8 ms·

> "Families with resources turn to fee-required online algebra 1 courses in eighth grade, outside the public school system, or enroll their kids in private scho

> "Families with resources turn to fee-required online algebra 1 courses in eighth grade, outside the public school system, or enroll their kids in private schools," Isn't this obvious result? The Russian School of Mathematics could manage to teach 10-year old kids basic algebra. And there's AOPS, there's Think Academy, and slew of local tutoring schools who can teach kids relatively advanced maths. Let alone many private schools. If I have the means, why would I not send my kids to such schools and therefore fuck up the funding of the public schools? Not that I want to, but it furiates me that the school administrators really hurt the kids who need public education the most in the name of equity. It also saddens me that the constituents are okay with such administrators.

TimTheTinker 4y ago
> in the name of equity That's the problem. We're dealing with the critical theory definition of equity, which they define as the intentional redistribution of opportunity and resources along identity group lines to correct for present and historical injustices, as well as opportunities those groups have already had. Critical theory and social justice adopts a distorted view of reality. Leave it to a school in San Francisco to show everyone what happens in real life when administrators adopt a policy based on that distorted view of reality -- inequality is only increased. In fact, I'd classify critical theory alongside Marxism for adopting a false belief that some top-down forced redistribution of resources/wealth/opportunity/means of production/etc. is the way to true justice. That kind of belief backfires spectacularly when policy makers adopt it IRL.
- vnchr 4y ago
  Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the failure of the system to provide an education optimal path. It’s worse outcomes for both, except some people can shield themselves from the fallout. What new kind of self-inflicted damage will be required to realize the detrimental failure of this world view?
  - User23 4y ago
    Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.
    - chii 4y ago
      > But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
      - telotortium 4y ago
        That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
        TimTheTinker 4y ago
        The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
      - MrJohz 4y ago
        In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.
- elzbardico 4y ago
  It must suck to be poor but not belong to any one the correct identity groups nowadays. I am lucky I was born way before that, or I would never have be able to leave poverty.
  - chadcmulligan 4y ago
    Maybe the trick is to remove poverty, it's not hard to do
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ertian 4y ago
      Sarcasm?
      - chadcmulligan 4y ago
        No, not at all, take 10% of the military budget, up the tax right for the high earners and make a better world. Imagine a place where no one had to be scared of living on the street, could get decent food, has access to free education and health care. What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. Now I'm not saying it will be a great life but a basic life, it's been proved over and over that the limiting factor for a number of minorities is poverty, so unless you address that first nothing will be solved. Sure some people will abuse it, but think of the kids that will be able to get an education and eat properly, and its just easy.
        TimTheTinker 4y ago
        > What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. I get really scared when I hear anyone promise utopia. Literally every large-scale society that did turned into a hellscape after a while, and the idea itself never worked. There was always someone who didn't buy into the idea, and they were blamed for why it didn't work. "If only those people were gone, then this would work and we'd be happy." So millions die or are sent to the gulag or whatever it's called, and the idea is still not working. China no longer promises its citizens a utopia. All they promise is a country that is powerful on the world stage. They're getting there, but it's still happening via exploitation. And the back alleys of Beijing still ring with abject poverty.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  People will willingly claim that critical theory is not connected to Marxism. We call these people wrong. Marx is literally the godfather of critical theory, the Frankfurt school, post strcturalism and the rest of the fashionable nonsense cannon that parts of the left seem obsessed with.
sp332 4y ago
I think the idea is that if it’s important to rich parents, they will grudgingly fund education for everyone. But as long as they have these outlets where they can just educate their own kids and leave everyone else behind, they will.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's a fair generalization. I suspect many parents have the resources to improve their own kids' educations, but not the time/energy to try changing the school system politics / bureaucracy / laws / budgets in time for their kids.
- bendbro 4y ago
  Some students need to be left behind
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Which ones are those again?
    - stametseater 4y ago
      Those who can't keep up with the rest. The only alternative is to hold everybody back to the level of the dimwits, and that's atrocious.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Who gets to decide that?
        rlt 4y ago
        Test scores?
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
elzbardico 4y ago
Man, forget about Soviet Russia. I give you a more striking example: I was born in Brazil and started having algebra around this age, in a public school, where most of the kids, like me were either poor or at the best lower middle class. I don't even remember having a colleague that had at least one parent with a superior education.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
What else could possible result? There are people who don't understand sociology and are only vaguely aware of pathological cultural factors (or possibly, though they are aware of them, wish to deny their existence) and demand that these problems be solved with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is only able to crudely affect these, and only in the most totalitarian of regimes. Mao or Stalin might have been able to rid their countries of pathological cultural factors (of course, instead of doing such they were more concerned with ridding themselves of potential rivals). California cannot at this point in time do any such thing.
- LeanderK 4y ago
  nearly every other developed country managed to fund their schools system adequately, to provide a uniform system of education without heavy reliance on private schools. While you can't really guarantee equal opportunities for every kid due extracurricular support, at least the possible schools and classes are open to everyone independent of income. So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
    I don't think any intelligent person would make the accusation that we don't spend enough on education. On average, the United States spends an absurd amount per student. Even in the places where they spend less than this average per student, they're still spending more than throughout all of Europe. The question really becomes not if we're spending enough, but what it is that we happen to be buying. How much of any given $1 you spend in taxes purchases textbooks, or pays teacher paychecks? Hell, how much on air conditioning in the summer so kids can concentrate on something other than the sweat dribbling down their foreheads? How much is spent on the office building downtown that has nothing to do with teaching directly, but with people who manage the teachers? And with people who manage those managers? > So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality. If the only equality you can figure out how to manage is hammering down all the nails that stick out, what good is equality?
foolfoolz 4y ago
russian school of math is very popular at the schools my kids are at. i ask the parents why and they tell me they think math is important and the public school isn’t challenging them
gautamdivgi 4y ago
That's the first thing that my daughter was taught at RSM when she went in for 5th grade math - Algebra. They also start you with geometry in the 6th grade. I think they start Algebra a lot younger actually - maybe 2nd or 3rd grade. When I spoke to the principal of the my local RSM she said the earlier you start the better it is. Edit:- They get homework they need to turn in. Early on I had to spend sometime with my daughter to help her cope. But once she had her concepts down its been pretty smooth sailing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lostmsu 4y ago
For someone unfamiliar, what is Russian School of Math? A private school? An extra curricular activity?
- seraphsf 4y ago
  A private, after-school extra curricular program. It’s a national company with many local branches (possibly franchised). Like Kumon, it’s a way for ambitious parents to buy extra academic classes and extra homework for their kids.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  They give you a pencil, and the kid in line in front of you gets a calculator. When he flunks out, you get his calculator.
- dh2022 4y ago
  Is a wonderful program teaching math. I cannot recommend it enough. I recommend it to all my friends. It starts from basics - in kindergarten they do problems like "there are 4 birds on a branch. 2 fly away. How many are left on the branch?". And then it builds and keeps building. My son is taking it. My son was solving linear equations when he was 11 years old. I think this is the best education he is getting - and the one that will stay with him the most.

