←back to thread

The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

(www.afterbabel.com)
346 points obscurette | 3 comments | 12 Nov 24 14:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
donatj ◴[12 Nov 24 15:41 UTC] No.42116365[source]▶
I work in EdTech, I have for a very long time now, and the problem I have seen is no one in education is willing to ACTUALLY let kids learn at their own level.

The promise of EdTech was that kids could learn where they are. A kid who's behind can actually continue to learn rather than being left behind. A kid who's ahead can be nurtured.

We had this. It worked well, in my opinion at least, and the number of complaints and straight up threats because kids would learn things "they shouldn't be" was just… insanely frustrating.

Now in order to keep schools paying for our services, every kid is banded into a range based on their grade. They are scored/graded based on their grade level rather than their growth. It's such a crying shame.

replies(44): >>42116420 #>>42116428 #>>42116542 #>>42116573 #>>42116592 #>>42116597 #>>42116628 #>>42116631 #>>42116698 #>>42116704 #>>42116721 #>>42116856 #>>42116913 #>>42116918 #>>42116919 #>>42116925 #>>42116957 #>>42116988 #>>42117074 #>>42117131 #>>42117141 #>>42117190 #>>42117215 #>>42117242 #>>42117269 #>>42117313 #>>42117321 #>>42117478 #>>42117496 #>>42117855 #>>42118044 #>>42118114 #>>42118248 #>>42118527 #>>42118780 #>>42118804 #>>42119422 #>>42119555 #>>42119748 #>>42120204 #>>42120395 #>>42122043 #>>42128759 #>>42128827 #
michaelrpeskin ◴[12 Nov 24 16:01 UTC] No.42116631[source]▶
That's "equity" for you. We can't be unfair and give someone something that makes them better. It's easier to keep the top kids down than it is to lift the bottom kids up.
replies(6): >>42116842 #>>42116885 #>>42116910 #>>42116923 #>>42117169 #>>42117176 #
Afton ◴[12 Nov 24 16:23 UTC] No.42116885[source]▶
To be fair, it is less about "keeping top kids down" and more about "let's use our very scarce resources helping the bottom kids". Put that way it seems less malicious, and more like probably the right thing to do over all, while still being extremely frustrating if you are, or are the parent of, a 'top kid'. I know that in Seattle, I've been very frustrated with all the talk and promise of our school to provide enrichment to kids like mine who are able to learn quickly and are ready for more advanced learning opportunities, only to discover that it is haphazard, often in name only, and there isn't time or interest in providing more.

But it's not because of some drive for 'equity'. I've talked with teachers (as friends, not in a school setting). They're doing what they can with the resources they have.

replies(11): >>42116954 #>>42116990 #>>42117056 #>>42117119 #>>42117180 #>>42117193 #>>42117216 #>>42117370 #>>42117510 #>>42117669 #>>42119087 #
1. dartos ◴[12 Nov 24 16:45 UTC] No.42117119[source]▶
I don’t think anyone is trying to keep bright kids down, but you need to ask.

Is it worth it to spend monumental effort trying to get not very bright children to meet some minimum requirement

OR

is it more worth it to just encourage and lift up brighter students.

I don’t think there’s a clear answer, but what we have isn’t it.

replies(2): >>42117676 #>>42118717 #
2. theamk ◴[12 Nov 24 17:35 UTC] No.42117676[source]▶
Unless your school is so small that there is only one math class per grade, it is entirely possible to do both.
3. phil21 ◴[12 Nov 24 19:24 UTC] No.42118717[source]▶
> I don’t think there’s a clear answer, but what we have isn’t it.

The answer is entirely clear but it's uncomfortable.

Society is moved forward by the top percentile, not by even the "average". You can only help those who wish to help themselves, and expending massive resources on kids who are not there to learn (or cannot) has had predictable results.

Some evil folks in history have used this exact strategy of crippling the "top kids" of a group for their genocidal plans. It's highly effective.

The best thing you can do is make sure those "top kids" are identified early and tracked into the proper classes regardless of socioeconomic background. Yes, this means segregating students based on ability earlier than later. Doing this ends up helping those "bottom kids" once they reach adulthood since society is better overall for everyone.