Myers-Briggs as a psychological test is basically useless. MBTI indicates bimodal distributions of the attributes (people are either introverts or extroverts),

Myers-Briggs as a psychological test is basically useless. MBTI indicates bimodal distributions of the attributes (people are either introverts or extroverts), when they are more like a normal distribution. Gardner also lacks any real credibility, unless you throw out everything except "different people can be good at different things". It's good to encourage students to study a range of stuff (art, music and interpersonal stuff, not just math and english), but that's not really what Gardner is about. Students who are good at music aren't likely to learn math better if you sing it (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating). Individualization isn't a great method. It's hard to do, and has a fairly small impact on student outcomes. Most students work best if you show them a diagram, explain everything, give them a chance to try it themselves, and demonstrate things in a number of ways. It's not about "different strokes for different folks"; most students like a bit of variety. The reason many students struggle is because they lack the right foundations. They didn't learn it last year (for whatever reason) so they struggle this year and can't catch up. This is much more common than students simply not having the right talents. I'm not from the US, but Australia. From what I can tell, the US varies from state to state. The problems with the US aren't really related to pedagogy, but social issues (large black / hispanic communities going to black / hispanic schools, where everyone is trapped in the poverty cycle) and the way their standardized testing dominates everything. Every year the teacher is mostly concerned about the students passing the end of year test, at all costs, and the end of year tests seem to be badly designed.