There are a finite number of hours in a day. If you take time to push one thing, you lose time for something else.
I would much rather see children being pushed to read well and efficiently, write logically and coherently with at least decent grammar, and speak in front of people without saying "um" and "like" every two seconds.
The problem is, it's very difficult to measure progress in those easily with a single test, so nobody values them.
I mean, the NMSQT weights itself with twice the verbal. If parents really wanted to help their child, they would drive improvement in their English.
> The problem is, it's very difficult to measure progress in those easily with a single test, so nobody values them.
Ease of testing is not the root of the fetishization of STEM. Perceived benefit to personal economic prospects (and active propagandization [0] around that by people trying to increase labor supply and decrease labor costs in STEM fields to unlock greater profits) is.
[0] note that I am not arguing that this perception isn’t, to a significant extent, true—that it is perceived to be is key to behavior, and that it is propagandized heavily is key to perception, but none of that is inconsistent with truth.
>>[...] and speak in front of people without saying "um" and "like" every two seconds.
You just added a third skill -- public speaking. You're right that the bar shouldn't be so low, but we are where we are, and families need to figure out ways to mitigate. I don't believe the NMSQT has a verbal (literally, oral) component, although one (ferverently!) hopes that clear writing translates more easily to oral speaking skills for the child.
It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for a parent to support their child to 'accelerate' in math whilst simultaneously supporting their attainment of beyond-grade-level-expectation reading and written/oral communication skills.
I'm not saying it's "impossible". I'm saying that "parents generally don't do it."
I suspect it's because measuring it is more difficult. Math is easy to measure. "Can you do those problems?" English is a lot harder to measure and takes mroe time. Proofreading a paper takes time--and you have to know how to write. Listening to a speech takes time. Discussing a book means that the parent needs to read it, too.
If that’s your theory, then I don’t see how reducing time spent on math would help.
If math requires so much less time, then the amount freed up wouldn’t be enough for the type of support you expect for ELA.
If parents shy away from ELA because it requires a type of effort that math does not, then reducing math isn’t going to somehow make them more willing to read books or learn to proofread.
I’m honestly surprised that you think slowing down math will help with ELA.
There are a finite number of hours in a day. If you take time to push one thing, you lose time for something else.
I would much rather see children being pushed to read well and efficiently, write logically and coherently with at least decent grammar, and speak in front of people without saying "um" and "like" every two seconds.
The problem is, it's very difficult to measure progress in those easily with a single test, so nobody values them.
I mean, the NMSQT weights itself with twice the verbal. If parents really wanted to help their child, they would drive improvement in their English.