"To his bafflement and frustration, he has become a remarkably polarizing figure in the education world."
There's kind of a reason for this. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a specific academic agenda, one even more focused on the standardized testing that parents, students, and teachers alike tend to loath, and geared towards preparing kids for jobs rather than educating them (look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like), he should at least educate his own kids in that way. Instead he seems to defy his own investment by sending his children to a school that emphasies no testing, a big focus on the classics and letting kids do their own thing and become well rounded.
As a student of history this sort of line of thinking looks interesting, though I wouldn't want to replace our entire history curriculum with it. Perhaps as an elective, though at this point Bill attempting to touch education is just asking for trouble...
> in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like
A brief clarification: That 70% figure applies across all academic subjects in grades 6-12, not English classes. (It's 50-50 in K-5). If one supposes a student reads 90% informational text in science and math class, and perhaps 60-70% informational in history class, that leaves room for English class to be composed primarily of literature.
This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the CCSS, and I think it's because the authors did not clearly communicate it at all. The introduction discusses the fact that the NAEP framework makes a 70/30 split, but only clarifies the nature of the split in a footnote[1]. It's unfortunate it's been poorly communicated, but the misconception should be corrected. Quoting from said footnote:
"The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational."
It is not true that any education solution that works for Bill Gates' family will work at scale across a hugely diverse population. It's possible --- likely, in fact --- that it's impossible to effectively (and cost-effectively) deliver the education Gates' kids get to the entire country.
With that in mind, I'm not sure how Gates' own school selection impacts his ideas about education. It seems rather like it has nothing at all to do with his ideas, in which case the appeal to Gates' own actions is fallacious.
(look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you implying that this is a bad thing? Don't get me wrong; I'm a voracious reader and I love the classics, Shakespeare, poetry, and all the like. They should certainly be taught in English classes, however you seemed to imply that the other things listed don't have a place in English class.
I think that newspaper articles can give great insight into how to read and interpret news and information, how to be aware of biases in journalism, and how to write journalistically. As for speeches, I think rhetoric is also a fantastic skill to learn. People should know how to listen to a speech, understand a politician, and learn to speak publicly. Public speaking skills provide a whole slew of benefits both in the workforce and in life, with confidence being a big one.
Yes, perhaps rhetoric, public speaking, debate, argumentation, journalism, and the like shouldn't have heavy focus in a common-core, freshman English class, but I think they should certainly be touched on. There are some very important life and work skills in there, and it would be a shame not to give everyone a little taste of them.
As I understand it, the basis for the Gates Foundation position on education is that education produces measurable outcomes, so communities should actually measure those outcomes, and then use that data to improve education.
I think that point of view should be right at home here on HN. I bet most of us believe that measurement, testing, and iterative development are helpful in producing a good product or service. However, most of the U.S. education does not work that way, and parts of it (teachers' unions) are actively hostile to it.
Some schools produce outcomes that are so good that they are "visible to the naked eye". You don't need sophisticated testing regimes to know that Phillips Andover or Bronx Science produce strong graduates. It's no surprise that the richest man in the world has picked one of those schools for his children. You probably would too, if you could.
But, most people can't--they rely on public education. And in the U.S., most school districts produce outcomes that are not obviously good, or in some cases are obviously bad. In those situations, a clear set of standards and measurements seem to me like something worth trying.
Many teachers don't like it because it puts their jobs at risk, potentially based on outcomes that they have little control over (educational outcomes appear to depend heavily on outside factors). They are also worry that the curriculum will be developed by administrators who don't actually know anything about teaching.
Parents don't like it because new currulica don't match what they learned in school as kids. Forgive my bluntness, but I think that is stupid. If there is a better way to do things, we should change.
Students, many of them, don't like changes that make them work harder in school. Personally, I'm not very sympathetic to that either.
I think my biggest issue is that standardized testing is loved so much because it appears to work.
UK has significantly higher graduation rates for both High school and for college than the US, and the UK just loves its standardized testing (it's where I grew up).
