9 ms·

That's the opposite of what I've seen in California. There used to be a big focus on tracking, gifted programs and "accelerated math", but it is now perceived a

That's the opposite of what I've seen in California. There used to be a big focus on tracking, gifted programs and "accelerated math", but it is now perceived as inequitable. Gifted programs were cancelled, tracks eliminated, and accelerated math discouraged (you can skip a year if you study outside school, but it is discouraged). The focus is getting everyone to some minimal level, and no attention on the high performers.

saagarjha 7y ago
Yup, when I went through school the gifted program was cancelled at around the same time as the recession and never brought back, and students would skip a year or two in math. Now trying to skip two is much, much harder.
knzhou 7y ago
These programs exist, but are generally separated from the ordinary high school system. For example, right here in the Bay area there's Proof School, a private school founded precisely "for kids who love math", AoPS Academy, for extracurricular challenging math classes, and powerhouse public schools like Lynbrook, where gigantic student-run clubs aimed at competitions provide exactly this kind of education.
- Talanes 7y ago
  Comparing the Bay to the American education system as a whole is unfair. In the more rural part of California I grew up we had no options available to us at all. There was the high school, and the more trade-focused high school that only existed as somewhere to put kids who had been expelled from the normal high school.
  - varjag 7y ago
    People do that with Soviet system too. In the 1980s, a disproportionate number of top scientific cadre were born and raised in Moscow and went through the few focused schools there. Born gifted in Govneevka, Kirov obl., pop. 20,000? Good luck.
    - cynicalreason 7y ago
      The system was absolutely flawed, still is, but still good enough to encourage the highly skilled. Our (Romania's) education system was (is) the same, if you were GOOD at something there were plenty of paths that teachers would generally push you towards, special clubs for maths, languages, art (less common). Or schools who would try to group together highly skilled students. System (after communism) has the same flaw, most rural areas have worse access to education, or better said, much worse quality of education.
    - mbeex 7y ago
      Something about this (emphasis more on problems for people with Jewish ancestry in the Soviet Union) can be found here: https://www.amazon.de/Love-Math-Heart-Hidden-Reality/dp/B00NTQW7L2/ https://www.amazon.de/Love-Math-Heart-Hidden-Reality/dp/B00N... from someone, born in the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Frenkel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Frenkel
cheez 7y ago
High performers are starting to be home schooled, more and more.
nostromo 7y ago
This just happened in Seattle. The program for gifted students was canceled after being found to be inequitable.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  Wow. By that argument, one could just as easily label top universities with high scholastic admissions requirements to be “inequitable”, and thus unacceptable. Equal opportunity does not imply equal outcome—even for a perfectly fair school. Quite the opposite! In fact, I’m glad I got rejected from several schools... their high bar helped guide me to something that worked better for me anyway.
  - nickik 7y ago
    People who believe in this nonsense are essentially communists. The people who came up with it, clearly were and they were quite explicite about this. They don't want equal opportunity, they reject that something like that even exists as opportunity is always unequal. Only transformation of society to communism in the end will 'solve' those problems. So yes, in their opinion all of this stuff is evil and bad and should be replaced with ... something better. Of course they couldn't really tell you how that would look like.
  - sinkasapa 7y ago
    I think people do say that. The notion is that when you look at the people attending Harvard and Mit, for instance, their parents tend to be much more wealthy than the students at Bunker Hill Community College. You're right! That isn't an excuse to shut them down but it might be a reason to think of the system a inequitable. It may be that similar parallels exist in K-12. Then if you're middle class or poor, you have to wonder, "Why am I paying taxes for an elite school that my kid likely won't attend? Can't the rich kids' parents pay for the elite school themselves?" That may be short term thinking or kind of defeatist but it is reasonable.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > That may be short term thinking or kind of defeatist but it is reasonable. I think this is exactly the wrong thinking about taxes. And it's abused by pundits and politicians by making people spend the same money many times in their head. I mean, you can't be simultaneously outraged that "your tax money" supports elite schools and abortion clinics and the military; you don't pay that much of a tax. In fact, an average taxpayer's contribution would amount to buying some office supplies for one, small government building. Money is fungible, and by the time enough is collected to fund a school, there's no "my money" in there anymore, much like if you take a fistful of sand from your yard and throw it on a beach nearby, there is no more "your sand".
TimTheTinker 7y ago
It’s not just California. The combination of “no child left behind” legislation, combined with modern political movements (CRT/I in particular), has rendered large swaths of American public education devoted to bringing everyone up to a minimum standard (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, mind you), but all the while sacrificing the potential of gifted students by not placing everyone into separate (and significantly varying) tracks according to their varying abilities. In addition, schools are funded based on standardized test scores, which encourages many schools, especially in poorer areas, to teach to the tests—instead of teaching students to think.
- burtness 7y ago
  By CRT are you referring to Critical Race Theory? I'm sceptical that its both that influential, or that any good faith reading of CRT supports sacrificing accelerated programs. In particular CRT in education if anything pushes against reliance on standardized testing scores.
