By the same logic gifted and talented education should be expanding, not contracting, and they should be doing much more acceleration and less enrichment, since we know those work. That’s not happening because education is a small part of the purpose of the school system.
Oh, is this like how the most popular technology is always the best one?
To someone socialized into the normal school system, montessori is incomprehensible and measure as such. The outcomes that are targeted from the montessori philosophy are antithetical to the outcomes standard education seeks to measure. What is happening can easily be labeled 'lazy' or 'disorganized' and the people who are expected to provide outside oversight can't easily identify the learning that is occurring. Outside evaluation requires legibility.
The opposite is also true. Standard school looks confusing and stupid to someone trained in the montessori philosophy - but not quite incomprehensible. That isn't because montessori is special but because it is different and the description of anything different is typically anchored in what is known. If you only knew montessori normal school would look incomprehensible - but because it is inherently a reaction it is taught as such.
I was a montessori kid until 5th grade then ended up in a 'standard' school. I struggled because it was not what I knew. I was accultured to be self sufficient and self-manage and suddenly I was getting yelled at for it. I remember just getting up to go to the bathroom (which was the norm at my prior school so I didn't interrupt others) and getting yelled at for...disrupting others. I think if you looked at the content learning outcomes - the outcomes were effectively equal, some better some worse. But if you look at how each taught me to think there is no comparison - I still rely on the montessori education to this day.
All of this is the same reason why getting higher ed faculty to switch from lecturing to active learning is so hard - if all you know is lecturing its really hard to understand what is happening in an active learning classroom.
Said another way: >You can’t understand Google unless you know that both Larry and Sergey were Montessori kids. ... In Montessori school you go paint because you have something to express or you just want to do it that afternoon, not because the teacher said so. This is really baked into how Larry and Sergey approach problems. They’re always asking ‘Why should it be like that?’ — Marissa Mayer, former VP of Google
Even when there is clear evidence that an educational method is better (e.g., not tracking, especially in elementary school), it's very common for there to be political pushback against it that prevents, delays, or limits adoption in public schools, so that's not at all clear.
Ah yes, educational Darwinism, a mechanism that has definitely been proven.
"Is that a $20 bill?" one asked.
"Couldn't be, someone would have picked it up by now" replied the other, and they went on their way.
I know that this is false because functional languages have existed for decades and still occupy a vast underproportion of IT projects despite being superior in the vast majority of use-cases. Also, argumentum ad populum.
The fact that recursion can compile down to iteration when written in a tail-call manner, while other languages are just providing iteration as a core part of the system, kinda implies that FP isn't "superior in the vast majority of use-cases".
Although, as the ol Verity Stob quote goes "Lisp is still #1 for key algorithmic techniques such as recursion and condescension".
And you're really nailing the latter.
My first impression when I learned about “infinite recursion via TCO” is that it was so much more beautiful semantically than your typical loop
> recursion and condescension
I’ve worked in probably 15+ languages of all types throughout my life since Microsoft BASIC in 1984 when I was 12. If this doesn’t give me the right to assert things like this, then what does?
Perhaps the real problem is that whenever someone mentions “functional languages”, the walls go up, the ears go closed and the baseless presumption of hubris skyrockets.
The fact is that you can use a functional style (and gain the advantages) in any language https://towardsdatascience.com/why-developers-are-falling-in... , you just lose the guarantees as soon as you touch another library
> I’ve worked in probably 15+ languages of all types throughout my life since Microsoft BASIC in 1984 when I was 12. If this doesn’t give me the right to assert things like this, then what does?
A realisation that opinions are subjective :) I've probably used a similar number of languages, although I started with QBasic, and while I've really enjoyed FP in Scheme, Erlang, and F#, I don't consider it vastly superior, I just consider it a different paradigm that is really good in some problem domains, and an awkward fit in others.
I don't consider any particular paradigm to be superior, each has strengths and weaknesses.