5 ms·

> It’s not that they don’t have the resources […] it’s that they don’t want kids to learn too much. Hehe, this is simply not true. Where did this conspiracy th

by dahart 3y ago

> It’s not that they don’t have the resources […] it’s that they don’t want kids to learn too much. Hehe, this is simply not true. Where did this conspiracy theory come from, and why do you think this poorly of people who are spending their time trying to help kids despite low pay and a constant barrage of harsh critical opinions from parents, law-makers, and hordes of armchair critics on the internet? You’re making wild assumptions and using the worst possible motivation to build a straw man criticism. If you can do better, maybe you should get involved or consider being a school administrator? I don’t like it when there is less support for the motivated students, and it happened to me in high school. But you are aware the situation we’re discussing is due to needing to educate 100% of the student body up to a minimum standard, right? Public schools are almost always underfunded and short-staffed. Nobody’s trying to actively prevent the smart kids from learning, they’re trying to avoid using all their resources teaching the kids that don’t need it as badly from leaving the larger group of kids who’s families have less money completely behind. Your comment is completely ignoring what happens to the students who are behind in math already, and how to get them enough help. What is always true is that what’s best for the group isn’t necessarily best for the individual. In this case, you’re suggesting the opposite of prioritizing education for all, and thus you’re not talking about prioritizing education, you’re talking about prioritizing resources toward students that already meet the minimum standards. Schools, teachers, and administrators are trying to prioritize education for all, and they have an explicit duty to get every last kid up to basic minimum standards. If they don’t meet those goals of getting the bottom half of their classes passing, they could lose their jobs and they would be failing to prioritize education for all.

