5 ms·

I am generally quite liberal but I strongly disagree with he current strain of progressive education reform. There are inherent differences within the capabilit

I am generally quite liberal but I strongly disagree with he current strain of progressive education reform. There are inherent differences within the capabilities of students, we can detect these early, and we should use them to provide students with appropriate challenges. Our education system should provide avenues for top students to excel, ad hopefully these top students become the people who create businesses or invention that improve the world.

throwaway6734 5y ago
The current progressive movement is highly illiberal
- gorwell 5y ago
  The twitter mob doesn't like to hear that but it's absolutely true. It's illiberal, intolerant and regressive. Actual progressives and liberals see this clear as day. Most of us are just too afraid of the mob to say it.
raxxorrax 5y ago
This seems to be a "present" of an older generation that fundamentally didn't put in any effort to understand their successors. With exception to the newest generation that now believes that racism is everywhere. That said, I think logistics of education today can supply almost everyone with a high quality education anyway and the role to connect people moves from universities to other places. So less elite and more broad high quality education wouldn't hold anyone back and is a better approach.
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  Or this is the inevitable end of leftist thinking every single time. Sounds good on paper, fairness and all that, but totally ignores reality and ends up requiring large amounts of violence to enforce its idea of equal outcomes for all, where that equal outcome is always poverty and starvation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I dislike the racial focus just as much, it will result in authoritorian bullshit every time. But that isn't really a "leftist" stick, at least I hope so for their own sake. Freedom and equality contradict themselves at some point, but I do think everyone has a right of participation in society and education. Forcing "representative" distributions is a flawed approach for multiple reasons. And we know it cannot even be true at this point, there is far too much contradictory evidence. I don't understand why people still believe it to be desirable. Women in IT is a staunch example. Elite education lately just sold the correct contacts although the quality of education was indeed high. With todays communication infrastructure it would be a net loss to restrict the audience here.
endisneigh 5y ago
> inherent differences within the capabilities of students citation needed. I agree students definition differ in abilities, but by and large you don't have to be super-smart to succeed in K-12.
- evanpw 5y ago
  The difficulty is set so that almost all students can succeed, so this doesn't contradict anything the parent post said.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  >you don't have to be super-smart to succeed in K-12. Yeah, you don't have to be super smart to succeed in a warehouse-mentality K-12 system. In fact, it helps not to be. Wait, I think you just proved the benefit of advanced classes in K-12.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    This comment doesn't make any sense. A gifted and talented program is not the same as the existence of "advanced classes" and isn't what article is referring to.
linuxftw 5y ago
Public school should provide a basic education to all students, not a better education to some students. Resources that were used for a 'gifted and talented' track should be allocated to help the more needy. Especially in later years, segregating the 'smarter' students is a net loss for the under achievers. How could those 'smarter' students be helping tutor the under achievers? Public school was about helping those in poverty get an education. The middle and upper class has infiltrated the school system for their own purposes. Personally, I'm against public schools in any form, but if they are to exist, we should be trying to ensure all kids have access to the same basic education, not rewarding the ones that already have a higher chance of success.
InitialLastName 5y ago
The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Strangely enough, there were also a very limited number of G&T programs, including none in many of the poorer areas of the city, so if you lived in, say, the west side of the Bronx (as a friend of mine did) and wanted to send your kids to a G&T school, your best case was a 1.5 hour transit commute to East Harlem. My friend and his spouse could do that because they had work flexibility (including the flexibility for one of them not to work), but poor people don't usually have that either. Effectively, this works out to socio-economic desegregation masquerading as racial desegregation (because, for various historical and structural reasons, race in NYC is correlated to affluence).
- padastra 5y ago
  There are numerous sources in this thread that show that the Asian group, highly selected for here, are predominantly poor. Just parroting a talking point without looking at the data is as idiotic as what we all accuse Trump supporters of.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    To counter evidence with evidence, the "Asian" group is very heterogeneous, and more bimodal with respect to wealth than other groups[0][1]. Has anyone presented any data that I missed on which side of that divide the Asian G&T students in NYC schools are being drawn from? [0]https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-the-racial-wealth-divide/ https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-... [1]https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-growing-asian-american-wealth-disparity/ https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-grow...
    - padastra 5y ago
      I'm not sure that's counter evidence (i.e. it doesn't lend proof to the OP's position either, it just decreases the certainty of both positions). The only source I could find with respect to your question is that "Students from the 19 poorest districts, who make up about 31% of kindergarteners citywide, represented about 28% of gifted offers last year" (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-admissions-shakeup-poor-districts-increase-20210713-ima2vju5kvgf3gse6nko7p2llq-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-adm...), but I do not have the primary data. Given the overall ethnic representation of the school, it is statistically extremely likely that a large fraction of the 28% are Asian. I also find no cited evidence in many of the pro-ending-G&T articles that G&T programs cater to wealthy students, and presumably De Blasio and others who have access to the data and want to end the programs would have pushed those facts out there. Anecdotally, wealthy whites and asians have the opportunity to send their children to private schools without spending a large portion of their young lives testing into G&T programs.
mcculley 5y ago
Yes, kids are different. That does not mean that existing systems do a good or fair job of determining which kids would benefit from special programs. My experience being in a "gifted" program in middle and high school in Florida was that the students in the program had parents who knew enough to get them tested. That alone marks a privileged class. I sincerely believe that if every student had been tested, the makeup of the gifted, honors, and standard classes would have been much different. (I graduated high school in 1990. Maybe things are much different now. I would have no way to know.)
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
  The difference is what you describe, every kid takes the tests now because they are standardized.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    Interesting. Is this true for all U.S. school districts? I am very surprised to learn that all kids are being I.Q. tested.
    - detaro 5y ago
      I doubt it's IQ tests specifically.
      - mcculley 5y ago
        What tests would they be? My point is that, at least in the system I experienced, a fraction of students were given IQ tests. They were then placed into special classes. Is jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrong?
        jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        They take standardized tests related to normal school topics such as math, reading, etc. They don't take IQ tests.

