Hacker News Reader

Comment by polymatter | Hacker News Reader

Erm, what scares you about ability-based classes? The single strongest motivator for me to do well at school was to get into the top set which was free from bullies.

View on HN

The problem with ability based groupings across age groups is that doesn't take into account learning velocity, ie the speed at which people learn new things. For example, a second grader that is at a fourth grade math level is likely to learn much faster than a fifth grader at a fourth grade math level. And you don't want to put advanced 8 year olds in a class with slow 11 year olds. That in itself is an invitation to bullying.

Ability based learning within age groups makes perfect sense, but assumes a sample size large enough to make meaningful groupings at the high and low ends.

The problem is the classroom environment itself. The lecture format is an antiquated relic. We don't ever do the lecture format again once we leave school, which I think is pretty good evidence that it's garbage.

You might submit conferences as a counterexample, but I would submit them in favor of my argument.

I firmly agree with you that classroom lectures are garbage. We homeschool our children. I'm simply making the point that, at least among younger children, age based classes are preferable to skill-based classes.

A preferable alternative in my mind would be a classroom where ALL work is done independently. The teacher then calls each student to their desk individually to see what they have learned and what they need help with. They can then spend 10-15 minutes individually with each student per day. Fast students can get pushed ahead and slow students can get the help they need instead of being forced along with the rest of the class.

Actually, the argument for skill-based education _is_ that learning speeds are different.

So for one it takes 6 months to learn something, for another - 3 years. And in such systems it's fine - you got promoted because you have learnt something, not just because you got one year older (and haven't failed utterly).

And again, for the same "level" of subject there can be two speeds - so no risk of smart 8 yo kids in the same class with slow 11 yo.

I think its pretty common that when students are divided by "ability", especially later on in middle or high school, it can weigh pretty heavily on the students in the "lower ability" classes. Its essentially saying "we don't expect much but you need to be here."

This system works out very well for bright, academically inclined students, sure. But it sets a structure of expectations that don't motivate what could possibly be great talent, but we wouldn't know because they didn't bubble in the right answer.

>Erm, what scares you about ability-based classes?

The fascist premise of "let's separate the most able from the riff-raff".

As if society should be a hierarchical pyramid of top dogs and underdogs.

Me too. Until my family moved to an area, the schools in which didn't recognize ability as an appropriate differentiator. It was not good times for me.

This doesn't mean that ability as a differentiator is bad--I think that it's a great idea. What it does mean is that consistency is absolutely crucial when such an idea is implemented; I was in an environment where excellence was encouraged, and that led to a lot of self-motivation. Not all children are going to be in the same situation, and that could be disasterous.

"The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin tackles the concept of the environment which best facilitates learning and personal growth, and touches on the idea of ability-based classes as well. It's a great read for anyone interested in such.

The idea that bullies are never academically talented is a false dichotomy. The idea that bullies only attack "smart," kids is ludicrous. Thus, ability-based classes would not end bullying in any way.

I would say both that how "ability" is measured, as well as that a 5-year-old's ability is nowhere near an indicator of their future ability.

I doubt anyone could argue against things like AP classes, etc. in high school, but 5-year-olds?

Indeed. Education is only one part of the personal development you get at school. Socialising/communicating with your peers is another key thing.

Which is why so many "proteges" tend to burn out, I think, or have emotional problems as they age - simply for lacking that time to develop with their peers.

Who's saying we want to use a 5-year-old's ability as an indicator of future ability? We want to use a 5-year-old's ability as an indicator of their current ability. I'd say we'll look at their ability again when they're six, but really the ideal is near-continuous evaluation.

Don't just think about slightly tweaking the system we have today. Think about the system after it finally embraces computers as a transformative force, instead of a very silly expensive way to issue multiple choice tests. We're going to free up teachers to spend their time on the stuff that actually requires a human, instead of bogging them down with so much automateable work that they end up hardly any more effective than a machine, what a surprise.

It's not about a future ability. It's about the current ability of the 5-year old person. Next year she will be retested and reassessed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com