3 ms·

> By excluding low performers, you can improve the outcomes of the other kids Isn't this is what the root comment is saying? I did not summarize the entire thi

> By excluding low performers, you can improve the outcomes of the other kids Isn't this is what the root comment is saying? I did not summarize the entire thing but that was my understanding of its point. > you can achieve a net societal improvement that way. You can improve the outcomes of the non-low-performers, but it's hard to say it's a "net societal improvement" because the low performers are also part of society.

brightlancer 3y ago
> You can improve the outcomes of the non-low-performers, but it's hard to say it's a "net societal improvement" because the low performers are also part of society. That depends on the improvement vs loss -- IME, it is a net improvement. With 100 students, 5 are disruptive, verbally abusive, maybe physically violent. How much does that 5% bring down the other 95%? If we remove that 5% from the other 95%, how much does the 5% lose versus the 95% gain? IME, the gains in the 95% are miles ahead of the losses in the 5%, which makes it's net improvement.