# Are schoolteachers obsolete?



## Makalakumu (Feb 19, 2011)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html

This is one of the most amazing videos I've ever seen.  If you are a school teacher or are interested in education, spend 17 minutes of your life to watch this.  

I had a conversation with my coworkers last year about schools of the future and I argued that there would be no teachers.  My coworkers argued that of course there would be and that the status quo would remain unchanged because we were important.  This researcher scientifically shows that my profession is probably heading toward extinction.  We probably have a generation of habit to overcome and then poof, no more schools as we know it.  

My grand kids may very well grow up in a world where there are no schools.  

Thoughts?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 19, 2011)

there will always be schools of some type.
the socialization is as important as the education.
The education system is broken, but the idea of school is not.
I absolutely imagine that technology driven advances will become more and mroe a part of the future schools however.


----------



## granfire (Feb 19, 2011)

School in itself might change, but teachers won't go away anytime soon.

I didn't have the time to watch the video yet. But from all the contacts I had with school in the last 8 years, teachers are more important than ever. Their value does depend though on the social economic region they work in. I found them indispencable in the poorer part of town. In the more middle class area they are soso...but no, I don't see them going anywhere.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> there will always be schools of some type.
> the socialization is as important as the education.
> The education system is broken, but the idea of school is not.
> I absolutely imagine that technology driven advances will become more and mroe a part of the future schools however.



I just posted this video.  Did you watch the whole thing?  

I agree, there might be a place that we call a "school" where some children go, but this technology has the potential change everything we know about schools.  

Beware of the socialization argument.  Kids can learn how to be grown up in a lot of other ways.  And we need to be very aware that social engineers throughout history have used this argument to defend brainwashing.  

What astounds me is that a human, left alone with the natural emergent human learning behavior and combined with access to technology, is able to learn almost anything it wants.   

Think about how much money and time is spent on education.  This idea could reduce that to a fraction AND teach anyone in the world anything they want to know.

Whoa...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 19, 2011)

granfire said:


> School in itself might change, but teachers won't go away anytime soon.
> 
> I didn't have the time to watch the video yet. But from all the contacts I had with school in the last 8 years, teachers are more important than ever. Their value does depend though on the social economic region they work in. I found them indispencable in the poorer part of town. In the more middle class area they are soso...but no, I don't see them going anywhere.



You need to watch the whole video when you have time.  I think it will challenge your ideas about what people need to learn.  I am a school teacher and I am blown away.  200 years of compulsory schooling theory was just blown to bits before my eyes.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 19, 2011)

Re: Are schoolteachers obsolete?
No, but the unions that serve them may be. Unions at one time were a vital part of the business atmosphere, and were a voice for the people. I feel that greed in some cases may play an important part in there perhaps to be demise.


----------



## granfire (Feb 19, 2011)

LOL, I promise, I will, but I have seen the bottom rung of schools...unless you replace the teachers with wardens...I see no change...


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2011)

I'll start by stating that I am a teacher, and I find some of the information presented intriguing - but I am not nearly as enthralled by the possibilities as the author.

Quotes from the video:
"Children will learn to do what they want to learn to do"​The key word here is *want*.
"And in the process they enjoyed themselves thoroughly" (in response to music creation)​What if they need to learn things they don't enjoy?  What then?
"Groups of children can learn to use the internet on their own, regardless of who or where they are"​Of course they can - and they can learn to find all sorts of things that, perhaps, they should not find - from games to pornography to how to build bombs.  But the ability to learn to search does not create the ability to think.
"A teacher than can be replaced by a machine should be"​Can't really argue with this one.
"If children have interest than education happens"​The key word here is *interest* - and a lot of the kids I teach are not interested.
"One of the girls had taught herself to be the teacher"​So even when a teacher is theoretically not required, one emerges.
"The grandmother technique... stand behind them and admire everything they are doing"​Self-esteem - which is what this creates - is fine... but failure teaches its own lessons as well.
"Photographic results, I suspect because they are talking to each other"​The same result can be obtained in any situation that uses group learning.
"Education is a self-organizing system where learning is an emergent phenomenon"​This is an interesting statement, and I certainly applaud the concept behind it - but I have concerns about the ultimate efficacy of self-guided system based solely on looking up what others have done previously - it doesn't teach *thinking*, nor does it teach *problem-solving* - skills that, IMHO, are vitally needed.

