4 ms·

> their local public schools decided to keep everyone at the same math level and their children are bored out of their minds. What is the thinking behind this?

> their local public schools decided to keep everyone at the same math level and their children are bored out of their minds. What is the thinking behind this? Is this similar to what was happening in the Bay Area where people took issue with some racial group not being perfectly represented in advanced classes so they scrapped them altogether?

spamizbad 3y ago
I think there's several things at play. Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing any of these arguments, just restating them. There's resistance towards "creaming" elite students out of classrooms, as it can increase a teacher's workload: all the students who require zero assistance and could possibly assist their peers are now removed from class, and replaced with different students who will require more of the teacher's attention, reducing individual attention on students who need help. There's also some equity concerns, where there's reluctance to invest additional personnel and administrative overhead on students who are "going to be fine no matter what" and would rather see those additional resources towards students who are struggling - lots of this is based on the belief that low-SES students are less likely to be part of any gifted/honors program compared to high-SES students. Edit: And finally, there's the cynical data-driven reason that underscores this, where if you need to maximize the number of students who demonstrate reading/math proficiency, you need to pull as many students as possible over the line - once they're over the line you can "ignore" them and focus on getting others over the line. Schools unfortunately aren't measured by how they serve their most dedicated students.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  The shame is we need to focus on both. We have to elevate those in a position to take advantage of it while also providing a solid baseline we need everyone to reach. I sympathize with the peers helping peers aspect. I know one way to learn a lot about a topic is to teach it, so there’s potentially value to both the more advanced and less advanced students. But what would a program like that even look like? I probably would have failed out of high school instead of almost failing if I didn’t have access to AP classes. And I’m fortunate AP classes were based on test scores and not grades for that school. Those classes were the only interesting classes for me. So I hate the idea of them not being an option. But I also would have benefitted a lot from being put into a position to mentor another student on a topic they didn’t understand. Hard to say which would have benefited me more.
- notyofriend 3y ago
  It’s mostly the binary approach to achieving. Schools either get at grade level or not at grade level. So the goal is to get to the bare minimum to pass as many students as possible, not to create the highest total achievement

spamizbad 3y ago

I think there's several things at play. Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing any of these arguments, just restating them. There's resistance towards "creaming" elite students out of classrooms, as it can increase a teacher's workload: all the students who require zero assistance and could possibly assist their peers are now removed from class, and replaced with different students who will require more of the teacher's attention, reducing individual attention on students who need help. There's also some equity concerns, where there's reluctance to invest additional personnel and administrative overhead on students who are "going to be fine no matter what" and would rather see those additional resources towards students who are struggling - lots of this is based on the belief that low-SES students are less likely to be part of any gifted/honors program compared to high-SES students. Edit: And finally, there's the cynical data-driven reason that underscores this, where if you need to maximize the number of students who demonstrate reading/math proficiency, you need to pull as many students as possible over the line - once they're over the line you can "ignore" them and focus on getting others over the line. Schools unfortunately aren't measured by how they serve their most dedicated students.

tstrimple 3y ago
The shame is we need to focus on both. We have to elevate those in a position to take advantage of it while also providing a solid baseline we need everyone to reach. I sympathize with the peers helping peers aspect. I know one way to learn a lot about a topic is to teach it, so there’s potentially value to both the more advanced and less advanced students. But what would a program like that even look like? I probably would have failed out of high school instead of almost failing if I didn’t have access to AP classes. And I’m fortunate AP classes were based on test scores and not grades for that school. Those classes were the only interesting classes for me. So I hate the idea of them not being an option. But I also would have benefitted a lot from being put into a position to mentor another student on a topic they didn’t understand. Hard to say which would have benefited me more.
notyofriend 3y ago
It’s mostly the binary approach to achieving. Schools either get at grade level or not at grade level. So the goal is to get to the bare minimum to pass as many students as possible, not to create the highest total achievement