Like I said, sounds good to a layman in general terms (just how you explained it). But the actual implementation is half-baked, short-sighted, and favors a weak/easy solution rather than something more well thought out and complex.
Ok, so what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of?
I feel too often the people who play the 'woke nonsense' card think that we should just allow the current failings to continue, and any work to help struggling groups is wrong.
Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of?
The cited issue was that higher level math courses were making other students feel like they weren't cut out for math. So it seems more like the issue is a mindset one. They shouldn't be looking at better performing kids and think "I can never do that". We should be instilling a better growth mindset to these kids, so they understand that they can overcome their inabilities.
The "woke" solution of removing high level courses actually achieves the opposite. It reinforces the idea that such a level is inachievable for some people so it should be cut out for all people.
The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education.
If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course?
If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.
> If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course?
Why do you assume it is a zero sum game? We can have high level math courses and improve the quality of lower level ones (if you think they are problem). Or if you are saying that students shouldn't be forced into lower levels just because they aren't getting good grades, then yeah sure, let people join high level courses based on passion and not achievement. I think that's an entirely separate debate though.
> If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course?
If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial.
If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general.
I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.
If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?
> If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?
People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school.
Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.
> what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of?
Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential?
If the current system is untenable, then I would force all students to have one "tutor" period. Everyone has to take a tutor period, so the social stigmatization you're worried about it not a factor. This way, kids gets extra help in their "worst" subject (decided by some combination of grades / introspection/ parental involvement).
This way, the kids who need more help in math can get it, without pulling down the kids who belong in more advanced classes.
> Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential?
That is the purpose, but I agree that I don’t think it will work. I am saying we need to keep trying, and not dismiss any attempt to fix the issue as woke nonsense.
