I really think there's something wrong here with you understanding any of my meaning. I've not been talking about Bloom except for pointing out his initial obs

I really think there's something wrong here with you understanding any of my meaning. I've not been talking about Bloom except for pointing out his initial observation about the difference in outcomes with different instructional methods. The rest of the time has been defending simple ideas like "we can empirically study education." If you're taking me explaining the concept of mastery as a defense of Bloom, then we've really gone awry. It's not really a Bloom idea (though I guess he had a little influence on modern understanding of the idea). But you keep bringing him up in every other comment and ascribe my comments as a defense of him. The really wack thing is, Bloom's observations would really support your point (he measured that tutorial instruction was more effective than classroom instruction which is a portion of the point you're seemingly trying to make). You clearly have really big feelings about education-- that I think are influencing you and preventing you from engaging meaningfully with anything I say. Either that, or lack of reading comprehension has gotten in your way. In any case, it's hard for me to see the point in further conversation. It's too bad, too. The classroom that I teach in is not at all like the classrooms I grew up in and did not enjoy. Perhaps I have some meaning I could share, but you dismissed me at message 1 and haven't tried to understand me at all; instead you're painting me with the same brush as your negative experiences of the past.