It's great in that those who would be under-performers are held to a higher standard than they otherwise would be. There's no getting a free pass for playing sports. The year I graduated high school, my school ranked as one of the top 5 in the UK public school system (it was also the only one that the examiners made no mention of ways to improve, meaning it was likely the top school in the country) and I didn't even know we had a football (soccer) team that competed against other schools. In fact, the only competition I was aware my school entered for sports was the cross country marathon because one of our class members (son of two Kenyan immigrants, no one was surprised as he used to lap us in track and field) won the competition.
However, it's bad in that the over-performers are held to no standard whatsoever. I was an over-performer. I got one of the highest grades in class and did nothing, didn't hand in homework because anything that was to the standardized test I aced. One of my elementary school teachers thought I was slow and wanted me to get tested for dyslexia or other learning disorders and said I would fail the Key Stage 1 tests. I was 3rd in my class. The bar was so low that me and my "nerdy" friends in high school barely worked in classes. My chemistry class we would be finished our work within 20 minutes and spend the rest of the class talking with the teacher.
There was no drive to excel. There was no "this kid's smart, lets focus on him more". I passed so they didn't give a fuck, it meant they could spend more time on the dumb kids and subsequently boost their budgets.
This makes no sense. Most kids won't inherit millions of dollars with an incredible network of influentials.
If Gates pushed what was best for his kids to others we would have an uproar about the fact that most kids can't go from interest to interest with no concern for income at all.
I wish I could, as the son of two public school teachers, the husband of a public school teacher, and the father of a 1 month old who is already trying to figure out how to keep my kid out of public schools and away from the Common Core, upvote this 1000 times.
Sci-Fi author L. Sprague de Camp's 1963 book, "The Ancient Engineers", is also worth a look, from early Egyptian engineering up to Galileo. From an Amazon review: “History, technology, culture, finance, and sociology intersect here. It’s not history from the top (kings and such, which some say is dry), nor history from the bottom (average people, which is necessarily endless and perhaps not very revealing). It’s history from the nuts-and-bolts middle–how structures were built, how materials were transported, how wars were fought. When you know this sort of foundational information, everything else becomes more real.”
Excerpt: "Everybody has heard of Julius Caesar - but who knows about his contemporary Sergius Orata, the Roman building contractor who invented central indirect house heating? Yet
Orata has affected our daily lives far more than Caesar ever did." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_Orata)
Here's the thing. History flatters who's in charge. In the age of emperors, kings, and noblemen, history was all about them. In the age of universal suffrage, history is about the common man. Recently, with the push of political correctness, there has been a push to focus historical research and teaching on women and minorities.
When will it be the turn of engineers and entrepreneurs -- the individuals who have in actuality moved mankind out of the caves and into skyscrapers? To our great shame, I can't say when that day will come. And I'm not holding my breath for it.
Considering David Christian's history for my own uses, I know little about the quality of his work besides his endorsement by Gates (who is very smart but not an expert in these fields). Before I spend a lot of time on Big History, does anyone know:
1) What is David Christian's professional reputation among his peers?
2) What do professional historians see as the strengths and weaknesses of Big History?
3) Does he really know enough about all these subjects to provide expert knowledge and analysis? Wouldn't it be better to have the evolution section taught by an evolutionary biologist?
If these questions are answered in the article, please forgive me. I skimmed it, but it's 12 pages (converted to PDF).
I personally took his Introduction to Big History course last semester and had him as a tutor so my experiences may be useful to you!
1) While I don't know a lot about academic circles from what I gathered his method of teaching history is seen as different but not at all bad, he has connections in other fields who seem to love what he's doing.
2) Can't really answer that unfortunately.
3) David Christian is interesting as he'll readily admit if he doesn't know something in a lot of detail. That said, I found his knowledge to be quite good across all of the history we covered and he answered student questions well, pulling on others with more knowledge if he was unable to fully explain something or was unclear. He does in fact enlist the support of other professors for teaching certain topics, the lecture of the formation of the Earth was given by a Geologist and Evolution was in part covered by Dr Greg Downey, an anthropologist.
