Your words here sound that way.
It shows a high degree of structure. And in many low SES households, a lot of research shows, the kids lack structure and need structure. And knowledge is to a large extent structure building. When you learn information, it has to come with structure that you replicate or you have to build the structure yourself ex nihilo. The latter is a lot harder than the former. High achievers learn to do this. Low achievers need to have structure provided. High achievers tended to comment, and figure everybody's like them.
It's also judged bad because it didn't show critical thinking, another "X" and the current Moloch of all educational practices. But without facts and background there is no critical thinking, CT skills are discipline-specific, fact-grounded, and high-level. This was year 1 for kids in the prep school. Fifth grade is where kids in poorer communities often start seriously falling behind, when all those expensive early-childhood intervention programs' effects become "statistically significant" but only *statistically* significant.
In my many years of teaching I taught in both high income and near poverty level schools. I don't quote research on this because it is not only low SES households that can be unstructured and dysfunctional. Not by a long shot.
When that kind of mindset is put forth, it essentially says poor kids get rigid strong discipline as in the KIPP type discipline and that shown in the video. And the upper income kids get more of the kind that is seen in Sidwell and that which kids of many other politicians attend.
So I really do question that premise.
= new reply since forum marked as read
