34 ms·

i mean it in the sense of not being okay with underperforming students year after year such that they drag their peers down. have higher standards for the whole

by bllguo 5y ago

i mean it in the sense of not being okay with underperforming students year after year such that they drag their peers down. have higher standards for the whole class from the start, otherwise problems compound. This is what we have now, where every year basic concepts that should already be understood need to be rehashed for half the year before moving on to actual new material there are bound to be truly exceptional students that far outpace everyone else, but in those cases i dont think its entirely fair to expect schools to fully accommodate such outliers. historically such prodigies resort to self-study

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I agree with your first paragraph, but I think there are significant political and logistic headwinds to being able to solve that problem in the classroom. Namely, I think it is a sociopolitical problem starting at home that is far greater in scope than a school can provide a solution for. So while schools have to keep passing kids that should be failing for reasons outside of their control, I think the next best option is to keep giving those who can advance quicker an option to keep advancing quicker.
threatofrain 5y ago
For schools already offering Calculus, offering support to outliers simply means moving them to the Calculus class when they are ready. For other schools it means allowing students to get high school credit from college courses. In the case of some Californian schools, over half their math faculty may already be Calculus teachers, and in the incoming junior high, over half the students may be on track to take Calculus. We should not think of students with the potential to reach Calculus as outliers.
323454 5y ago
> but in those cases i dont think its entirely fair to expect schools to fully accommodate such outliers This sentiment would equally support removing special education programs for students with learning disabilities, yet those are not being called into question.
- garbagecoder 5y ago
  100% this. Why aren’t we doing full inclusion then? (Another thing they want but can’t have because of all of the spedbux they get from the Feds.)

by bllguo 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I agree with your first paragraph, but I think there are significant political and logistic headwinds to being able to solve that problem in the classroom. Namely, I think it is a sociopolitical problem starting at home that is far greater in scope than a school can provide a solution for. So while schools have to keep passing kids that should be failing for reasons outside of their control, I think the next best option is to keep giving those who can advance quicker an option to keep advancing quicker.

threatofrain 5y ago

For schools already offering Calculus, offering support to outliers simply means moving them to the Calculus class when they are ready. For other schools it means allowing students to get high school credit from college courses. In the case of some Californian schools, over half their math faculty may already be Calculus teachers, and in the incoming junior high, over half the students may be on track to take Calculus. We should not think of students with the potential to reach Calculus as outliers.

323454 5y ago

> but in those cases i dont think its entirely fair to expect schools to fully accommodate such outliers This sentiment would equally support removing special education programs for students with learning disabilities, yet those are not being called into question.

garbagecoder 5y ago
100% this. Why aren’t we doing full inclusion then? (Another thing they want but can’t have because of all of the spedbux they get from the Feds.)