How much research is done on "Drill (and kill)" methods versus the more "modern" alternatives? Probably none. The dogma is that "drill and kill" is really bad, so no one actually does research on whether it works. It seems to me (not in the math education research field, but not that far away) that the "research" being done is often bedevilled and ham-strung by these preconceived dogma.
(Primarily I'm agreeing with you)
I raise a cautious note about one of your points though:
> A student who wants to learn will do so, no matter
> how bad the teacher or the teacher's methods
I used to believe this, and I want to believe it, but I've now seen several instances of otherwise bright children with bad teachers making no progress. Then a brief intervention by a gifted tutor has led to the child catching up and surpassing the other in their class.
You might claim that this is a gifted tutor by-passing the cultural issues by providing enough interest to make the child engaged despite the peer pressure. Perhaps.
But I now do believe that a poor to middling teacher in math will actively prevent many otherwise perfectly capable students from achieving their potential. That's why I'm heavily involved in math enrichment programs.
(Primarily I'm agreeing with you)
I raise a cautious note about one of your points though:
I used to believe this, and I want to believe it, but I've now seen several instances of otherwise bright children with bad teachers making no progress. Then a brief intervention by a gifted tutor has led to the child catching up and surpassing the other in their class.You might claim that this is a gifted tutor by-passing the cultural issues by providing enough interest to make the child engaged despite the peer pressure. Perhaps.
But I now do believe that a poor to middling teacher in math will actively prevent many otherwise perfectly capable students from achieving their potential. That's why I'm heavily involved in math enrichment programs.