Well, I do have a child with autism. I know personally know people in her shoes right now and I have been there myself. I understand why she is sticking with ABA, but that doesn't change what ABA fundamentally is, unfortunately. I did communicate, pointedly, that she should do what is best for her family, and in my earlier post, that ABA can be beneficial for some kids, so I fail to see the implication that I was somehow judging her situation. Physical safety is a major issue.

Not a Number, why are you escalating this?

I hear you, but I stand by the articles I posted. There are alternative methods out there, but as always, everyone needs to do what they feel is best for their own family.

It's maybe more accurate to say that behavior modification has been around for a long time, and that ABA is a particularly distilled form of it targeted at disabled people. I disagree with the notion that the people are none the wiser. IME, people know. I have three individuals with EF issues in my house, and while they often don't comment, they always realize what I'm doing when I prime, reinforce, reward, or punish. You're citing things like frequent buyer programs and speeding fines. Perhaps the difference is in the degree of autonomy involved for the person whose behavior is being mod

I've always thought that good math programs emphasized both concepts and algorithms, and that it was tacitly understood that people needed to learn both to do well. What I have seen are programs that emphasize one over the other, sometimes significantly, but never one, no matter how traditional or conceptual, that simply eliminated teaching concepts or refrained from offering any practice. It's a false debate. I think it only ever becomes an issue in a learning situation where the teacher is responsible for imparting a lesson they themselves don't understand or when the student is not getting

Right, but in many settings, such as public ones, adequate learning, not the best learning, is the goal. The best learning is what we shoot for in a one to one tutoring session, or when we really, really care about a subject. This is a lovely sentiment, but only really necessary in a few particular fields of expertise for most people. It's possible, and just fine, to spend a lifetime cooking, or driving, or a myriad of other things without understanding exactly why they work the way that they do. Experience can, and frequently does, also compensate for a lack of conceptual understandin

Yes, it is important to have methods of teaching in public settings that give everyone a reasonable shot at succeeding. The traditional format of lecture, questions & answer, practice, test & review can, if done reasonably well, challenge the advanced students while providing enough support to the disadvantaged--the poor, the English language learners, and those with learning differences. And, in my experience, all students appreciate classes with straightforward formatting. They like knowing exactly what they need to do to do well.

I guess I always took the concept of prelection for granted, as one of the foundations of good teaching. I don't think it would necessarily preclude a discovery approach in the abstract.

Exactly!

Yeah, my issue with it from a ps perspective is that the method will leave behind everyone with difficulties inferring, which includes many neurodiverse folks, ESL kids and people who just need a concrete presentation. In effect, it is biased in favor of those who excel at abstract thinking and who have outstanding EF skills. The method is terrible news for educators who try to narrow the achievement gap, since minorities, the poor, and the neurodiverse traditionally struggle more with these skills.

Off the top of my head: Beast Academy, Math in Focus, Math U See, and Jacobs Geometry.

My son is doing Conceptual Academy Physical Science Explorations this year and loves it. It's a textbook plus online course.

Haha, not silly at all. That heinous example came from Everyday Math. That said, the boys also hated many homeschool math programs far superior to EM that emphasized more discovery/conceptual learning.

A method in which kids are frequently asked to explain why they are doing what they are doing, there are lots of open ended activities, and learning through play is emphasized. Practice is deemphasized. I remember one such program regularly asking my six year old to explain, in writing, why 2 and 3 made 5. Is that enough, or do you want something more specific?

Yes, but my point was, that the example was ineffective in the context in which it was mentioned. If you are going to drive a car, then you need to know the norms of the road and how to drive the car without breaking or crashing it. This is not conducive to the discovery method because of the risk of injury/death and property damage. That was my point, that discovery learning can do more harm than good depending on the circumstances, which dovetails with my next point, Which is that I disagree that the discovery method is appropriate for beginners. There are many ways to do math and m