By the time I finished watching it, I had a few observations.  First, that the method of access to information may be new, but the actual concept is not - this is the Montessori system, with the addition of computers.  Second, it assumes some useful level of literacy skills in all students.  Third, it assumes self-motivation among the student population.  Finally, it appears to assume that, if left alone, all students will learn how to learn whatever they want to know - and more importantly, whatever they need to know.

My first question is:  where do the initial literacy skills come from, without teachers?

Second question:  where do the 100 million mediators come from?  Certainly, there are plenty of people - but how many, realistically, will donate their time to this system?  Are they physically present, or in the cloud?  If in the cloud, who is physically supervising these children?

Third question:  what do you do with students who are unwilling to learn?  And what do you do with students who are unable to learn - the physically, intellectually, and/or emotionally disabled for whom this system is inappropriate?

Fourth question:  an old issue with Montessori - who is guiding these students into what they _need_ to know instead of just what they _want _to know?  The 100 million untrained mediators?

Fifth question:  who is teaching these students to learn things that they cannot learn from a computer?  Looking up the results of experiments is great as far as it goes - but actual experience is necessary in a wide range of subjects.  Just because I can use a calculator for computation, does not mean that I know which computation to use - that requires experience and practice, neither of which I saw accounted for in this experiment.

Do I think this idea has possibilities?  Of course - and he's not the first person to propose it.  But that does not make teachers obsolete - only some of the methods currently in use, nor, as I said, does this method teach everything needed for a well-rounded education.


----------



## rlobrecht (Feb 19, 2011)

I also haven't had time to watch the video, but I wanted to bring this topic back from school teachers, and to the subject of this site: what about martial arts teachers?  Or shop teachers?  Or coaches?  There are a lot of subjects where the learning is physical, and the ability to demonstrate, and then observe is critical to the learning of the student.

Rick


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 19, 2011)

First of all, I see plenty of problem solving and thinking skills being practiced.  I also see leadership skills.



Kacey said:


> But that does not make teachers obsolete - only some of the methods currently in use, nor, as I said, does this method teach everything needed for a well-rounded education.



Well, that's really what we are talking about.  Try and enumerate the methods that could be replaced and it will boggle your mind.  Teachers could be required to teach the basics of technology use and they might be useful guides or cheerleaders, but this may not even be the case if you really consider what the concept of education as a self organizing and emergent system entails.

Lastly, who defines what a "well rounded education" is supposed to be?  I hope you realize that term is politically loaded.  It's not self evident and certainly is not universal, IMHO.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Well, that's really what we are talking about.  Try and enumerate the methods that could be replaced and it will boggle your mind.  Teachers could be required to teach the basics of technology use and they might be useful guides or cheerleaders, but this may not even be the case if you really consider what the concept of education as a self organizing and emergent system entails.
> 
> Lastly, who defines what a "well rounded education" is supposed to be?  I hope you realize that term is politically loaded.  It's not self evident and certainly is not universal, IMHO.



I do realize that... nonetheless, I made quite a few points in my initial post on this thread that you haven't addressed.

Also - simply because computers _can_ replace people doesn't mean that they _should_.  As I said, I can see the use of this system replacing some teachers - but not all of them, and not as broadly as you seem to think would be appropriate.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html
> 
> This is one of the most amazing videos I've ever seen. If you are a school teacher or are interested in education, spend 17 minutes of your life to watch this.
> 
> ...


 
http://articles.courant.com/2010-08...31_1_layoff-notices-three-teachers-helen-yung

In todays world, I wouldn't say that any job is 100%.  Schools and teachers are, IMO, very important, so hopefully things wont disappear altogether.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 19, 2011)

Kacey said:


> This is an interesting statement, and I certainly applaud the concept behind it - but I have concerns about the ultimate efficacy of self-guided system based solely on looking up what others have done previously - it doesn't teach *thinking*, nor does it teach *problem-solving* - skills that, IMHO, are vitally needed.



