4 ms·

"the issue with a teacher that is forced to teach a class of 25 students is very obvious" It's not obvious to the authors of the California Math Framework, who

"the issue with a teacher that is forced to teach a class of 25 students is very obvious" It's not obvious to the authors of the California Math Framework, who believe that: - we should sort kids into classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable - every child should be taught grade-level material (no matter how far behind, or far ahead, they may be) - teachers are capable of successfully teaching mixed ability classes (irrespective of how the min/max) using 'differentiated instruction'

chii 5y ago
> classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable It's just "strange" that this is only done for academics, but never for athletics. The fact that academic results can be thought of in "equitable" terms, but not athletic results (aka, you must be able to run 100m in X seconds), points to some systemic, cultural bias in thinking that everyone is just as smart, and that genetics don't play a role in intelligence.
- watwut 5y ago
  > It's just "strange" that this is only done for academics, but never for athletics. Because we don't teach athletics at all. PE is not even trying.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    We do teach athletics, but not as classes in schools. If you want your kid to learn how to play baseball, you sign them up for little league. Similarly for other sports. Coaches teach them how to play the sport.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Competitive clubs kick out (directly or indirectly) kids who don't do well instead of really attempting to teach them. Especially in teams sports, if you want the kid to learn soccer/basketball/whatever and the kid is not a talent meant to win competition, coaches wont spend much time teaching the kid. You may pay private lessons or something.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  The issue isn't about whether an individual's academic performance is affected by genetics. The question is: are differences in overall (say median) academic performance of broad racial groupings (black, white, asian, hispanic, other) mostly the result of differences in genetics? Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    > Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. Lol what? So uh are white people more genetically suited for lacrosse like 80% of the PLL is white, and us black people are somehow genetically suited for basketball because the NBA is like 70% black? We should really look into these... lacrosse genes. And those basketball genes. Or not? https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027 https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1..., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18317378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18317378/ Your perceived difference in athletic difference is just showing the difference in opportunity just like the difference in education is. Of course this is the part where we start bringing in IQ results that show this same difference right?: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/124054/Ivanovic_Daniza_Head.pdf https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/124054/I...?
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      Consider these two statements: A) The differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. B) Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. You seem to be arguing against A (about which I expressed no opinion).
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        Maybe because B borders on nonsensical?? Like what bizarre circles are you stewing in that you hear "They're great because they inherited the right genes for VO2 max!" more than you hear "They're great because they put in the hard work and effort! That's dedication right there!" And even if we focus on this truly fringe group that you seem to run with, the genetic factors like height are also readily overriden by inequality in the "broad racial groupings" you mentioned earlier... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34065650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34065650/ Inequality is the great genetic equalizer...
simion314 5y ago
>we should sort kids into classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable Can you maybe explain to a non US person why a system merit based is not used(or if it was used in the past was dropped) , I understand there are limitation with this system, I will describe next: 1 there is national/state level exam with super strong security to prevent cheating 2 highschool/universities will be placed on a list with all the classes they offer 3 candidates will fill an ordered list with their preferences. In practice this means you put on the top the "good" high schools and the classes/profiles that interest you , like if you hate Math you will avoid science/math stuff and go to art/literature/languages profiles. How I personally ordered the schools was by checking the results of their students at the national exams. The result is that students that are very smart or that are OK smart but worked hard are concentrated on 3 hghschools in my region. This seems OK sincee the kid that is a really jerk, never liked school or failed the exam will be at a different highschool and not drag down the working hard students.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  I moved to the US only 2 years ago, so am still learning about the system. As far as I can tell, the reasons for not using standardized test scores (such as the SAT and ACT) are that: 1. Using only these scores would boost the proportion of elite university places awarded to Asians, who are already 'overrepresented' relative to their share of the population. Propel state various reasons why this is undesirable (equity/diversity, don't want everyone on campus to be 'the same') and unstated reasons (racism against Asians). 2. Blacks and Hispanics are 'underrepresented' at elite colleges relative to their respective shares of the population. The argument here is that these outcomes are prima facie due to 'systemic racism', i.e. not necessarily overt racist acts, but things in the system that together result in worse outcomes for certain ethnic groups. If you want to read more about these topics, a few starting points: 1. Recent news (and Twitter discussions) about the University of California dropping the SAT. 2. Recent news about Lowell High School switching from partially-merit-based admission, to lottery-based admission. (And the court order from a few days ago, declaring this switch null and void.) 3. Thomas Sowell's books 'Economic facts and fallacies' and 'Charter schools and their enemies'. One of the points in these books (which include data) is that, when you adjust for things like parental educational level, number of parents in home, differences in outcomes between ethnic groups' career success often lessen or disappear altogether.

