This was more than a decade ago when we were looking into emersion schools for our daughter. We went to several private schools first and all three were emphasizing ipads as their primary tool for teaching language. The public school our daughter was set to attend had an open house promoting its long running emersion programs.

Wow. Our public school had native speakers and no ipads. There was a major focus on true emersion. From minute one, they were spoken to in the native language. The teachers were incredible. In the first six months, my daughter was speaking in full sentences and her teachers were praising her pronunciation of certain words.

The real eye opener came at a local park. My daughter was playing with a boy, speaking to him and his mother. I came over to join the fun and the mother started speaking to me in Spanish. I was like, "Uh, I don't speak Spanish." She looked at me confused and said, "Your daughter, she was speaking fluently to both myself and my son in Spanish."

It was a pretty jaw dropping moment. One, to think we were blessed to have such a great emersion program at our public school and secondly to see my daughter pick up a language so effortlessly. It really reinforced my idea that its all about the quality of education, not necessarily how much you're paying for it.

> But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child.

Baltimore spends more per student than Switzerland.

> As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...

Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc.

Keeping down cost per child? What are you talking about? The cost per child has skyrocketed in the US over last 20 years, particularly among the worst-performing schools. Baltimore spends more per child than Mountain View. NYC spends more per child than Palo Alto.

There is a certain view, popular among many people, that poor performing schools perform badly because they are underfunded. It has been vigorously spread by politicians, teachers, and activists. Well, we ran the experiment. With enormous federal and state spending, we managed to mostly equalize the spending, and, in many cases, fund the badly performing schools more than the good ones. The results of the experiment are very clear: additional funding, by and large, does not *cause* significantly improved educational outcomes. Any observed correlation between school funding and outcomes is a result of who lives in the area, and who attends the school. The casual arrow does not go from funding to outcomes, but from the school population to both funding, and, in parallel, to outcomes.

Eh.

Prior to her current role my gf spent about a decade as the head of a very elite private elementary school (she's been in education for 35 years now). Certainly ten figure families represented in the student body with names you would recognize as such. The school had access to all of the resources they could ask for and they did very well on paper. However, the attitude of the students was qualitatively different (and in my gf's opinion much worse) than those of her current students.

It's fun to imagine a collection of rock star educators huddled around every child just constantly feeding their intellectual curiosity, but the reality is most of those kids just aren't hungry. They live lives of comfortable inconsequentiality which, on average, seems to rob something from human curiosity and drive.

[flagged]

Lol ok tons of teachers use LLMs to make material. The plural of anecdote is not data, but in this case it's close.