When I watched the video again, I don't understand how you could say this.  These kids were working in a group and teaching themselves how to use the computer.  Then, they used those skills to do some very complex and spontaneous actions.  If that isn't a demonstration of thinking skills or problem solving, I don't know what is.



Kacey said:


> My first question is:  where do the initial literacy skills come from, without teachers?



Did the students walking the streets in rural India have prior literacy skills?  No.  Could a program be installed on the computer to teach those?  Yes.  Could another adult teach the children basic skills?  Yes.  Does that person need to be a teacher in the traditional sense?  No.



Kacey said:


> Second question:  where do the 100 million mediators come from?  Certainly, there are plenty of people - but how many, realistically, will donate their time to this system?  Are they physically present, or in the cloud?  If in the cloud, who is physically supervising these children?



Couldn't someone start a business that would coordinate a cloud of retirees to offer time to teach skills they had learned and practiced?  How about coordinating a system of compensation that hinges on the amount of kids accessing particular droplets in the cloud?  Let the free market solve the problem.

As to supervision, that could be solved in a number of ways and none of them require a professional.



Kacey said:


> Third question:  what do you do with students who are unwilling to learn?  And what do you do with students who are unable to learn - the physically, intellectually, and/or emotionally disabled for whom this system is inappropriate?



Do students exist who are unwilling to learn?  No.  Everyone wants to learn something.  It's a matter of what.

As to students with disabilities, I think this is place where professionals may always be needed, however, the number will probably be greatly reduced.  A lot of what we label as disabilities are simply children who do not fit into the current system very well.  With a spontaneous system, those children could learn in the way that best suits their needs and no one would be there to stop them.  



Kacey said:


> Fourth question:  an old issue with Montessori - who is guiding these students into what they _need_ to know instead of just what they _want _to know?  The 100 million untrained mediators?



Who decides what kids need to know?  Can one group of individuals force another group to learn what they want them to learn?  Can you actually teach someone something they don't want to know?  I don't think you can and the data on retention bears this out.  This leads to the only possibility left which is _wanting _to learn.  A student must _want _to learn what is being taught, or they won't.

As to the mediators?  Well, there are a lot of grandmas out there.



Kacey said:


> Fifth question:  who is teaching these students to learn things that they cannot learn from a computer?  Looking up the results of experiments is great as far as it goes - but actual experience is necessary in a wide range of subjects.  Just because I can use a calculator for computation, does not mean that I know which computation to use - that requires experience and practice, neither of which I saw accounted for in this experiment.



This is where I think we'll always need some kind of professionals.  Perhaps they won't be teachers in the traditional sense.  They could be professionals who actually work with the material in question and the computer facilitates interaction.  Apprenticships could make a comeback and these could be arranged over the computer and in person.  Business models could be constructed to facilitate this.

In the end, it's very much like martial arts.  It will always require a teacher of some sorts, just not the kind of teacher that we are used to...and I think that is the point of this video.  Education in the future is going to require a lot less people.



Kacey said:


> Do I think this idea has possibilities?  Of course - and he's not the first person to propose it.  But that does not make teachers obsolete - only some of the methods currently in use, nor, as I said, does this method teach everything needed for a well-rounded education.



The research makes teachers as we know it obsolete.  We keep talking about "schools of the future" in education and we are still playing in the current paradigm.  I think what we are looking at is a paradigm shift in education.  It will take time to catch on, but I think that within my lifetime, the school of my youth will look nothing like current paradigm.  

All of this is based off of the idea that we can control the information a student learns.  When we cut students off from outside influences and slowly dole out curriculum, we can accomplish a mediocre form of control that is ultimately based off of how well a student chooses to play along with the system and whether or not they can learn within the system.  

The information technology we have now changes all of this.  I carry a computer with me that fits in my hand and I can access information anywhere I go.  Kids are gaining access to this kind of system faster and faster and faster.  We are going to reach a point where there is no more control and the education system we have now will go extinct...and a new one will grow in its place.  