  - TimTheTinker 7y ago
    Yes, that’s what I meant (and I for intersectionality). Agreed that CRT/I would oppose standardized tests, but that’s only because CRT/I at its core opposes anything objective. And the philosophy of CRT/I has already made significant inroads in American culture. Witness all the accelerated programs that have been shut down, the many recent attacks on objective standards—all in the name of “equity” (which does not mean equality of value, treatment, or opportunity—it means creating equal outcomes by whatever means is available —consider the implications carefully). Universities are being forced to grapple with these ideas, with the core question being “does our university still value the pursuit of truth, critical thinking, and free inquiry above all else, or will we acknowledge that ‘people from oppressed classes have a truth unto themselves that cannot be taught but must be respected, and all opposing viewpoints must be shut down’?” If this movement hasn’t yet affected you, it will soon. It’s ripping apart social groups all over the place. (I can give examples of all I’ve described in the morning if you’re interested. I’m just tapping this out before bed.)
akhilcacharya 7y ago
I don’t see the issue. The internet exists now and you can access a world of content in seconds. I didn’t get any of this, ever in my mediocre education - I don’t see why so much focus should be placed on these elites at the expense of everyone else.
- adwn 7y ago
  > I don’t see why so much focus should be placed on these elites at the expense of everyone else. Because the big breakthroughs and innovations in math and science are achieved by the elites and not by the mediocre masses. This doesn't mean that we should neglect the mediocre masses (I'm one of them, by the way), they do good, important work. But they're are not sufficient.
  - StudentStuff 7y ago
    Who is permitted the time and resources to develop breakthroughs and innovations? Surely not the proletariat in modern America, where the vast majority are getting poorer year by year.
    - adwn 7y ago
      The term "elites" in this thread does not refer to the aristocracy or the financial 0.1%. It refers to the high-achievers in math and science, and they have to work for their income just like everybody else (and from what I've ready about postgrads and PhD students in the US, they have to work their asses off).
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  The internet you use to access content in seconds was created by those elites.
  - akhilcacharya 7y ago
    Sounds like hagiography to me. There were lots of ordinary, non-prodigies that built ARPANet, TCP/IP, the Unix/Windows network stack and HTTP. Plenty work at companies that build the network planes, like Cisco and AWS and Microsoft.
sergiotapia 7y ago
This is common core, and the reason why it was created will shock and enrage you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Nr3_2724 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Nr3_2724 Straight from the horses mouth.
- champagneben 7y ago
  He wanted poorer, minority kids to have a chance at a good education and high standards as well? Wasn't very shocking, though the title was incendiary.
  - sergiotapia 7y ago
    He tries to do that not by elevating people, but by dragging people down. I'm not OK with this.
    - champagneben 7y ago
      I did not hear that in the video - could you pinpoint the timestamp? I would also not be OK with that.
    - rovolo 7y ago
      I transcribed the clip, and I don't see where he's "dragging people down". My guess is that you're reacting to "as a white male in society I'm given a lot of privilege that I didn't earn" and "I think it's really important those kids learn how to read just as well as I had the opportunity to learn how to read." It sounds to me exactly like he's trying to "elevate people", but you're reading it as "drag people down". Why? This is confusing to me. First person) Every teacher who's using it basically is saying this is inspiring a closer and more engaged student body. So the people that are actually using it like it. And again in terms of the local control, you still have local control. So if you want higher standards, if that's really, if that is your genuine point, then you can go ahead and do it. You can do the higher standard. And the process was indeed totally transparent. And when [garbled] we'll move on to David and Bill. Second person) Um, I'm not paid to be here either. I'm just an interested teacher who helped write the standards. And the reason why I helped write the standards and the reason why I am here today is that as a white male in society I'm given a lot of privilege that I didn't earn. And as a result ... [scattered boos from the audience] ... I think it's really important that all kids have an equal opportunity to learn how to read. I think I had a set of advantages as a result of who I was, not ???. And when I walk into places like Roberto Clemente high school on ??? side of Chicago, I think it's really important those kids learn how to read just as well as I had the opportunity to learn how to read. And ??? created an equitable education opportunity for all kids. I think this is actually the greatest lesson we can teach our kids.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adventured 7y ago
> There used to be a big focus on tracking, gifted programs and "accelerated math", but it is now perceived as inequitable. That is exactly right. The other people commenting to the contrary don't seem to know what they're talking about. Even in public schools it was common across the US until the late 1990s to have separate programs and classes (almost always referred to as "gifted" in some regard) for superior students. It wasn't viewed as unfair either, it was common and it was a point of pride to be in those classes, to be selected as a higher tier student. Something changed in the last 20 years where treating students differently became considered unfair. The everybody gets a trophy syndrome took over.
collyw 7y ago
Ironic that Russia is pushing for excellence while the States is pushing for equality.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Where's the irony? (Not sure which one is worse.)
- cheez 7y ago
  Not exactly. As planned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

