One's held in Urdu and everything goes through a filter that removes all the frequencies above 250 Hz, the other is in Quechua and all the frequencies under 300 Hz are filtered out.
No one on a given side is even aware the other is even speaking. When one side is quiet, there's silence.
The EC folk sometimes veer into advocacy, but use only their data. Kids aren't good for things below a certain age. This varies by topic, by background, and by child because this is on a nice Bell-curve-like distribution.
The CC folk sometimes vere into advocacy, but use only their data. You want to have hands on, empirically tested methodologies. You want to spiral, review, reteach. You want hard things early so that students can master it by the end, because you're looking at the end goals, career and college readiness.
Now, to be honest both sides are big into activist science. Both have this horrible tendency to have a sample size of 5 with no controls done on a monolingual, monocultural group and generalize the possible conclusions based on faulty statistics and design study to all children everywhere. This doesn't hold for every study, but when you see these overarching designs and you find that a sweeping statement is based on uncontrolled research on impoverished Muslim 2nd gen students in Leicester, England in 1986 and then apply precisely those conclusions to upper-class anglo students in 2015 you think, "Hmmm..." When a decent study is dismissed because maybe there's an alternative conclusion because of a possible confound, but the same study was repeated with a cohort of 30k students that completely lacks that confound but had the same conclusions, you know it's activist research.
Some CC good. Some EC results good. Many bad.
= new reply since forum marked as read