I don't understand what this means. Where I went to school there were no gifted programs but we all were doing algebra and word problems much earlier than in the US. If people want consistent outcomes then teach everyone the same thing and hold everyone up to the same standards by investing more resources in students that are underachieving. That to me seems like a much better way of equalizing outcomes.
If you teach "hard" things to average US public school students, a minority of them will excel as a result. The rest will nod off, get bored, not pay attention, and not benefit.
So it benefits a minority (those who care) and differentiates them from the rest -- that's what they don't like. Because those who care come from "privileged" backgrounds more often than not, thus perpetuating the gap between privileged and non-privileged.
I still don't follow. What exactly in what I suggested is the problem with equalizing outcomes? If everyone is learning the same things then what exactly is the problem? There is no discrimination involved.
"Equalizing outcomes" is exactly what they want to do.
They seek to accomplish this by pulling down those who would otherwise excel, not by solving the real problems that are preventing people from excelling in the first place.
Part of the problem is that outcomes can never be equalized. It's a fallacy to try to force everyone into the same educational mold. A statistical normal distribution will always occur.
Better to remove impediments that are keeping people from excelling -- things like poverty, crime, etc. would be a great place to start.
What's the fallacy in teaching everyone the same things? That seems like a good way to equalize life outcomes and give everyone the required skills for succeeding in contemporary society.
If all (e.g.) 7th graders must have the same knowledge of math, that knowledge of math cannot exceed the knowledge attainable by the dumbest (read: any) 7th grader. This is tautologically true.
Yes, thanks. That clears it up. You're right. We must teach no one anything otherwise there would be some people that wouldn't be able to understand. That was exactly what I was thinking and your example helped me understand. What you were saying was clearly tautological and I just didn't have the logical training to understand it.
Your interpretation of what I was saying was clearly adversarial and uncharitable so I just got tired of it. It's entirely possible to have high standards for everyone (including the "stupid") without reducing the quality of the curriculum. But you're not interested in having that discussion because you're grinding some other axe about what you perceive to be the ideological takeover of the educational system.
>What's the fallacy in teaching everyone the same things? That seems like a good way to equalize life outcomes and give everyone the required skills for succeeding in contemporary society.
My position is that kids should be taught math at an earlier age and schools should be properly staffed and funded to ensure positive learning outcomes for all students regardless of their socio-economic background because that will lead to more equal life outcomes.
What's interesting is that beyond a certain threshold (perhaps around the left-hand normal distribution inflection point), further reducing failure rate ends up also reducing the rate of super-success among students in the same classroom.
There is no way to fail in what I'm proposing because there are no grades. Everyone gets feedback on how to improve and students can receive all the help they need to keep up with the curriculum.
When most kids can’t do algebra, the teacher invests most of their time into helping those students catch up. Because most of the teachers time is now going to students who don’t understand algebra, algebra gets dropped all together. Minority high achievers who were capable of understanding algebra now feel that they are held back by low achievers.
High achievers should probably check out Khan Academy or similar…
Yes, this is probably what is happening. Schools are understaffed and underfunded so programs keep getting cut. At this point it really just might be better to let kids learn from Khan Academy since the adults clearly have no idea what they're doing.
