One question I would love to hear you both answer and I think might highlight some differences is, "What happens if the kids aren't on board?" What if they don't WANT to go on this journey of excellence or brilliance with you? Knowing what you do as an Egan educator, it seems like that's 90% of the game. It doesn't matter what you are teaching, you have the kids' buy-in every step of the way. They are voluntarily going with you. As an unschool-y homeschool parent, this is what is most important to me. If at some my point, my kids come to me and say, "we don't want to do Science is WEIRD anymore," I would let them stop (like that would ever happen). It also doesn't matter what you are teaching. You've taught my kids about commas and algebra for cripes sake. You have their buy-in and they will go with you anywhere.
I don't know about this other guy. I would have to look more into what he is proposing. I like that he is focusing on excellence, skills, and scientifically sound educational strategies, but if he hasn't put much effort into how to get the kids on board with his plan, then that could be a serious area where Egan shines.
Yeah, I would love to more hear more about this too. I do think that SiW is great at getting kids on board but that it might be more of a challenge for homeschooling caregivers to pull off similar buy-in via Eganization. Brandon is really really good at being open and celebratory about his own ongoing learning and about providing guidance and resources in ways that are respectful of autonomy and encourage kids to take ownership of their own learning. This kind of modeling is huge (and it occurs to me that I don't actually know if Egan says anything about it). He also clearly cares a whole lot about the quality of the education he's helping kids access while not stressing the kids out about it. It has not been my impression that most homeschooling caregivers are so strong at these skills, though I would guess those drawn to SiW/this substack would be stronger at them than most.
I was lucky to spend my undergraduate years thinking a lot about this kind of stuff (courtesy of attending a tiny brand new engineering school that was trying to revolutionize engineering education) but that's not how most people arrive at homeschooling. By they time my kids were old enough that I felt any outside pressure about academics we had already been cultivating buy-in for years by never demanding that they do academics and constantly modeling learning ourselves. So many homeschooling caregivers out there never planned to homeschool until school didn't work for whatever reason and are starting from a much more difficult position. And depending on individual life circumstances it can be hard for caregivers to keep pressure off kids if the caregivers are feeling pressure about proving that their kids aren't being academically neglected. I love the Egan ideas I've picked up here but they seem more like great ideas for when kids are already on board than ways to get kids on board in the first place.
Hi Becky! Egan's ideas for getting kids on board that I'm referring to are all the tools that Brandon presented in his Egan workshops a while back. (https://www.scienceisweird.com/storexyz/p/educations-biggest-idea-workshop-1-rmar5) I assume he will talk about them more in his upcoming homeschool workshops this summer. Things like stories, emotions, metaphors, riddles, vivid images, humor....all the strategies that Brandon seamlessly weaves into Science is WEIRD that makes it so engaging for the kids.
You definitely have a point that Brandon seems singularly good at this method of teaching, probably due to his natural enthusiasm for learning and charisma. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be easy for the average homeschooling parent to replicate, particularly ones that arrived in their homeschooling situation due to challenges. However, in a debate about which method of eduction is better, it is Egan's tools for getting kids to WANT to go on the educational journey that sets this style of education apart.
Yeah, I'm familiar with those, I just don't know if Egan also explicitly talked about things like modeling lifelong learning and not being unnecessarily controlling which seem to me like pretty essential aspects of creating the buy-in too, especially outside of a classroom setting. Maybe just because the demand avoidance is strong here, but riddles wouldn't get us very far in this household without the modeling and encouragement of autonomy.
Put another way I think that perhaps the Egan-y things help elementary learning be the kind of stuff even adults can get genuinely excited about, and that that genuine excitement of other people might be really important especially if you aren't relying on conformity in the way school typically does.
For me there are two parallel goals that I think you're getting at, and the thread between them might be motivation.
My number one motivation strategy is to help students feel successful. This often makes me feel like a traditionalist. I spend a lot of time as a teacher breaking skills down into small pieces, practicing the pieces, putting them together, checking for understanding, and helping students build up their understanding gradually. If we want students to be motivated readers, the first step is teaching them to decode and read fluently. If we want students to understand complicated equations, the first step is getting students fluent with math facts, then building to one-step equations, then gradually different types of two-step equations, etc.
Humans like doing things they feel good at. Lots of students feel dumb in school; the type of "traditionalist" teaching I'm describing is the best way I know to motivate lower-achieving students. Then, I try to use that motivation to engage students in gradually more sophisticated problem-solving.
But plenty of bright students feel bored by the type of "traditionalist" education I'm describing above. They are ready to move on. When done well it's perfectly tolerable, just not inspiring. That's where the second part that you're describing comes in. I loved black holes when I was a kid. I remember reading through Encarta articles about black holes. They're not a part of the typical school curriculum but somehow I learned about them and became obsessed. That was a great experience for me! Those types of things are a great complement to "regular" school for bright kids. Now we can't just say "hey bright kids, have you heard of black holes" because there's a probabilistic element here. It's hard to predict what kids will be interested in. So this second part of education is about exposing kids to as many big ideas about the world as we can, seeing what they're interested in, and giving them tools to pursue that learning.
