I say this as someone who was a nerd in the '70s, before it was cool, but the problem is, we have a bunch of children that needs to be taught many subjects to be productive citizens, at a level of expertise not seen in history. Their parents go to jobs during the day. What is a better solution than what we do right now? It's certainly not perfect but what can we do better?
In the past we had apprentice programs but youth learned one trade, little history, math, "social studies", other things we expect people to know.
We are trying an experiment right now due to the pandemic - remote learning. It exposes a digital divide for sure, but we can all see where that would be less of an issue in the future. It's being called a failure by parents, kids are falling behind, mental health issues are climbing. Kids, people in general, need some kind of social interaction for their health. So, back to school? Back to my original question? What can be better than what we do now?
Better training for teachers, higher barriers to entry, and much stronger incentives to be a teacher. Namely, a higher salary. With degree inflation, the status of teachers has decreased sharply when they are in fact one of the most important professions at an aggregate level. There are tons of social and economic problems that are directly the result of piss-poor education systems.
Reforming the degrees and schools that train teachers. Increasing teacher salaries in the public sector. Essentially making it more selective but giving a higher reward goes hand in hand. Making it a funnel where a portion of unmotivated and planless people go helps neither the profession nor the students IMO. The private sector usually does fine on its own since they cater to the wealthy and have the necessary resources. Some countries take teachers very seriously, such as Finland, so it's definitely something that is possible to implement if still much harder in a very large country.
If you really want to privatize schools they absolutely most be non profit with salary caps. (not 2x more than the median salary). In practice privatization doesn't work because rich parents can afford expensive schools and their children perform better simply because they aren't poor. Additionally, private schools don't take on disabled or delayed students because that would ruin profits.
* school
* apprenticeship
* one parent (with near certainty the mother) must stay home
* large extended families i.e. grandma raises the kids
All but school are incomplete. A five year old can’t apprentice. Many people aren’t blessed with grandparents close by who can raise kids. Stay at home parenting works for some, but not single parents- and many women want to work. I get the feeling many “school is just daycare!” critics quietly prefer women pick between kids & career- though I could be wrong.
It’s also important to consider that, for most of human history, a child who is with their parents 24/7/365 is an anomaly. Kids need socializing with other people, and parents need a break. The same way spouses in a healthy relationship need time apart.
> for most of human history, a child who is with their parents 24/7/365 is an anomaly
Where do you get this idea? It's actually the opposite. Modern universal schooling is an aberration that only took hold in the 1800s, with some schooling for the upper classes before that.
For most of recorded history, children helped their parents around the house and field, with some going off to an apprenticeship around 12-14.
Kids spent a lot of time outside with their peers, and with extended families, neighbors, and even alone. Maybe not 9 hours per day (time kids spend in school (and "afternoon care" in my country) with both parents working 8 hours/day), but still a considerable amount of time, when they didnt help with the chores.
It might be anecdotal, but only recently I have seen the trend of parents filling up every minute of their kids schedules with after school activities, burning out their children at a very young age.
From what I can tell, the change comes with motor vehicles, when people have to start monitoring the kids' every moment. Before motor vehicles arrive, you just set them out to play and other adults/older children take care of them.
After motor vehicles, there's a lot more risk to just letting them roam, and now you have to arrange an area where they can play and since there isn't a lot of people milling about outside that can watch them, the parents and other immediate family members shoulder more of the load.
Pay teachers much more money. Make it easier to fire them for underperformance.
Provide better support systems for poorer families - childcare, healthcare, food security, physical safety, and so on. Children from poorer, stressed-out families tend do worse in school.
> as someone who was a nerd in the '70s, before it was cool
> What can be better than what we do now?
HN threads on any education topic are always littered with oversimplified causes and "silver bullet" solutions. My guess is that it's mostly from the "nerds are cool" generation. Being on the cusp of the two generations, I'm not so willing to throw out the 100+ years of evolution in institutionalized education.
One thing we can do better now? Bring back and/or increase focus on civics, history, and social studies. This for obvious reasons, like the right-wing/populist political debacle, but also as a way to develop an inherent ambition as a result of a better understanding of our society and how it can be changed.
But you can still teach historical examples in the context of civics without a full-blown history class, which arguably has a much wider scope (and commitment to providing fuller context), and therefore is a greater undertaking.
>One thing we can do better now? Bring back and/or increase focus on civics, history, and social studies. This for obvious reasons, like the right-wing/populist political debacle, but also as a way to develop an inherent ambition as a result of a better understanding of our society and how it can be changed.
Extremism and populism aren't caused by children. In fact it's the opposite. It's the children that are fighting for rational causes. Why do we have "a" Greta Thunberg? Because adults failed.
