undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmichaelt5mo ago0 comments

> Does placing by ability actually helps student learn and score better?

Yes, you shunt all the disruptive/obstinate kids into class 2 and they can spend 4 hours of math lessons every week rehashing arguments about how they have a phone so they don't need to know what 7x12 is.

This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades.

Because of the way these things are done, it does have the unfortunate side effect that the kid who struggles with math because he's dyslexic gets put in a class with the kid who doesn't give a shit about math. But they'd be in the same even if the school didn't place by ability, so they're not that much worse off.

0 comments

didibus5mo ago

> This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades.

That's pure hypothetical, and some disruptive kids are also good and could make it to the top class and still be a class clown. Unless you propose more splitting kids up by "disruptiveness".

I don't think any of this tells us of the quality of the method for actually teaching. It's like schools that have really hard entrance exams, and than assert they are the best school, yes in terms that they only allowed the smartest to come in, off course they will see that the students at the school is good, but those students would be good regardless.

diordiderot5mo ago

It isn't hypothetical, lower disruptive peer-behaviour in a class is associated with better outcomes for the class, across the world.

em-bee5mo ago

and the montessori method is effective in lowering disruptive peer-behaviour. it's part of the point. it teaches children to not be disruptive by letting them focus on their activities.

didibus5mo ago

That's not what was proposed though, what was proposed was to have kids move up as their ability develops.

It's pure hypothesis that this would coincide with less disruption in classes, even more that it would be causative.

I also find it purely hypothetical that it does anything to make kids better.

You said lack of disruptiveness is associated with better outcomes, have any research or data about it? Otherwise it too is pure hypothetical.

A hypothesis isn't bad, but since we're on the topic of ability, let's not devolve into cargo cults.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmichaelt5mo ago0 comments

> Does placing by ability actually helps student learn and score better?

This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades.

0 comments

didibus5mo ago

> This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades.

That's pure hypothetical, and some disruptive kids are also good and could make it to the top class and still be a class clown. Unless you propose more splitting kids up by "disruptiveness".

diordiderot5mo ago

It isn't hypothetical, lower disruptive peer-behaviour in a class is associated with better outcomes for the class, across the world.

em-bee5mo ago

and the montessori method is effective in lowering disruptive peer-behaviour. it's part of the point. it teaches children to not be disruptive by letting them focus on their activities.

didibus5mo ago

That's not what was proposed though, what was proposed was to have kids move up as their ability develops.

It's pure hypothesis that this would coincide with less disruption in classes, even more that it would be causative.

I also find it purely hypothetical that it does anything to make kids better.

You said lack of disruptiveness is associated with better outcomes, have any research or data about it? Otherwise it too is pure hypothetical.

A hypothesis isn't bad, but since we're on the topic of ability, let's not devolve into cargo cults.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse