What is a “good education?” Here’s 3 popular theories.

Good education and a good diet are similar in that both need a moderate amount of all 3. Skills, ideas, and facts & fat, protein and carbohydrates. Its illogical to think one is better than the others. That is what fad diets are essentially.

You specialize in certain skills to survive. You learn ideas so that we all survive. A foundation of facts are the way you get to both.

Teacher here (25 years), mostly middle with some high school. When I design a curriculum it aims to be around 60% fact oriented and then either 20% each for ideas and skills or, more likely, 25-30% ideas and 15-10% skills. This was a great video and I can't add much to it except to consider this -- an interest in facts and lists seems hardwired in students (particularly boys). Year after year I meet kids who are either mythology nerds or dinosaur nerds (they go in and out of fashion) and occasionally jet plane nerds, car nerds, great battles of history nerds and, of course, the perennial sports nerds. What they all have in common is that they share a fascination with lists and data for their own sake. My non-specialist take on this (I'm a history teacher not a science teacher) is that this interest in collecting and classifying raw data is evolutionarily adaptive and is, thus, a force with which to be reckoned. So, if you're going to design a curriculum, you should figure out ways to co-opt this impulse rather than to fight against it.

I think having me read the Adler quote made the most sense for me since I'm also very stubborn, but upon watching the entire video I suppose I probably prefer Dewey's theories if only one could be chosen, or a combination of Dewey and Hirsch. I think that teaching a "thirst for knowledge" is more important than just shoving facts into a person's head and forcing them to regurgitate them, and then claiming a person is smart or dumb based on that (I would bet there are plenty of very good Jeopardy players who lack common sense), and I agree with Hirsch regarding... almost a monoculture is what he's talking about, of things being "common knowledge" and that you can reference them in conversation... but understanding context helps with what Hirsch is concerned about (your example of William F Buckley for example, a person not familiar with him could take from the context that he's "some sort of famous journalist or something?" and they wouldn't be FAR off, but with a thirst for knowledge they could Google if they really wanted to know more).

As someone in highschool I find it interesting how I never realized that these teaching philosophies are present in my School within different classes and different "difficulties" like for example in my AP classes which are needed to get into better forms of post-secondary education which will expactantly bring you to white collar career's are much more ideas-based than the base classes which are more skills-based which will bring you to a more blue collar line of work presumably and I wonder if this signifes how our society's perceived importance of teaching strategies differs based on what you do for a living. Classes such as small engines, mechanics, woodworking, cooking are way more practical and skills based than the sciences, english, and law which are more theoretical and fact-based/ideas-based it seems like the more abstract your classes are and the further away from entering the work force you are the less you're taught practical life skills/skills that could be used in a job

while i ascribe to a combination of ideas. I think Dewey had a very important point. I am severely dyslexic and learned to read when i was 13. The only reason i learned to read was because of my interest in Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Getting the basic skills and more importantly the love of learning is the most important achievement. I have since broadened my experience through University and other sources, but never would have if i had not been allowed to pursue my interests.

This reminds me of Aristotle's classification of knowledge: 1) episteme (scientific knowledge) 2) techne (skill and crafts) 3) phronesis (practical wisdom)

What do you call the “university professor spends as little time as possible ‘teaching’ and then runs back to their lab so they can get those grants” theory of education because that is the one most of my profs adhered to

When I was considering homeschooling my children, I read a number of books about different approaches. One was based on how the ancient Romans taught, which, as I recall, was a combination of all three—however, not at the same time. Elementary school was for facts, then, as you got older, you grappled with the bigger stuff. The idea was that as you developed and grew as a person, your ability to abstract grew as well. And you could build upon the fact-based knowledge you gained to grapple with the abstractions. I feel like that has got to be the best approach, and achieves the balance you mentioned at the end.

I want to focus for a moment on math, because math education in the US (my home country, not JJ's) has long been the subject of controversy, and this facts/skills/ideas trichotomy is actually really useful for explaining it. The very short version: Math education in the US has historically focused mostly on a mixture of facts and skills, but every several decades or so, a reformer will propose moving more towards the ideas end of the spectrum. This is always controversial, because most people have very little understanding of mathematical ideas and/or wrongly believe that math does not consist of ideas in the first place. Children ask their parents to help with some "New Math" homework, and the parents have no idea what to do with it, because they were never taught about any of the ideas that the homework is trying to teach. There is also the problem that many math teachers are in the same boat as the parents, so they can't even teach the material properly. At the same time, the reformers sort of have a point. If you don't teach ideas, then you end up with students who can (for example) apply the law of cosines to a diagram, but can't solve a three-line word problem about some tall building casting a shadow. They know what to write on the test to make their teacher happy, but they have no idea how to apply it outside of the classroom.

