I like this a lot! I think you did a great job explaining how the details are connected.
At the root, the problem is “we cannot teach everyone individually”. We do not have enough teachers for that; and the computer solutions are not good enough yet. (Perhaps soon they will get good enough, at least in a way “everyone gets their own AI tutor, and there are still human teachers as a backup”. But we are not there yet.) Many things that are unpleasant about schools were invented as a solution to “how to teach 300 kids using only 30 teachers, especially when most of them—both kids and teachers—are not very bright”. The solutions seems like a local maximum (we already did many small improvements that worked in isolation), but it also seems like we could do much better with a greater redesign.
Another sad constraint is that many students would be unwilling to cooperate even with a much better designed system. Any solution needs to provide answers for what to do about students who will try their hardest to undermine the system, no matter how irrational such behavior may seem to us. Kids, especially at puberty, are often trying to impress their peers doing various destructive and self-destructive things. Assume that every school will have some bullies, some kids who want to hide in a place out of sight and use drugs, etc.
I completely agree—often the hardest part of designing a system is what to do about willful defectors.
Hopefully some of this will become more clear as I keep posting, but the basic gist is that students have to be allowed to fail. We should make every effort to accommodate those who need help and rehabilitate those we can, but in the end if a student is determined to not learn/disrupt other students, they get failed and kicked out.
I like this a lot! I think you did a great job explaining how the details are connected.
At the root, the problem is “we cannot teach everyone individually”. We do not have enough teachers for that; and the computer solutions are not good enough yet. (Perhaps soon they will get good enough, at least in a way “everyone gets their own AI tutor, and there are still human teachers as a backup”. But we are not there yet.) Many things that are unpleasant about schools were invented as a solution to “how to teach 300 kids using only 30 teachers, especially when most of them—both kids and teachers—are not very bright”. The solutions seems like a local maximum (we already did many small improvements that worked in isolation), but it also seems like we could do much better with a greater redesign.
Another sad constraint is that many students would be unwilling to cooperate even with a much better designed system. Any solution needs to provide answers for what to do about students who will try their hardest to undermine the system, no matter how irrational such behavior may seem to us. Kids, especially at puberty, are often trying to impress their peers doing various destructive and self-destructive things. Assume that every school will have some bullies, some kids who want to hide in a place out of sight and use drugs, etc.
I completely agree—often the hardest part of designing a system is what to do about willful defectors.
Hopefully some of this will become more clear as I keep posting, but the basic gist is that students have to be allowed to fail. We should make every effort to accommodate those who need help and rehabilitate those we can, but in the end if a student is determined to not learn/disrupt other students, they get failed and kicked out.