>I've heard of other schools also doing "real-time" scoring to grade teachers and catch kids falling behind early.
Why would this be a good thing?
Kids learn at different rates. I submit that the core of the problem in education is the expectation that kids should ever be forced to learn in lock-step.
Kids are developmentally all over the map on a dozen axes. I've read many stories of "unschooled" kids not learning to read until they were 12 or older, and then learning to read past "grade level" in anywhere from hours to weeks. One kid who avoided ALL math until he was 15 managed to learn standard math through High School Geometry in less than six weeks of intensive study (with a tutor), once he was internally motivated to learn it.
Given that he wasn't particularly gifted in math, think about how many hours of "instruction" in a subject he didn't like that he would have had to sit through "for his own good." And how bad he would have felt about himself if he were forced into "remedial" math classes. And the attitudes that would have formed about math.
Similarly, kids who just didn't care enough to learn to read would have been thrown into remedial classes in first grade in some schools. In first grade!
Kids that learn at their own pace (say, using Khan Academy or equivalent, or by actively unschooling them) actually learn the material better, and, more importantly, don't end up learning that "learning is boring." Which unfortunately is what almost all schools teach.
The job of "Teacher" should morph into "Mentor," and all learning should be student-driven. I actually doubt Khan Academy is "good enough" to do what I'm suggesting here, but something in that vein should replace the current broken system.
Learning shouldn't be adversarial; if it weren't, then rating teachers (i.e., mentors) would just involve asking the students whether they were helpful in their learning.
And no, I'm not just spouting utopian ideals that don't work in real life; there are thousands of families using this teaching method to good effect, producing happy, intelligent, well-educated and well-adjusted young adults (I've met several now), as well as a category of school that uses a similar teaching/mentoring technique successfully. [1]
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.”
Why would this be a good thing?
Kids learn at different rates. I submit that the core of the problem in education is the expectation that kids should ever be forced to learn in lock-step.
Kids are developmentally all over the map on a dozen axes. I've read many stories of "unschooled" kids not learning to read until they were 12 or older, and then learning to read past "grade level" in anywhere from hours to weeks. One kid who avoided ALL math until he was 15 managed to learn standard math through High School Geometry in less than six weeks of intensive study (with a tutor), once he was internally motivated to learn it.
Given that he wasn't particularly gifted in math, think about how many hours of "instruction" in a subject he didn't like that he would have had to sit through "for his own good." And how bad he would have felt about himself if he were forced into "remedial" math classes. And the attitudes that would have formed about math.
Similarly, kids who just didn't care enough to learn to read would have been thrown into remedial classes in first grade in some schools. In first grade!
Kids that learn at their own pace (say, using Khan Academy or equivalent, or by actively unschooling them) actually learn the material better, and, more importantly, don't end up learning that "learning is boring." Which unfortunately is what almost all schools teach.
The job of "Teacher" should morph into "Mentor," and all learning should be student-driven. I actually doubt Khan Academy is "good enough" to do what I'm suggesting here, but something in that vein should replace the current broken system.
Learning shouldn't be adversarial; if it weren't, then rating teachers (i.e., mentors) would just involve asking the students whether they were helpful in their learning.
And no, I'm not just spouting utopian ideals that don't work in real life; there are thousands of families using this teaching method to good effect, producing happy, intelligent, well-educated and well-adjusted young adults (I've met several now), as well as a category of school that uses a similar teaching/mentoring technique successfully. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school