I actually really enjoyed the course as, coming from an IT background, it was quite a bit more engaging and interesting and the group discussions in tutorials were very interesting with many good discussions had.
Well, given limited time it is impossible to go both broad and deep, and he certainly seems to go broad. I don't think he needs to be an expert in anything, just a generalist.
Connections is a thought-provoking series, but I don't think it acknowledges how speculative it is, and by extension how speculative almost all historical explanations are.
It is the best enrichment course I had ever taken. I wonder if the lecturer (Yuval Harrari) was influenced by this "Big History", or he arrived at this teaching method independently.
Isaac Asimov's nonfiction often took the historical, chronological approach to explaining any topic, from chemistry to Shakespeare. It becomes a story, and people are really good at understanding (and remembering) stories.
Maybe it shouldn't be framed as a "history class" though. It's really not "history, expanded." It's more like "The Big Picture, of Everything You're Learning."
I took this unit last semester (at Macquarie University, with David Christian as my lecturer and tutor) and am happy to answer any questions you might have on teaching style or such. Personally I really enjoyed it and found it very thought provoking and interesting (history usually doesn't capture my attention as I like to see a broader view).
David Christian's concept, especially the "thresholds", reminds me of an excellent course[0]/book[1]/website[2] written/taught by the wonderful astrophysicist Eric Chaisson[3]. Not exactly focused on "history" in the traditional sense, but on the history of the universe, focusing on different "epochs", from the big bang, to present day and beyond. I highly recommend the readings (and the course for those who are monetarily and geographically able to do so [Boston area]).
I've listened to Christian's audio classes. It is darn cool! You travel through all realms of knowledge. It celebrates evidence, reasoning and science. A simple audiobook is more intellectually stimulating than the excellent Cosmos Series. Man, if I had billions of dollars these would be the kind of things I'd love to spend my money on.
I took David Christian's unit last semester at university and had him as a tutor, it was probably one of the most interesting and thought provoking units I've taken! Feel free to ask any questions!
Could you suggest an alternate from the body of the article? How about this:
Article text: "$10 million that he has personally invested in the Big History Project" -> "Bill Gates personally invests $10 million in Big History Project"
Article text: "Barr allowed the Big History Project to replace World History, which is known as Global Studies in New York, as a required course." -> "Big History replaces World History in Brooklyn high school"
Toss education into the private sector, problem solved. The market will sort out what education formats perform best - what else you guys want to talk about?
This means that the sysadmins of mail.sdsu.edu have Bill Gates' personal email address. So if any of their IIS machines go down, they have the rare opportunity to complain directly to the man who started it. ;D
[+] [-] sheltgor|11 years ago|reply
There's kind of a reason for this. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting a specific academic agenda, one even more focused on the standardized testing that parents, students, and teachers alike tend to loath, and geared towards preparing kids for jobs rather than educating them (look at English in common core where now 70% of what students are supposed to read is not classic literature, plays, poetry, contemporary fiction, but newspaper articles and speeches and the like), he should at least educate his own kids in that way. Instead he seems to defy his own investment by sending his children to a school that emphasies no testing, a big focus on the classics and letting kids do their own thing and become well rounded.
As a student of history this sort of line of thinking looks interesting, though I wouldn't want to replace our entire history curriculum with it. Perhaps as an elective, though at this point Bill attempting to touch education is just asking for trouble...
[+] [-] aaronharnly|11 years ago|reply
A brief clarification: That 70% figure applies across all academic subjects in grades 6-12, not English classes. (It's 50-50 in K-5). If one supposes a student reads 90% informational text in science and math class, and perhaps 60-70% informational in history class, that leaves room for English class to be composed primarily of literature.
This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the CCSS, and I think it's because the authors did not clearly communicate it at all. The introduction discusses the fact that the NAEP framework makes a 70/30 split, but only clarifies the nature of the split in a footnote[1]. It's unfortunate it's been poorly communicated, but the misconception should be corrected. Quoting from said footnote:
"The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational."
[1] http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standard...
(Disclaimer: I work at Amplify, an education technology company. This post reflects my own views, not theirs.)
