>You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it.
No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome based on the totally untrue premise that we are all equally capable given identical environments.
The only possible resolution to this goal, given the obvious uneven distribution of innate human ability, is the handicapping of those who are capable, because there fundamentally is no way to boost those at the bottom to match the middle and top.
And I don't think people understand how dangerously pervasive this mindset has become, as it is also the foundation for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the equally misguided idea that given equal opportunity all demographics would see equal representation in a true meritocracy.
> No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math.
I think the nonsense is making a decision about who is and isn't cut-out for math at such a young age, and keeping them hemmed into that path for the duration of their education. That's not merely recognizing the top, middle, and bottom - it's creating it.
I see that as a worthy thing to try to avoid. I also think we should strive to avoid falsely concluding that all persons are equally capable.
But every decision is one that creates tradeoffs. I don't know what should be done. I'm an observer on this topic, and I think there's a lot of hubris in this thread from others oh so certain they know what's best.
Perhaps a simple solution is worth a try: publicly praise/acknowledge those who excel, while also teaching that it's okay to not be at that level [yet]. Encourage peer mentorship, so that the more advanced ones can help someone who struggles. For the outliers who are absolutely stuck in the "I don't care" mindset, apply additional resources to find alternate ways to make the material matter to that individual (practical examples, scenarios, hands-on application, etc.). Ask other students who are interested what real world uses they can think of for the material/topic/equation/concept. If something works, consider implementing that method for the entire class earlier on for the next class.
This is where the goalposts generally get shifted toward teacher resources and/or pay. That's fine to discuss as well, but likely not a significant factor for the above suggestions.
What's the longest we can go without streaming and still meet reasonable targets? The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar.
This means an informed discussion needs to be had about the costs of lowering the bar against the costs of early streaming. I think people are rather strongly against lowering the bar to the point of effectively removing calculus from high school based on the general reaction in this thread.
> The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar.
If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats.
But, of course, it's easier to just throw your hands up into the air, and just bifurcate people at Grade 7 into 'good math' and 'bad math' tracks.
>If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats
Their peers in other countries are working with culturally and genetically different populations. Intelligence is 70%+ heritable, you do the math, as taboo as it may be. Then add in the difference between a culture that prizes academic achievement versus one that is ambivalent or worse, prioritizes sports or music over education, and you have more than enough to explain the divergence between nations, as well as demographic groups in the US.
Parents and peers/communities. If the US is any indication, teachers are incapable of instilling appreciation for learning once scholastic achievement is branded "uncool".
You underestimate the impact that schooling has on culture. As a school-age child, you spend more time being socialized and educated by your teachers, than by your parents.
> If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats.
You think they're doing it with "Common Core" and "ethnic" rainforest math, let alone this new "data science" insanity? You couldn't be more mistaken on that. Take a look at the popular Russian and Singapore Math. Not even the smallest trace of the failing "progressive education" thinking, just a lot of solid, high-quality, direct, rigorous, focused teaching.
Can't we agree that both extremes are wrong? While I agree that it is wrong to assume there is no such thing as innate human ability, and it is wrong to assume everyone can achieve equally, you seem to be arguing the opposite; that there is nothing that can be done to improve achievement for those who are struggling.
This simply isn't true. There are things that can be done to improve the outcome for students, and we should continue to work to try to improve the success of all students. This doesn't mean that you expect everyone to achieve equally, just that you can help people achieve more than they would have without the help.
I also find this argument a bit paradoxical; if you truly believe that innate ability is the only determining factor for how well students do, then why do you worry about handicapping those who are capable? It shouldn't matter if we force them into classes they are too advanced for, since how we educate them doesn't matter and only natural talent matters.
It seems that you believe schooling does affect achievement, since you want to make sure we aren't holding back the high achievers, yet you are saying at the same time we shouldn't worry about how we educate the low achievers because they are stuck where they are no matter what. You can't argue that it matters for high achievers but not for low achievers, that doesn't make any sense.
> There are things that can be done to improve the outcome for students, and we should continue to work to try to improve the success of all students.
How would you suggest we do this?
Without a dramatic reinvention of our education system, you have to fill a room with N students and 1 teacher. If you want that teacher to be maximally effective at "improving outcomes" - how do we do that?
The proposal here is to group the kids strictly by age. Every kid in grade X gets the same math class. This will inevitably lead to the math class being irrelevant to some portion of the class. Some kids will be so far behind the teacher may as well be speaking a foreign language, and some kids will be bored out of their mind because the material is moving too slow.
By being a little more intelligent in choosing our groups of N student, we can maximize the relevance of what the teacher is teaching and therefore better improve the success of all students.
I don’t know how we do it, I am not an education expert. I am simply saying we should keep trying new ways to try to help lower performing student improve until we find one that works. We shouldn’t just give up and write them off as being unable to improve.
No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome based on the totally untrue premise that we are all equally capable given identical environments.
The only possible resolution to this goal, given the obvious uneven distribution of innate human ability, is the handicapping of those who are capable, because there fundamentally is no way to boost those at the bottom to match the middle and top.
And I don't think people understand how dangerously pervasive this mindset has become, as it is also the foundation for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the equally misguided idea that given equal opportunity all demographics would see equal representation in a true meritocracy.