11 ms·

This is the way. Teach kids more, not less. Ask more of them, not less. If you need to lengthen the school day and school year to do so, do it. Do it now. "So

This is the way. Teach kids more, not less. Ask more of them, not less. If you need to lengthen the school day and school year to do so, do it. Do it now. "So what should we do instead? Dallas came up with an answer: Teach kids more math instead of teaching them less. In 2019, Dallas Independent School District implemented a new equity policy that encouraged many more people to take honors math classes: Many capable Hispanic, Black and English learner students did not elect to join these classes on their own or were passed over by their instructors. And their parents were often unaware they could make the request. Dallas ISD, which serves some 142,000 children, took note of the disparity and in 2017 formed a racial equity advisory council — some of whose members had children in the district — with the goal of improving opportunity for all…It decided to move from an opt-in model to an opt-out policy in the 2019-20 school year. Since then…students cannot opt out [of advances classes] without written parent permission. The move has dramatically increased participation among traditionally marginalized children."

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> with the goal of improving opportunity for all I'm chatting with some friends who are parents in the Bay Area. Their admittedly very Californian response is that at least this should reduce competition for college spots. (Their kids are obviously going to get tutoring.)
- btilly 3y ago
  Don't worry. DEI programs have this covered as well. Stop using standardized tests to get in. And then just aim for the perfect "socially desirable" mix. Regardless of ability.
  - nancyhn 3y ago
    Can someone explain how DEI programs got so embeded despite being flagrantly regressive?
    - Dig1t 3y ago
      I personally am afraid to speak out against such things. I did in college and was viciously flamed by people who thought it was a good idea. You can shut down the entire conversation by just calling someone “racist” or “bigot”. I don’t want to lose my job or be ostracized. To be clear, my opinions are only that it seems wrong to me to discriminate against someone based on their immutable characteristics (like race).
    - rainsford 3y ago
      It only seems inexplicable if you accept as reality the most extreme characterization of DEI programs, which personally I believe should be a tip-off that such a characterization might not be entirely accurate. The more ridiculous programs naturally get the most attention, regardless of how representative they are, and DEI programs as a whole are further strawmanned by politicians and pundits looking to trigger your outrage. The discourse thoroughly ignores all the programs working on DEI as a topic in ways most reasonable people would probably be OK with. As an example right in this thread, the grandparent comment talks about the Dallas schools looking at the issue of children unevenly taking advantage of advanced courses and coming up with a solution that helped expand access across the board. This absolutely would qualify as a DEI program (they even used the equity trigger word), but did not do anything I would think many people would find objectionable.
      - gaganyaan 3y ago
        On the contrary, I think most DEI programs suck and people know it. There's a few like the Dallas program that actually try to solve the problem in a reasonable way, and you won't find nearly as much pushback from people on those.
    - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    The amount of equity a society enforces should be inversely proportional to age. If a kindergartener is unable to succeed, we need to give them extra help. If a 45 year old is unable to succeed, they had their chances and it's their fault.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Even if an older person’s situation is largely not their fault, it is much more difficult to correct, and society’s benefit for its investment is much lower. On ramps for everyone are important, but as you say, far far more important and effective in people’s early years.
      - t-3 3y ago
        Children need to be educated well and given opportunities to guarantee the future of society, but ensuring adults are content or at least able to support themselves is important for stability today. More un/under-employed/unemployable people means more crime and social unrest, retarding growth and costing more resources than would have been spent supporting them.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - DropInIn 3y ago
      It's thier fault if we never gave the support in K-12? You do see the glaring failure in your "reasoning", right?
      - RecycledEle 3y ago
        I agree with you that I was wrong to say "It's their fault." There are people who get screwed by life. The main way they got screwed was when life taught them whining was better than working hard. We need to stop screwing people that way. We need to hold a hard line on the principle that they can succeed or fail in a free market, and we will not reward whining. This means eliminating all entitlements for adults. I'll help kids learn to be successful adult. I'm a teacher, that's what I do. Let the kids and their families pick their schools from any school they can get to, including online schools. I will not help some whiny adult who can not even train themselves when they have Internet access. If you give money to whiny adults, who do you take it from? Do you take it from long-term investments in education? Do you take it from long term investments in our economy like paying off our national debt? Our (US) national debt eliminates many options we would otherwise have. It is more compassionate to provide the best education we can to the children, and let the adults pay for themselves. Long-term benefits should outweigh short-term benefits. A society that educates and raises its children to be productive, the provides a free market will outperform a society that rewards whining.