That last part should be open to everyone, but it plays a really important role in motivating students who are bored or uninspired by the regular parts of education.
If we do all this well, we help all students build a strong foundation of skills, believe in their own ability as learners, and show students a glimpse of how rich and fascinating the world is and how to pursue learning more about the areas they're interested in.
When you and Trace talk about it, you care about actual education. When autodidact polymaths at LessOnline, me included, pretend to talk about education, we are probably projecting our own power struggle against our parents, teachers, sports coaches, and pastors, with whom we do not feel any common cause. This is demonstrated by how we want nothing to do with it, and you and Trace roll up your sleeves and get to work.
Your sample dialog:
```
Jack: Schools should be machines that help students construct skills.
Me: Yes! But that means we should put a lot of time into helping students fall in love with the academic subjects.
Jack: Yes.
```
When the audience perceives that you and Trace disagree, I'm wondering if it's this projection. I'm guessing you're operating from a place that is more accepting of the necessity of coercive competition, and how that can co-exist with a common cause between adult and child. Mostly being over it, you might not know how to communicate to those of us who are not over it. We unthinkingly react as though everything, and I mean everything, about educational attainment falls out of that conflict.
Thank you for writing this Matt. I've felt when I read Scott Alexander or Zvi on education that their antipathy comes from the fact that they were uniquely underserved due to their brilliance and are angry about feeling so powerless as youths. I hear a bit of this in Jack's take as well.
I think that some of the problem is a tonal mismatch because Brandon is so enthusiastic about education. Jack's excellence-specific goals play to the perfect audience, especially given that pendulum has shifted so far towards narrowing the gaps for the weakest students. Egan targets a broader demographic though I do agree with Brandon that it offers a great deal to brilliant young minds.
One pathway that Brandon mentioned a while ago is cognitive science. I think this could be a particularly fruitful route. It contains both the organic and the scientific, so it kind of splits the difference between the metaphors he discusses above. The more that Egan proponents can show how the techniques align with the neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the stronger our arguments become.
Not just a neurotoxic necropolis, but a metaphor for the organic/inorganic interplay of Egan education.
We all start out as soft polyps, requiring validation and nurture of our uniqueness. But soon we must tackle (and build) the hardness that enables us to grow in the right direction.
Then die to that self, and do it all over (and over) again -- using our past hardness as the scaffold to reach for the stars…
I wonder if part of the problem is that nobody seems to be explicit about what they’re willing to sacrifice. My understanding of “The case against Education“ is that society is willing to sacrifice learning and happiness for a uniform status game. I think you are willing to sacrifice breadth and short term mastery for long-term brilliance.
I love how you’re trying to make people fall in love with the world. I’m a believer, but for a sceptic, I’m not even sure if something like this would really be able to highlight what you’re trying to do. Maybe instead of analogies, you need to give concrete examples in an area of what traditionalist, progressivist, excellence pursuing and Egan educators would do to teach a certain topic?
I'm 95% confident you have already read this but just in case, this Alpha School review is extremely relevant to your post, especially but not only Section 6:
I think this is what I'm trying to do in a nutshell: mash the drill and spaced repetition in with the wonder and delight of Egan units (and give the kids space to discover and explore on their own).
I think I like the word satisfying better than fun because the word fun in the context of education is so linked to the idea of superficially tacking a distraction onto serious learning or else replacing it entirely. But even that gets so much push back! People will say that there are still hard parts and no one will want to do the hard parts... except that lots of things people do entirely voluntarily have hard parts too? Of course my perspective is that a fair amount of autonomy can be necessary for many humans to experience the satisfaction/joy/fun/etc of learning so there can be a loop of making people do things because you don't believe they would be willing to do them otherwise and thus ensuring that they will not enjoy the experience because they feel controlled. And arguing for autonomy gets misconstrued too; I think guidance from enthusiastic lifelong learner adults is incredibly important but that education often does an amount of ordering kids around that attempts to make it easier for one teacher to manage lots of students in the short term but has negative consequences on longer term learning.
There's some unpredictability here. Almost anyone would say that the science in superhero comic books is not good science. Any number of people said that I was wasting my time with them. But I lived on a farm where the only extracurricular activities available to me as a kid (aside from manual labor) were network TV and an encyclopedia set. Facts were great, but it was stories of web-slingers and colorful man-monsters bashing each other over the head with fire hydrants that captured my imagination. Having exhausted my allowance and my parents' patience, it was sheer boredom that caused me to develop the habit of studying for school. I don't think that's easily replicated.
