The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

As someone who's worked in EdTech for around two decades, I know why people think this. It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. Just like money, you can't just throw tech at education and expect it to solve anything.

There are too many profitable incentives to poor education that are conspiring to perpetuate it. An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. Power generally resides with those who benefit from an ill-educated populace, so anything that would actually help educate children and people at large is discouraged.

I'll repeat what others have said here. Giving teachers the means with which to properly work with their students, and investing in students at a more individual level, is what's needed. Sadly, my refrain with regards to public education is that is has become little more than glorified babysitting. Those that succeed do so in spite of the system, and not because of it. Meanwhile, students that suffer from one or more disadvantagements (poverty, disability, social issues, mental or physical health issues, and so much more) tend to just...suffer more. And then they fall into cycles where preventable issues repeat or enhance into the next generation. They'll still spend all of their little income excessively, so profit is still to be had, or they'll end-up in prison, which, again, thanks to privatization, is also immensely profitable, so no problem there, right?

The system is setup to fail because that's what's profitable in the long run for those seeking such profits. And because they can lobby, and use their wealth to influence politics, it won't change. Something else needs to happen first.

>An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism,

Very wrong. Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it. And then part of education is indoctrination to trust authority (eg. trust the science).

That said, basic education reading/writing/simple math/science is indeed valuable.

"Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it."

You are arguing that low intelligence is innate, unchangeable. Which sounds very much like saying stupidity is genetic.

Yes, it is innate, with a high degree of heritability. No one questions physical traits are innate, but some how when it comes to IQ it become highly contested...

Why, do think otherwise?

You are using the word "heritable" as evidence for the "innateness" of a trait. "Innate" can mean multiple things, but the implication here is that it implies genetic determinism. Heritability statistics do not establish genetic determinism and, for intelligence, there's now substantial evidence in the other direction.

>You are using the word "heritable" as evidence for the "innateness" of a trait.

Hmm... not quite... ( 2 different things with overlaps, and remember I never used the term genetic)

>there's now substantial evidence in the other direction.

Links, please. ( would be surprised if it overturned all past observations)

Before I do that, can you confirm for me what you believe "heritability" to mean?

Heritability: Black kid born to black parents. The blackness is heritable

Innate: Albino kid born to black parents ( mutation, etc..) So here Albinism is innate to kid but not inherited.

That's a black and white definition ( for the sake of conversation). There can be intermediate states. For example even if the kid's skin is black there can be variation in skin tone, so slight mutation, but still largely inherited.

Heritability is the ratio of genetic variance to phenotypical variance. How heritable do you think the number of fingers on your hand is?

Anyway to answer your question the number of fingers in one's hand would be nearly 100% inheritable. A more accurate figure would be 99.<something>

tptacek , I'm not sure why you are hung up so much on the specifics, haven't we veer well past the main topic? My getting the definition of heritability, innateness etc. in this should not matter beyond a certain point. I understand that if we were experts debating a certain tropic definitions matter. Quirks , physical trait, depression, mental illnesses, and by extension IQ would run in families, this was common knowledge in the pre-modern era. ( and probably is still so in many parts of the an on urbanized world). Ofcourse one has to separate out the external factors like common food habits (that was common to these families) would impact psychological traits.

No, it is the opposite: the number of fingers on your hand has virtually zero heritability. Variation in the number of fingers on your hand is virtually always a result of environmental influences (for instance: thalidomide during gestation).

If you don't understand what heritability means, (a) you shouldn't be using it to make points about the connections between phenotypical groups of people and their measured IQ, and (b) the links I have for you aren't going to do you any good.

Fair enough. I that case I don't understand what the formal definition of heritability. ( I could some time and understand it but that beside the point)

So what term would you use to describe individuals inheriting trait from their parents eg, skin color ? especially the colloquial term.

(and again aren't we veering way off topic?)

Edit/Addendum - I looked at the colloquial definition of heritability/heritable, I think I'm essentially correct: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritability , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritable . You need not reply. I have a feeling that our discussion is missing the forest for the trees. (And yes you can have your gotcha moment)