chii 5y ago

> classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable It's just "strange" that this is only done for academics, but never for athletics. The fact that academic results can be thought of in "equitable" terms, but not athletic results (aka, you must be able to run 100m in X seconds), points to some systemic, cultural bias in thinking that everyone is just as smart, and that genetics don't play a role in intelligence.

watwut 5y ago
> It's just "strange" that this is only done for academics, but never for athletics. Because we don't teach athletics at all. PE is not even trying.
- imgabe 5y ago
  We do teach athletics, but not as classes in schools. If you want your kid to learn how to play baseball, you sign them up for little league. Similarly for other sports. Coaches teach them how to play the sport.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Competitive clubs kick out (directly or indirectly) kids who don't do well instead of really attempting to teach them. Especially in teams sports, if you want the kid to learn soccer/basketball/whatever and the kid is not a talent meant to win competition, coaches wont spend much time teaching the kid. You may pay private lessons or something.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
The issue isn't about whether an individual's academic performance is affected by genetics. The question is: are differences in overall (say median) academic performance of broad racial groupings (black, white, asian, hispanic, other) mostly the result of differences in genetics? Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  > Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. Lol what? So uh are white people more genetically suited for lacrosse like 80% of the PLL is white, and us black people are somehow genetically suited for basketball because the NBA is like 70% black? We should really look into these... lacrosse genes. And those basketball genes. Or not? https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027 https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1..., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18317378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18317378/ Your perceived difference in athletic difference is just showing the difference in opportunity just like the difference in education is. Of course this is the part where we start bringing in IQ results that show this same difference right?: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/124054/Ivanovic_Daniza_Head.pdf https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/124054/I...?
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    Consider these two statements: A) The differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. B) Many (most?) people would say the differences are mostly genetic for sports, but not for academics. You seem to be arguing against A (about which I expressed no opinion).
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Maybe because B borders on nonsensical?? Like what bizarre circles are you stewing in that you hear "They're great because they inherited the right genes for VO2 max!" more than you hear "They're great because they put in the hard work and effort! That's dedication right there!" And even if we focus on this truly fringe group that you seem to run with, the genetic factors like height are also readily overriden by inequality in the "broad racial groupings" you mentioned earlier... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34065650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34065650/ Inequality is the great genetic equalizer...

simion314 5y ago

>we should sort kids into classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable Can you maybe explain to a non US person why a system merit based is not used(or if it was used in the past was dropped) , I understand there are limitation with this system, I will describe next: 1 there is national/state level exam with super strong security to prevent cheating 2 highschool/universities will be placed on a list with all the classes they offer 3 candidates will fill an ordered list with their preferences. In practice this means you put on the top the "good" high schools and the classes/profiles that interest you , like if you hate Math you will avoid science/math stuff and go to art/literature/languages profiles. How I personally ordered the schools was by checking the results of their students at the national exams. The result is that students that are very smart or that are OK smart but worked hard are concentrated on 3 hghschools in my region. This seems OK sincee the kid that is a really jerk, never liked school or failed the exam will be at a different highschool and not drag down the working hard students.

rahimnathwani 5y ago
I moved to the US only 2 years ago, so am still learning about the system. As far as I can tell, the reasons for not using standardized test scores (such as the SAT and ACT) are that: 1. Using only these scores would boost the proportion of elite university places awarded to Asians, who are already 'overrepresented' relative to their share of the population. Propel state various reasons why this is undesirable (equity/diversity, don't want everyone on campus to be 'the same') and unstated reasons (racism against Asians). 2. Blacks and Hispanics are 'underrepresented' at elite colleges relative to their respective shares of the population. The argument here is that these outcomes are prima facie due to 'systemic racism', i.e. not necessarily overt racist acts, but things in the system that together result in worse outcomes for certain ethnic groups. If you want to read more about these topics, a few starting points: 1. Recent news (and Twitter discussions) about the University of California dropping the SAT. 2. Recent news about Lowell High School switching from partially-merit-based admission, to lottery-based admission. (And the court order from a few days ago, declaring this switch null and void.) 3. Thomas Sowell's books 'Economic facts and fallacies' and 'Charter schools and their enemies'. One of the points in these books (which include data) is that, when you adjust for things like parental educational level, number of parents in home, differences in outcomes between ethnic groups' career success often lessen or disappear altogether.