saagarjha 7y ago

Yup, when I went through school the gifted program was cancelled at around the same time as the recession and never brought back, and students would skip a year or two in math. Now trying to skip two is much, much harder.

knzhou 7y ago

These programs exist, but are generally separated from the ordinary high school system. For example, right here in the Bay area there's Proof School, a private school founded precisely "for kids who love math", AoPS Academy, for extracurricular challenging math classes, and powerhouse public schools like Lynbrook, where gigantic student-run clubs aimed at competitions provide exactly this kind of education.

Talanes 7y ago
Comparing the Bay to the American education system as a whole is unfair. In the more rural part of California I grew up we had no options available to us at all. There was the high school, and the more trade-focused high school that only existed as somewhere to put kids who had been expelled from the normal high school.
- varjag 7y ago
  People do that with Soviet system too. In the 1980s, a disproportionate number of top scientific cadre were born and raised in Moscow and went through the few focused schools there. Born gifted in Govneevka, Kirov obl., pop. 20,000? Good luck.
  - cynicalreason 7y ago
    The system was absolutely flawed, still is, but still good enough to encourage the highly skilled. Our (Romania's) education system was (is) the same, if you were GOOD at something there were plenty of paths that teachers would generally push you towards, special clubs for maths, languages, art (less common). Or schools who would try to group together highly skilled students. System (after communism) has the same flaw, most rural areas have worse access to education, or better said, much worse quality of education.
  - mbeex 7y ago
    Something about this (emphasis more on problems for people with Jewish ancestry in the Soviet Union) can be found here: https://www.amazon.de/Love-Math-Heart-Hidden-Reality/dp/B00NTQW7L2/ https://www.amazon.de/Love-Math-Heart-Hidden-Reality/dp/B00N... from someone, born in the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Frenkel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Frenkel

cheez 7y ago

High performers are starting to be home schooled, more and more.