One question I would love to hear you both answer and I think might highlight some differences is, "What happens if the kids aren't on board?" What if they don't WANT to go on this journey of excellence or brilliance with you? Knowing what you do as an Egan educator, it seems like that's 90% of the game. It doesn't matter what you are teaching, you have the kids' buy-in every step of the way. They are voluntarily going with you. As an unschool-y homeschool parent, this is what is most important to me. If at some my point, my kids come to me and say, "we don't want to do Science is WEIRD anymore," I would let them stop (like that would ever happen). It also doesn't matter what you are teaching. You've taught my kids about commas and algebra for cripes sake. You have their buy-in and they will go with you anywhere.
I don't know about this other guy. I would have to look more into what he is proposing. I like that he is focusing on excellence, skills, and scientifically sound educational strategies, but if he hasn't put much effort into how to get the kids on board with his plan, then that could be a serious area where Egan shines.
Yeah, I would love to more hear more about this too. I do think that SiW is great at getting kids on board but that it might be more of a challenge for homeschooling caregivers to pull off similar buy-in via Eganization. Brandon is really really good at being open and celebratory about his own ongoing learning and about providing guidance and resources in ways that are respectful of autonomy and encourage kids to take ownership of their own learning. This kind of modeling is huge (and it occurs to me that I don't actually know if Egan says anything about it). He also clearly cares a whole lot about the quality of the education he's helping kids access while not stressing the kids out about it. It has not been my impression that most homeschooling caregivers are so strong at these skills, though I would guess those drawn to SiW/this substack would be stronger at them than most.
I was lucky to spend my undergraduate years thinking a lot about this kind of stuff (courtesy of attending a tiny brand new engineering school that was trying to revolutionize engineering education) but that's not how most people arrive at homeschooling. By they time my kids were old enough that I felt any outside pressure about academics we had already been cultivating buy-in for years by never demanding that they do academics and constantly modeling learning ourselves. So many homeschooling caregivers out there never planned to homeschool until school didn't work for whatever reason and are starting from a much more difficult position. And depending on individual life circumstances it can be hard for caregivers to keep pressure off kids if the caregivers are feeling pressure about proving that their kids aren't being academically neglected. I love the Egan ideas I've picked up here but they seem more like great ideas for when kids are already on board than ways to get kids on board in the first place.
Hi Becky! Egan's ideas for getting kids on board that I'm referring to are all the tools that Brandon presented in his Egan workshops a while back. (https://www.scienceisweird.com/storexyz/p/educations-biggest-idea-workshop-1-rmar5) I assume he will talk about them more in his upcoming homeschool workshops this summer. Things like stories, emotions, metaphors, riddles, vivid images, humor....all the strategies that Brandon seamlessly weaves into Science is WEIRD that makes it so engaging for the kids.
You definitely have a point that Brandon seems singularly good at this method of teaching, probably due to his natural enthusiasm for learning and charisma. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be easy for the average homeschooling parent to replicate, particularly ones that arrived in their homeschooling situation due to challenges. However, in a debate about which method of eduction is better, it is Egan's tools for getting kids to WANT to go on the educational journey that sets this style of education apart.
Yeah, I'm familiar with those, I just don't know if Egan also explicitly talked about things like modeling lifelong learning and not being unnecessarily controlling which seem to me like pretty essential aspects of creating the buy-in too, especially outside of a classroom setting. Maybe just because the demand avoidance is strong here, but riddles wouldn't get us very far in this household without the modeling and encouragement of autonomy.
Put another way I think that perhaps the Egan-y things help elementary learning be the kind of stuff even adults can get genuinely excited about, and that that genuine excitement of other people might be really important especially if you aren't relying on conformity in the way school typically does.
For me there are two parallel goals that I think you're getting at, and the thread between them might be motivation.
My number one motivation strategy is to help students feel successful. This often makes me feel like a traditionalist. I spend a lot of time as a teacher breaking skills down into small pieces, practicing the pieces, putting them together, checking for understanding, and helping students build up their understanding gradually. If we want students to be motivated readers, the first step is teaching them to decode and read fluently. If we want students to understand complicated equations, the first step is getting students fluent with math facts, then building to one-step equations, then gradually different types of two-step equations, etc.
Humans like doing things they feel good at. Lots of students feel dumb in school; the type of "traditionalist" teaching I'm describing is the best way I know to motivate lower-achieving students. Then, I try to use that motivation to engage students in gradually more sophisticated problem-solving.
But plenty of bright students feel bored by the type of "traditionalist" education I'm describing above. They are ready to move on. When done well it's perfectly tolerable, just not inspiring. That's where the second part that you're describing comes in. I loved black holes when I was a kid. I remember reading through Encarta articles about black holes. They're not a part of the typical school curriculum but somehow I learned about them and became obsessed. That was a great experience for me! Those types of things are a great complement to "regular" school for bright kids. Now we can't just say "hey bright kids, have you heard of black holes" because there's a probabilistic element here. It's hard to predict what kids will be interested in. So this second part of education is about exposing kids to as many big ideas about the world as we can, seeing what they're interested in, and giving them tools to pursue that learning.