[+] [-] tptacek|11 years ago|reply
With that in mind, I'm not sure how Gates' own school selection impacts his ideas about education. It seems rather like it has nothing at all to do with his ideas, in which case the appeal to Gates' own actions is fallacious.
Where do I have this wrong?
[+] [-] ryangittins|11 years ago|reply
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you implying that this is a bad thing? Don't get me wrong; I'm a voracious reader and I love the classics, Shakespeare, poetry, and all the like. They should certainly be taught in English classes, however you seemed to imply that the other things listed don't have a place in English class.
I think that newspaper articles can give great insight into how to read and interpret news and information, how to be aware of biases in journalism, and how to write journalistically. As for speeches, I think rhetoric is also a fantastic skill to learn. People should know how to listen to a speech, understand a politician, and learn to speak publicly. Public speaking skills provide a whole slew of benefits both in the workforce and in life, with confidence being a big one.
Yes, perhaps rhetoric, public speaking, debate, argumentation, journalism, and the like shouldn't have heavy focus in a common-core, freshman English class, but I think they should certainly be touched on. There are some very important life and work skills in there, and it would be a shame not to give everyone a little taste of them.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|11 years ago|reply
I think that point of view should be right at home here on HN. I bet most of us believe that measurement, testing, and iterative development are helpful in producing a good product or service. However, most of the U.S. education does not work that way, and parts of it (teachers' unions) are actively hostile to it.
Some schools produce outcomes that are so good that they are "visible to the naked eye". You don't need sophisticated testing regimes to know that Phillips Andover or Bronx Science produce strong graduates. It's no surprise that the richest man in the world has picked one of those schools for his children. You probably would too, if you could.
But, most people can't--they rely on public education. And in the U.S., most school districts produce outcomes that are not obviously good, or in some cases are obviously bad. In those situations, a clear set of standards and measurements seem to me like something worth trying.
Many teachers don't like it because it puts their jobs at risk, potentially based on outcomes that they have little control over (educational outcomes appear to depend heavily on outside factors). They are also worry that the curriculum will be developed by administrators who don't actually know anything about teaching.
Parents don't like it because new currulica don't match what they learned in school as kids. Forgive my bluntness, but I think that is stupid. If there is a better way to do things, we should change.
Students, many of them, don't like changes that make them work harder in school. Personally, I'm not very sympathetic to that either.
[+] [-] electromagnetic|11 years ago|reply
UK has significantly higher graduation rates for both High school and for college than the US, and the UK just loves its standardized testing (it's where I grew up).
It's great in that those who would be under-performers are held to a higher standard than they otherwise would be. There's no getting a free pass for playing sports. The year I graduated high school, my school ranked as one of the top 5 in the UK public school system (it was also the only one that the examiners made no mention of ways to improve, meaning it was likely the top school in the country) and I didn't even know we had a football (soccer) team that competed against other schools. In fact, the only competition I was aware my school entered for sports was the cross country marathon because one of our class members (son of two Kenyan immigrants, no one was surprised as he used to lap us in track and field) won the competition.
However, it's bad in that the over-performers are held to no standard whatsoever. I was an over-performer. I got one of the highest grades in class and did nothing, didn't hand in homework because anything that was to the standardized test I aced. One of my elementary school teachers thought I was slow and wanted me to get tested for dyslexia or other learning disorders and said I would fail the Key Stage 1 tests. I was 3rd in my class. The bar was so low that me and my "nerdy" friends in high school barely worked in classes. My chemistry class we would be finished our work within 20 minutes and spend the rest of the class talking with the teacher.
There was no drive to excel. There was no "this kid's smart, lets focus on him more". I passed so they didn't give a fuck, it meant they could spend more time on the dumb kids and subsequently boost their budgets.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kenjackson|11 years ago|reply
If Gates pushed what was best for his kids to others we would have an uproar about the fact that most kids can't go from interest to interest with no concern for income at all.
[+] [-] themartorana|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ageorgia|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walterbell|11 years ago|reply
Review: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/l-sprague-de-camp...
