3 ms·

The problem with ability based groupings across age groups is that doesn't take into account learning velocity, ie the speed at which people learn new things.

The problem with ability based groupings across age groups is that doesn't take into account learning velocity, ie the speed at which people learn new things. For example, a second grader that is at a fourth grade math level is likely to learn much faster than a fifth grader at a fourth grade math level. And you don't want to put advanced 8 year olds in a class with slow 11 year olds. That in itself is an invitation to bullying. Ability based learning within age groups makes perfect sense, but assumes a sample size large enough to make meaningful groupings at the high and low ends.

moron4hire 14y ago
The problem is the classroom environment itself. The lecture format is an antiquated relic. We don't ever do the lecture format again once we leave school, which I think is pretty good evidence that it's garbage. You might submit conferences as a counterexample, but I would submit them in favor of my argument.
- thejteam 14y ago
  I firmly agree with you that classroom lectures are garbage. We homeschool our children. I'm simply making the point that, at least among younger children, age based classes are preferable to skill-based classes. A preferable alternative in my mind would be a classroom where ALL work is done independently. The teacher then calls each student to their desk individually to see what they have learned and what they need help with. They can then spend 10-15 minutes individually with each student per day. Fast students can get pushed ahead and slow students can get the help they need instead of being forced along with the rest of the class.
stared 14y ago
Actually, the argument for skill-based education _is_ that learning speeds are different. So for one it takes 6 months to learn something, for another - 3 years. And in such systems it's fine - you got promoted because you have learnt something, not just because you got one year older (and haven't failed utterly). And again, for the same "level" of subject there can be two speeds - so no risk of smart 8 yo kids in the same class with slow 11 yo.

moron4hire 14y ago

The problem is the classroom environment itself. The lecture format is an antiquated relic. We don't ever do the lecture format again once we leave school, which I think is pretty good evidence that it's garbage. You might submit conferences as a counterexample, but I would submit them in favor of my argument.

thejteam 14y ago
I firmly agree with you that classroom lectures are garbage. We homeschool our children. I'm simply making the point that, at least among younger children, age based classes are preferable to skill-based classes. A preferable alternative in my mind would be a classroom where ALL work is done independently. The teacher then calls each student to their desk individually to see what they have learned and what they need help with. They can then spend 10-15 minutes individually with each student per day. Fast students can get pushed ahead and slow students can get the help they need instead of being forced along with the rest of the class.

stared 14y ago

Actually, the argument for skill-based education _is_ that learning speeds are different. So for one it takes 6 months to learn something, for another - 3 years. And in such systems it's fine - you got promoted because you have learnt something, not just because you got one year older (and haven't failed utterly). And again, for the same "level" of subject there can be two speeds - so no risk of smart 8 yo kids in the same class with slow 11 yo.