You shouldn't optimize for the average student; you should stratify instruction so students of different levels are pushed to their limits and beyond.
Sure, some students will not be able to handle algebra as early as others. That doesn't mean you hold back the students who can. That's disastrous public policy, at the very least.
> You shouldn't optimize for the average student; you should stratify instruction so students of different levels are pushed to their limits and beyond.
While I personally agree with your point, I think your statement makes the case for the folks who developed this policy.
The “problem” that these policymakers see is that students, when stratified, are not stratified across certain groups in a proportion that is similar to the population.
For folks who focus on equality of outcome, this is a problem.
For folks who focus on equality of opportunity, it is not a problem.
I agree, but stratifying too early can be harmful.
I believe what's likely to be best for everyone is:
* Keep everyone on the same track through early elementary, but we need to work hard on making the classrooms encourage everyone to be curious and stretch themselves. Games and puzzles are the answer here.
* In upper elementary, start to offer differentiated instruction within a classroom.
* In middle school and beyond, have true stratified tracks (which this article recommends not doing).
Sure, some students will not be able to handle algebra as early as others. That doesn't mean you hold back the students who can. That's disastrous public policy, at the very least.