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    I know it’s vogue to ridicule DEI programs, but the reality is that as the blog post points out, these measures achieve the opposite of DEI (all 3 letters of those). Even standardized tests. There is already evidence that standardized tests reduce equality. Which is not surprising at all because standardized tests are the one part of a college application that someone can excel at purely with concentrated hard work over a relatively short period of time. An underprivileged kid motivated to go to a good college cannot make up for poor grades earned from K-8 when they barely had the ability to plan a day in the future, and so was driven to do whatever their friends were doing. And then that set them up behind the 8 ball in many ways from 9-12 as well. Finally, real DEI requires listening to actual underprivileged people. The vast majority of underprivileged parents will not respond to data showing that their kids are underperforming by saying “make sure no one can do this”. They will respond by demanding the schools provide more resources so their kids can excel. The OP wonders how Cambridge, Mass and CA are making such changes. But it’s not surprising at all because these decisions are being driven largely by upper middle class educated people who absolutely cannot relate to the under privileged people they claim they’re helping. And this is an implementation of the worst of privilege. Making decisions for the underprivileged by the privileged without ever asking the supposed beneficiaries what will actually help them.
    - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
      > They will respond by demanding the schools provide more resources so their kids can excel. Right? Why would any parent want other kids in their class to be dumber so their kid is magically "smarter"? They want their child to grow up to be a competent person who is capable of competing in the world at large, not a wave-through at a "progressive" school. Parents recognize that their children will be competing with the entire world for jobs, and easily see the folly of such a policy. Such policy really does seem actively hostile toward the goals of such parents. For a group of educators to suggest that the solution is to do away with "mean grades and homework" is like saying, "We all know that you're kid isn't going succeed in advanced classes so let's not even pretend that they will."
    - slt2021 3y ago
      rich white people introduce these regressive DEI policies so that smart poor and not-connected kids could not compete and enter elite ranks of society, and their (relatively dumb, but rich&well connected) kids could easily outcompete everyone. 1. It is incredibly hard for rich&connected kid to excel among smart & hard-working individuals 2. If barrier is lowered, and overall pool is "diverse" in terms of IQ and ability, then for a rich kid it gets much easier to outcompete and stand out (due to parent's $$$ and connections) 3. The only reason rich white privileged people want regressive DEI is to make it easier for their kids to stand out from competition
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Ha that’s not actually happening though because college admissions aren’t going to be based in knowledge but on ability to jump through hoops perfectly
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    AI is going to upend everything about education. I can't imagine colleges doing much beyond lots of AI interviews in the near future. That's if there is even a point in getting 95% of degrees anymore anyway.
    - bluescrn 3y ago
      The internet should have transformed education. For curious self-learners it has, there’s incredible resources online for those who seek them out. But it hasn’t made much of a dent in ‘the education system’
      - throw9away6 3y ago
        Because ability to asses knowledge is poor everywhere. programming might be a bit better at it but everyone else relies on signaling. Also many industries are essentially government adjacent so they continuation of college entrenchment continues
      - guidoism 3y ago
        Something I say to anyone who will listen is that we have lived through the moment in history when the cost to receive a world-class elite education has collapsed to near zero and hardly anybody has noticed. We still talk as if an official four year university education is the goal and bemoan the cost of it rising faster than general inflation and worry about taking on debt that will burden them for the rest of their lives and worry about our kids “getting in” to the university of their choice. It has changed education. And people who have kids nearing college age, who have noticed, will be able to help them navigate this world in a much more useful way than people who tell their kids to take on as much debt as they can to go to any university they want. The pipeline that fuels our decision making of what to focus on in primary/secondary school as it relates only to what will help them stand out in a college application and our decision making of what a university-level education means as it relates to getting a job is fascinating.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I'm not sure it will — there are still plenty of schools elsewhere that offer advanced coursework, and their graduates can more than fill the freshman class of elite colleges. For example, I grew up in Sacramento, and our public schools had a tracked program from 2nd grade. Pretty much all of us took algebra/geometry in middle school, and those who were advanced were taking precalc or calc by 9th grade. It has been a disappointing experience to learn that in the heart of silicon valley, 30+ years later, the public schools have less to offer in terms of differentiated learning and accelerated education. BTW, I have also been talking with Bay Area parents about this, including some HNers. Would love to chat with you/your friends to know how folks are sorting this out. We've had some success and are always looking to help others do the same. Contact info in profile.
  - daniel-cussen 3y ago
    Tracking helped me in particular by making my homeroom (the British school equivalent, j called a class) more civilized, n fair to students w less academic talent than me. Given the tracking in English n at one point, briefly, Mathematics, it meant the other boys had a shot at getn the best score in the class or at all enjoying leniency in grading, which my presence as a future Erdosian mathematician made impossible, n their parents would deny them privileges n beat them sometimes if they weren't excellent students, so they'd bully me for monopolizing the academics completely. The girls did not, because i believe there was not an expectation they be the best student n plus i was very good-looking to them, though not to myself. Future model too. But the bullying was the main challenge, no matter what they threw at me the academics were nothing in difficulty compared to the bullying. So for that reason alone tracking helped me out, n the homeroom out too.
    - PawgerZ 3y ago