This new system, IMO, is going to emerge spontaneously from this new ocean of information and I think it will look very much like what we are seeing in the video.  The control is gone and people will learn what they want to know with very little guidance.  

The 15000 hours that kids spend in regimented institution is a walking dinosaur that doesn't even know the comet hit.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> When I watched the video again, I don't understand how you could say this.  These kids were working in a group and teaching themselves how to use the computer.  Then, they used those skills to do some very complex and spontaneous actions.  If that isn't a demonstration of thinking skills or problem solving, I don't know what is.



The computer was new; it was different.  I withhold judgment until it's been there at least 10 years and the same results continue to be seen.  I also reserve judgment until such a system has been in place in American schools, with students with low or no motivation... I have quite a few who would be thoroughly content to play video games all day, and do nothing else.  And before you say they can be motivated to learn by looking for information that will improve their gaming skills... I've tried.  Eighth grade students at my school have to complete a multi-media research project, and I had a student fail it last year through refusal to attempt it - even though his favorite video game was his research topic.



maunakumu said:


> Did the students walking the streets in rural India have prior literacy skills?  No.  Could a program be installed on the computer to teach those?  Yes.  Could another adult teach the children basic skills?  Yes.  Does that person need to be a teacher in the traditional sense?  No.



Here, I think, we will have to disagree.  Do I think that some - even many - students can learn literacy skills in this fashion?  Yes.  Do I think it is optimal for all students?  I really don't - it comes back to motivation.  I have too many students who simply don't care.  Their parents, and grandparents, and in some cases great-grandparents, have lived on Welfare - and that's enough for them.  Familial culture gives them no reason to learn.



maunakumu said:


> Couldn't someone start a business that would coordinate a cloud of retirees to offer time to teach skills they had learned and practiced?  How about coordinating a system of compensation that hinges on the amount of kids accessing particular droplets in the cloud?  Let the free market solve the problem.
> 
> As to supervision, that could be solved in a number of ways and none of them require a professional.



I'm sure it could... again, for those students who wish to learn.  What will such a system do with students who don't wish to participate?




maunakumu said:


> Do students exist who are unwilling to learn?  No.  Everyone wants to learn something.  It's a matter of what.



Again... I've known too many students who just don't care.  Learning is not of interest to them; education is something forced upon them from outside.  I had a student last year who missed over 60 days of school because every time he said he didn't want to come, his mother let him stay home.  In 9 years of school, beginning in kindergarten, never missed fewer than 55 days in a school year.  He's an extreme case, I'll grant - but he is representative of a significant portion of the population.



maunakumu said:


> As to students with disabilities, I think this is place where professionals may always be needed, however, the number will probably be greatly reduced.  A lot of what we label as disabilities are simply children who do not fit into the current system very well.  With a spontaneous system, those children could learn in the way that best suits their needs and no one would be there to stop them.



I guess I work with students who are more disabled than the ones you work with.  I have many students - motivated and not - who read at less than a first grade level in middle school.   Some of them, yes, could do well with a system that provide information orally - but many of them don't have ability to retain enough information to perform at the same level as the self-motivated students in this video - which begs the question:  of the students available in countries such as India, where participation was, apparently, completely voluntary, how many actually participated?  Of those who did not, why didn't they?



maunakumu said:


> Who decides what kids need to know?  Can one group of individuals force another group to learn what they want them to learn?  Can you actually teach someone something they don't want to know?  I don't think you can and the data on retention bears this out.  This leads to the only possibility left which is _wanting _to learn.  A student must _want _to learn what is being taught, or they won't.



Students need to learn to think for themselves - to be literate in some fashion that allows them to access information, to solve problems, to apply thinking skills to a variety of settings.



maunakumu said:


> As to the mediators?  Well, there are a lot of grandmas out there.



I don't know about your grandmother... mine was not particularly supportive in the fashion recommended by this program.

]





maunakumu said:


> This is where I think we'll always need some kind of professionals.  Perhaps they won't be teachers in the traditional sense.  They could be professionals who actually work with the material in question and the computer facilitates interaction.  Apprenticships could make a comeback and these could be arranged over the computer and in person.  Business models could be constructed to facilitate this.



