3 ms·

I've actually done a similar "integrated" program here in the US. I really have to echo what the article says about great students getting it, while some stude

by cbanek 9y ago

I've actually done a similar "integrated" program here in the US. I really have to echo what the article says about great students getting it, while some students aren't sure what to take away from each lesson to bring to the next lesson: > "This way of teaching is great for the brightest children who understand what knowledge they need to take away from an experiment. It allows them the freedom to learn at their own pace and take the next steps when they are ready to," he says. > "But this is not the case for children who are less able to figure it out for themselves and need more guidance. The gap between the brightest and the less able has already begun widening and I am very afraid that this will only get worse". I had this integrated science program at IMSA (http://www.imsa.edu http://www.imsa.edu) in the late 90's. It was certainly interesting. We started off talking about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site. Overall, it was a fun program, and IMSA is meant to try out new teaching strategies, but I'm not sure how much of a success it would be in all public schools. It is very important to connect various scientific and learning concepts. Sometimes it even makes it easier to learn (physics and calculus are peas and carrots). But there is a certain foundation that also needs to be built up, such as atomic theory and chemistry. Right now we kind of teach school like a layer cake, where each layer is a grade. There's some stuff, and it vaguely builds on each other, but it's not directly connected. But whatever isn't directly connected on that graph is hard to find a use for. That's why it's important to connect concepts and understand how they interact in the world. I do think there's the possibility of a path that is more winding, connecting concepts along the way, but I'm not sure we know what the best path is. Should we focus earlier on math and reading? More science later after basic reading? Right now we seem to more or less equally divide time over subjects, which seems hugely arbitrary.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Kluny 9y ago
> "But this is not the case for children who are less able to figure it out for themselves and need more guidance. The gap between the brightest and the less able has already begun widening and I am very afraid that this will only get worse". It's too bad, but doesn't that just mean that the better students have been held back by the previous system and they're finally getting what they need? The slower students need something else, but I hope that the better ones continue getting better education that they can use.
- bicubic 9y ago
  Yeah. I get that modern education seems to have equality as a centerpiece, but the elephant in the room is that yes, some children are brighter than others. Making entire classes wait until everyone reaches a milestone before moving on, is dragging down the quickest learners to the level of the slowest. When they say "gap between the brightest and the less able has already begun widening", I think they're just starting to see again the gap that has always been there but was 'closed' at the expense of the smart kids. And it is at their expense, I've seen very bright students lose interest or turn to mischief because classes were not sufficiently stimulating for them. The smartest kid from my high school class was constantly getting in trouble and was almost expelled because he was perpetually bored.
- cbanek 9y ago
  Indeed. I felt like the difference between my well funded public high school (IMSA) was at least 100x that of my old high school, which actually had a lot of criminal problems (knives/guns found on students and in lockers, drugs everywhere, student violence). It wasn't even about education at that school, it was about safety. And yes, gifted children actually need somewhere to go. I can only imagine what would have happened if the education system supported me rather than held me back. In primary school we did have a very small "gifted" program that was after school, with Apple computers, a little programming even, and learning games. Even later on, the advanced classes were boring, but way ahead of "normal classes." Example: One time we moved schools, the new school didn't get my records, so they put me in all remedial programs without even letting me know. I was literally learning long division by hand in 7th grade, which I already knew. The next year (it took them all year to figure it out and move me up), I was taking algebra in 8th grade. What a waste of a few years.

by cbanek 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Kluny 9y ago

> "But this is not the case for children who are less able to figure it out for themselves and need more guidance. The gap between the brightest and the less able has already begun widening and I am very afraid that this will only get worse". It's too bad, but doesn't that just mean that the better students have been held back by the previous system and they're finally getting what they need? The slower students need something else, but I hope that the better ones continue getting better education that they can use.

bicubic 9y ago
Yeah. I get that modern education seems to have equality as a centerpiece, but the elephant in the room is that yes, some children are brighter than others. Making entire classes wait until everyone reaches a milestone before moving on, is dragging down the quickest learners to the level of the slowest. When they say "gap between the brightest and the less able has already begun widening", I think they're just starting to see again the gap that has always been there but was 'closed' at the expense of the smart kids. And it is at their expense, I've seen very bright students lose interest or turn to mischief because classes were not sufficiently stimulating for them. The smartest kid from my high school class was constantly getting in trouble and was almost expelled because he was perpetually bored.
cbanek 9y ago
Indeed. I felt like the difference between my well funded public high school (IMSA) was at least 100x that of my old high school, which actually had a lot of criminal problems (knives/guns found on students and in lockers, drugs everywhere, student violence). It wasn't even about education at that school, it was about safety. And yes, gifted children actually need somewhere to go. I can only imagine what would have happened if the education system supported me rather than held me back. In primary school we did have a very small "gifted" program that was after school, with Apple computers, a little programming even, and learning games. Even later on, the advanced classes were boring, but way ahead of "normal classes." Example: One time we moved schools, the new school didn't get my records, so they put me in all remedial programs without even letting me know. I was literally learning long division by hand in 7th grade, which I already knew. The next year (it took them all year to figure it out and move me up), I was taking algebra in 8th grade. What a waste of a few years.