      May I ask, what is Erdosian? As for bullying, I was a "gifted" kid in school, too. I was treated nicely when people wanted help and bullied ruthlessly when they didn't need me. > their parents would deny them privileges n beat them sometimes if they weren't excellent students 100% agree that this was one of the biggest factors in my bullying. Shame is powerful, and if a child is being shamed for their academic achievements, they will lash out at someone who has what they desire: good grades in this instance.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  It won't reduce competition for college spots. Admissions committees will continue to fulfill shadow racial quotas using first names, last names, and reparations sob stories as filters to maintain the status quo. Test scores of special protected classes hardly matter as long as those primary objectives are met.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Not sure exactly what you're dancing around, but man, if some of those top schools in CA could reduce competition by, say, expanding admissions, that would be great.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Not sure exactly what you're dancing around Poor Californians who can’t afford tutors will lack the skills to compete with other students. (If you’re graduating without calculus, you’ll have a tough time becoming an engineer or performing on a standardised test.) That reduces those with means’ competition, ceteris paribus.
    - t-3 3y ago
      Maybe things have changed in the ~15 years since I took the ACT, but no calculus was necessary for me to get a score in the 30s. You're probably right about getting accepted into an engineering major at a prestigious school though.
proxiful-wash 3y ago
It was you wonder if a foreign state adversary is influencing us to stupify our next generation. I'll keep my comments civil here but its pretty obvious who is behind this.
- throwanem 3y ago
  If it's all that obvious, you should have no problem naming who's behind this and providing evidence to support your claim, rather than merely fearmongering to no useful end.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    I don't know. These "equity" arguments are indistinguishable from a deliberate attack.... the sort of attack you'd expect from a country that, having been unable to either compete with the West or conquer it, is well-known to have resorted to memetic warfare.
    - throwanem 3y ago
      > I don't know.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        But you do, it sounds like. Enlighten us.
        baremetal 3y ago
        That would be way too spicy for this place, Bob.
        throwanem 3y ago
        I'm not claiming to know anything. I'm just asking that those who do make such claims be a little less gnomic in their commentary, so that the rest of us can evaluate whether or not you're talking nonsense.
MostlyStable 3y ago
Lengthen the school _year_ sure, but I'm skeptical that lengthening the school _day_ won't have, at best, mixed effects, especially given all the studies on sleep etc.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Start at 10am, go till 4pm?
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    Hell, start at 10am go to 6pm. That's still less than 8 hours of instruction considering there's lunch, gym/recess, etc.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      This really should vary with grade. It's hard to keep a 6 year old's attention for almost 8 hours. Far more possible in High School.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        It's hard to keep my attention for almost 8 hours. And generally a lot less and that's with coffee and generally being able to get up and stretch my legs. And, while the situation is much different, I've become a fan of shorter presentations, meetings, etc. ADDED: I often think I couldn't handle high school today.
        bamfly 3y ago
        Looking back on high school, no wonder I was so damn bad at it and hated it so much. And depressed all the time. And probably picked up SAD that took me a decade beyond it to shake. I'd quit a job as soon as I could find another, if it demanded of me what high school did. Hell, I'd quit based on the consistent 10+ hour days and constant due-tomorrow deadlines, let alone the rest of it like the before-the-sun's-up start time, having to ask permission to go take a piss, sitting in crappy chairs in bad lighting for back-to-back ~hour blocks all day, and having to keep "working" indefinitely with people who won't stop being shitheads in ways that'd get them fired from most any job inside a week. It's insanely terrible. Like, there are multiple bad things about it that I've never had to tolerate in such abundance and variety even in low-skilled jobs I've held. WTF. College and adult life are so much more chill than high school. It was a real shock, leaving there for the wider world. So glad the people who were like "this [shitty thing] is to prepare you for the real world, which is way harder and less forgiving!" or "enjoy it, because this is the best time of your life" were entirely wrong. I'd probably have offed myself by now, if they'd been right. Four years was barely tolerable—a lifetime of that, or worse? No, thanks.
hdior 3y ago
Go have kids, teach them what you want. STEM minded folks need to eat their own dog food; your sensibilities are not divine mandate. The other billions don’t owe deference to scientists any more than they do priests. No scientist is a divine being. Their attitudes can be very human; they think their knowledge and skills is irreplaceable and the social system while trying to pretend that’s objective and could never be leveraged in typically corrupt human ways given their very human being. In the end you’re one of billions bleating for others to follow the path you lay out. Where is the real or imagine social obligation to specifically serve you or any of the rest of the people here who make up a tiny fraction of the species? Others think you should learn to grow your own food and kill your steaks rather than exploit the labor of others. The free market of ideas is not just for selling widgets but tent pole social movements.
Romanulus 3y ago
[dead]
achates 3y ago
Does putting marginal students in advanced classes actually help them?
- ryandamm 3y ago
  The results cited in the article suggest that either the answer is yes, or in fact "marginal students" are perfectly capable students who were being passed over. The text of the article further suggests that many of the students who scored well on qualifying exams weren't taking the classes because they didn't have the parental involvement or default assumption that they would take it. (Note that the opt-out group was selected from the general population based on the results of an exam; it wasn't a population-wide opt out. I suspect from your comment you didn't see that?)