nostromo 7y ago

This just happened in Seattle. The program for gifted students was canceled after being found to be inequitable.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
Wow. By that argument, one could just as easily label top universities with high scholastic admissions requirements to be “inequitable”, and thus unacceptable. Equal opportunity does not imply equal outcome—even for a perfectly fair school. Quite the opposite! In fact, I’m glad I got rejected from several schools... their high bar helped guide me to something that worked better for me anyway.
- nickik 7y ago
  People who believe in this nonsense are essentially communists. The people who came up with it, clearly were and they were quite explicite about this. They don't want equal opportunity, they reject that something like that even exists as opportunity is always unequal. Only transformation of society to communism in the end will 'solve' those problems. So yes, in their opinion all of this stuff is evil and bad and should be replaced with ... something better. Of course they couldn't really tell you how that would look like.
- sinkasapa 7y ago
  I think people do say that. The notion is that when you look at the people attending Harvard and Mit, for instance, their parents tend to be much more wealthy than the students at Bunker Hill Community College. You're right! That isn't an excuse to shut them down but it might be a reason to think of the system a inequitable. It may be that similar parallels exist in K-12. Then if you're middle class or poor, you have to wonder, "Why am I paying taxes for an elite school that my kid likely won't attend? Can't the rich kids' parents pay for the elite school themselves?" That may be short term thinking or kind of defeatist but it is reasonable.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > That may be short term thinking or kind of defeatist but it is reasonable. I think this is exactly the wrong thinking about taxes. And it's abused by pundits and politicians by making people spend the same money many times in their head. I mean, you can't be simultaneously outraged that "your tax money" supports elite schools and abortion clinics and the military; you don't pay that much of a tax. In fact, an average taxpayer's contribution would amount to buying some office supplies for one, small government building. Money is fungible, and by the time enough is collected to fund a school, there's no "my money" in there anymore, much like if you take a fistful of sand from your yard and throw it on a beach nearby, there is no more "your sand".

TimTheTinker 7y ago

It’s not just California. The combination of “no child left behind” legislation, combined with modern political movements (CRT/I in particular), has rendered large swaths of American public education devoted to bringing everyone up to a minimum standard (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, mind you), but all the while sacrificing the potential of gifted students by not placing everyone into separate (and significantly varying) tracks according to their varying abilities. In addition, schools are funded based on standardized test scores, which encourages many schools, especially in poorer areas, to teach to the tests—instead of teaching students to think.

burtness 7y ago
By CRT are you referring to Critical Race Theory? I'm sceptical that its both that influential, or that any good faith reading of CRT supports sacrificing accelerated programs. In particular CRT in education if anything pushes against reliance on standardized testing scores.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  Yes, that’s what I meant (and I for intersectionality). Agreed that CRT/I would oppose standardized tests, but that’s only because CRT/I at its core opposes anything objective. And the philosophy of CRT/I has already made significant inroads in American culture. Witness all the accelerated programs that have been shut down, the many recent attacks on objective standards—all in the name of “equity” (which does not mean equality of value, treatment, or opportunity—it means creating equal outcomes by whatever means is available —consider the implications carefully). Universities are being forced to grapple with these ideas, with the core question being “does our university still value the pursuit of truth, critical thinking, and free inquiry above all else, or will we acknowledge that ‘people from oppressed classes have a truth unto themselves that cannot be taught but must be respected, and all opposing viewpoints must be shut down’?” If this movement hasn’t yet affected you, it will soon. It’s ripping apart social groups all over the place. (I can give examples of all I’ve described in the morning if you’re interested. I’m just tapping this out before bed.)

