5 ms·

"No child left behind" is another way of saying, "no child pulls ahead." The cost of a set of children not achieving what they are scheduled to achieve is infi

by troupe 3y ago

"No child left behind" is another way of saying, "no child pulls ahead." The cost of a set of children not achieving what they are scheduled to achieve is infinitely more expensive to the school than the value of some kids doing much better than what they are expected. Maybe this isn't bad for a public school system. Maybe the goal should just be to try to make sure no one falls below the floor. But the schools interests aren't well aligned with the needs of any student that is above that line, much less above average.

rahimnathwani 3y ago
Maybe the goal should just be to try to make sure no one falls below the floor. This approach widens the achievement gap between rich and poor. - If you're unchallenged at school and have rich, college-educated parents, they can pay for tutors or teach you at home. - If your parents are working two jobs to make ends meet, your SOL. The public education system is meant to give opportunity to everyone, not just the rich.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Wait, what are you trying to say there? It's not very clear to me, but the way I read it is that the school should say "if your parents help you at home, you don't need us at school". "So we'll just focus on those kids whose parents don't help them, because, you know, they have two jobs". Did I get that right? My last Uber driver was a Pakistani, he told me his oldest son got into the Stuyvesant High School. He is one of those kids who needs to be challenged. Should he not be, because he's got "rich parents" ?
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'll try again: Schools should aim to maximize learning for every child, irrespective of their starting point or their parents' resources. If schools have everyone go at the same pace, some kids won't learn anything at school. Parents with resources can always pay for private tutors or, if that's not enough, pay for private school. I'm glad you brought up Stuyvesant. Imagine if Stuyvesant didn't exist, and all students at all public high schools in NYC went through math at the same pace. Imagine further that your Uber driver can't afford private tutors or private school, and is too busy working to tutor his kids himself. Would it be fair that his smart kid has to go slow whilst an equally smart kid with rich parents will be doing Calculus BC in 11th grade?
    - troupe 3y ago
      > Schools should aim to maximize learning for every child, irrespective of their starting point or their parents' resources. Lets say you have two kids at opposite ends of the natural talent spectrum and you have $30,000 per year to spend on educating them. Do you spend $15k on each knowing that you'll get very unequal results? Or do you spend the bulk of they money on the one that needs the most help at the expense of the one who has the most natural talent? Schools are making these types of decisions all the time. The average school does not spend 25% of their budget on the top 25% of their students.
      - rahimnathwani 3y ago
        Your question seems to assume that: 1. The availability of money is an important constraint on the ability of schools to support each student. 2. Schools (or those who run them: principals) have wide discretion to make the type of decision you present. In my local school district (San Francisco Unified - SFUSD), neither of these is true, because: - SFUSD's budget is about $27,000 per student per year[0]. Assuming teachers make no more than an average of $135k/year, and that average class size is at least 20, only 25% of that budget is required to pay for a teacher per class. There's a lot of headroom. - Budgets (set by the district, not by individual schools or principals) are not designed to maximize learning for children, but to maximize employment for adults. For that reason, I don't think your question makes sense. Let me ignore that for now, and assume your question does make sense. What would it mean to allocate budget differently for kids at opposite ends of the natural talent spectrum? It sounds like the two kids would be in different classes, being taught by different teachers, perhaps with different class sizes. But that approach (which detractors call 'tracking') is disliked by many of the folks who control public education in the US. Let's say you thought that the top 5% of students should be taught in separate classes, and that those classes should have larger class sizes, so these students only took 2.5% of the total budget. If you were to propose such a scheme, you'd be told it's unfair. Not unfair to the gifted students because they're receiving a lower per-capita share of resources, but unfair to everyone else because 'equity'. [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-schools-budget-cutbacks-18177274.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-schools-budget-...
    - 3y ago

by troupe 3y ago

rahimnathwani 3y ago

Maybe the goal should just be to try to make sure no one falls below the floor. This approach widens the achievement gap between rich and poor. - If you're unchallenged at school and have rich, college-educated parents, they can pay for tutors or teach you at home. - If your parents are working two jobs to make ends meet, your SOL. The public education system is meant to give opportunity to everyone, not just the rich.

credit_guy 3y ago
Wait, what are you trying to say there? It's not very clear to me, but the way I read it is that the school should say "if your parents help you at home, you don't need us at school". "So we'll just focus on those kids whose parents don't help them, because, you know, they have two jobs". Did I get that right? My last Uber driver was a Pakistani, he told me his oldest son got into the Stuyvesant High School. He is one of those kids who needs to be challenged. Should he not be, because he's got "rich parents" ?
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'll try again: Schools should aim to maximize learning for every child, irrespective of their starting point or their parents' resources. If schools have everyone go at the same pace, some kids won't learn anything at school. Parents with resources can always pay for private tutors or, if that's not enough, pay for private school. I'm glad you brought up Stuyvesant. Imagine if Stuyvesant didn't exist, and all students at all public high schools in NYC went through math at the same pace. Imagine further that your Uber driver can't afford private tutors or private school, and is too busy working to tutor his kids himself. Would it be fair that his smart kid has to go slow whilst an equally smart kid with rich parents will be doing Calculus BC in 11th grade?
  - troupe 3y ago
    > Schools should aim to maximize learning for every child, irrespective of their starting point or their parents' resources. Lets say you have two kids at opposite ends of the natural talent spectrum and you have $30,000 per year to spend on educating them. Do you spend $15k on each knowing that you'll get very unequal results? Or do you spend the bulk of they money on the one that needs the most help at the expense of the one who has the most natural talent? Schools are making these types of decisions all the time. The average school does not spend 25% of their budget on the top 25% of their students.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      Your question seems to assume that: 1. The availability of money is an important constraint on the ability of schools to support each student. 2. Schools (or those who run them: principals) have wide discretion to make the type of decision you present. In my local school district (San Francisco Unified - SFUSD), neither of these is true, because: - SFUSD's budget is about $27,000 per student per year[0]. Assuming teachers make no more than an average of $135k/year, and that average class size is at least 20, only 25% of that budget is required to pay for a teacher per class. There's a lot of headroom. - Budgets (set by the district, not by individual schools or principals) are not designed to maximize learning for children, but to maximize employment for adults. For that reason, I don't think your question makes sense. Let me ignore that for now, and assume your question does make sense. What would it mean to allocate budget differently for kids at opposite ends of the natural talent spectrum? It sounds like the two kids would be in different classes, being taught by different teachers, perhaps with different class sizes. But that approach (which detractors call 'tracking') is disliked by many of the folks who control public education in the US. Let's say you thought that the top 5% of students should be taught in separate classes, and that those classes should have larger class sizes, so these students only took 2.5% of the total budget. If you were to propose such a scheme, you'd be told it's unfair. Not unfair to the gifted students because they're receiving a lower per-capita share of resources, but unfair to everyone else because 'equity'. [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-schools-budget-cutbacks-18177274.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-schools-budget-...
  - 3y ago