Comment by cambaceres

I'm gonna add another perspective. I was placed, and excelled, in moderately advanced math courses from 3rd grade on. Mostly 'A's through 11th grade precalc (taken because of the one major hiccup, placing only in the second most rigorous track when I entered high school). I ended that year feeling pretty good, with a superior SAT score bagged, high hopes for National Merit, etc.

Then came senior year. AP Calculus was a sh/*tshow, because of a confluence of factors: dealing with parents divorcing, social isolation, dysphoria. I hit a wall, and got my only quarterly D, ever.

The, "if you get left behind, that's on you, because we're not holding up the bright kids," mentality was catastrophic for me - and also completely inapplicable, because I WAS one of the bright kids! I needed help, and focus. I retook the course in college and got the highest grade in the class, so I confirmed that I was not the problem; unfortunately, though, the damage had been done. I'd chosen a major in the humnities, and had only taken that course as an elective, to prove to myself that I could manage the subject. You would never know that I'd been on-track for a technical career.

So, I don't buy that America/Sweden/et al. are full of hopeless demi-students. I was deemed one, and it wasn't true, but the simple perception was devastating. I think there is a larger, overarching deficit of support for students, probably some combination of home life, class structure, and pedagogical incentives. If "no child left behind" is anathema in these circles, the "full speed ahead" approach is not much better.

I'm not sure when this changed, but in school for me in the 1970s and early '80s the teachers (at least the older ones) were all pretty much of the attitude that "what you get out of school depends on what you put into it" i.e. learning is mostly up to the student. Grades of "F" or zero for uncompleted or totally unsatisfactory work were not uncommon and students did get held back. Dropout age was 16 and those who really didn't care mostly did that. So at least the last two years of high school were mostly all kids who at least wanted to finish.

> It's like this in the US (or rather, it was 20 years ago. But I suspect it is now worse anyway)

I'm sure it's regional, but my oldest kid started school in SoCal 13 years ago, and it is definitely worse. Nearly every bad decision gets doubled-down on and the good ones seem to lack follow-through. I spent almost a decade trying to improve things and have given up; my youngest goes to private school now.

We are experimenting with our daughter this year: Our school system offers advanced math via their remote learning system. This means that during math class, my kid will take online 6th grade math instead of the regular in-person 5th grade math.

We will have to see how it goes, but this could be the advanced math solution we need.

Schools my kids attended encourage getting ahead by offering advanced math classes, some being online

Sure! as far as I know, it's somewhat standardized and the east asian countries all have it (Korea, China, Japan). I know this because the Chinese Saturday School was close by. It's usually sponsored by the embassy & in the capital cities, or places with many Japanese families. (London, Germany, Canada afaik)

Because it's only once a week, it was from 09:00 - 14:00 or similar. The slots was: Language (Japanese), Social Studies (History, Geography, Social systems) and then Math. They usually gave homework, which was a little up to the parent to enforce. Classes was quite small: elementary school the most, but no more than 10. Middle school was always single digit (5 for my class). Depends on place and economy: When the comapnies Ericsson (Sweden) and Sony (Japan) had a joint division Sony-Ericsson, many classes doubled.

Class didn't differ so much from the normal school in Asia. Less strict. But the school organized a lot of events such as Undoukai (Sports Day), Theater play, and new years/setsubun festival and other things common in Japanese schools. It served as a place for many asian parents to meet each other too, so it became a bit of a community.

Because lack of students the one I went to only had from 1th to 9th grade. In London and bigger cities I heard they have up until high-school. But in Japan, Some colleges have 帰国子女枠 (returnee entrance system) so I know one alumni that went to Tokyo Uni after highschool.

Personally, I liked it. I hated having to go one extra day to school, but being able to have classmate to share part of your culture (before internet was wide-spread) by sharing games, books, toys you brought home from holiday in Japan was very valuable.

Related to the "critical thinking" part of the original article: It was also interesting to read two history books. Especially modern history. The Swedish (pretending to be neutral) one and the Japanese one (pretending they didn't do anything bad) as an example, for WW2 and aftermath. Being exposed to two rhetoric, both technically not a lie (but by omission), definitely piqued my curiosity as a kid.