akhilcacharya 7y ago

I don’t see the issue. The internet exists now and you can access a world of content in seconds. I didn’t get any of this, ever in my mediocre education - I don’t see why so much focus should be placed on these elites at the expense of everyone else.

adwn 7y ago
> I don’t see why so much focus should be placed on these elites at the expense of everyone else. Because the big breakthroughs and innovations in math and science are achieved by the elites and not by the mediocre masses. This doesn't mean that we should neglect the mediocre masses (I'm one of them, by the way), they do good, important work. But they're are not sufficient.
- StudentStuff 7y ago
  Who is permitted the time and resources to develop breakthroughs and innovations? Surely not the proletariat in modern America, where the vast majority are getting poorer year by year.
  - adwn 7y ago
    The term "elites" in this thread does not refer to the aristocracy or the financial 0.1%. It refers to the high-achievers in math and science, and they have to work for their income just like everybody else (and from what I've ready about postgrads and PhD students in the US, they have to work their asses off).
sergiotapia 7y ago
The internet you use to access content in seconds was created by those elites.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  Sounds like hagiography to me. There were lots of ordinary, non-prodigies that built ARPANet, TCP/IP, the Unix/Windows network stack and HTTP. Plenty work at companies that build the network planes, like Cisco and AWS and Microsoft.

sergiotapia 7y ago

This is common core, and the reason why it was created will shock and enrage you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Nr3_2724 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8Nr3_2724 Straight from the horses mouth.

champagneben 7y ago
He wanted poorer, minority kids to have a chance at a good education and high standards as well? Wasn't very shocking, though the title was incendiary.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  He tries to do that not by elevating people, but by dragging people down. I'm not OK with this.
  - champagneben 7y ago
    I did not hear that in the video - could you pinpoint the timestamp? I would also not be OK with that.
  - rovolo 7y ago
    I transcribed the clip, and I don't see where he's "dragging people down". My guess is that you're reacting to "as a white male in society I'm given a lot of privilege that I didn't earn" and "I think it's really important those kids learn how to read just as well as I had the opportunity to learn how to read." It sounds to me exactly like he's trying to "elevate people", but you're reading it as "drag people down". Why? This is confusing to me. First person) Every teacher who's using it basically is saying this is inspiring a closer and more engaged student body. So the people that are actually using it like it. And again in terms of the local control, you still have local control. So if you want higher standards, if that's really, if that is your genuine point, then you can go ahead and do it. You can do the higher standard. And the process was indeed totally transparent. And when [garbled] we'll move on to David and Bill. Second person) Um, I'm not paid to be here either. I'm just an interested teacher who helped write the standards. And the reason why I helped write the standards and the reason why I am here today is that as a white male in society I'm given a lot of privilege that I didn't earn. And as a result ... [scattered boos from the audience] ... I think it's really important that all kids have an equal opportunity to learn how to read. I think I had a set of advantages as a result of who I was, not ???. And when I walk into places like Roberto Clemente high school on ??? side of Chicago, I think it's really important those kids learn how to read just as well as I had the opportunity to learn how to read. And ??? created an equitable education opportunity for all kids. I think this is actually the greatest lesson we can teach our kids.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adventured 7y ago

> There used to be a big focus on tracking, gifted programs and "accelerated math", but it is now perceived as inequitable. That is exactly right. The other people commenting to the contrary don't seem to know what they're talking about. Even in public schools it was common across the US until the late 1990s to have separate programs and classes (almost always referred to as "gifted" in some regard) for superior students. It wasn't viewed as unfair either, it was common and it was a point of pride to be in those classes, to be selected as a higher tier student. Something changed in the last 20 years where treating students differently became considered unfair. The everybody gets a trophy syndrome took over.

collyw 7y ago

Ironic that Russia is pushing for excellence while the States is pushing for equality.

Koshkin 7y ago
Where's the irony? (Not sure which one is worse.)
cheez 7y ago
Not exactly. As planned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA