Yes, exactly this. The amount of children who lost interest in a topic because of systems like this must be high. I clearly remember how I thought maths was way too easy and eventually I lost interest. Sadly I was lazy so I didn't do anything to use my skills (though one could argue it isn't the job of the child) and ended up not doing all my homework and just making up the answer on the spot when called to the blackboard, so today I'm very average which I guess is a success in the eyes of the system.
It is kinda ironic that the former Soviet Bloc, whose central ideology was built around equality, had a very streamed education system concentrated on recognizing talented individuals early, while the Anglosphere, usually renowned for its ceaseless competition, emphasizes equality at the cost of excellence now.
Well, it's only ironic because this is a bit of a simplification. Their ideology always recognized inequality of ability and comparative advantages of various individuals. The issue, at least on a theoretic level, receiving more value and power because you happened to own something (capital) instead of because you produced more or produced things that few people could produce. Which is why compensation was always unequal and often based on production.
Equality was non existent in the Soviet Union. Technically a talented researcher would earn just as much a factory worker but the researcher would have access to apparatus granted privileges like living in a better apartment, occasionally shopping in an non empty store, access to better hospitals, and so on
My second child is suffering this in a UK school - the maths is too easy, his primary school had an 'advanced' group (quotes because it wasn't really advanced, didn't go as far as I did at primary school in normal class) to push the most able kids a bit. Now high-school they're back to doing absolutely remedial basics of arithmetic.
So much wasted time in school, he's frustrated not to make progress and bored with 'maths' (truly it's lack of maths, but to the young mind that gets confused with the subject and then you lose them).
> What's happened in Canada, is that curriculum is designed to teach to the weakest student in a subject.
No, the curriculum is not watered down to meet the needs of the weakest students. Canada tends to align its curriculum to that of other western nations. On the other hand, when you're talking about math there is a bit of an issue where the background of teachers is mixed at the elementary level and students are not guaranteed to have a true specialist teacher until grade 10. That isn't to say that specialist teachers are the best teachers, but it is a bit disconcerting when a teachers college offers classes for math-phobic elementary teacher candidates (particularly since those grade levels seem to be where many children develop their attitudes towards math). It is also worth noting that the quality of teachers varies based upon region and schools, largely because teachers have a lot of choice as to where they teach.
The article also mentions that AP (and, presumably, IB) are being maintained. These programs provide a recognized curriculum and the courses are typically taken by students who want advanced classes. I also took a quick glance at the BC mathematics curriculum, which is typically offered in different tiers, and it is offered in different tiers. Science appears to take the usual tact of a general course, with specialist courses for students who want to study biology, chemistry, or physics in more depth. In other words, regardless of whatever nonsense is being spewed by the board, differentiation between interest and ability is still available.
It is also worth noting that there would be significant public push back if there was a true degradation in the curriculum. Ontario tried replacing calculus with pre-calculus about a decade ago, which the government had to reverse due to public pressure.
It depends on which catchment zone you live in, and even the schools that offer AP don't offer the same AP courses. Last I checked one offered 2 AP courses and another offered 11, so there is huge variance between the schools offering AP. These are public schools, not private schools. There are private schools that also offer AP and IB. The IB private schools cost as much in tuition for one year of high school (IB senior years is a two year program) as a Canadian university does for the 4 year degree. Some of these private schools will teach second or third year university courses to advanced high school students.
The BC math courses are offered at different levels, but even the top level math is not for students who want to move ahead or be challenged. The top level math is the bare minimum to get into a Canadian university. Some schools offer calculus 12 and many other schools don't offer it at all. I guess that's "honors" math.
The "honors" math program that has been eliminated is a program that condensed the regular curriculum. I am so confused as to how that is inequitable, but AP (which has exam costs) and IB are allowed to stay.
In some Surrey schools there are programs to allow students to spend their last year doing a trades foundation program. This isn't evenly distributed either, but is a great way to allow students to start their careers. My brothers are both in the trades, but their friends at other schools spent grade 12 in a foundation program and saved 6k in tuition.
There is even a possibility to take summer courses and spend some of your last year taking college courses or university courses in the right districts. This is for Vancouver and Burnaby students that are close to UBC and SFU, but this isn't advertised or evenly available.
My point and rant about these is that it'll be a matter of time before all of these opportunities are also taken away. If they stay, I'll be pleasantly surprised and gladly admit I'm wrong.
> It depends on which catchment zone you live in, and even the schools that offer AP don't offer the same AP courses.
I grew up in Calgary. It was possible to apply to special programs outside of your catchment area, with a choice of multiple schools for some programs. Being admitted into a public IB program comes with the expense of a monthly bus pass, not the equivalent of several years of university tuition. I would be surprised if Vancouver is any different since out-of-area students are often the means of maintaining high enough enrolment to offer special programs ranging from academics to the trades.
Something that may have been a quirk of my home city: catchment area was not a hard-and-fast rule for middle school either. There were special programs one could apply to and, failing that, approaching the school's administration directly. Granted, for something like that the family must care enough to take the initiative. That may be in short supply in some areas, but it is by no means a measure of affluence.
> My point and rant about these is that it'll be a matter of time before all of these opportunities are also taken away. If they stay, I'll be pleasantly surprised and gladly admit I'm wrong.
There is also the possibility that you'll see the opportunities taken away, then be pleasantly surprised to see them return. The education system seems to go in cycles, based upon whatever the pedagogical fashions of the day are. Then again, I doubt that we will ever see the extreme of everything being taken away. People seem to like talking about things in extremes that don't truly exist.
The IB public programs are called "district programs," which give everyone in the district the ability to apply to the programs. So you're correct about that being open to those within Vancouver.
For one program it seems that there is a roughly $1,000 cost for each level, so it's a little over $2,000 to complete the entire IB program. The other IB program seems to cost $1,000. I don't know if either of those schools waive the fees or not, but looking at other districts they say the fees are for writing the IB exams.
I can't determine if AP courses are district programs or not.
It is also worth noting that there would be significant public push back if there was a true degradation in the curriculum.
Not so sure on that one. I agree some would push back, certainly. I feel it is fewer every year, with parents not caring for anything but what a piece of paper says.
But, perhaps I am a cynic, or am reading too many such stories.
As someone thinking of raising kids in Vancouver I was really disappointed by the honours stream being removed from VSB curriculum. If the school board truly wanted equality for their students they should be looking at external factors of why kids are not performing: do they have a place at home to complete homework? Do their parents value education? Do they believe in themselves?
I do believe that there is a natural difference in intelligence, but not enough to make the difference of a student getting into the honours stream or not. A lot of the kids say “I don’t get math” or “I’m just dumb” or they don’t have a stable household or family role models of success — all of which hold them back. Naturally these external problems are much harder for school boards to tackle so they would rather chop the legs off of honours students than address the students who come from a disadvantaged background.
You can have your kids take summer courses to finish the regular curriculum early. In some cases they can then be allowed to start taking courses at UBC or SFU. It was mentioned in my Surrey school over a decade ago that there were kids in Vancouver and Burnaby doing that. I think it's a nominal fee to register in the courses while in high school. Something to explore if you're still looking at Vancouver.
This is thought of as being fair, of helping, for of course everyone is intellectually equal.
Thus, those who can accel, are denied their future, for those which will leave high school, and never touch (for example) advanced math again.
Equality comes from recognising our differences, and enabling best outcomes for all. Not pretending we are all identical.
Sadly, this seems lost on many.