  - recursive 3y ago
    Am I meant to believe that all students are equally capable? That's a tough sell.
    - nomat 3y ago
      students definitely are not all equally capable in one aspect for sure: their ability to hire or provide private tutoring outside of school hours. Cutting access to state-funded programs (such as algebra classes in middle school) just means the rich children get even more of a leg up on college admissions and life in general.
      - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
        [dead]
    - sfn42 3y ago
      I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
> Teach kids more, not less It's an odd combination of teaching kids too much in elementary school and too little in high. The children are exposed to a far more comprehensive curriculum at the expense of never practicing the skills enough to master them. As soon as summer resets their brains, they suddenly have large gaps in knowledge that slow next year's learning.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > As soon as summer resets their brains, they suddenly have large gaps in knowledge that slow next year's learning. One loves to say that summer vacations are long so that pupils have time to fill the gaps for the next school year. If they don't use this time (or their parents don't urge them to), it is their problem.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    Nobody's spending their vacation studying if they can avoid it.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > Nobody's spending their vacation studying if they can avoid it. If you have huge gaps in the subject matter of some subjects, you hardly cannot avoid it (and your parents will likely take care that you cannot avoid it ;-) ).
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >if they can avoid it. meanwhile, my parent put me in summer school almost every year in some capacity. At least summer hours and classes are relaxed compared to the gauntlet of 6-7 different subjects 8 hours a day.
      - sfn42 3y ago
        Seems like you couldn't avoid it.
lost_tourist 3y ago
I'm fine with expecting more, but for those kids who just don't handle it well, it's not right to make them pariahs, just take the math down a notch. I saw kids treated as “less than” because they weren't making it in a certain level of math, and that always pissed me off. Likewise, I even had to report a calculus teacher once anonymously, I recorded the class with a mini-cassette (in the late 90s) recorder and slid it under the principal's door with a note. No the kid wasn't me, but he was a decent guy who I knew a little bit and knew he was trying hard but just couldn't get it.
logicalmonster 3y ago
> The move has dramatically increased participation among traditionally marginalized children This program may or may not be a fantastic idea, but "participation" is about the worst possible metric for measuring the overall impact of a mandatory program. Are these children having better overall life and educational outcomes from this? Are they taking time and energy away from classes they want to pursue to struggle in math courses they might not be truly passionate about? And what about its impact on the non-marginalized kids? Because "everybody" is now participating, are honors courses now slowed and dumbed down so actual high-achievers will be less prepared for their future?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- iNic 3y ago
  If you would have read the article then you would know the answer to this: > Before the change, three times as many White students as Black students enrolled in honors math; after the change, it was less than twice as many. Not perfect equity, but progress in that direction. > But did all these new students actually learn the honors math? Yes, indeed they did: > And the policy has not led to a decrease in student scores as some speculated: Last year’s 8th-grade Algebra I students had similar pass rates as those in years prior, the district said, with 95% of Hispanic students passing the test and 76% meeting grade-level proficiency; 91% of Black students passing and 65% meeting grade level and 95% of English learner students passing the state exam and 74% meeting grade level.
  - logicalmonster 3y ago
    I did examine the article, and to me there's a few holes and question marks in what data was presented. > For instance, they claimed that "Last year’s 8th-grade Algebra I students had similar pass rates as those in years prior" but the word "similar" is subjective. How about showing all of the stratified data in chronological order to make that determination for oneself? Did pass rates for the state test go from say 99% and reduce due to this? They don't mention the White race pass rates before and after this change, for example. > The racial groups listed are Black, Hispanic, White, and Other. What is other? Are they Asians? That seems like the only place they'd fit, but the participation of "Other" before and after this change seems low for that group. > This data tells us nothing about how the teachers are approaching teaching their courses in light of this change. Do they stop going over valuable material solely to focus teaching kids how to pass a state test so their metrics look good? (Is that what matters for their funding, by the way?) Are class sizes increasing or decreasing to make this change logistically work? > Additionally, as I am not an educator from Texas, I don't know for certain, but the test itself seems rather dumbed down if a large portion of kids are passing it, but aren't meeting their grade level. Doesn't it raise an eyebrow that 91% of Black kids are passing the test, but only 65% of them are meeting their grade level? > The article doesn't clarify if all Texas students take this test or just honors students, but it would be illuminating to see pass rates of this test in that school district from different groups before and after that change. If 95% of Hispanic students in this honors program are passing that test in this district after this change, what was the pass rate of Hispanics before that change? Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad program. It might be quite a good idea to really raise educational standards and force kids into tougher math programs. But the focus solely on "racial participation" makes this very suspect to me.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> with the goal of improving opportunity for all I'm chatting with some friends who are parents in the Bay Area. Their admittedly very Californian response is that at least this should reduce competition for college spots. (Their kids are obviously going to get tutoring.)

