3 ms·

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 a

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.

light_hue_1 3y ago
> 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 think exactly the opposite will happen. The disadvantaged kids will now have a low ceiling, not a high floor! Doesn't matter if you manage to break through despite your socioeconomic conditions, we cannot help you advance further in any way now because we've cancelled those classes. Before, they had the opportunity to thrive. Now, unless their parents have money, they don't. > 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 think it doesn't hold up at all. > 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. I did the same. And for what it's worth, I loved every minute of it. By going to schools where being smart was valued, we had no "bullying normies". They got kicked out of school. > 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. Oh sure, I'm not saying I won't spend the money for my own kids. And I would be doing all of those things even if the school provided more advanced classes. But as a matter of policy, all this is doing is driving anyone who can afford it out of the public system. We're going to end up with a public schooling system that's for poor people and provides a base education that for most people puts a cap on what they can achieve in life. And a private system for everyone else.

light_hue_1 3y ago

> 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 think exactly the opposite will happen. The disadvantaged kids will now have a low ceiling, not a high floor! Doesn't matter if you manage to break through despite your socioeconomic conditions, we cannot help you advance further in any way now because we've cancelled those classes. Before, they had the opportunity to thrive. Now, unless their parents have money, they don't. > 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 think it doesn't hold up at all. > 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. I did the same. And for what it's worth, I loved every minute of it. By going to schools where being smart was valued, we had no "bullying normies". They got kicked out of school. > 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. Oh sure, I'm not saying I won't spend the money for my own kids. And I would be doing all of those things even if the school provided more advanced classes. But as a matter of policy, all this is doing is driving anyone who can afford it out of the public system. We're going to end up with a public schooling system that's for poor people and provides a base education that for most people puts a cap on what they can achieve in life. And a private system for everyone else.