That last part should be open to everyone, but it plays a really important role in motivating students who are bored or uninspired by the regular parts of education.
If we do all this well, we help all students build a strong foundation of skills, believe in their own ability as learners, and show students a glimpse of how rich and fascinating the world is and how to pursue learning more about the areas they're interested in.
When you and Trace talk about it, you care about actual education. When autodidact polymaths at LessOnline, me included, pretend to talk about education, we are probably projecting our own power struggle against our parents, teachers, sports coaches, and pastors, with whom we do not feel any common cause. This is demonstrated by how we want nothing to do with it, and you and Trace roll up your sleeves and get to work.
Your sample dialog:
```
Jack: Schools should be machines that help students construct skills.
Me: Yes! But that means we should put a lot of time into helping students fall in love with the academic subjects.
Jack: Yes.
```
When the audience perceives that you and Trace disagree, I'm wondering if it's this projection. I'm guessing you're operating from a place that is more accepting of the necessity of coercive competition, and how that can co-exist with a common cause between adult and child. Mostly being over it, you might not know how to communicate to those of us who are not over it. We unthinkingly react as though everything, and I mean everything, about educational attainment falls out of that conflict.
Thank you for writing this Matt. I've felt when I read Scott Alexander or Zvi on education that their antipathy comes from the fact that they were uniquely underserved due to their brilliance and are angry about feeling so powerless as youths. I hear a bit of this in Jack's take as well.
I think that some of the problem is a tonal mismatch because Brandon is so enthusiastic about education. Jack's excellence-specific goals play to the perfect audience, especially given that pendulum has shifted so far towards narrowing the gaps for the weakest students. Egan targets a broader demographic though I do agree with Brandon that it offers a great deal to brilliant young minds.
One pathway that Brandon mentioned a while ago is cognitive science. I think this could be a particularly fruitful route. It contains both the organic and the scientific, so it kind of splits the difference between the metaphors he discusses above. The more that Egan proponents can show how the techniques align with the neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the stronger our arguments become.
Coral.
Not just a neurotoxic necropolis, but a metaphor for the organic/inorganic interplay of Egan education.
We all start out as soft polyps, requiring validation and nurture of our uniqueness. But soon we must tackle (and build) the hardness that enables us to grow in the right direction.
Then die to that self, and do it all over (and over) again -- using our past hardness as the scaffold to reach for the stars…
I wonder if part of the problem is that nobody seems to be explicit about what they’re willing to sacrifice. My understanding of “The case against Education“ is that society is willing to sacrifice learning and happiness for a uniform status game. I think you are willing to sacrifice breadth and short term mastery for long-term brilliance.
I love how you’re trying to make people fall in love with the world. I’m a believer, but for a sceptic, I’m not even sure if something like this would really be able to highlight what you’re trying to do. Maybe instead of analogies, you need to give concrete examples in an area of what traditionalist, progressivist, excellence pursuing and Egan educators would do to teach a certain topic?
I'm 95% confident you have already read this but just in case, this Alpha School review is extremely relevant to your post, especially but not only Section 6:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-alpha-school
I think this is what I'm trying to do in a nutshell: mash the drill and spaced repetition in with the wonder and delight of Egan units (and give the kids space to discover and explore on their own).
I think I like the word satisfying better than fun because the word fun in the context of education is so linked to the idea of superficially tacking a distraction onto serious learning or else replacing it entirely. But even that gets so much push back! People will say that there are still hard parts and no one will want to do the hard parts... except that lots of things people do entirely voluntarily have hard parts too? Of course my perspective is that a fair amount of autonomy can be necessary for many humans to experience the satisfaction/joy/fun/etc of learning so there can be a loop of making people do things because you don't believe they would be willing to do them otherwise and thus ensuring that they will not enjoy the experience because they feel controlled. And arguing for autonomy gets misconstrued too; I think guidance from enthusiastic lifelong learner adults is incredibly important but that education often does an amount of ordering kids around that attempts to make it easier for one teacher to manage lots of students in the short term but has negative consequences on longer term learning.
There's some unpredictability here. Almost anyone would say that the science in superhero comic books is not good science. Any number of people said that I was wasting my time with them. But I lived on a farm where the only extracurricular activities available to me as a kid (aside from manual labor) were network TV and an encyclopedia set. Facts were great, but it was stories of web-slingers and colorful man-monsters bashing each other over the head with fire hydrants that captured my imagination. Having exhausted my allowance and my parents' patience, it was sheer boredom that caused me to develop the habit of studying for school. I don't think that's easily replicated.