btilly 3y ago
Don't worry. DEI programs have this covered as well. Stop using standardized tests to get in. And then just aim for the perfect "socially desirable" mix. Regardless of ability.
- nancyhn 3y ago
  Can someone explain how DEI programs got so embeded despite being flagrantly regressive?
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    I personally am afraid to speak out against such things. I did in college and was viciously flamed by people who thought it was a good idea. You can shut down the entire conversation by just calling someone “racist” or “bigot”. I don’t want to lose my job or be ostracized. To be clear, my opinions are only that it seems wrong to me to discriminate against someone based on their immutable characteristics (like race).
  - rainsford 3y ago
    It only seems inexplicable if you accept as reality the most extreme characterization of DEI programs, which personally I believe should be a tip-off that such a characterization might not be entirely accurate. The more ridiculous programs naturally get the most attention, regardless of how representative they are, and DEI programs as a whole are further strawmanned by politicians and pundits looking to trigger your outrage. The discourse thoroughly ignores all the programs working on DEI as a topic in ways most reasonable people would probably be OK with. As an example right in this thread, the grandparent comment talks about the Dallas schools looking at the issue of children unevenly taking advantage of advanced courses and coming up with a solution that helped expand access across the board. This absolutely would qualify as a DEI program (they even used the equity trigger word), but did not do anything I would think many people would find objectionable.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      On the contrary, I think most DEI programs suck and people know it. There's a few like the Dallas program that actually try to solve the problem in a reasonable way, and you won't find nearly as much pushback from people on those.
  - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  The amount of equity a society enforces should be inversely proportional to age. If a kindergartener is unable to succeed, we need to give them extra help. If a 45 year old is unable to succeed, they had their chances and it's their fault.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Even if an older person’s situation is largely not their fault, it is much more difficult to correct, and society’s benefit for its investment is much lower. On ramps for everyone are important, but as you say, far far more important and effective in people’s early years.
    - t-3 3y ago
      Children need to be educated well and given opportunities to guarantee the future of society, but ensuring adults are content or at least able to support themselves is important for stability today. More un/under-employed/unemployable people means more crime and social unrest, retarding growth and costing more resources than would have been spent supporting them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    It's thier fault if we never gave the support in K-12? You do see the glaring failure in your "reasoning", right?
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      I agree with you that I was wrong to say "It's their fault." There are people who get screwed by life. The main way they got screwed was when life taught them whining was better than working hard. We need to stop screwing people that way. We need to hold a hard line on the principle that they can succeed or fail in a free market, and we will not reward whining. This means eliminating all entitlements for adults. I'll help kids learn to be successful adult. I'm a teacher, that's what I do. Let the kids and their families pick their schools from any school they can get to, including online schools. I will not help some whiny adult who can not even train themselves when they have Internet access. If you give money to whiny adults, who do you take it from? Do you take it from long-term investments in education? Do you take it from long term investments in our economy like paying off our national debt? Our (US) national debt eliminates many options we would otherwise have. It is more compassionate to provide the best education we can to the children, and let the adults pay for themselves. Long-term benefits should outweigh short-term benefits. A society that educates and raises its children to be productive, the provides a free market will outperform a society that rewards whining.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  I know it’s vogue to ridicule DEI programs, but the reality is that as the blog post points out, these measures achieve the opposite of DEI (all 3 letters of those). Even standardized tests. There is already evidence that standardized tests reduce equality. Which is not surprising at all because standardized tests are the one part of a college application that someone can excel at purely with concentrated hard work over a relatively short period of time. An underprivileged kid motivated to go to a good college cannot make up for poor grades earned from K-8 when they barely had the ability to plan a day in the future, and so was driven to do whatever their friends were doing. And then that set them up behind the 8 ball in many ways from 9-12 as well. Finally, real DEI requires listening to actual underprivileged people. The vast majority of underprivileged parents will not respond to data showing that their kids are underperforming by saying “make sure no one can do this”. They will respond by demanding the schools provide more resources so their kids can excel. The OP wonders how Cambridge, Mass and CA are making such changes. But it’s not surprising at all because these decisions are being driven largely by upper middle class educated people who absolutely cannot relate to the under privileged people they claim they’re helping. And this is an implementation of the worst of privilege. Making decisions for the underprivileged by the privileged without ever asking the supposed beneficiaries what will actually help them.
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    > They will respond by demanding the schools provide more resources so their kids can excel. Right? Why would any parent want other kids in their class to be dumber so their kid is magically "smarter"? They want their child to grow up to be a competent person who is capable of competing in the world at large, not a wave-through at a "progressive" school. Parents recognize that their children will be competing with the entire world for jobs, and easily see the folly of such a policy. Such policy really does seem actively hostile toward the goals of such parents. For a group of educators to suggest that the solution is to do away with "mean grades and homework" is like saying, "We all know that you're kid isn't going succeed in advanced classes so let's not even pretend that they will."