throwaway6734 5y ago

The current progressive movement is highly illiberal

gorwell 5y ago
The twitter mob doesn't like to hear that but it's absolutely true. It's illiberal, intolerant and regressive. Actual progressives and liberals see this clear as day. Most of us are just too afraid of the mob to say it.

raxxorrax 5y ago

This seems to be a "present" of an older generation that fundamentally didn't put in any effort to understand their successors. With exception to the newest generation that now believes that racism is everywhere. That said, I think logistics of education today can supply almost everyone with a high quality education anyway and the role to connect people moves from universities to other places. So less elite and more broad high quality education wouldn't hold anyone back and is a better approach.

blacktriangle 5y ago
Or this is the inevitable end of leftist thinking every single time. Sounds good on paper, fairness and all that, but totally ignores reality and ends up requiring large amounts of violence to enforce its idea of equal outcomes for all, where that equal outcome is always poverty and starvation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I dislike the racial focus just as much, it will result in authoritorian bullshit every time. But that isn't really a "leftist" stick, at least I hope so for their own sake. Freedom and equality contradict themselves at some point, but I do think everyone has a right of participation in society and education. Forcing "representative" distributions is a flawed approach for multiple reasons. And we know it cannot even be true at this point, there is far too much contradictory evidence. I don't understand why people still believe it to be desirable. Women in IT is a staunch example. Elite education lately just sold the correct contacts although the quality of education was indeed high. With todays communication infrastructure it would be a net loss to restrict the audience here.

endisneigh 5y ago

> inherent differences within the capabilities of students citation needed. I agree students definition differ in abilities, but by and large you don't have to be super-smart to succeed in K-12.

evanpw 5y ago
The difficulty is set so that almost all students can succeed, so this doesn't contradict anything the parent post said.
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
>you don't have to be super-smart to succeed in K-12. Yeah, you don't have to be super smart to succeed in a warehouse-mentality K-12 system. In fact, it helps not to be. Wait, I think you just proved the benefit of advanced classes in K-12.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  This comment doesn't make any sense. A gifted and talented program is not the same as the existence of "advanced classes" and isn't what article is referring to.

