3 ms·

Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of? The cited issue was that higher level math course

Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of? The cited issue was that higher level math courses were making other students feel like they weren't cut out for math. So it seems more like the issue is a mindset one. They shouldn't be looking at better performing kids and think "I can never do that". We should be instilling a better growth mindset to these kids, so they understand that they can overcome their inabilities. The "woke" solution of removing high level courses actually achieves the opposite. It reinforces the idea that such a level is inachievable for some people so it should be cut out for all people.

dahfizz 5y ago
It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...
- vkou 5y ago
  So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?
  - woojoo666 5y ago
    Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses
    - vkou 5y ago
      The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education. If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.
      - dahfizz 5y ago
        > If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial. If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general. I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.
        vkou 5y ago
        If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can? I am advocating for more across the board.
        dahfizz 5y ago
        > If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can? People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school. Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.
      - woojoo666 5y ago

dahfizz 5y ago

It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...

vkou 5y ago
So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?
- woojoo666 5y ago
  Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses
  - vkou 5y ago
    The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education. If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      > If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial. If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general. I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.
      - vkou 5y ago
        If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can? I am advocating for more across the board.
        dahfizz 5y ago
        > If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can? People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school. Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.
    - woojoo666 5y ago