Neither should it be accepted a priori. It would be a compelling reason to delay math instruction, if supported by evidence - but is there any evidence to support it?
And if improving education by delaying instruction until students are mature enough to handle the material is truly the goal, why delay instruction for students who are already mature enough to handle it sooner? Holding back students who are ready doesn't improve education for anyone.
But maybe what should be changed is the expectation. If the vast bulk of 8th graders aren't ready to handle algebra, don't create an expectation that "the smart kids" are taking algebra in 8th grade, because parents are going to be pushing their kids to be one of the smart kids (as measured by when they take algebra), and you're going to get a bunch of kids who aren't ready.
But this brings up a problem. Who decides if a kid is ready? The parents? The teachers? The school bureaucracy? On what basis do they decide?
Teachers seems like the best bet (they observe kids in the classroom all day), but they also have biases, blind spots, laziness, and so on. I don't know that it's possible to build a system where it happens "as it should" all the time.
Whether this indeed is the case, need to be discussed separately for each topic.
> Finland's educational system, widely considered to be one of the best in the world
Finland achieves good education of the average student by sacrificing the potential of the best. For example, look at their results at international mathematical olympiad: the last (and only) time they had a gold medal was in 1981. They are below-average not just compared to the developed countries, but globally. This is intentional; Finnish students who are "too good" at math are strongly advised to focus on other subjects instead.
https://www.imo-official.org/country_team_r.aspx?code=FIN
Now, we can discuss whether it is better to focus on the average students, or on the best student. (In my imaginary utopia, we would provide the best individually tailored opportunity for both. In reality, no country seems able to achieve both.) An argument in favor of the best students is that we need people to invent new things.
>> Sooner doesn’t necessarily imply “higher standard”
Thanks! The critical word in my comment was necessarily. Seems like most of the comments have been polar.
> To be clear: I don't know enough detail about the proposal in California to judge it
It is available online as are interviews with some of the people who wrote them, which include mathematics professors and other educators. Seems like most of the objections are from people who are reading the headlines and drawing immediate conclusions based on their preconceptions.
I have a nagging suspicion that the only way to reach broad agreement on whether the plan will work (or not) is... by trying it. Perhaps it can be tried on a small number of schools at first, and then gradually expanded to more schools if the results are promising, or nix the whole plan and revert to the old ways otherwise. I would propose starting with the schools that enroll children closely related to the authors of the plan.
Nothing screwed us more than willingness of people to take part in conflicts.
Imagine how much harm and waste could be avoided if when generals daid, let's go liberate Afghanistan soldiers responded, nah, I'm good rather then collectively following ideas of imaginary Uncle Sam.
Did America do anything positive there? Or did they just pause natural development of that country by 20 years, to organize their little vacation from Taliban?
Rarely anything postive is achieved by going somewhere and breaking some shit and killing some folks for some time. Last few decades of USA foreign policy show it more clearly than any reasonable person should require.
I think the last few decades of USA foreign policy show that meaningful change takes time - a long time. We're still protecting South Korea, Germany, and Japan. I would consider all of those successful exercises in "nation building" as once totalitarian nations have built stable democracies.
But in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we simply weren't willing to stay long enough to protect the new democracies from their enemies.
> Sooner doesn’t necessarily imply “higher standard”
To be clear: I don't know enough detail about the proposal in California to judge it, but the idea that most children might be better off learning certain subjects at a later age, when they are more mature, cannot be dismissed a priori, without facts, based on ideological arguments.
Your comment reminds me of this passage from an old article about Finland's educational system, widely considered to be one of the best in the world:
> Children [in Finland] spend far more time playing outside, even in the depths of winter. Homework is minimal. Compulsory schooling does not begin until age 7. “We have no hurry,” said Louhivuori [a Finnish teacher]. “Children learn better when they are ready. Why stress them out?”
Text in brackets is mine. I highly recommend reading the whole article:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-s...