Personally, I think a return, in some sense, to the apprenticeship model wouldn't be a bad thing - there is too much emphasis today on college being appropriate for all students immediately upon graduation from high school - and it's not.  Even for students for whom it will be appropriate eventually, immediate attendance in college is not always appropriate, and requiring all students to reach for college is unrealistic and a disservice to students.  There are many students who prefer careers that don't require that level of education... but that's a topic for another discussion.



maunakumu said:


> In the end, it's very much like martial arts.  It will always require a teacher of some sorts, just not the kind of teacher that we are used to...and I think that is the point of this video.  Education in the future is going to require a lot less people.



Perhaps... perhaps not.  Other discussion elsewhere on this site bear on the difficulties of learning certain skills - especially physical skills - via distance learning.



maunakumu said:


> The research makes teachers as we know it obsolete.  We keep talking about "schools of the future" in education and we are still playing in the current paradigm.  I think what we are looking at is a paradigm shift in education.  It will take time to catch on, but I think that within my lifetime, the school of my youth will look nothing like current paradigm.



So you say.  I have doubts, as I have said.  Do I foresee considerably greater use of computers in schools?  Certainly... but as a long-term employee of a school on the low-income end of a district, that is years behind the higher-income end of the district in terms of technology and facilities that can accommodate that level of technology - I predict a continuing of the divide between the haves and the have-nots.



maunakumu said:


> All of this is based off of the idea that we can control the information a student learns.  When we cut students off from outside influences and slowly dole out curriculum, we can accomplish a mediocre form of control that is ultimately based off of how well a student chooses to play along with the system and whether or not they can learn within the system.



I've never said we could control what a student learns - but we can control what is presented to the student, and in what order.  That can be good and bad - but I was at a friend's house when her daughter, who was doing research for a paper on breast cancer, found quite a few sites that had to do with breasts... no cancer.  There's quite a bit of information out there that children should not be exposed to - and I've yet to find a filter that allows information on a wide enough range of topics to include breast cancer while filtering out all of the porn.  It may be that in the future there will be... but given what I've seen in the war on spam email, it's going to be a long, long time.



maunakumu said:


> The information technology we have now changes all of this.  I carry a computer with me that fits in my hand and I can access information anywhere I go.  Kids are gaining access to this kind of system faster and faster and faster.  We are going to reach a point where there is no more control and the education system we have now will go extinct...and a new one will grow in its place.
> 
> This new system, IMO, is going to emerge spontaneously from this new ocean of information and I think it will look very much like what we are seeing in the video.  The control is gone and people will learn what they want to know with very little guidance.
> 
> The 15000 hours that kids spend in regimented institution is a walking dinosaur that doesn't even know the comet hit.



Perhaps.  But I'm not as sold on this system as you are.  I've seen too many trends in education come to naught, no matter how promising they seemed when they first appeared.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 19, 2011)

Anyone can learn how to operate computer programs, and a variety of other things on their own, but were not creating worker drones to man our offices and factories of the future.

 In class we constantly have students working together, learning off of and teaching each other, as you learn better and remember more we you are teaching something. Then we have a chunk of kids who need guidance and help just to struggle through the work. 

School is about teaching kids to think, and to reason, not to memorize facts, figures and dates.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 20, 2011)

A couple of points, Kasey

1.  Perhaps the apathy that your students experience is an argument against compulsory schooling and the well fare state.  I taught at an alternative high school for seven years and I can completely agree with what you are saying about student motivation.  Students who refuse to participate need to be cut loose.  It would be the best thing we could ever do for them.

2.  Nothing is going to change for a long time.  There's too much social inertia and not enough people are opting out of the system.  I think that as technology becomes more accessible and students are exposed to even more types, anything resembling traditional pedagogy will bore students to tears.  And people will look for new options.  This, I think, will eventually become the primary way that students learn.

3.  As budgets crunch in the future and States look for creative ways to provide services, this idea may prove to be eminently attractive.  I can see programs like this being implemented in order to plug massive budget holes.

I love teaching.  I think my job is great and I love working with kids.  Technology is changing everything though and I wouldn't be surprised if education was radically altered by it.  I, personally, see a lot of value in staying ahead of the curve on this.  I showed this video to my Father In Law, who is a machinist, and he told me that these kind of technological revolutions are what he has had to deal with his entire career.  If he hadn't adapted, he would have been out of a job.  This is a very real possibility IMO.  I think we are seeing a paradigm shift.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> A couple of points, Kasey
> 
> 1.  Perhaps the apathy that your students experience is an argument against compulsory schooling and the well fare state.  I taught at an alternative high school for seven years and I can completely agree with what you are saying about student motivation.  Students who refuse to participate need to be cut loose.  It would be the best thing we could ever do for them.



Here's the conundrum I see:  without _some_ type of education, employment becomes extremely limited, if not impossible... thus perpetuating the welfare state.  Welfare has grown all out of proportion compared to its original intention, to provide for the elderly, disabled, and families with children whose primary wage earner (at the time, father) had died, generally in military service.  It was never intended to provide multi-generational support, and I do think that this has created more problems than it has solved... but it leaves us with a large portion of our population with little or no motivation to do anything other than collect Welfare payments.  This is a social issue that goes far beyond the educational system - but education is a key piece to giving people the skills necessary to get them off Welfare.... an outcome that many of them don't aspire to.  In addition, cutting Welfare payments will inevitably affect children - who did not ask to be born into the situation in which they find themselves.... which brings us back, yet again, to education.   It is, as I say, a conundrum, to which I do not have a solution.



maunakumu said:


> 2.  Nothing is going to change for a long time.  There's too much social inertia and not enough people are opting out of the system.  I think that as technology becomes more accessible and students are exposed to even more types, anything resembling traditional pedagogy will bore students to tears.  And people will look for new options.  This, I think, will eventually become the primary way that students learn.



Perhaps... certainly, I can see it becoming a key factor.  Nonetheless, having been one of the students who did all the work while the group fooled around, I see potential problems with a system built entirely on group work.  Not the computer piece, but the focus solely and entirely on the group dynamic.



maunakumu said:


> 3.  As budgets crunch in the future and States look for creative ways to provide services, this idea may prove to be eminently attractive.  I can see programs like this being implemented in order to plug massive budget holes.



This is creative... not sure about it being a way to plug the budget holes, as the population often objects to the up-front costs of new methodologies, no matter what the potential savings may be further down the road - and this would require significant expenditures to implement.



maunakumu said:


> I love teaching.  I think my job is great and I love working with kids.  Technology is changing everything though and I wouldn't be surprised if education was radically altered by it.  I, personally, see a lot of value in staying ahead of the curve on this.  I showed this video to my Father In Law, who is a machinist, and he told me that these kind of technological revolutions are what he has had to deal with his entire career.  If he hadn't adapted, he would have been out of a job.  This is a very real possibility IMO.  I think we are seeing a paradigm shift.



I see more use of technology and group work in my school - and I see more students left behind because such changes do not suit their learning style.  Some kids just don't do well with group work; some need more guidance than a self-directed program provides.   And again, much of it comes back to motivation.  This is fine for motivated students who respond well to the presented method... unmotivated students, or students for whom this is not the preferred learning style, not so much.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 20, 2011)

In any education system, if you want "better" students, you need parents that actually care about their kids and education.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 20, 2011)

We have to shift our thinking when it comes to unmotivated students and parents who don't care about education.  They need to learn why it's important...and they can't if they can just go on the dole.  In a way, the welfare state is cruel because it traps people in the cycle.  Sometimes we have to make a short term decision that will cause some pain, but the long term results will be for the better.  Welfare needs to end at some point and it would be the kindest thing we could do for poor people.  This provides the social incentive to better yourself with education.

Also, another point about motivation is that we need to accept the individual's decision not to pursue education.  We can't force people to learn and we can't leave someone behind who wants to be left behind.  The system doesn't work because it assumes we can run kids through like a factory and pour knowledge into their heads whether they want it or not.  This is not the case, you can have the best school, with the most current technology and every resources and unmotivated students still will not learn.  Let them go and learn with some life experiences why education is important.

