Quantum, the question that springs to mind, though, is what about mastery-learners in that kind of system?
This was a long-standing disagreement between my mom (an EC master teacher) and myself, incidentally. She thought that spiraling pedagogy was vastly superior for most students, and that therefore, mastery learners needed to 'adapt' to it rather than being accommodated.
I disagree based on my own experiences, my DH's, and on my DD. She can "touch" on a subject a couple of times before she tunes it out completely. So you'd better do it right and do it THOROUGHLY when you mention it. No half-truths, no skating on the hard parts.
I realize that is really fundamentally different from the way that most primary (and for that matter, secondary) teaching works these days.
But I think that it does a disproportionate disservice to the most capable students, who more than any other group, tend to be mastery learners by nature.
If I'd had my way, my DD would not have heard the word "photosynthesis" in 3rd grade... because she THOUGHT she "knew about" that topic when she saw it again in 10th grade biology, and it was a struggle to get her to tune IN to the parts that weren't covered before. KWIM?
Same thing in mathematics. While introducing different MODES of thinking is good, introducing a surface level coverage of topics that students cannot really master yet-- isn't. IMO.
It turns everything about a student's education into one endless litany of review-review-review. Sucks ALL of the joy out of it for mastery learning students.
