31 ms·

I am also concerned by what light_hue_1 wrote, but describing what is happening today as Harrison Bergeron is A very reductive and shallow summary of what is go

I am also concerned by what light_hue_1 wrote, but describing what is happening today as Harrison Bergeron is A very reductive and shallow summary of what is going on. Assuming schools have fixed budgets (that they're inconsistent, and based on property taxes is a separate discussion we should have), there's going to be a finite amount of resources to invest in every student. How do you allocate it? A) Completely evenly regardless of merit B) Optimizing for the best student and giving them the best chance to exceed and achieve their maximum potential C) Optimizing for the median student D) Optimizing for the worst student E) Other? A is obviously ridiculous. B is how many societies have flourished and how humanity moves forward, but is also inherently unequal. D) ensures mediocrity. I think the most progressive minds changing schools today are trying to achieve C. Are they misguided? It's quite hard to tell. I honestly don't know. Because the problem is answering this question requires answering a different one: * What are the qualities of a society that is not only the "best" for the most people, but is also able to move humanity forward in a way as to resolve our existential threats (climate change, random asteroids wiping away Earth, GAI, etc.* Those that believe the answer to THAT is B would say that any other choice is short-sighted and stupid. But I do believe that those that believe C believe in a different way. That C still allows the truly exceptional to make a mark on the world. When the median becomes great, there is no worry about the exceptional being dominated by the mediocre. Of course the problem is there are idiots there - in every philosophical field. And are some going to cargo cult their way into Harrison Bergeron? Probably. But that's not the overall intent.

at_a_remove 3y ago
"When the median becomes great" is doing a lot of work there. If it isn't true, and I've never seen evidence to that effect, as it has gone on and on that way for ...decades, then we're really just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  Over those "decades", the median has absolutely risen dramatically, across the entire world. Generations of historically poor and disadvantaged people have been lifted worldwide. Literacy rates, secondary education, and post-secondary rates across the human population are dramatically higher than they have been in the days of our parents. That has created it's own problems - student loan debt, overeducation, wasted degrees, and so on. But I don't understand how you can claim there is no evidence to this effect. The evidence is all around us.
light_hue_1 3y ago
This is simply false. It has nothing at all to do with money or finite resources. It is purely a race and equity issue. Our school district is wealthy. The average income of the parents is extremely high. They spend twice the state average on students because parents willingly donate extra money to the school direct. There is no shortage of money at all. If they had asked for money hundreds of parents in our district could each have personally endowed the entire cost of those classes forever without even noticing the cost. Never mind the district as a whole. But it's not a money issue. They didn't want the money. What there is, is a totally different idea of what equity is. That the final result of schooling must at all costs be equal by demographic standards. And if it's not, the problem is the immediate source of inequality. This is happening in many states. Just look at the math reform in CA. It is insane. Water down the entire math curriculum in school because the outcomes are bad for some groups. This is not related to costs at all. The solution is of course to spend more and offer far more support so that everyone does well. But that isn't even allowed to be an answer anymore.
- daseiner1 3y ago
  you’ll never out-spend and out-support the regressive culture creating the problem at hand.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  The US has a modern history of systemic racism out of step with the rest of the developed world. Inequality was enshrined into law until 1964. My parents were already alive, and I'm a millennial. So, since then, the US has had to overcorrect to try to heal centuries of wounds, and as a result is more direct about actively promoting equity based on racial lines in a way that seems horrifying to the rest of the world (nay even racist itself). This era seems to be ending - for better or for worse - with affirmative action being struck down, with standardized tests now being considered the MORE equitable solution rather than an explicitly racist one. We are heading towards an alternative path. I agree with you the CA math reform is insane, as is cancelling things like AP and Gifted classes. However, I again maintain that I think the intention is that those that benefit from those classes will be able to thrive with or without them, while the funding for them can help lift the FLOOR for those disadvantaged - those without parents with high income who can afford tutors, or spend extra time with their kids. I again acknowledge that the full picture of this change will not be visible for some time. But I think it's an interesting premise. I was in many gifted classes growing up. I skipped several grades. I started university as a teenager. This was all a mixed bag. I was intellectually over-stimulated and stunted socially. I had to recover through my late teen years and early 20's. Most of the gifted kids I know from my era have mixed feelings about our experiences. We appreciated the support at the time but look back and wish the schools tried harder to protect us from bullying "normies" rather than just isolating us to separate classes. It was a cop-out marketed as for our own best interests. Some of us have thrived. Others crumbled. When I think of my own son (currently a toddler), and whether he would have those opportunities if he happens to be advanced for his age, I believe that the responsibility for ensuring he gets the support he needs is mine and mine alone. What i will do with the funds I have to give him extra attention is find clubs, find tutors, and not expect that the school should be the one providing him those opportunities. In school, I hope he gets to learn how to be a member of society better and sooner than I did.
gnicholas 3y ago
This forces a zero sum frame that is not appropriate. It doesn’t cost anything to let a student (or 5) do math time with a class that’s a grade ahead. And if there are enough of them, it doesn’t cost anything to clump the kids by ability level when setting up the classes. The reason this doesn’t happen, in my experience, is teacher unions (and, to some extent, the political leanings of administrators). Every year, my kids’ school asks us about our kids and what would be good for them to have in terms of a teacher for the next year. This makes parents think they will be placed in a class with a teacher who would be well-suited for them. But this isn’t what happens at all! The classes are put together using a balancing approach, to make all the classes “equal” in terms of easy students, trouble students, etc. Only then are the classes assigned to teachers, without regard to what the individual students need. The randomization and balancing is done so that no teacher gets all the best behaved or worst behaved kids. The system is all about the teachers, not the students. For this reason, our school won’t allow gifted classes to exist, since that would give certain teachers “easier” kids than others. Of course, they also don’t want to have an advanced class with Asian and white kids, but few black and Hispanic kids, from both a political and optics perspective. But the point is, they could easily do this at no additional cost if they wanted to. And it would allow all students to learn more effectively, since their teacher would be more tightly focused on kids at a certain level.