After this conversation, Kasey, I'd like to see if Dr. Sugata has any data on the kids who hung back didn't participate.  I know there were some because those scores he quoted were averages.  What were there scores?  They were probably low.  Would any system change this?  Probably not.  This is why I feel we need to stop forcing people and make it an individual decision.  We need to take the mantle of responsibility off of our shoulders and place it back on the individual.  There are choices being made here and we need to value those choices or our society is just training slaves.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 20, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> We have to shift our thinking when it comes to unmotivated students and parents who don't care about education.  They need to learn why it's important...and they can't if they can just go on the dole.  In a way, the welfare state is cruel because it traps people in the cycle.  Sometimes we have to make a short term decision that will cause some pain, but the long term results will be for the better.



I agree - but politicians do things that will get them re-elected... not  necessarily things that are for the common good.  Welfare needs to be  cut back to those people who are truly unable to earn a living - which  is who it was originally intended for - but I've yet to see any way to  cut back the parents without negatively affecting the children.



maunakumu said:


> Welfare needs to end at some point and it would be the kindest thing we could do for poor people.  This provides the social incentive to better yourself with education.



Unfortunately, there's an alternative... crime.  In general, crime is potentially more lucrative, requires less time and/or effort than "honest work", requires much less education - which, in the minds of those who choose crime over labor, balances out the risks.  After all, if you get caught, you lose your freedom - but you're in jail, with 3 square meals a day and a warm, dry place to live, and if you die, at least you're not hungry any more.  There's a reason why crime - especially violent crime - is strongly correlated with lower education levels.



maunakumu said:


> Also, another point about motivation is that we need to accept the individual's decision not to pursue education.  We can't force people to learn and we can't leave someone behind who wants to be left behind.  The system doesn't work because it assumes we can run kids through like a factory and pour knowledge into their heads whether they want it or not.  This is not the case, you can have the best school, with the most current technology and every resources and unmotivated students still will not learn.  Let them go and learn with some life experiences why education is important.



This is the problem with attempts to mandate achievement; it's the problem that every educator I know has with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly known as No Child Left Behind).  Neither motivation nor achievement can be legislated, and there are factors at work outside the schools that such attempts do not account for.



maunakumu said:


> After this conversation, Kasey, I'd like to see if Dr. Sugata has any data on the kids who hung back didn't participate.  I know there were some because those scores he quoted were averages.  What were there scores?  They were probably low.  Would any system change this?  Probably not.



If there were students who didn't participate - and I can only assume that there were - then I suspect that they weren't in the statistics at all.  An average score is generally based on the scores actually obtained - not the missing scores of those who did not participate in the program at all.  I would be interested in seeing the range of the scores as well as the averages, as well the total population of children of the appropriate age compared to those who participated.  A self-selected sample, which is what this appears to be, will generally perform better than a sample that includes the entire population, as those who are the most interested will be the ones who perform the best.



maunakumu said:


> This is why I feel we need to stop forcing people and make it an individual decision.  We need to take the mantle of responsibility off of our shoulders and place it back on the individual.



And what will you do with people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves?  There's not a simple answer here.



maunakumu said:


> This There are choices being made here and we need to value those choices or our society is just training slaves.



This comes back, again, to societal expectations.  Society expects that education will produce graduates who are ready to continue to be educated... and for many students, that's not realistic for one reason or another - lack of interest, lack of funds, interest in a field not covered by a college education, family commitments, societal expectations that young adults fill other roles, etc.  In the not so distant past, there were two expectations - that young adults who graduated high school would be ready _either _to continue onto higher education or enter the world of work.  That second expectation - which is entirely realistic for many young adults - is being lost in the push to send everyone to college.  Yes, there are careers that require college educations - but there are plenty that don't, and training for those careers - in plumbing, electrical, carpentry, cosmetology, service industry, mechanics, etc. - is falling by the wayside in the push to send every child to college.  