scarmig 3y ago
> Nobody’s trying to actively prevent the smart kids from learning This is false. Why else ban teaching algebra district-wide to 8th graders? The explicit justification is that it helps some students get too far ahead of other students and causes inequitable access to take calculus classes later on, which is considered a bad thing. Teachers even complain if you help your child accelerate through the textbook for the year.
- dahart 3y ago
  Who’s “banning” math, exactly? Give me examples and specifics, and please elaborate on what the difference is between a ban and not offering advanced math. You’re basing your argument on the imaginary hyperbolic terminology of the above comment.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Aside from the ridiculousness of calling 8th grade algebra "advanced math" (I was taking the equivalent in 6th grade where I grew up, in a low-income public school), "giving directives that schools are not to devote any resources to teaching 8th grade algebra" is in every sense equivalent to "banning teaching algebra." If a state did the same thing with LGBT topics or evolution, I suspect you'd take no issue with calling it a ban.
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      >If a state did the same thing with LGBT topics or evolution, I suspect you'd take no issue with calling it a ban. Why are so many that hate public schools so focused on these two things? I don't think there's an evolution class, but it would be covered in biology.
      - scarmig 3y ago
        No one here (certainly not me) wants those topics banned from schools. It's just I also don't think 8th grade algebra should be banned.
        ryan_lane 3y ago
        A lot of folks who do homeschooling do it particularly because they don't want their children to learn evolution, or have sex education. They do want those things banned in schools and since they can't get them banned have rage quit the system.
      - lobocinza 3y ago
qerti 3y ago
Public schools are intentionally harming gifted students in the name of equality. The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, VA intentionally hid merit achievements from students which would have helped in college applications. Banning advanced math is just another instance of this. A slower paced class for lower performing students would actually help them. Bringing down advanced students only serves to make the school look more equitable.
- dahart 3y ago
  I had to Google the incident you’re referring to. Sounds like there was a delay in notifications, it only hurt early acceptance applications, and that it won’t happen again because they got a lot of flack. I don’t think this situation is relevant to schools not offering algebra in junior high, because this was specifically a top school that offers advanced classes. You’re bringing up a quite different point about college admissions, and that debate should be focused on colleges, because they themselves have started sometimes discounting or ignoring the academic achievement list of applicants, due to excessive gaming of the application system, and also acknowledgement that meritocracy is living up to its original coined meaning, as a sign that merit is at least as much an outcome of money as it is of talent, in other words so-called talent is a byproduct of having support and we’ve been failing to support people who might have had a chance largely in favor of people lucky enough to have rich parents. > A slower paced class for lower performing students would actually help them. Agreed, bingo! If you don’t have the resources to cater to people who are ahead, the only choice to help those who need help is to lower the bar.
ndriscoll 3y ago
Are you claiming that there weren't enough interested kids to put together a full class to teach algebra in middle school? Specifically in large cities like San Francisco or Seattle where this kind of thing started? As far as I know, that justification is not being given, and instead the argument is about how some kids are learning more advanced material than others, and the "fair" thing is to hold back the more advanced students. The thing about tracking is that it doesn't require more resources. If you have 6 classes in a year, you can put e.g. the top 17% together, and they can move at a faster pace than the bottom 17%. Or you can let kids take classes with mixed ages. Gifted kids don't need more resources. Literally you could have them go sit in the library and do what they want and they'd probably learn more than sitting in a class where they're forced to pay attention to something they've already mastered. When I was in calculus I was bored enough that I would also read my uncle's discrete math book that he let me borrow, but most teachers don't like when you ignore them, and when you're in a class with the lower end of the aptitude curve, there's negative peer pressure around being a nerd.
- dahart 3y ago
  > The thing about tracking is that it doesn't require more resources. Hehe of course it does. You’re talking about more curriculums, more book and material acquisition, more teachers with more training, etc. And maybe lots of schools don’t have 6 different math classes. > Gifted kids don’t need more resources. Agreed! That’s maybe why some schools are focusing on the kids who do need more resources? In fairness to your argument, I think “gifted” kids do need support though, it’s just that they are statistically better at either having it given to them outside of school, or of finding it on their own. What’s left is just a rather weak argument about not letting them get bored. Solving boredom should take a back seat to solving education for the less fortunate, IMO.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    The curriculum already exists. Textbook selection is already done. The discussion is about delaying teaching a subject, not eliminating it. You don't need more materials, just different ones (one additional algebra book and one fewer remedial book). And you don't need more teachers. Just be more effective about grouping the kids the teachers are already teaching. My suburban school had no problem putting together multiple sections of algebra in middle school. I'm sure a city with 10x the population can do it too. And if a teacher can't teach basic algebra, they probably shouldn't be teaching math at all. Or if you mean later classes like calculus, let the kids leave, and if there's a local community college, allocate some of the money you saved to let the kid take classes there. > What’s left is just a rather weak argument about not letting them get bored. Solving boredom should take a back seat to solving education for the less fortunate, IMO. Okay, then let the advanced kids go sit in the library, go outside and play, or go home. Making them sit in class is, if anything, going to make them anti-social and create resentment toward the "dumb" kids. I don't think torturing a kid making them sit bored out of their mind among people they don't like for 15% of their life for no reason is a "weak" thing to argue against.

by dahart 3y ago

scarmig 3y ago

> Nobody’s trying to actively prevent the smart kids from learning This is false. Why else ban teaching algebra district-wide to 8th graders? The explicit justification is that it helps some students get too far ahead of other students and causes inequitable access to take calculus classes later on, which is considered a bad thing. Teachers even complain if you help your child accelerate through the textbook for the year.

dahart 3y ago
Who’s “banning” math, exactly? Give me examples and specifics, and please elaborate on what the difference is between a ban and not offering advanced math. You’re basing your argument on the imaginary hyperbolic terminology of the above comment.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Aside from the ridiculousness of calling 8th grade algebra "advanced math" (I was taking the equivalent in 6th grade where I grew up, in a low-income public school), "giving directives that schools are not to devote any resources to teaching 8th grade algebra" is in every sense equivalent to "banning teaching algebra." If a state did the same thing with LGBT topics or evolution, I suspect you'd take no issue with calling it a ban.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    >If a state did the same thing with LGBT topics or evolution, I suspect you'd take no issue with calling it a ban. Why are so many that hate public schools so focused on these two things? I don't think there's an evolution class, but it would be covered in biology.
    - scarmig 3y ago
      No one here (certainly not me) wants those topics banned from schools. It's just I also don't think 8th grade algebra should be banned.
      - ryan_lane 3y ago
        A lot of folks who do homeschooling do it particularly because they don't want their children to learn evolution, or have sex education. They do want those things banned in schools and since they can't get them banned have rage quit the system.
    - lobocinza 3y ago

qerti 3y ago

Public schools are intentionally harming gifted students in the name of equality. The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, VA intentionally hid merit achievements from students which would have helped in college applications. Banning advanced math is just another instance of this. A slower paced class for lower performing students would actually help them. Bringing down advanced students only serves to make the school look more equitable.