linuxftw 5y ago

Public school should provide a basic education to all students, not a better education to some students. Resources that were used for a 'gifted and talented' track should be allocated to help the more needy. Especially in later years, segregating the 'smarter' students is a net loss for the under achievers. How could those 'smarter' students be helping tutor the under achievers? Public school was about helping those in poverty get an education. The middle and upper class has infiltrated the school system for their own purposes. Personally, I'm against public schools in any form, but if they are to exist, we should be trying to ensure all kids have access to the same basic education, not rewarding the ones that already have a higher chance of success.

InitialLastName 5y ago

The problem with the G&T program was that it did a better job of selecting for parental affluence (the ability to pay 4-5 figures for test prep for your toddler, and the time to navigate a byzantine system) than for inherent differences in student capabilities. Strangely enough, there were also a very limited number of G&T programs, including none in many of the poorer areas of the city, so if you lived in, say, the west side of the Bronx (as a friend of mine did) and wanted to send your kids to a G&T school, your best case was a 1.5 hour transit commute to East Harlem. My friend and his spouse could do that because they had work flexibility (including the flexibility for one of them not to work), but poor people don't usually have that either. Effectively, this works out to socio-economic desegregation masquerading as racial desegregation (because, for various historical and structural reasons, race in NYC is correlated to affluence).

padastra 5y ago
There are numerous sources in this thread that show that the Asian group, highly selected for here, are predominantly poor. Just parroting a talking point without looking at the data is as idiotic as what we all accuse Trump supporters of.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  To counter evidence with evidence, the "Asian" group is very heterogeneous, and more bimodal with respect to wealth than other groups[0][1]. Has anyone presented any data that I missed on which side of that divide the Asian G&T students in NYC schools are being drawn from? [0]https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-the-racial-wealth-divide/ https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans-and-... [1]https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-growing-asian-american-wealth-disparity/ https://documentedny.com/2018/09/04/language-gap-drives-grow...
  - padastra 5y ago
    I'm not sure that's counter evidence (i.e. it doesn't lend proof to the OP's position either, it just decreases the certainty of both positions). The only source I could find with respect to your question is that "Students from the 19 poorest districts, who make up about 31% of kindergarteners citywide, represented about 28% of gifted offers last year" (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-admissions-shakeup-poor-districts-increase-20210713-ima2vju5kvgf3gse6nko7p2llq-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-gifted-adm...), but I do not have the primary data. Given the overall ethnic representation of the school, it is statistically extremely likely that a large fraction of the 28% are Asian. I also find no cited evidence in many of the pro-ending-G&T articles that G&T programs cater to wealthy students, and presumably De Blasio and others who have access to the data and want to end the programs would have pushed those facts out there. Anecdotally, wealthy whites and asians have the opportunity to send their children to private schools without spending a large portion of their young lives testing into G&T programs.

mcculley 5y ago

Yes, kids are different. That does not mean that existing systems do a good or fair job of determining which kids would benefit from special programs. My experience being in a "gifted" program in middle and high school in Florida was that the students in the program had parents who knew enough to get them tested. That alone marks a privileged class. I sincerely believe that if every student had been tested, the makeup of the gifted, honors, and standard classes would have been much different. (I graduated high school in 1990. Maybe things are much different now. I would have no way to know.)

jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
The difference is what you describe, every kid takes the tests now because they are standardized.
- mcculley 5y ago
  Interesting. Is this true for all U.S. school districts? I am very surprised to learn that all kids are being I.Q. tested.
  - detaro 5y ago
    I doubt it's IQ tests specifically.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      What tests would they be? My point is that, at least in the system I experienced, a fraction of students were given IQ tests. They were then placed into special classes. Is jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrong?
      - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        They take standardized tests related to normal school topics such as math, reading, etc. They don't take IQ tests.