7 ms·

Exactly. The thing is that you have to adjust curriculum to the developmental stage of the INDIVIDUAL child. Teaching someone too early only wastes the time,

Exactly. The thing is that you have to adjust curriculum to the developmental stage of the INDIVIDUAL child. Teaching someone too early only wastes the time, resources and money of that teaching. Too late and you lose future options. I didn't learn to read until 1st grade but many of my peers learned in kindergarten. Individuals do NOT all reach the same learning readiness phase at the same time or same age (two different things). BTW this "teacher's credential 101". Systems like Montessori focus on this dynamic and thus have fairly open-ended schedules for things. Falling behind is defined by not meeting ANY learning goals but being on schedule is meeting enough learning goals. Naturally customization of education like this does not fit well into a "School as a Factory; Child as a manufactured Part" model or the efficiency metrics that factories typically have that are similarly applied to public schools in the US (standardized testing is akin to process control; you do want some type of testing but it has to be structured with more nuance because children are not factory parts with narrow distributions of variance). At this point, home schooling probably can't be worse. But more focus on customization of education is pretty essential. US Schools are 80%-90% focused on the bottom 10%-20% of IQ based on actual school budgets and funding. And for those not in that bottom group, it's all 100% uniformity and low budgets. One size can never fit all.

Retric 5y ago
Part of this is simply a function of specialization. Teaching high school let alone first grade to an extremely high academic standard doesn’t actually achieve anything significant for society. It’s arguably much better to give kids reasonable minimum standards and plenty of free time and the capacity to explore their interests. This avoids burnout and generally keeps people interested in their passions rather than simply getting through the slog. On the other hand getting as many people as possible especially those with developmental issues to a minimum standard allows them to function in society. That pays real long term dividends and is worth significant investment.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  What if the students are interested in learning a subject to a high academic standard and will be bored otherwise? I was getting lower grades at my easy "teach to the bottom 10%" public school than the very difficult private school I moved to. By just dismissing academic rigor, you are alienating the high-performers who WANT to care. That's a bad group of people for a society to ignore.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    You're missing the point. The purpose of public school is to provide a basic education. If you want to do more work, or your parents want you to study more, you're free to do so. In your very own example, you went to a private school and did well. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. What's currently happening in public schools is that too many resources are being allocated to the over achievers and not enough to the under achievers. There's not enough money to fund all programs, so you have to ensure you fund the most needy first.
    - batter 5y ago
      Except one thing - even if you're in private school you have to pay for both. For public via taxes and private from your own pocket. It sound more like double tax for smart kids - knowledge for rich only. And just to remind that school price can be on par with University.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        I don't think that's particularly fair. We all pay into the basic social programs. I don't have children but I'm still paying into the public system and I don't believe I'm being unfairly taxed. To be able to afford to pay into the private school is a luxury.
        batter 5y ago
        So if you have smart kid but don't have money you won't be able to help him. Poor will be always poor :(
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>The thing is that you have to adjust curriculum to the developmental stage of the INDIVIDUAL child. While I agree with this, I suspect the social winds that led to this change, wouldn't put us on the path of creating individualized curriculum like you wanted. As gp mentioned, this change was motivated by social justice, and the same movement has called for getting rid of AP or other advanced material classes on the basis they're discriminatory (blacks/hispanics are underrepresented in them). I remembered a school district doing this sort of thing, but I can't find the link right now. That said, I did find a link of an entire province (!) dropping advanced classes under similar justifications: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-to-end-academic-streaming-that-splits-students-into-applied/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-to-en...
threatofrain 5y ago
Current Californian high school math classrooms may have sizes of 1 teacher to 40 students, with classroom size penalties ending at middle school. This is also true of the more prestigious areas mentioned in this forum. I cannot imagine a successful Montessori experience with 1:40 ratios. When considering the issue of individual variability in math ambition and readiness, it's more plausible to have a student who is ready for Geometry to move into a classroom where a teacher has already been polishing a year-long discourse on Geometry, as opposed to expecting any teacher to be ready for a discussion on Geometry. Under Equitable Math this will not be possible. Instead, all students must always be at the same level up until the last year.

Retric 5y ago

Part of this is simply a function of specialization. Teaching high school let alone first grade to an extremely high academic standard doesn’t actually achieve anything significant for society. It’s arguably much better to give kids reasonable minimum standards and plenty of free time and the capacity to explore their interests. This avoids burnout and generally keeps people interested in their passions rather than simply getting through the slog. On the other hand getting as many people as possible especially those with developmental issues to a minimum standard allows them to function in society. That pays real long term dividends and is worth significant investment.

pclmulqdq 5y ago
What if the students are interested in learning a subject to a high academic standard and will be bored otherwise? I was getting lower grades at my easy "teach to the bottom 10%" public school than the very difficult private school I moved to. By just dismissing academic rigor, you are alienating the high-performers who WANT to care. That's a bad group of people for a society to ignore.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  You're missing the point. The purpose of public school is to provide a basic education. If you want to do more work, or your parents want you to study more, you're free to do so. In your very own example, you went to a private school and did well. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. What's currently happening in public schools is that too many resources are being allocated to the over achievers and not enough to the under achievers. There's not enough money to fund all programs, so you have to ensure you fund the most needy first.
  - batter 5y ago
    Except one thing - even if you're in private school you have to pay for both. For public via taxes and private from your own pocket. It sound more like double tax for smart kids - knowledge for rich only. And just to remind that school price can be on par with University.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      I don't think that's particularly fair. We all pay into the basic social programs. I don't have children but I'm still paying into the public system and I don't believe I'm being unfairly taxed. To be able to afford to pay into the private school is a luxury.
      - batter 5y ago
        So if you have smart kid but don't have money you won't be able to help him. Poor will be always poor :(

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>The thing is that you have to adjust curriculum to the developmental stage of the INDIVIDUAL child. While I agree with this, I suspect the social winds that led to this change, wouldn't put us on the path of creating individualized curriculum like you wanted. As gp mentioned, this change was motivated by social justice, and the same movement has called for getting rid of AP or other advanced material classes on the basis they're discriminatory (blacks/hispanics are underrepresented in them). I remembered a school district doing this sort of thing, but I can't find the link right now. That said, I did find a link of an entire province (!) dropping advanced classes under similar justifications: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-to-end-academic-streaming-that-splits-students-into-applied/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-to-en...

threatofrain 5y ago

Current Californian high school math classrooms may have sizes of 1 teacher to 40 students, with classroom size penalties ending at middle school. This is also true of the more prestigious areas mentioned in this forum. I cannot imagine a successful Montessori experience with 1:40 ratios. When considering the issue of individual variability in math ambition and readiness, it's more plausible to have a student who is ready for Geometry to move into a classroom where a teacher has already been polishing a year-long discourse on Geometry, as opposed to expecting any teacher to be ready for a discussion on Geometry. Under Equitable Math this will not be possible. Instead, all students must always be at the same level up until the last year.