at_a_remove 3y ago

"When the median becomes great" is doing a lot of work there. If it isn't true, and I've never seen evidence to that effect, as it has gone on and on that way for ...decades, then we're really just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

deanCommie 3y ago
Over those "decades", the median has absolutely risen dramatically, across the entire world. Generations of historically poor and disadvantaged people have been lifted worldwide. Literacy rates, secondary education, and post-secondary rates across the human population are dramatically higher than they have been in the days of our parents. That has created it's own problems - student loan debt, overeducation, wasted degrees, and so on. But I don't understand how you can claim there is no evidence to this effect. The evidence is all around us.

light_hue_1 3y ago

This is simply false. It has nothing at all to do with money or finite resources. It is purely a race and equity issue. Our school district is wealthy. The average income of the parents is extremely high. They spend twice the state average on students because parents willingly donate extra money to the school direct. There is no shortage of money at all. If they had asked for money hundreds of parents in our district could each have personally endowed the entire cost of those classes forever without even noticing the cost. Never mind the district as a whole. But it's not a money issue. They didn't want the money. What there is, is a totally different idea of what equity is. That the final result of schooling must at all costs be equal by demographic standards. And if it's not, the problem is the immediate source of inequality. This is happening in many states. Just look at the math reform in CA. It is insane. Water down the entire math curriculum in school because the outcomes are bad for some groups. This is not related to costs at all. The solution is of course to spend more and offer far more support so that everyone does well. But that isn't even allowed to be an answer anymore.

daseiner1 3y ago
you’ll never out-spend and out-support the regressive culture creating the problem at hand.
deanCommie 3y ago
The US has a modern history of systemic racism out of step with the rest of the developed world. Inequality was enshrined into law until 1964. My parents were already alive, and I'm a millennial. So, since then, the US has had to overcorrect to try to heal centuries of wounds, and as a result is more direct about actively promoting equity based on racial lines in a way that seems horrifying to the rest of the world (nay even racist itself). This era seems to be ending - for better or for worse - with affirmative action being struck down, with standardized tests now being considered the MORE equitable solution rather than an explicitly racist one. We are heading towards an alternative path. I agree with you the CA math reform is insane, as is cancelling things like AP and Gifted classes. However, I again maintain that I think the intention is that those that benefit from those classes will be able to thrive with or without them, while the funding for them can help lift the FLOOR for those disadvantaged - those without parents with high income who can afford tutors, or spend extra time with their kids. I again acknowledge that the full picture of this change will not be visible for some time. But I think it's an interesting premise. I was in many gifted classes growing up. I skipped several grades. I started university as a teenager. This was all a mixed bag. I was intellectually over-stimulated and stunted socially. I had to recover through my late teen years and early 20's. Most of the gifted kids I know from my era have mixed feelings about our experiences. We appreciated the support at the time but look back and wish the schools tried harder to protect us from bullying "normies" rather than just isolating us to separate classes. It was a cop-out marketed as for our own best interests. Some of us have thrived. Others crumbled. When I think of my own son (currently a toddler), and whether he would have those opportunities if he happens to be advanced for his age, I believe that the responsibility for ensuring he gets the support he needs is mine and mine alone. What i will do with the funds I have to give him extra attention is find clubs, find tutors, and not expect that the school should be the one providing him those opportunities. In school, I hope he gets to learn how to be a member of society better and sooner than I did.

gnicholas 3y ago

This forces a zero sum frame that is not appropriate. It doesn’t cost anything to let a student (or 5) do math time with a class that’s a grade ahead. And if there are enough of them, it doesn’t cost anything to clump the kids by ability level when setting up the classes. The reason this doesn’t happen, in my experience, is teacher unions (and, to some extent, the political leanings of administrators). Every year, my kids’ school asks us about our kids and what would be good for them to have in terms of a teacher for the next year. This makes parents think they will be placed in a class with a teacher who would be well-suited for them. But this isn’t what happens at all! The classes are put together using a balancing approach, to make all the classes “equal” in terms of easy students, trouble students, etc. Only then are the classes assigned to teachers, without regard to what the individual students need. The randomization and balancing is done so that no teacher gets all the best behaved or worst behaved kids. The system is all about the teachers, not the students. For this reason, our school won’t allow gifted classes to exist, since that would give certain teachers “easier” kids than others. Of course, they also don’t want to have an advanced class with Asian and white kids, but few black and Hispanic kids, from both a political and optics perspective. But the point is, they could easily do this at no additional cost if they wanted to. And it would allow all students to learn more effectively, since their teacher would be more tightly focused on kids at a certain level.