  - slt2021 3y ago
    rich white people introduce these regressive DEI policies so that smart poor and not-connected kids could not compete and enter elite ranks of society, and their (relatively dumb, but rich&well connected) kids could easily outcompete everyone. 1. It is incredibly hard for rich&connected kid to excel among smart & hard-working individuals 2. If barrier is lowered, and overall pool is "diverse" in terms of IQ and ability, then for a rich kid it gets much easier to outcompete and stand out (due to parent's $$$ and connections) 3. The only reason rich white privileged people want regressive DEI is to make it easier for their kids to stand out from competition
throw9away6 3y ago
Ha that’s not actually happening though because college admissions aren’t going to be based in knowledge but on ability to jump through hoops perfectly
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  AI is going to upend everything about education. I can't imagine colleges doing much beyond lots of AI interviews in the near future. That's if there is even a point in getting 95% of degrees anymore anyway.
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    The internet should have transformed education. For curious self-learners it has, there’s incredible resources online for those who seek them out. But it hasn’t made much of a dent in ‘the education system’
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      Because ability to asses knowledge is poor everywhere. programming might be a bit better at it but everyone else relies on signaling. Also many industries are essentially government adjacent so they continuation of college entrenchment continues
    - guidoism 3y ago
      Something I say to anyone who will listen is that we have lived through the moment in history when the cost to receive a world-class elite education has collapsed to near zero and hardly anybody has noticed. We still talk as if an official four year university education is the goal and bemoan the cost of it rising faster than general inflation and worry about taking on debt that will burden them for the rest of their lives and worry about our kids “getting in” to the university of their choice. It has changed education. And people who have kids nearing college age, who have noticed, will be able to help them navigate this world in a much more useful way than people who tell their kids to take on as much debt as they can to go to any university they want. The pipeline that fuels our decision making of what to focus on in primary/secondary school as it relates only to what will help them stand out in a college application and our decision making of what a university-level education means as it relates to getting a job is fascinating.
gnicholas 3y ago
I'm not sure it will — there are still plenty of schools elsewhere that offer advanced coursework, and their graduates can more than fill the freshman class of elite colleges. For example, I grew up in Sacramento, and our public schools had a tracked program from 2nd grade. Pretty much all of us took algebra/geometry in middle school, and those who were advanced were taking precalc or calc by 9th grade. It has been a disappointing experience to learn that in the heart of silicon valley, 30+ years later, the public schools have less to offer in terms of differentiated learning and accelerated education. BTW, I have also been talking with Bay Area parents about this, including some HNers. Would love to chat with you/your friends to know how folks are sorting this out. We've had some success and are always looking to help others do the same. Contact info in profile.
- daniel-cussen 3y ago
  Tracking helped me in particular by making my homeroom (the British school equivalent, j called a class) more civilized, n fair to students w less academic talent than me. Given the tracking in English n at one point, briefly, Mathematics, it meant the other boys had a shot at getn the best score in the class or at all enjoying leniency in grading, which my presence as a future Erdosian mathematician made impossible, n their parents would deny them privileges n beat them sometimes if they weren't excellent students, so they'd bully me for monopolizing the academics completely. The girls did not, because i believe there was not an expectation they be the best student n plus i was very good-looking to them, though not to myself. Future model too. But the bullying was the main challenge, no matter what they threw at me the academics were nothing in difficulty compared to the bullying. So for that reason alone tracking helped me out, n the homeroom out too.
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    May I ask, what is Erdosian? As for bullying, I was a "gifted" kid in school, too. I was treated nicely when people wanted help and bullied ruthlessly when they didn't need me. > their parents would deny them privileges n beat them sometimes if they weren't excellent students 100% agree that this was one of the biggest factors in my bullying. Shame is powerful, and if a child is being shamed for their academic achievements, they will lash out at someone who has what they desire: good grades in this instance.
orangepurple 3y ago
It won't reduce competition for college spots. Admissions committees will continue to fulfill shadow racial quotas using first names, last names, and reparations sob stories as filters to maintain the status quo. Test scores of special protected classes hardly matter as long as those primary objectives are met.
dfxm12 3y ago
Not sure exactly what you're dancing around, but man, if some of those top schools in CA could reduce competition by, say, expanding admissions, that would be great.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Not sure exactly what you're dancing around Poor Californians who can’t afford tutors will lack the skills to compete with other students. (If you’re graduating without calculus, you’ll have a tough time becoming an engineer or performing on a standardised test.) That reduces those with means’ competition, ceteris paribus.
  - t-3 3y ago
    Maybe things have changed in the ~15 years since I took the ACT, but no calculus was necessary for me to get a score in the 30s. You're probably right about getting accepted into an engineering major at a prestigious school though.

