3 ms·

So rather than read the article, you're going to write about what the headline says -- since that is an easier workaround to an otherwise very long task. What

So rather than read the article, you're going to write about what the headline says -- since that is an easier workaround to an otherwise very long task. What is next? A social media platform where headlines are the only allowable content?

yumraj 5y ago
I did read the article and also read the proposal and FAQ that was posted in a sibling comment, not sure why you thought I did not. Of course I've not looked at prepared textbooks since I don't think those are available yet. But still, I fundamentally believe that we're solving the wrong problem by playing with curriculum that affects every kid in such a way, especially when it won't be evident till several years later how it impacted different kids. We should rather be thinking about how to help the kids who are lagging behind rather than change the curriculum for everyone. Not everyone will benefit with de-mathematized math. For some kids, direct teaching of concepts works better. For example, there are English learners. The way I understand, the English learners are helped in English but they are still expected to continue with other courses in parallel. Why not take a few years with them to just focus on English to get them up to a certain level, at which point they can continue with the rest of the classwork. Perhaps have Charter schools just for that, which can become feeder schools to other schools. Yes, there would be disparity in having kids of different ages in the same class level, but that is an easier problem to solve. NOTE: that is just one idea, and not sure if it will work. I'm not a trained educator, but I am a proponent of out of the box thinking. Changing curriculum which affects everyone is not the right approach IMHO. I still feel that changes should be made that benefit only those who need help. Across the board changes can be dangerous.

yumraj 5y ago

I did read the article and also read the proposal and FAQ that was posted in a sibling comment, not sure why you thought I did not. Of course I've not looked at prepared textbooks since I don't think those are available yet. But still, I fundamentally believe that we're solving the wrong problem by playing with curriculum that affects every kid in such a way, especially when it won't be evident till several years later how it impacted different kids. We should rather be thinking about how to help the kids who are lagging behind rather than change the curriculum for everyone. Not everyone will benefit with de-mathematized math. For some kids, direct teaching of concepts works better. For example, there are English learners. The way I understand, the English learners are helped in English but they are still expected to continue with other courses in parallel. Why not take a few years with them to just focus on English to get them up to a certain level, at which point they can continue with the rest of the classwork. Perhaps have Charter schools just for that, which can become feeder schools to other schools. Yes, there would be disparity in having kids of different ages in the same class level, but that is an easier problem to solve. NOTE: that is just one idea, and not sure if it will work. I'm not a trained educator, but I am a proponent of out of the box thinking. Changing curriculum which affects everyone is not the right approach IMHO. I still feel that changes should be made that benefit only those who need help. Across the board changes can be dangerous.