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> in the name of equity That's the problem. We're dealing with the critical theory definition of equity, which they define as the intentional redistribution of opportunity and resources along identity group lines to correct for present and historical injustices, as well as opportunities those groups have already had. Critical theory and social justice adopts a distorted view of reality. Leave it to a school in San Francisco to show everyone what happens in real life when administrators adopt a policy based on that distorted view of reality -- inequality is only increased. In fact, I'd classify critical theory alongside Marxism for adopting a false belief that some top-down forced redistribution of resources/wealth/opportunity/means of production/etc. is the way to true justice. That kind of belief backfires spectacularly when policy makers adopt it IRL.

vnchr 4y ago
Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the failure of the system to provide an education optimal path. It’s worse outcomes for both, except some people can shield themselves from the fallout. What new kind of self-inflicted damage will be required to realize the detrimental failure of this world view?
- User23 4y ago
  Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.
  - chii 4y ago
    > But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
    - telotortium 4y ago
      That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
      - TimTheTinker 4y ago
        The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
    - MrJohz 4y ago
      In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.
elzbardico 4y ago
It must suck to be poor but not belong to any one the correct identity groups nowadays. I am lucky I was born way before that, or I would never have be able to leave poverty.
- chadcmulligan 4y ago
  Maybe the trick is to remove poverty, it's not hard to do
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ertian 4y ago
    Sarcasm?
    - chadcmulligan 4y ago
      No, not at all, take 10% of the military budget, up the tax right for the high earners and make a better world. Imagine a place where no one had to be scared of living on the street, could get decent food, has access to free education and health care. What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. Now I'm not saying it will be a great life but a basic life, it's been proved over and over that the limiting factor for a number of minorities is poverty, so unless you address that first nothing will be solved. Sure some people will abuse it, but think of the kids that will be able to get an education and eat properly, and its just easy.
      - TimTheTinker 4y ago
        > What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. I get really scared when I hear anyone promise utopia. Literally every large-scale society that did turned into a hellscape after a while, and the idea itself never worked. There was always someone who didn't buy into the idea, and they were blamed for why it didn't work. "If only those people were gone, then this would work and we'd be happy." So millions die or are sent to the gulag or whatever it's called, and the idea is still not working. China no longer promises its citizens a utopia. All they promise is a country that is powerful on the world stage. They're getting there, but it's still happening via exploitation. And the back alleys of Beijing still ring with abject poverty.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
People will willingly claim that critical theory is not connected to Marxism. We call these people wrong. Marx is literally the godfather of critical theory, the Frankfurt school, post strcturalism and the rest of the fashionable nonsense cannon that parts of the left seem obsessed with.