proxiful-wash 3y ago

It was you wonder if a foreign state adversary is influencing us to stupify our next generation. I'll keep my comments civil here but its pretty obvious who is behind this.

throwanem 3y ago
If it's all that obvious, you should have no problem naming who's behind this and providing evidence to support your claim, rather than merely fearmongering to no useful end.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I don't know. These "equity" arguments are indistinguishable from a deliberate attack.... the sort of attack you'd expect from a country that, having been unable to either compete with the West or conquer it, is well-known to have resorted to memetic warfare.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    > I don't know.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      But you do, it sounds like. Enlighten us.
      - baremetal 3y ago
        That would be way too spicy for this place, Bob.
      - throwanem 3y ago
        I'm not claiming to know anything. I'm just asking that those who do make such claims be a little less gnomic in their commentary, so that the rest of us can evaluate whether or not you're talking nonsense.

MostlyStable 3y ago

Lengthen the school _year_ sure, but I'm skeptical that lengthening the school _day_ won't have, at best, mixed effects, especially given all the studies on sleep etc.

djbusby 3y ago
Start at 10am, go till 4pm?
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Hell, start at 10am go to 6pm. That's still less than 8 hours of instruction considering there's lunch, gym/recess, etc.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    This really should vary with grade. It's hard to keep a 6 year old's attention for almost 8 hours. Far more possible in High School.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      It's hard to keep my attention for almost 8 hours. And generally a lot less and that's with coffee and generally being able to get up and stretch my legs. And, while the situation is much different, I've become a fan of shorter presentations, meetings, etc. ADDED: I often think I couldn't handle high school today.
      - bamfly 3y ago
        Looking back on high school, no wonder I was so damn bad at it and hated it so much. And depressed all the time. And probably picked up SAD that took me a decade beyond it to shake. I'd quit a job as soon as I could find another, if it demanded of me what high school did. Hell, I'd quit based on the consistent 10+ hour days and constant due-tomorrow deadlines, let alone the rest of it like the before-the-sun's-up start time, having to ask permission to go take a piss, sitting in crappy chairs in bad lighting for back-to-back ~hour blocks all day, and having to keep "working" indefinitely with people who won't stop being shitheads in ways that'd get them fired from most any job inside a week. It's insanely terrible. Like, there are multiple bad things about it that I've never had to tolerate in such abundance and variety even in low-skilled jobs I've held. WTF. College and adult life are so much more chill than high school. It was a real shock, leaving there for the wider world. So glad the people who were like "this [shitty thing] is to prepare you for the real world, which is way harder and less forgiving!" or "enjoy it, because this is the best time of your life" were entirely wrong. I'd probably have offed myself by now, if they'd been right. Four years was barely tolerable—a lifetime of that, or worse? No, thanks.

hdior 3y ago

Go have kids, teach them what you want. STEM minded folks need to eat their own dog food; your sensibilities are not divine mandate. The other billions don’t owe deference to scientists any more than they do priests. No scientist is a divine being. Their attitudes can be very human; they think their knowledge and skills is irreplaceable and the social system while trying to pretend that’s objective and could never be leveraged in typically corrupt human ways given their very human being. In the end you’re one of billions bleating for others to follow the path you lay out. Where is the real or imagine social obligation to specifically serve you or any of the rest of the people here who make up a tiny fraction of the species? Others think you should learn to grow your own food and kill your steaks rather than exploit the labor of others. The free market of ideas is not just for selling widgets but tent pole social movements.