dahart 3y ago
I had to Google the incident you’re referring to. Sounds like there was a delay in notifications, it only hurt early acceptance applications, and that it won’t happen again because they got a lot of flack. I don’t think this situation is relevant to schools not offering algebra in junior high, because this was specifically a top school that offers advanced classes. You’re bringing up a quite different point about college admissions, and that debate should be focused on colleges, because they themselves have started sometimes discounting or ignoring the academic achievement list of applicants, due to excessive gaming of the application system, and also acknowledgement that meritocracy is living up to its original coined meaning, as a sign that merit is at least as much an outcome of money as it is of talent, in other words so-called talent is a byproduct of having support and we’ve been failing to support people who might have had a chance largely in favor of people lucky enough to have rich parents. > A slower paced class for lower performing students would actually help them. Agreed, bingo! If you don’t have the resources to cater to people who are ahead, the only choice to help those who need help is to lower the bar.

ndriscoll 3y ago

Are you claiming that there weren't enough interested kids to put together a full class to teach algebra in middle school? Specifically in large cities like San Francisco or Seattle where this kind of thing started? As far as I know, that justification is not being given, and instead the argument is about how some kids are learning more advanced material than others, and the "fair" thing is to hold back the more advanced students. The thing about tracking is that it doesn't require more resources. If you have 6 classes in a year, you can put e.g. the top 17% together, and they can move at a faster pace than the bottom 17%. Or you can let kids take classes with mixed ages. Gifted kids don't need more resources. Literally you could have them go sit in the library and do what they want and they'd probably learn more than sitting in a class where they're forced to pay attention to something they've already mastered. When I was in calculus I was bored enough that I would also read my uncle's discrete math book that he let me borrow, but most teachers don't like when you ignore them, and when you're in a class with the lower end of the aptitude curve, there's negative peer pressure around being a nerd.

dahart 3y ago
> The thing about tracking is that it doesn't require more resources. Hehe of course it does. You’re talking about more curriculums, more book and material acquisition, more teachers with more training, etc. And maybe lots of schools don’t have 6 different math classes. > Gifted kids don’t need more resources. Agreed! That’s maybe why some schools are focusing on the kids who do need more resources? In fairness to your argument, I think “gifted” kids do need support though, it’s just that they are statistically better at either having it given to them outside of school, or of finding it on their own. What’s left is just a rather weak argument about not letting them get bored. Solving boredom should take a back seat to solving education for the less fortunate, IMO.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  The curriculum already exists. Textbook selection is already done. The discussion is about delaying teaching a subject, not eliminating it. You don't need more materials, just different ones (one additional algebra book and one fewer remedial book). And you don't need more teachers. Just be more effective about grouping the kids the teachers are already teaching. My suburban school had no problem putting together multiple sections of algebra in middle school. I'm sure a city with 10x the population can do it too. And if a teacher can't teach basic algebra, they probably shouldn't be teaching math at all. Or if you mean later classes like calculus, let the kids leave, and if there's a local community college, allocate some of the money you saved to let the kid take classes there. > What’s left is just a rather weak argument about not letting them get bored. Solving boredom should take a back seat to solving education for the less fortunate, IMO. Okay, then let the advanced kids go sit in the library, go outside and play, or go home. Making them sit in class is, if anything, going to make them anti-social and create resentment toward the "dumb" kids. I don't think torturing a kid making them sit bored out of their mind among people they don't like for 15% of their life for no reason is a "weak" thing to argue against.