[WillAdams]

The solution would seem to be a flexible system which identifies and works with the needs of each student.

A school system I attended when I was young divided classes between academic and social --- social classes were attended at one's age level, academic classes were attended at a student's ability levels, I believe that there were also trade school tracks, prompted by students taking Sloyd Woodworking claseses:

https://rainfordrestorations.com/tag/sloyd/

[bluGill]

While there is a point that on balance I have to disagree, there are a lot of things I want students to achieve that are just hard and they won't be motivated to. I want every student to have a good education in math, even though it is hard to do that. For that matter, most of it was forgotten by now, but it was hard to learn how to read. Most students wouldn't learn how to read if they were not forced to at some point.

Which is to say, the vast majority of students are not different. There are some much below average kids who need a lot of help but never will reach anything, but the vast majority are very close to average and we don't need particularly anything better for them than anyone else. What we need is to give the programs we give to the most gifted students to the less gifted students because they would benefit from the same attention

[ndriscoll]

The neat thing about stratifying by ability is that it doesn't require any additional resources or special programs. If you have 20 teachers in a school, you divide the student population into roughly 5%-wide ability bands instead of roughly 5%-wide age cohorts with random ability, and that's it.

Mastery learning is also more effective than moving on with knowledge gaps, so this should be expected to raise everyone's outcomes.

[WillAdams]

Exactly. The school was laid out in grids, and identical layouts between floors (higher grades higher up) with identical class sequencing for each grade, so at class change time, it was easy for even young kids to get to their next class.

[pstuart]

> I want every student to have a good education in math, even though it is hard to do that.

That's a laudable goal but I think it backfires in practice: a lot of students struggle with math and consider it to be torture, and will rarely require the skills and insights that learning algebra, trigonometry, geometry, and calculus will offer. Having done that work I find that I use very little of it in my day to day life (personally and professionally (as a programmer)).

I'm not suggesting that path be eliminated, only that it be an expected track for those interested in a STEM career.

For those who are not, just teaching them math literacy that can be used in contemporary daily life (some statistics, math reasoning (investments and debts), etc.

I love math -- it's the language of the universe! But it shouldn't be used to torture kids who will only learn to say "I hate math".

[WillAdams]

I would argue even the kids on the trade class track would need math:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30685840-practical-shop-...

[pstuart]

Sure, my point wasn't to disparage math or its value -- simply that there are 2 distinct tracts that should be followed:

1. STEM: To Calculus and beyond

2. Everyone else: math for mere mortals; practical applied mathematics where every bit of it contains a "here's where it's gonna help you" payoff.

[bluGill]

When kids reach late teens I'll buy that. However, let's be very cautious about separating kids too early. Kids do mature at different rates and some will realize that they need to study sooner while others smart kids decide to slack off and do terrible.

[mcmoor]

Yeah I've seen people try to push choice into kids as early as possible, while some students remain in doubt long into adulthood.

[pstuart]

I'm not suggesting closing the doors on those deemed unworthy -- they should remain wide open in perpetuity. It's more about asking what we want our students to take with them into life.

Do your own survey of peoples takes on math and the value it added to their life. Some of course will have been well-served, but many will share how they hate math and it makes them feel stupid and they don't get the point of it.

And that last bit is fair: what did they get out of it.

How much math does a lawyer, therapist, graphic designer, HR rep, dental hygienist, plumber, etc need?

The current mode of teaching it is building foundational layers so one can do advanced math that requires those layers, but if that isn't a destination, is that particular avenue the best way to do it? Teach them to hate math?

I don't have the easy answer except that if we were to teach kids "real-world" math that illustrates how things work, and more importantly, how math can be used to understand things without going to calculus and beyond they might absorb more and have a positive relationship with it.

[WillAdams]

The thing is, I've had shop projects where algebra was quite useful.

[pstuart]

Again, I'm not dismissing that there's any value, but that the teaching is more on abstractions as foundations for the next level vs what that lesson could be applied to today.

In your case, could you describe what it was and how it helped?