Comment by schmittz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by schmittz | Hacker News Reader

I would be very curious to see what effect increased student punishment had on education quality. Some rules should be more lax (I once spent twenty minutes having to explain why I was in the hallway after the bell rang in order to avoid detention [the answer was that my locker was on the other side of the building from my classroom]), but most systems are too lax. We try to keep students around who have no interest in learning because it "keeps them off the streets." This has two results. First, even if they make it to the end, they probably wind up on the streets anyway. Secondly, they drag down those who do want to learn or would be willing to learn such that their chances of excelling are minimized. We should have more remedial job training (not sure how well this would work, but other analogous programs such as rehab over jail have proven quite successful) and stricter rules about whether students can stay in school or not. These shouldn't be performance based per se, so much as based on a student's effort to complete assignments, pay attention in class, etc. We consequently end up paying a lot of money for people who don't learn anything and bring down those who could. We'd also have to pay for the job training, but it's shorter curriculum would serve to save money and probably increase their chances of gainful employment. I'm not sure how well this would work, but we've certainly never tried it in the US, at least that I'm aware of.

> We try to keep students around who have no interest in learning because it "keeps them off the streets."

The reason this is done is because they are children -- not adults. They are immature and may be making bad decisions. They might have a rotten home life with bad role models. The point is, you try to help them anyway in case they do indeed see a reason to turn their life around.

Why do you think schools have so much sports education? One reason is because it keeps some kids around who otherwise would simply drop out. And every good teacher knows that you can often get a problem kid in your class to focus and learn something by having one or more of their coaches get on their case.

Mmm, yes. I agree to a certain extent. I guess my belief is that there are ways to engage a child outside of a formal education system that would have the same effect while concentrating on something they want to do, since learning is not that thing. I haven't thought this entirely through, but it seems that the current paradigm isn't optimal. You're absolutely right that sports and arts programs provide outlets auxiliary to a standard education, but for students with no interest in traditional learning, maybe it would be better to focus on those things they do enjoy and leave off those that they won't engage in. It would be analogous to the perception that everyone should attend college because it leads to a better life, when in fact many students should be attending post-secondary technical schools. Why not start the split earlier for those who actively refuse to be educated?

> Why not start the split earlier for those who actively refuse to be educated?

Because:

(A) in high school they're still kids, and

(B) one main goal here is to have an educated citizenry, and this means educating all kids as well as we can, whether the kids themselves think it's a good idea or not. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com