4 ms·

I didn't say we should eliminate it, I said we should treat it as a problem. If it comes down to learning speed, great, not a big problem, if a 9th grader is b

I didn't say we should eliminate it, I said we should treat it as a problem. If it comes down to learning speed, great, not a big problem, if a 9th grader is behind because of how K-6 is structured, fix that.

WalterBright 6y ago
> I said we should treat it as a problem. It's better to just accept that kids are different. It's not a problem that some kids run faster than others. It's not a problem that some kids are interested in art and others are interested in cars. I like programming. Others detest it, but like cooking. Viva la difference.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  You aren't reading for my meaning. The comment I replied to was speaking about 1st grade placement having trajectory. My point is that this being true is a failure of the educational system. Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not. I can agree with that as a goal. Their best outcome is going to be different from everyone else's.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Elsewhere you say that kids don't need to learn those things until age 6, so parents don't need to worry about prioritizing it. Here, the concern is that if the kids learn them around age 6, their trajectory could be permanently altered-- never having a chance to catch up even if capable-- because of the system's tracking of learners.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > their trajectory could be permanently altered I simply don't buy that. The reason is simple - elementary school teaches kids at such a glacial pace there is no problem for kids catching up who started a bit late. For example, I missed the first half of 4th grade. The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. The teacher was skeptical, but within a few days it was abundantly clear that I hadn't missed anything at all. The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months. P.S. when going through my dad's papers after he passed a few years ago, I ran across report cards from before first grade. They all thought I was "slow". People should just lighten up about academic performance before age 6. It doesn't mean anything for the vast majority of kids. I wouldn't even worry about it until 3rd grade.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Indeed. My 4th grader is in remote public schooling this year. He crushes the day's work in 30-45 minutes; if anything it's highlighting just how terribly inefficient the scholastics part of elementary school is. (It's also not the primary purpose of K-5, but to the extent that a sliver of it is present, it is indeed glacially slow.)
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Elementary school is pretty much 95% playtime. I had a good time playing with my friends at school. College was a total shock, I had to work hard.
        mlyle 6y ago
        OK, so say that in the argument above, because I think you were misunderstanding the other party. I think it varies a lot by school system. There are places-- mostly lower income, disadvantaged places-- where joining a higher track again is very hard. > The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. This kind of advocacy is often missing, too. > The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months. Good curriculum has looping, where you hit the same kind of topic from different angles separated in time. I'm teaching bright kids in middle school, and I'm finding that you need to hit something about 3 times before even the bright kids will retain and be able to minimally apply it. (With the exception that every now and then something will be interesting enough that a few students will go and figure out everything about it on their own). Looping means that if kids miss a bit it'll generally be OK (there won't be huge perceptible gaps in knowledge/ability).
- watwut 6y ago
  I mean, while running definitely have genetic component, right kind of training makes massive difference. In world where running would matter, I woud expect the adults to try to figure out when and how train them. Same for art actually. If art mattered more, we would cared about making kids like it and teaching all kids to draw.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Of course training makes a difference. But if you don't win the genetic lottery, you're never going to be in the 1% that are good enough to make a living at it. Not a chance. Me, my coordination is poor. It takes a lot of training for me to even get to the point where most people start. But it doesn't matter to me, as I'm good at things other people are bad at, and fortunately I enjoy doing those things and people pay me to do it. Nobody would pay me for my athletic ineptitude, my musical disability, or my artistic malfunction. And so what. Viva la difference.

WalterBright 6y ago

> I said we should treat it as a problem. It's better to just accept that kids are different. It's not a problem that some kids run faster than others. It's not a problem that some kids are interested in art and others are interested in cars. I like programming. Others detest it, but like cooking. Viva la difference.

maxerickson 6y ago
You aren't reading for my meaning. The comment I replied to was speaking about 1st grade placement having trajectory. My point is that this being true is a failure of the educational system. Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Each kid should get their best outcome regardless of whether they enter 1st grade on that track or not. I can agree with that as a goal. Their best outcome is going to be different from everyone else's.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Elsewhere you say that kids don't need to learn those things until age 6, so parents don't need to worry about prioritizing it. Here, the concern is that if the kids learn them around age 6, their trajectory could be permanently altered-- never having a chance to catch up even if capable-- because of the system's tracking of learners.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > their trajectory could be permanently altered I simply don't buy that. The reason is simple - elementary school teaches kids at such a glacial pace there is no problem for kids catching up who started a bit late. For example, I missed the first half of 4th grade. The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. The teacher was skeptical, but within a few days it was abundantly clear that I hadn't missed anything at all. The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months. P.S. when going through my dad's papers after he passed a few years ago, I ran across report cards from before first grade. They all thought I was "slow". People should just lighten up about academic performance before age 6. It doesn't mean anything for the vast majority of kids. I wouldn't even worry about it until 3rd grade.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Indeed. My 4th grader is in remote public schooling this year. He crushes the day's work in 30-45 minutes; if anything it's highlighting just how terribly inefficient the scholastics part of elementary school is. (It's also not the primary purpose of K-5, but to the extent that a sliver of it is present, it is indeed glacially slow.)
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Elementary school is pretty much 95% playtime. I had a good time playing with my friends at school. College was a total shock, I had to work hard.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        OK, so say that in the argument above, because I think you were misunderstanding the other party. I think it varies a lot by school system. There are places-- mostly lower income, disadvantaged places-- where joining a higher track again is very hard. > The teacher proposed that I be held back a grade because of all that I missed. My mom put her foot down and said no way. This kind of advocacy is often missing, too. > The 4th grade class simply had not perceptibly advanced in 3 months. Good curriculum has looping, where you hit the same kind of topic from different angles separated in time. I'm teaching bright kids in middle school, and I'm finding that you need to hit something about 3 times before even the bright kids will retain and be able to minimally apply it. (With the exception that every now and then something will be interesting enough that a few students will go and figure out everything about it on their own). Looping means that if kids miss a bit it'll generally be OK (there won't be huge perceptible gaps in knowledge/ability).
watwut 6y ago
I mean, while running definitely have genetic component, right kind of training makes massive difference. In world where running would matter, I woud expect the adults to try to figure out when and how train them. Same for art actually. If art mattered more, we would cared about making kids like it and teaching all kids to draw.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Of course training makes a difference. But if you don't win the genetic lottery, you're never going to be in the 1% that are good enough to make a living at it. Not a chance. Me, my coordination is poor. It takes a lot of training for me to even get to the point where most people start. But it doesn't matter to me, as I'm good at things other people are bad at, and fortunately I enjoy doing those things and people pay me to do it. Nobody would pay me for my athletic ineptitude, my musical disability, or my artistic malfunction. And so what. Viva la difference.