sp332 4y ago

I think the idea is that if it’s important to rich parents, they will grudgingly fund education for everyone. But as long as they have these outlets where they can just educate their own kids and leave everyone else behind, they will.

CoastalCoder 4y ago
I'm not sure that's a fair generalization. I suspect many parents have the resources to improve their own kids' educations, but not the time/energy to try changing the school system politics / bureaucracy / laws / budgets in time for their kids.
bendbro 4y ago
Some students need to be left behind
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Which ones are those again?
  - stametseater 4y ago
    Those who can't keep up with the rest. The only alternative is to hold everybody back to the level of the dimwits, and that's atrocious.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Who gets to decide that?
      - rlt 4y ago
        Test scores?
        kelseyfrog 4y ago

elzbardico 4y ago

Man, forget about Soviet Russia. I give you a more striking example: I was born in Brazil and started having algebra around this age, in a public school, where most of the kids, like me were either poor or at the best lower middle class. I don't even remember having a colleague that had at least one parent with a superior education.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago

What else could possible result? There are people who don't understand sociology and are only vaguely aware of pathological cultural factors (or possibly, though they are aware of them, wish to deny their existence) and demand that these problems be solved with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is only able to crudely affect these, and only in the most totalitarian of regimes. Mao or Stalin might have been able to rid their countries of pathological cultural factors (of course, instead of doing such they were more concerned with ridding themselves of potential rivals). California cannot at this point in time do any such thing.

LeanderK 4y ago
nearly every other developed country managed to fund their schools system adequately, to provide a uniform system of education without heavy reliance on private schools. While you can't really guarantee equal opportunities for every kid due extracurricular support, at least the possible schools and classes are open to everyone independent of income. So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
  I don't think any intelligent person would make the accusation that we don't spend enough on education. On average, the United States spends an absurd amount per student. Even in the places where they spend less than this average per student, they're still spending more than throughout all of Europe. The question really becomes not if we're spending enough, but what it is that we happen to be buying. How much of any given $1 you spend in taxes purchases textbooks, or pays teacher paychecks? Hell, how much on air conditioning in the summer so kids can concentrate on something other than the sweat dribbling down their foreheads? How much is spent on the office building downtown that has nothing to do with teaching directly, but with people who manage the teachers? And with people who manage those managers? > So one should strive to eliminate private schools as much as possible. I entrenches inequality. If the only equality you can figure out how to manage is hammering down all the nails that stick out, what good is equality?

foolfoolz 4y ago

russian school of math is very popular at the schools my kids are at. i ask the parents why and they tell me they think math is important and the public school isn’t challenging them

gautamdivgi 4y ago

That's the first thing that my daughter was taught at RSM when she went in for 5th grade math - Algebra. They also start you with geometry in the 6th grade. I think they start Algebra a lot younger actually - maybe 2nd or 3rd grade. When I spoke to the principal of the my local RSM she said the earlier you start the better it is. Edit:- They get homework they need to turn in. Early on I had to spend sometime with my daughter to help her cope. But once she had her concepts down its been pretty smooth sailing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lostmsu 4y ago

For someone unfamiliar, what is Russian School of Math? A private school? An extra curricular activity?

seraphsf 4y ago
A private, after-school extra curricular program. It’s a national company with many local branches (possibly franchised). Like Kumon, it’s a way for ambitious parents to buy extra academic classes and extra homework for their kids.
CamperBob2 4y ago
They give you a pencil, and the kid in line in front of you gets a calculator. When he flunks out, you get his calculator.
dh2022 4y ago
Is a wonderful program teaching math. I cannot recommend it enough. I recommend it to all my friends. It starts from basics - in kindergarten they do problems like "there are 4 birds on a branch. 2 fly away. How many are left on the branch?". And then it builds and keeps building. My son is taking it. My son was solving linear equations when he was 11 years old. I think this is the best education he is getting - and the one that will stay with him the most.