
How ‘Deprogramming’ Kids from How to ‘Do School’ Could Improve Learning - ColinWright
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/12/how-deprogramming-kids-from-how-to-do-school-could-improve-learning/
======
jdmichal
> And they rose to the challenge. “I think the kids were just waiting to be
> let loose and to be treated like adults,” Holman said.

This part struck me. It wasn't that long ago in human history that these
"kids" would have been considered adults. Fourteen, which should correspond
roughly to the beginning of American high school, would have been the year
they would have started apprenticeship and taking on real adult
responsibility. And that's assuming they were even going to a skilled trade;
unskilled trades like farmers would be outright working by that point. We see
this transition point in cultures that have preserved it as tradition, such as
bar/bat mitzvahs, quinceañeras, and débutante and cotillion balls.

~~~
jarcane
In Finland, mandatory primary and secondary schooling ends at 16, after which
point you can choose to either go into a trade /apprenticeship school, or an
academic school (high-school/university), or not go at all. And all of it is
free (though there's rumors they might start charging tuition for university
in a couple of years). The schools themselves also go to great lengths to
ensure that everyone graduates on the same 'level,' even in the lower schools.

The result is one of the most well-educated and trained workforces in the
world. It's also an incredibly competitive job market, because almost everyone
applying has the equivalent of at least a two-year degree, and if it's an
academic profession, probably a Master's. Almost no union will take you as
well if you haven't finished a trade school or higher school. There's talk now
of them making post-secondary education mandatory as well for two years,
because anyone who doesn't go into trade school or high school is more or less
fucked on the job market. The kids who don't want to go to school after 16
wind up on unemployment and living with their parents because there's almost
zero chance of getting any kind of employment without further education.

It's been interesting to see and learn how degree inflation works on the
market here. In one sense this is a lot like the states, where in many fields
now, anything less than a Bachelor's degree is useless. In another sense
though, unlike the states this hasn't resulted in the 'diploma mill' effect,
where those Bachelor's degrees have become utterly devalued and useless
because they more or less hand them out to anyone willing to keep showing up
for four years.

And as well, there are more options here for trades instead of going into
academics, so it's not like there aren't options if you don't go into
university. There are trade school courses in everything: I know a bloke who
went to school for two years just to be a waiter. So unlike the states, where
that diploma mill inflation can feel limiting because there's only so many
academic subjects available, it seems like there's a lot more viable different
routes to pursue towards finding a career.

~~~
chii
> a bloke who went to school for two years just to be a waiter.

that seems quite excessive - shouldn't on the job training work just as well?!

~~~
jarcane
There are a few responses to this:

1) contrary to American myth, a good union promises _quality_ workers, and the
best way to do that is to ensure their members are highly trained. Everything
is union here, but if you want to be a union employee, you must be prepared to
meet that standard, starting with a thorough education.

2) American culture has seriously devalued the waiter. As a former cook, I've
worked with those who had real training in the old French style, vs. those who
merely took a job out of high school because the tips paid better. I'd choose
the former every time. A skilled waiter is not just a glorified gofer, but
someone who knows the food business inside and out.

3) It largely _is_ on the job training; much of the trade school approach in
Finland is based at least partly on apprenticeship. You take both
lecture/classroom courses, as well as time spent on the job actually
practicing your skills. The difference is, there's someone overseeing the
process with an interest in actually making you a better professional, rather
than solely on the basis of whether or not they should shitcan you and hire
someone else.

~~~
jimmaswell
>a good union promises quality workers

citation?

------
beagle3
Anyone who finds this interesting and is not aware of the Montessori[0]
approach should definitely look at it. It is basically the same underlying
idea, consistently applied from toddler age. It seems to be effective, if you
measure by "people famous for the right reasons"[1], such as Bezos, Brin, Page
and Wales.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education)

[1] [http://www.mslf.org/famous-montessori-
students/](http://www.mslf.org/famous-montessori-students/)

~~~
sytelus
Are you recommending Montessori beyond k-1? Are it even available for that
stage? One thing that made me wonder was if these "famous" people only went to
Motesorri pre-school or all the way through in higher grades. The reason I'm
asking is because if it's only preschool then benefit seems to be too high and
questionable.

