My theory is that in order to achieve parity with low IQ people, they made math too difficult for the high IQ students to understand. You can't raise low IQ people up, but you dumb high IQ people down.
I learned a lot of those things as well as the traditional items without the teach being a "colleague". My wife is a tutor, but gets me to help when it comes to math. They are teaching a lot of things that are useless to the 99.99%. And not teaching stuff that is very useful.
Intuition has its place but students at that age should still have certain things memorized and be able to do raw calculations.
For that style of teaching to be tolerable for students, they had to experience the teacher as a colleague rather than as an adversary or as someone concerned mainly with grading.
This was the purpose of the Frankfort School. Moving all authority figures out of their position as superiors and into the realm of colleagues.
This kind of teaching isn't possible when the teachers themselves don't understand what they're teaching.
I don't think the concept was bad, I just the the execution was awful because the teachers couldn't grasp the concepts.
Makes sense.
Not all the students would be equally capable either. So even if the class was set up and properly ran by the teacher you would wind up with some kids being the leaders while the majority would follow and a few would just not get it at all.
On purpose.
Did you know about "New Math"?
Yep. Learned it in NYC public schools in the 70s and 80s.
Glad I never had to go through that.
Yeah, I remember that. It was about the same time I started failing math...
Problem is that people just don't want to accept that some kids are naturally good at math and some aren't. The ones that are do not require special methods of teaching and the ones that aren't won't remember it anyway. They should just teach math in the most direct manner and the kids that can't keep up shouldn't be forced into ever higher levels of math just so they don't feel bad.
(post is archived)