And who were the teachers? Did it cost money, how much? How long ago? I guess the students were motivated and disciplined? Who were the other students? Natives, you mean swedes?

As a kid, the "fun" about Saturday school fluctuated. In the beginning it was super fun, after a while it became a chore (and I whined to my mom) but in the end I enjoyed it and it was tremendously valuable. The school had a lot of cultural activities (sport day, new years celebration / setsubun etc) and having a second set of classmates that shared a different side of you was actually fun for me. So it added an extra dimension of enjoyment in my childhood :)

Especially since (back then) being an (half) asian nerd kid in a 99.6% White (blonde & blue eyed) school meant a lot of ridicule and minor bullying. The saturday school classes were too small for bullying to not get noticed, and also served as a second community where you could share your stuff without ridicule or confusion :)

The experience made me think that it's tremendously valuable for kids to find multiple places (at least one outside school) where they can meet their peers. Doesn't have to be a school, but a hobby community, sport group, music groups, etc. Anything the kid might like, and there's shared interest.

It teaches kid that being liked by a random group of people (classmates) is not everything in life, and you increase the chance of finding like-minded people. Which reflect rest of life better anyway (being surrounded by nerds is by far the best perk of being an engineer)

I know 2 class mates (out of 7) that hated it there, and since it's not mandatory they left after elementary school. So a parent should ofc check if t he kids enjoy it (and if not, why) and let the kid have a say in it.

For many, coding can be fun and it's not an external obligation like eating veggies or going to the gym (relatedly, some also enjoy veggies and the gym).

Some people want to deeply immerse into a field. Yes, they sacrifice other ways of spending that time and they will be less well rounded characters. But that's fine. It's also fine to treat programming as a job and spend free time in regular ways like going for a hike or cinema or bar or etc.

And similarly, some kids, though this may not fully overlap with the parents who want their kids to be such, also enjoy learning, math, etc. Who love the structured activities and dread the free play time. I'd say yes, they should be pushed to do regular kid things to challenge themselves too, but you don't have to mold the kids too much against what their personality is like if it is functional and sustainable.

But it is a false dichotomy. You can both offer resources to the ones behind and support high achievers.

The latter can pretty much teach themselves with little hands on guidance, you just have to avoid actively sabotaging them.

Many western school systems fail that simple requirement in several ways: they force unchallenging work even when unneeded, don’t offer harder stimulating alternatives, fail to provide a safe environment due to the other student’s disruption…

If everyone can't get a Nobel prize, no one should!

The so-called intelligent kids selfishly try to get ahead and build rockets or cure cancer, but they don't care about the feelings of those who can't build rockets or cure cancer. We need education to teach them that everyone is special in exactly the same way.

That sounds like a recipe for mediocrity.

Ridiculous. Progress, by definition, is made by the people in front.

No one is saying to "focus solely on those ahead," but as long as resources are finite, some people will need to be left behind to find their own way. Otherwise those who can benefit from access to additional resources will lose out.

Which of the two give us progress? Are you sure you wanna give up all progress for the sake of stability?

[dead]

We don't have enough time to go over things like this over and over again. Somebody already analyzed/tried all this and wrote in a book and they teach you in school from that book how it works and why. Yeah if you want to know more or understand better you can always dig it out yourself. At least today you can learn tons of stuff.

I'm pretty sure my teachers in the 90s were teaching properly.

I also don't see what's "on the contrary" there.

Perhaps you overestimate me (or underestimate Beaujolais Nouveau (though how one could underestimate Beaujolais Nouveau is a mystery to me, but I digress)).

But also, it takes a lot of actual learning of facts and understanding reasoning to properly leverage that schooling and I've had to accept that I am somewhat deficient at both. :)

I appreciate the thought! ... even if it makes me question your judgement a bit.

You absolutely may, but I think you should personalize it with a wine reference that is geographically and qualitatively appropriate.

And you may only use it to describe yourself, not others.