If young adults leave school able to think - able to determine the key factors of a problem for themselves, to know where to find trustworthy information and how to discard information that is not valid - then I think the educational system has done its job.  But that's not what we as teachers are being assessed on, because that's an subjective standard in a world that wants objective proof.  Therein likes another concern with this educational method - much of the proof currently presented is subjective rather than objective.  Yes, Dr. Sugata presents test scores - for a novel question presented in a novel situation.  It has yet to be seen if the level of learning will continue for the majority of students when the situation is no longer attractive due to its novelty value, but is used day in and day out as a primary instructional method.


----------



## Nomad (Feb 22, 2011)

IMO, the primary duty of a good teacher is to inspire the students with a desire to learn and provide them the tools to do so.  One of the most important attributes that a teacher can bring to the classroom is their passion; it will both infect the students and lead the teachers to continually try to better themselves and their teaching techniques.

Engaging all of the students, regardless of their different ethnic or socioeconomic background, and regardless of their aptitude on entering a classroom, is a skill that I don't think can be replaced with technology.

Of course, it's a skill that only the very best teachers possess.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 22, 2011)

Very illuminating video.

I'm not sure that teacher will become obsolete, but their roles will more than likely change with the times.  One thing that has always bugged me about teaching in classrooms is that students are very rarely taught how to learn.

I think the SOLE's are a very good idea.  As we become more of an "instantaneous information" society, quick access to simple knowledge is a definite advantage.

There will always need to be a formal teacher student relationship when we consider things like formal qualifications and accreditations.  But for simple, worldly general knowledge this is a fantastic idea.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

How many of you have taught yourself really complex stuff, that you didn't understand previously?  Calculus, statistics, higher level physics, chemistry?  It can be done, but a good teacher guides and makes those subjects far easier to understand in much less time.  

A self-directed student may not even know _what he needs to know_.  Take my subject, biology.  A self-directed student may learn a lot about cladistics, different animals, maybe even some cellular anatomy and biochemistry.  How would such a student know though that statistics and the theory of mass action are crucial to understanding biology?  They may read that ions will flow down a concentration gradient, but will they understand _why_?  Information sources teach what they teach, but they rarely make an effort to tie into each other.  A mastery of the material means more than commanding facts, it means being able to make connections and tie in understandings from different disciplines that took _centuries _to fully develop, and are unlikely to spontaneously happen on their own.  You need a lot of training in science before you can even get to the point of self-directed learning.  I'm sure it's true of many other disciplines as well.

Granted, most don't master the information, and many teachers probably just teach from the list.  That's an excuse, not justification.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> How many of you have taught yourself really  complex stuff, that you didn't understand previously?  Calculus,  statistics, higher level physics, chemistry?  It can be done, but a good  teacher guides and makes those subjects far easier to understand in  much less time.
> 
> A self-directed student may not even know _what he needs to know_.   Take my subject, biology.  A self-directed student may learn a lot  about cladistics, different animals, maybe even some cellular anatomy  and biochemistry.  How would such a student know though that statistics  and the theory of mass action are crucial to understanding biology?   They may read that ions will flow down a concentration gradient, but  will they understand _why_?  Information sources teach what they  teach, but they rarely make an effort to tie into each other.  A mastery  of the material means more than commanding facts, it means being able  to make connections and tie in understandings from different disciplines  that took _centuries _to fully develop, and are unlikely to  spontaneously happen on their own.  You need a lot of training in  science before you can even get to the point of self-directed learning.   I'm sure it's true of many other disciplines as well.
> 
> Granted, most don't master the information, and many teachers probably  just teach from the list.  That's an excuse, not justification.




Very true.  This is what I mean when I say formal qualifications.  I  have taught High school Maths and even tutored fellow (junior)  university students and it is so much easier when you have a complete  and commanding understanding of the concepts and principles, in addition  to knowing the steps to solve a certain problem.

I agree wholeheartedly that good teachers are important, but there is a great deal of value in getting kids to teach themselves about various topics of interest.  

I believe School and university is the beginning of knowledge.  It prepares you for a life of learning.  Learning I think is the defining characteristic of humanity.


----------

