@richpuchalsky @adamr

I think powerful people will use that to take advantage of people by keeping their understanding of the world limited and in the absence of state education it will be the church and whoever gives the church the most money indoctrinating everyone.

@futurebird increasing students per teacher based off either of these is full on insane though. Education has a quality problem because of low teacher numbers to begin with

A teacher needs to know their students to be effective. This puts an upper limit on the number of students one teacher can teach at once. Something like 150 students. I need to know their names, and when I see that name a little about who that is.

Further, a student should have at least 4 or 5 teachers who know them. This is a selection of hopefully trustworthy and supportive adults they can turn to.

Most plans to make school less expensive mess with these numbers.

@flying_saucers @futurebird

Improving education begins with

- more teachers
and
- better pay.

...

Everything else is a lame excuse.

And most of "everything else" is generally a distraction from the main problems.

@futurebird

Quite possible! (Anarchists are not really big on the church either.) But communities can build schools and staff them without a church organization, or young people can learn through one-on-one teaching from adults.

When looking at bad possible alternatives we have to compare them with what actually exists, not the ideal of what is supposed to exist.

@JeffGrigg @flying_saucers @futurebird Nit: the word "lame" should really be retired from usage like this. It's gratuitously ableist and has plenty of non-hurtful alternatives.

@dalias @flying_saucers @futurebird

Noted and improved.

Alternatives to "lame excuse" here:
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/lame_excuse/synonyms

The people talking about implementing AI in education are saying things that start out sounding sensible until you think.

Most of my students don't need "extra attention" what if the AI could take care of the easy students and I would get the ones who need more nuance?

Well first of all detecting who needs "extra" is subtle. How will you do that?

Second: what if the majority of my students don't need "extra attention"

*because they got real help from supportive teachers previously?*

@JeffGrigg @flying_saucers @futurebird Thanks! ️

@richpuchalsky

I think it's beneficial to have education connected to larger secular bodies eg. the state because it forces all of the little communities with their "values" (values can be excellent, or horrible) to find some common ground.

Should we teach that the earth is flat?
Is evolution real?
Does *everyone* need to learn how to read?

If you let "the local community" decide such things they have often made the wrong call on these questions which have objectively correct answers.

@richpuchalsky

I don't call myself an anarchist. Or anything really. I suppose I'm not since, from what I've seen as a teacher, people crave, love and seek out organization and someone to tell them what to do. This can be exploited so easily. Often it is exploited.

A lot of what I do as a teacher is try to get my students to stop turning to me to tell them what to do about every single thing.

And I use their inclination towards obedience to guide them towards that. Kind of a paradox.

@futurebird I've been an edtech spectator (and at times a practitioner) for a very long time - and I was a classroom teacher for over a decade prior to that.

And I often wonder: what if the billions of dollars spent on educational technology with zero research base was spent on class size, meals, teacher training, school based health centers -- where would we be?

But we'll throw good money after bad because AI has a better marketing budget than kids and teachers.

@JeffGrigg @flying_saucers @futurebird I so love how on fedi you can just bring stuff like this up non-confrontationally and folks look it up and fix it, rather than turning into some kinda standoff over "wokeness run amok" or whatever. ️

A teacher needs to know their students to be effective. This puts an upper limit on the number of students one teacher can teach at once. Something like 150 students. I need to know their names, and when I see that name a little about who that is.

Further, a student should have at least 4 or 5 teachers who know them. This is a selection of hopefully trustworthy and supportive adults they can turn to.

Most plans to make school less expensive mess with these numbers.

@richpuchalsky

I think it's beneficial to have education connected to larger secular bodies eg. the state because it forces all of the little communities with their "values" (values can be excellent, or horrible) to find some common ground.

Should we teach that the earth is flat?
Is evolution real?
Does *everyone* need to learn how to read?

If you let "the local community" decide such things they have often made the wrong call on these questions which have objectively correct answers.

@futurebird As a camp counselor, I had about 50 kids a week I could try to learn, and I never managed it. I didn't always eve manage to learn all 8 in my cabin, or all 12 in my lesson group. My director had much less time with the kids than I did, but still managed to learn them well.

When you were a new teacher, did learning and remembering 150 kids come easy to you? Or did you have to work at it?

@semitones

I had to learn to work with that many students. When I started 40 was my limit.

I make flash cards for names at the start of the year. I have a process where I spend a little time each week thinking about each student and I *track* this so I don't miss anyone.

I've learned when writing long comments when grading is important... and when to skip it.

I keep a spreadsheet with the learning specialists and tutors contact info for each student and send each one regular emails.

@futurebird @richpuchalsky Also looking at "home schooling" - this is not inspiring in many cases. Children need some sort of overarching organisation of schooling to (preferably) guard against the worst.

@richpuchalsky

I don't call myself an anarchist. Or anything really. I suppose I'm not since, from what I've seen as a teacher, people crave, love and seek out organization and someone to tell them what to do. This can be exploited so easily. Often it is exploited.

A lot of what I do as a teacher is try to get my students to stop turning to me to tell them what to do about every single thing.

And I use their inclination towards obedience to guide them towards that. Kind of a paradox.

@futurebird @richpuchalsky One of the reasons I don't call myself an anarchist is that I've participated in too many anarchist activist communities when I was young. When there is a strong narrative about not having any leaders *and* some anarchists are more charismatic than others, this is a recipe for ending up with completely unaccountable de-facto leaders that cannot practically be dealt with because nobody wants to admit that there *is* a leader. Like the witches on Pratchett's Discwordl: Anarchists are often very aware of exactly who the leader isn't.

(That said, anarchism has many healthy principles and is still - in my opinion - a good goal to aspire to. And this phenomenon - a social movement ending up being vulnerable to its own inversion - is also not at all unique to anarchism.)