As a teacher in training, I find this topic truly fascinating. I believe it my duty to educate my students into well-rounded citizens able to fully participate in and appreciate democracy. Education, at its essence, should therefore be a dynamic blend of gaining knowledge, mastering skills, and embracing culture. While the contemporary narrative (in teacher training in Switzerland) often places the most importance on skill-centric learning, it's crucial to appreciate the equal significance of a well-rounded education. Knowledge is the anchor of critical thinking, skills are the practical manifestation of wisdom, and cultural insights foster empathy and global awareness. Without knowledge, the learner cannot learn any skills at all, but without skills, having that knowledge is equally useless. However, it is just as important to consider the young people's abilities and help them build up their knowledge and skills step by step.

Having worked in tv production- where cultural literacy is all important, as high school teacher - where skills based learning is all important, and now studying instructional psychology - where the idea of great books and philosophers is all important, I can say that I have an appreciation for what all three have helped me to learn. The missing piece in all of this is the role of the learner. Each individual is different and will resonate with different learning approaches. On top of this, each person will change throughout their life - I certainly have. Recognizing that all approaches have value and even if you find one better or worse for you now, that may change over time, is an essential part of being a lifelong learner.

I recently had an example of Cultural Literacy (or, rather, illiteracy) when my neighbor had some friends over from Canada (I live in California). We were talking, and they mentioned living near a Mennonite community. That led to a discussion about the churches in their hometown, and I learned, to my utter bewilderment, that neither of them had ever heard of Martin Luther before! I patiently explained to them who Martin Luther was and how he started the Protestant Reformation, and they actually responded by saying, "I thought that was King Henry VIII." They then asked how I knew all this, and I said that I learned it in school. "So you went to some kind of Christian school?" "No, just normal, secular, public school. They taught me this in history class because of its many impacts on Europe afterwards." They looked at me like I had grown a third eyeball out of my forehead, and acted like they suspected I might have been making all of this up. By the way, they were older than me.

As a teacher I've always favored making sure my students have the skills to learn new facts and ideas in the future with other teachers and/or self improvement. Things like logic skills to help detect biases, lies and propaganda, and sort dross from useful information.

I like a lot of what Adler is talking about. I’m in college, political science major, and I never wanted to read Augustine, Plato, or the Gita, but I’ve been forced to in my first few years of college, and I feel like once you push past the difference in language, their ideas really are things I’ve grappled with in my head, but I wasn’t able to form my thoughts about them until I discussed the readings with my peers. We think of how modern-day issues interact with the main ideas, and I just find it really helpful as a guide in my own life.

I was Classically educated, and I’m really grateful I was. One aspect of it is Great Books, though the list is not confined to the original list. I really think it is important that children read lots of old books, even if they don’t retain all the information. The in-class discussions about the books encourage students’ development of what they believe and provides a place to use reasoning skills. This, combined with Classical ed’s focus on logic and writing, makes it great for inculcating the nearly universally important skills to read, write, and reason well.

In this video I learnt 3 different things: facts about education systems (names, years, basic descriptions), philosophical ideas that led to these schools of thought forming and also how to apply and practice these educational styles in my life. Thanks J.J. for the multi-dynamic approach to education.

As a teacher in the US, my main criticism is that we focus on “critical thinking” without having them commit things to memory. I’ve noticed my own students struggle to think critically on why the North and South started to develop in different directions when they barely remember anything about what either of them were like. On the Great Books thing, at least where I teach, this idea is pretty much gone. Unless you’re just into some of the authors, we basically won’t use them as often. For example, when I taught an English class, I specifically picked books written after World War 2 since I taught in a Title 1 school. I thought that more modern books would be more relevant to them. And based on why my students said in a survey with another teacher, I was one of their more memorable teachers because of this.

The British Columbia curriculum is built around these three pillars. Curricular content (facts), curricular competencies (skills), and big ideas (ideas). As a teacher, it's pretty clear to me that this is the best way. There are things students needs to know. There are also things students need to be able to do. There are also big picture ideas students need to understand. The marriage of these philosophies of education is the reigning philosophy of education in British Columbia, and most certainly in my classroom. Thank you for the video; I very much enjoyed it.

Great episode. My hunch as a viewer is JJ himself wrestles with all 3 of these concepts as he continues on his journey, and continues to challenge and inspire his viewers. Hirsch makes the most sense to me, btw. Anyway, mind = blown.