have a citation? not
calling you out, I'm genuinely interested, as I could totally see that
happening with simpson's paradox and all.

~~~
spamizbad
Take a good look at that guys posting history. You're not likely to find a
reputable source.

~~~
Detrus
Actually I remember some well liked and upvoted blog on HN posting stats that
separated out affluent ethnicities from poor ethnicities and making US
education look good.

~~~
Detrus
Yea this [http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-
abou...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa-
scores-usa.html) is the blog, mentioned by yummyfajitas

------
tokenadult
"How to Improve the Supply of High Quality Teachers"

[http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads...](http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/Teacher%20quality.Brookings.pdf)

