[nafix]

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.

[cortesoft]

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.

[woojoo666]

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.

[dahfizz]

It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...

[vkou]

So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?

[woojoo666]

Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses

[vkou]

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.

[dahfizz]

> 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.

[cortesoft]

> 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.