~~~
js2
The Montessori my kids attended in NC went through middle school. I believe
the Montessori my first child started at in CA went through high school.

------
coenhyde
Our current school system is moronic and this is not an exaggeration. It is
the worst possible teaching system I could possibly imagine. Instead of trying
to improve the system it should be scrapped entirely.

Here is what is wrong with the current system:

\- Grading is harmful. A pass should be 100%/A+. You should not be able to
progress until you understand the subject matter 100% as future learning
depends on you having a complete understanding of previous content.

\- Grouping students by the year they were born is harmful. Some students
progress faster than others. By grouping students this way, some students are
held back while others are dragged forward; not understanding vital content.

\- Grouping a student's progress for all subjects into a single metric is
harmful. Eg. grade 1,2,3, etc. Every student will have a natural tendency to
be good and bad at certain subjects. Maybe they are good and Physics but bad
at English, or vise versa. By grouping a student's progress in all subjects
into a single metric a student might be held back in the subjects they are
good at or not understand vital content in the subjects they are bad at.

Here is what I imagine a good education system would look like:

\- Students progress through subjects independently of their peers and the
other subjects they are studying.

\- Subject assessment would happen at much smaller increments and students do
not progress until they understand that content block 100%.

\- Students graduate school when they have reached a certain level of
competency in all subjects. This could take an arbitrary amount of time. e.g.
it might take one student 3 years but another 8. But once a student graduates
they will be competent.

P.S I used to run an company that developed learning management systems, so I
have thought about this stuff a bit and developed a hatred for the current
education system.

~~~
cbd1984
> Students progress through subjects independently of their peers and the
> other subjects they are studying.

The usual objection to this is people's aversion to having children at vastly
different levels of physical development in the same classroom. Personally, I
don't know whether to buy that argument, but it sounds worth expanding upon.

> Students graduate school when they have reached a certain level of
> competency in all subjects. This could take an arbitrary amount of time.
> e.g. it might take one student 3 years but another 8. But once a student
> graduates they will be competent.

OK, but at age eighteen, physically preventing them from leaving is against
the law, and will likely be punished.

I'm only half-joking:

At some point, the law recognizes people as full adults, and it is much more
difficult to legally restrain an adult, even if they're reading at a fifth-
grade level.

Personally, I think the answer to that is more and better trade schools, and
increased governmental public works programs, but such ideas went from being
All-American in the 1930s to Socialism in the 1950s, and we're still not quite
past that yet.

~~~
voxic11
I don't think he is saying people should be forced into school if they don't
graduate by 18. just that they can't graduate (get a diploma) until they
actually learn all the material.

~~~
dagw
Isn't that true today? Surely you won't get your diploma unless you get
minimum necessary grades on the necessary exams.

~~~
nshepperd
Sure, but unfortunately the minimum necessary grade is currently a 50% "just
managed to cram in enough rote learning in the final week to scrape by" pass
mark.

~~~
coldtea
50% and 100% obviously don't mean anything by themselves.

You can have a minimum of 50% and still have kinds know 10 times more than
what a minimum of 100% course has them. 50% of an advanced course is better
than 100% of a course for idiots.

It's all about the breadth and deepness of the material, not some arbitrary
mark on it, like 50%.

------
Animats
There's a delightful article which I can't find at the moment about a mother
who did her middle school daughter's homework alongside her for a week. Her
daughter advised her "memorize, don't understand". There's not enough time for
understanding.

~~~
ColinWright
It was a father:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/my-
daugh...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/my-daughters-
homework-is-killing-me/309514/)