Romanulus 3y ago

[dead]

achates 3y ago

Does putting marginal students in advanced classes actually help them?

ryandamm 3y ago
The results cited in the article suggest that either the answer is yes, or in fact "marginal students" are perfectly capable students who were being passed over. The text of the article further suggests that many of the students who scored well on qualifying exams weren't taking the classes because they didn't have the parental involvement or default assumption that they would take it. (Note that the opt-out group was selected from the general population based on the results of an exam; it wasn't a population-wide opt out. I suspect from your comment you didn't see that?)
- recursive 3y ago
  Am I meant to believe that all students are equally capable? That's a tough sell.
  - nomat 3y ago
    students definitely are not all equally capable in one aspect for sure: their ability to hire or provide private tutoring outside of school hours. Cutting access to state-funded programs (such as algebra classes in middle school) just means the rich children get even more of a leg up on college admissions and life in general.
    - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
      [dead]
  - sfn42 3y ago
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

> Teach kids more, not less It's an odd combination of teaching kids too much in elementary school and too little in high. The children are exposed to a far more comprehensive curriculum at the expense of never practicing the skills enough to master them. As soon as summer resets their brains, they suddenly have large gaps in knowledge that slow next year's learning.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> As soon as summer resets their brains, they suddenly have large gaps in knowledge that slow next year's learning. One loves to say that summer vacations are long so that pupils have time to fill the gaps for the next school year. If they don't use this time (or their parents don't urge them to), it is their problem.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Nobody's spending their vacation studying if they can avoid it.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > Nobody's spending their vacation studying if they can avoid it. If you have huge gaps in the subject matter of some subjects, you hardly cannot avoid it (and your parents will likely take care that you cannot avoid it ;-) ).
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >if they can avoid it. meanwhile, my parent put me in summer school almost every year in some capacity. At least summer hours and classes are relaxed compared to the gauntlet of 6-7 different subjects 8 hours a day.
    - sfn42 3y ago
      Seems like you couldn't avoid it.

lost_tourist 3y ago

I'm fine with expecting more, but for those kids who just don't handle it well, it's not right to make them pariahs, just take the math down a notch. I saw kids treated as “less than” because they weren't making it in a certain level of math, and that always pissed me off. Likewise, I even had to report a calculus teacher once anonymously, I recorded the class with a mini-cassette (in the late 90s) recorder and slid it under the principal's door with a note. No the kid wasn't me, but he was a decent guy who I knew a little bit and knew he was trying hard but just couldn't get it.

logicalmonster 3y ago

> The move has dramatically increased participation among traditionally marginalized children This program may or may not be a fantastic idea, but "participation" is about the worst possible metric for measuring the overall impact of a mandatory program. Are these children having better overall life and educational outcomes from this? Are they taking time and energy away from classes they want to pursue to struggle in math courses they might not be truly passionate about? And what about its impact on the non-marginalized kids? Because "everybody" is now participating, are honors courses now slowed and dumbed down so actual high-achievers will be less prepared for their future?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
iNic 3y ago
If you would have read the article then you would know the answer to this: > Before the change, three times as many White students as Black students enrolled in honors math; after the change, it was less than twice as many. Not perfect equity, but progress in that direction. > But did all these new students actually learn the honors math? Yes, indeed they did: > And the policy has not led to a decrease in student scores as some speculated: Last year’s 8th-grade Algebra I students had similar pass rates as those in years prior, the district said, with 95% of Hispanic students passing the test and 76% meeting grade-level proficiency; 91% of Black students passing and 65% meeting grade level and 95% of English learner students passing the state exam and 74% meeting grade level.
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  I did examine the article, and to me there's a few holes and question marks in what data was presented. > For instance, they claimed that "Last year’s 8th-grade Algebra I students had similar pass rates as those in years prior" but the word "similar" is subjective. How about showing all of the stratified data in chronological order to make that determination for oneself? Did pass rates for the state test go from say 99% and reduce due to this? They don't mention the White race pass rates before and after this change, for example. > The racial groups listed are Black, Hispanic, White, and Other. What is other? Are they Asians? That seems like the only place they'd fit, but the participation of "Other" before and after this change seems low for that group. > This data tells us nothing about how the teachers are approaching teaching their courses in light of this change. Do they stop going over valuable material solely to focus teaching kids how to pass a state test so their metrics look good? (Is that what matters for their funding, by the way?) Are class sizes increasing or decreasing to make this change logistically work? > Additionally, as I am not an educator from Texas, I don't know for certain, but the test itself seems rather dumbed down if a large portion of kids are passing it, but aren't meeting their grade level. Doesn't it raise an eyebrow that 91% of Black kids are passing the test, but only 65% of them are meeting their grade level? > The article doesn't clarify if all Texas students take this test or just honors students, but it would be illuminating to see pass rates of this test in that school district from different groups before and after that change. If 95% of Hispanic students in this honors program are passing that test in this district after this change, what was the pass rate of Hispanics before that change? Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad program. It might be quite a good idea to really raise educational standards and force kids into tougher math programs. But the focus solely on "racial participation" makes this very suspect to me.