Preview: http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Engineers-L-Sprague-Camp/dp/03...
Excerpt: "Everybody has heard of Julius Caesar - but who knows about his contemporary Sergius Orata, the Roman building contractor who invented central indirect house heating? Yet Orata has affected our daily lives far more than Caesar ever did." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_Orata)
[+] [-] mariodiana|11 years ago|reply
When will it be the turn of engineers and entrepreneurs -- the individuals who have in actuality moved mankind out of the caves and into skyscrapers? To our great shame, I can't say when that day will come. And I'm not holding my breath for it.
[+] [-] mtdewcmu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
1) What is David Christian's professional reputation among his peers?
2) What do professional historians see as the strengths and weaknesses of Big History?
3) Does he really know enough about all these subjects to provide expert knowledge and analysis? Wouldn't it be better to have the evolution section taught by an evolutionary biologist?
If these questions are answered in the article, please forgive me. I skimmed it, but it's 12 pages (converted to PDF).
[+] [-] maxexcloo|11 years ago|reply
1) While I don't know a lot about academic circles from what I gathered his method of teaching history is seen as different but not at all bad, he has connections in other fields who seem to love what he's doing.
2) Can't really answer that unfortunately.
3) David Christian is interesting as he'll readily admit if he doesn't know something in a lot of detail. That said, I found his knowledge to be quite good across all of the history we covered and he answered student questions well, pulling on others with more knowledge if he was unable to fully explain something or was unclear. He does in fact enlist the support of other professors for teaching certain topics, the lecture of the formation of the Earth was given by a Geologist and Evolution was in part covered by Dr Greg Downey, an anthropologist.
I actually really enjoyed the course as, coming from an IT background, it was quite a bit more engaging and interesting and the group discussions in tutorials were very interesting with many good discussions had.
[+] [-] walterbell|11 years ago|reply
4000 year histomap: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/08/12/the_1931_his...
5000 year timeline: http://www.usefulcharts.com/history/timeline-of-world-histor...
[+] [-] tormeh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qq66|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdicola|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikevm|11 years ago|reply
It is the best enrichment course I had ever taken. I wonder if the lecturer (Yuval Harrari) was influenced by this "Big History", or he arrived at this teaching method independently.
[+] [-] troymc|11 years ago|reply
Maybe it shouldn't be framed as a "history class" though. It's really not "history, expanded." It's more like "The Big Picture, of Everything You're Learning."
[+] [-] plg|11 years ago|reply
- are interesting people
- are smart
- have opinions that are well founded and worth listening to
- are good leaders
- are role models
... moreso than people who are not rich
[+] [-] mathgladiator|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenko|11 years ago|reply
But Bill Gates has a lot of money, which means (apparently) that he's more worth paying attention to, regardless of the topic.
[+] [-] maxexcloo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zxexz|11 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.extension.harvard.edu/courses/cosmic-evolution-or... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Evolution-Rise-Complexity-Natur... [2] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/doc... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Chaisson
[+] [-] neves|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrocat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Raphael|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exhilaration|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxexcloo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bencollier49|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fdsary|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbigelow76|11 years ago|reply
"How dare the author pique my interest with his verbal chicanery! A pox on thee!"
[+] [-] walterbell|11 years ago|reply
Article text: "$10 million that he has personally invested in the Big History Project" -> "Bill Gates personally invests $10 million in Big History Project"
Article text: "Barr allowed the Big History Project to replace World History, which is known as Global Studies in New York, as a required course." -> "Big History replaces World History in Brooklyn high school"
[+] [-] dchuk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freedom123|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarciszewski|11 years ago|reply
* Dave Christian has Bill Gates' email address
* Dave Christian lectured at San Diego State University
After a minute of Google searching, I discovered that http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/experts/department/al_hi... lists [email protected] as his email address.
This means that the sysadmins of mail.sdsu.edu have Bill Gates' personal email address. So if any of their IIS machines go down, they have the rare opportunity to complain directly to the man who started it. ;D
[+] [-] rjsamson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] copperx|11 years ago|reply