LogFAQs > #960730123

Nemu posted...
The question would be if the entire curriculum needs to change or if we just need to better fund schools and pay teachers what they actually deserve so that kids get the education they need and teachers can have the resources to give more one on one time with both students that are excelling and students that are falling behind. I have a hard time imagining how a particular curriculum in itself is the problem when it's probably more that these kids are not getting the attention needed to help them understand on the same level as better funded schools.

I mean, it goes even deeper than that. If there's one kid whose well-fed and another who is lucky to eat two insufficient meals per day, then in most instances, the kid whose eating well is going to do better. If one kid's parents are able to put time and effort into helping them, and another kid's parent works 60+ hours a week just trying to make ends meet, then the kid whose parents can afford to be active in their development (or can afford to hire some one to do that for them) is probably going to do better.

And, of course, those kids who don't get enough food or who don't see their parents much are statistically more likely to be Black, Hispanic, and/or Indigenous. Like, Math, as a discipline, doesn't create that, but it exists in this society and our math exists in this context.

It's also that so much of our primary schooling in the states is built around the gazillion standardized tests that get administered, because education policy sees that as the only way to make "objective" judgements as to who is doing well and who isn't (and all too often punishes schools for having poor scores, even when, sociologically speaking, a school in a impoverished urban or rural area is basically destined to test poorly for reasons outside of any individual teacher's or school's control).

---

I'm Queen of Tomorrow baby!
She/her